Obama plans to change overtime pay

Bypassing Congress, President Barack Obama intends to order changes in overtime rules so employers would be required to pay millions more workers for the extra time they put in on the job.
Associated Press
Mar 13, 2014

The rules, which would not likely take effect until 2015, are aimed at workers currently designated as supervisory employees but who are exempt from overtime because they get paid a salary of more than $455 a week.

Obama plans to order his Labor Department to recommend regulations that would increase that salary threshold and change the definition of what constitutes a supervisor.

The president’s directive, to be announced today, leaves the details of a proposed rule to the Labor Department, which is not expected to come up with a recommendation before the fall. Still, it drew swift protests from Republicans, who complained he was sidestepping Congress and from the business community, who said such rules would increase burdens on employers.

“How does he expect us to work with him?” complained Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. “It’s just a poisonous relationship”

The salary limit separating those who get overtime and those who don’t was increased to $455 in 2004 during the Bush administration. At the time, it hadn’t been increased since the mid-1970s.


The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I can only imagine that after only a few short years when he is no longer in office to prop up this decision (and others) they will be "low-hanging fruit/loopholes" that will be closed up first and thus jerking around the lives of everyone even further. Some will call it an unfair "slash" in salaries despite the increase being an unfair "increase". But, just because a leader did this in the twilight of his reign somehow means that it is supposed to be the normal when the move itself is abnormal.

I wonder why he didn't just tell those supervisors to cut their cable and phone bills instead? Bills (relating to the government), of course, that we are told by one particular party that we always must pay no matter what - ironically. No, you can't cut spending to cut the bills. That makes too much sense. You need to keep making bills and paying for them even when you already can't pay the ones you already have.

I'm certainly not against people earning more if they deserve it, but just handing out temporary dictates like this is just ephemeral and disingenuous.


racist piggy

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Me? Heh, hardly. If anything you can call me a capitalist pig-dog. I'll also accept Horace Greedly from Captain Planet. Big Dog often calls me sappy which seems to be a compliment because it indicates I actually am sentimental and empathetic.

Oink, oink!


Hero: we already HAVE cut spending, and have continued to cut spending. The deficit has dropped in half since Obama took office, but the national debt is still huge, simply because Republicans refuse to address the other half of the equation. Even if you cut spending to ZERO, that won't pay of the debt we incurred during the Bush years. We need revenue.

Here's a simple analogy: Let's say that you make $50 per year and have $50K of expenses. You decide to add 2 wars to your expenses, but don't have the money, so you put it on a credit card. At the same time, you cut your taxes/incoming revenue. So, now you're making $30K per year, and your expenses are $150K per year. Your debt begins to spiral out of control, because you're not paying it off.

Being a Republican, you think "wow, we need to cut spending". You're still making $30K a year, but (thanks to compound interest), you now owe $170K. Oh, and your house, car and roads begin to fall apart because you don't spend any money on maintenance/infrastructure. So, even though you aren't buying any new things, you're still way in debt. Your teaparty friends insist that tax cuts are needed to bring the debt in line, so your revenue/salary is now $20K per year. They also encourage you to not pay any of the bill you owe, and shut down the government in an attempt to make sure that happens.

Everything they do, of course, only makes the problem worse. When you're way WAY in the hole financially, the only thing that will pay off your debts is money. An easy solution is available: raise taxes on the rich.

In the 1950's the top tax rate was above 90%. Now it's in the 30's. Not coincidentally, in the 1950's, America enjoyed time of prosperity.


Re: "The deficit has dropped in half since Obama took office, but the national debt is still huge,"

Keep those progressive-socialist brand rose colored glasses firmly affixed to your face.

Why has it "dropped"?

Because the rate of increase had been reduced.

In DC a "cut" is not a reduction, but a slowing down in the rate of planned spending.

We're just drowning in debt at a slower rate.

Also, a little over $3T in debt is 'magically' sitting on the Federal Reserve's books.

Warren Buffett didn't call the Fed. Resv. history's greatest hedge fund for nothing.


Moved post.


Cfan, we continue to hear about the 2 wars and Bush did have approval of congress and remember the senate was controlled by the democrats.

This country should have enacted a balanced budget bill many years ago as I have to live by a balanced budget as well as the city, county, townships villages, and state. If I made $50,000 per year I would live on $45,000 and invest $5,000 for the future and if I did need to spend for an auto transmission a furnace for my house or any other unexpected large sum of money I would cut back on my other expenses would give up eating out, my cell phone, cable or what ever it would take to keep my budget balanced and as a result today I have no financial worries. The federal government would have to make some tough decisions as where to cut however it should be done. Awhile back in the SR there was an article about a lady that was the head of a government department and the government paid $40,000 for a portrait of that person courtesy of the tax payers however it was most likely a real necessity.

Awhile back the debt ceiling needed to be raised and many persons thought that if it was not done it would shut down the government and actually the government would still operate as it would still have income however it would only be able to spend the income that it received and no more kind of like a balanced budget.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Coasterfan, you probably imagined I'd have a response and you are correct. Though I appreciate you responding to my comment all the same.

The example you provided is one in which spending was increased when it shouldn't have been, or if so, should have been done in a more responsible manner. I don't contend that, hence my comment above. The fact you turn that point into a petty, partisan nya-nya by indicating that either Democrats are the financially literate master race (or Republicans are the only binging drunkards) is laughable.

Also, if I am earning $X per year and owe $Y, yes I would eventually pay off Y if I was able to put all of X towards it instead of spending it. Cars, to make a parallel example, have other ways to decelerate or come to a stop. For one, you can take your foot off the gas pedal and it will happen naturally through friction. You can also use the emergency break. If you are in a manual you can downshift. Or, you can even Fred Flintstone it and use your feet.

The actions that are done now are certainly making things worse especially because we ARE in a hole. Even leaving out his frequent, multi-million dollar vacations/golf trips let's look at just our President's actions alone. $200M on "My Brother's Keeper"? Mandated pay increases for certain employees? $70M+ on these "hubs"? Of course what is $500M to Solyndra, etc.? Apparently these new bills are more important to create (and self-evidently cause the loop of "need to be paid" so keep that in mind the next time you argue with thinkagain about circular logic regarding the Bible/truth) than paying the old. I guess there was no better use of that money to be put to work somewhere else or...NOT SPENT AT ALL.

In conclusion I find your comparison to the top tax rate of the '50s to "prosperity" amusing. Not only does correlation NOT equal causation I often hear you and others bemoan that blighted decade as one being backwards in history and a corrupt, uncultured age.

For those/your reasons how do we know that it wasn't suppression of women that caused the prosperity? Oh, oh! I know. It was the discrimination of blacks that brought prosperity. After all, having a homogeneous population of workers seems quite efficient. Especially if companies know their audience is made exclusively of WASPs it is easier to accommodate them.

Nope, it was the tax rates alone and nothing to do with the baby boom or technological innovations/needs of the society spurred after World War II.

Here, let's continue the thinking:

Eating carrots will cause you to die because everyone who ate a carrot eventually died.

The teen pregnancy rate actually falls to 0% after the age of 20.

The decrease in global piracy can be attributed to the rise in global temperatures. As you invoked the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by his Noodly Appendage) in an earlier comment you should well be aware of this. Just in case, here's the link to Pastafarian canon doctrine:


The Big Dog's back

Gee, why would I know you wouldn't get what Coasterfan fan was getting at.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

"The example you provided is one in which spending was increased when it shouldn't have been, or if so, should have been done in a more responsible manner. I don't contend that, hence my comment above."

The point he made, if alone, stood and was generally agreed upon by me. Spending went out of control in the last Presidency and continues into this one. But then dragging petty party arguments into it and making a partisan and somewhat faulty example prompted me to write more than what I did above.

Dr. Information

If you are going to still blame Bush coaster, then you have to blame Obama. He put moved us from Iraq to Afghanistan (still there). Of course, in your world this is justified and doesn't cost a dime to this nation.

As I see it, when Obama is done, he will of ran up just as much of a war bill as Bush did.

So sorry, you lose again.

Darwin's choice

" Please also provide scientific evidence and/or results from research studies that support your viewpoint."

More fairy tales by coasterfail!


keep drinking the koolaid


People that work to get to that level know what to expect, more hours less pay. Fine, but we WANT to get there for more reasons than just money. He needs to leave everything alone, I don't want him to take my job away too.


Comrade Pres. Obama uses his "pen and phone" again!

One size fits all central planning doesn't work and will NEVER work.

Employers now have three options:

* Reduce number of employee hours worked.

* Lay off employees.

* Increase the price of the products or services to consumers.



Meh...typical GOP-speak. Worker productivity is up 90% since 1980, but wages have only increased 8%. It's time for the CEOs to step up to the plate and do their part. Instead of creating jobs and fostering economic recovery, they have instead hoarded their millions.

Henry Ford was smart enough to know that if he paid his workers a fair wage, they would have money to purchase his product. It's pretty simple: middle-class and the poor don't have enough money left over to save for a rainy day. They instead spend everything, thus putting their $$ right back into the economy.

Not sure why you're sticking up for the greedy 1%, since they have continually piddled upon the rest of us - yourself included. The only thing that I know to "never work" are Republican economic policies/ strategies.


Re: "Worker productivity is up 90% since 1980,"

Due to capital expenditures for: automation, computerization and mechanization.


Re: "Republican economic policies/ strategies."

Never heard of those, but historically progressive-socialist Soviet-style economic fantasies have most certainly ALWAYS imploded with disastrous results.


CapEx for "automation, computerization and mechanization" will always be there, its part of the cost of doing business at this point. If you have a well run company there is NO reason to not pay your employees fair wages while still moving forward. You can even operate Debt Free as long as your C Level employees act in good faith torwards their employees.

The several companies that I have worked for, the best has always been the company where the "upper" management treated their employees with respect and treated them right. They also invested in their company in the form of new systems/technology to move the company forward while also keeping the company as close to or debt free as they can.

I am all for Free enterprise with very little government control in business, however when those businesses are not acting in good faith towards their own employees and ultimately their own country of origin but to shareholders then something needs to be done to police that activity. 200 years ago this would be called a revolution against big business greedy tactics. It is clear by now that Big Business cannot police them selves for the good of their country and people, keep this rate up and the global economy is going to completely flip and we will be the third world with cheap manufacturing and employee dorms.


Re: "we will be the third world with cheap manufacturing and employee dorms."

IMO, closer to the dystopia portrayed in "Player Piano."

Automation, some well compensated employees and a permanent "entitled" underclass.



Re: "Henry Ford was smart enough to know that if he paid his workers a fair wage,"

Only less than half of the story.

In return, he required that workers be punctual and sober.

Do you actually have a BA?


Ahh automation. I love it! We go in these factories and eliminate the drags on a company. It is amazing what we can do with a few well placed machines and some quality programming.

I sit with the owners or managers and listen to them as they describe how the Brutus's of their company are bleeding them dry. While the vast majority honestly don't like the fact that they are eliminating jobs, they cannot wait to rid themselves of the problems they endure day after day from these people. It is amazing how much time and money the constant complaining and bad attitudes consume.

The nice thing for us about the constant costs added by the Obama administration is it makes the payback time for automation rather quick.

Keep up the good work liberals. My bonuses are getting ever larger!


4th Option - Remove Overtime options from payroll. If your work day is 8-5 that is what you get paid for, If you stay over, then that is your own fault. My company does it.

The Big Dog's back

pooh, 4th choice. Reduce CEO pay and upper management pay.


All this is doing is raising prices until everything is out of control even more than it is already. Where does Obama think the money will come from to pay this OT? It will come from the money taken in by the services and products of the employers. That money comes from US. So in raising OVERTIME PAY, PRICES must go up. It is so simple.

Would it not have been more simple to FREEZE the prices of products like gasoline (put a ceiling cap on it) and other products that are out of control and let the salaries alone?

To me it seems that every time gas goes up, so do products and goods. The oil producers and gasoline suppliers seem to control everything else. Oour groceries go up every time gas goes up. So start controlling that. The heck with messing with salaries and OT.

As for Obama's need to circumvent congress...this has been a tug of war between Republicans and Democrats since his second term elections and everyone knows it. The congress has made this nothing more than a sour grapes problem from day one and hasn't let up since. The time to work together has come and gone without anything happening to the good. We have three more years of this going on and it sucks.

To the so called "powers that be" it will continue on because they act like children instead of acting like they are running a nation. ALL OF THEM, not just the congress as a whole but also the President. This is nothing more than a game to them while we pay the price for their stupidity and silly game playing. What this country needs is to get rid of the entire group of them and start over with people who WANT to get it right and who care about this country....not say one thing and do another. I, for one, am tired of the rhetoric.


You know what? America doesn't need any more advice from conservatives on anything related to the economy. Over the past 34 years, history has shown that Republicans really, really stink at it. Every time a GOP president has been in office, the deficit has gone up, and every time a Democrat has been in office, the deficit has gone down.

If you want the economy to get worse, call the GOP, they'll "take care of you". They'll help you through your home foreclosure and the loss of your retirement savings, and then they'll cut your unemployment benefits and food stamps when you lose your job due to the recession they caused.

Nearly every economic prediction made by conservatives over the past several years has been wrong, but that doesn't stop them. You'll never hear an apology or an "oops, we were wrong" on Fox News. I, too, am tired of the rhetoric.

The key: are you able to discern the difference between NEWS and OPINION? If you watch Fox regularly, I would say not...


You know what the biggest problem with our society today really is? Its people like you coasterfan. People that are constantly pointing fingers and trying to keep such a division in politics. Get over yourself and this "it's all the republicans/conservatives fault.


costerfan: I am not a Republican, that is for sure. I would say, if I had to pick a party....of which I am not a great fan, it would fall more toward the Democrats. I hate the party system and would much rather vote on the strenght of a person and their ideas rather than a party platform. But that's me and my family. I will admit that I am leaning more and more toward giving Hillary Clinton a chance this time. We are the one of the few countries on earth that has never given a woman a chance to try her hand at running things. Perhaps with her knowledge of foreign affairs, she can do better at getting things done. I don't think she would back down from a fight either.

I am anxious to hear more of what she has to say at any rate. I know what the Republican's think and I am not impressed. Each and every time they are in control, our econmoy goes south. It is a proven fact. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. History proves that.

I do know the difference between News and Opinion and I am not a fan of Fox News. In fact, I don't watch it at all. I like my news straight without comment or innuendo....and I make up my own mind, thank you. I agree with most all of your comments. But I do maintain what I said. As goes the oil prices in this country so goes the rest of our economy. If the prices were government regulated we wouldn't need to regulate much else.


"We are the one of the few countries on earth that has never given a woman a chance to try her hand at running things."

That statement shows me all I need to know about you...low information voter.

This is how the current failure in chief was put in office. "We have never had a black President." Yup, we got a black President, who is clueless.


@knuckledragger...if you bothered to read the rest...which I doubt you did...you would see that I said I want to vote for the person with the best ideas and credentials, not based solely on their "sex or racial profile". The comment on a woman being elected was based on pure fact!!! We have never elected a woman because we haven't. And the reason is, this male chauvenistic driven society in which we live has never allowed it. Yes, I am one of them. Now we have a strong chance at the potential, again, of having Hillary Clinton running and already the Republicans are throwing as much mud as they can before 2016 in case you haven't noticed. My fear is they will run out of mud before their actual fight begins, poor guys. Their party never learns. If the Republicans ever learned a new way to fight it would be a miracle, like on actual meaningful items. I am a very informed voter and hope you are the same. I make no judgements as I do not know you or anything about you.

But sticking to the subject here, every Presidential election should be based on the PERSON running, not their gender, racial profile, sexual orientation or religious conviction. To me it is what they bring to the table that makes them the best candidate. I am anxious to see what each "party" has to offer as I hate this party make up to begin with. Someday I hope to see just a person run and not a party backing them up. To me that would be the ideal candidate.