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.



Re: "are you able to discern the difference between NEWS and OPINION?"

And this from a guy who watches "comedian" Bill Maher and treats it as gospel? lol

Do you ACTUALLY have a BA degree?


Re: "every time a Democrat has been in office, the deficit has gone down."

Really? What about FDR & LBJ as but two examples?

FYI: The last time the federal budget was balanced was in the Eisenhower admin.

Do you ACTUALLY have a BA degree?


Did you forget obama's favorite president? Carter, obama's last hope for not having the worst economy of all presidents. Problem is the economy is worse now than when even Carter was in office. Carter was only in for one term.


Did you forget obama's favorite president? Carter, obama's last hope for not having the worst economy of all presidents. Problem is the economy is worse now than when even Carter was in office. Carter was only in for one term.

The Big Dog's back

Why do you always double post things pooh? Do you think if you repeat a lie enough it will eventually come true?


Contago...that isn't true. The last balanced budget was during the Clinton/Gore administratrion.


Re: "Clinton/Gore administration"

How did they do it?


Then please explain why poverty is higher for working age people than at any other time in history? We are 6 years in, you can't blame Bush anymore. Fact is the Dems economic policies are also a failure.


Re. " We are 6 years in, you can't blame Bush anymore. Fact is the Dems economic policies are also a failure."

Amen if we are still going to blame Bush for this economy then I think we would have to credit Bush 41 for the success of the economy during the Clinton years. They can' have it both ways

The Big Dog's back

Can't blame bush anymore? Really? So what was/is the Repub plan to prosperity?

Darwin's choice


"America doesn't need any more advice from coasterfan on anything"

There you go obamabot, fixed it for you....!


Re: "Hero: we already HAVE cut spending, and have continued to cut spending."

NO. We have cut the rate of increased spending, we still spend more on each part of gov't, except maybe defense spending. Everything else the ACTUAL spending has gone up from the year before... just not as much as it has for the last decade or so. WE have NOT cut spending. This is the problem when progressives talk about gov't spending, they factor in a 5% increase every year and if it is only increased 4% they call it a cut. They consider a less thasn normal raise in spending to be a cut.

Gov't uses baseline budgeting to hide the increases in spending from fools like some on here to hide increases. Corporations and individuals all use zero base budgets.

Link to baseline budgets.


Baseline budget projections increasingly became the subject of political debate and controversy during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and more recently during the 2011 debt limit debate. Some critics contend that baseline projections create a bias in favor of spending by assuming that federal spending keeps pace with inflation and other factors driving the growth of entitlement programs. Changes that merely slow the growth of federal spending programs have often been described as cuts in spending, when in reality they are actually reductions in the rate of spending gro


High five brother grumpy!


Brother grumpy! That's cute!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

While he is entitled to his opinion for sure (I'll have to ask him where I can buy a "Democrat Master Race" pin, flag, or armband and wear it ironically - I'm so hipster), the fact that he is/was a teacher is upsetting. I know a good handful of teachers. I respect teachers. I believe teachers are in the middle of a poo-storm over which they have no control. That is why I respect them, especially because their job is to explain things logically and be able to convey complex points in understandable, related terms.

I hold no doctorate nor even masters in economics, politics, or medicine but I seem to do a better job of the above than he who has been trained to do so. It's upsetting that someone who holds/once held a venerable position of educating young people just expects blatant and blanket statements to be accepted as truth. No support. No rationale. OBVIOUS bias to boot.

But what can you do other than continue to make points, back them up, and go about spreading the word yourself in hopes that people will understand you and eschew partisan bombards?

But that is the symptom of the disease that is spread by party-first die-hards. It happens in the Republican Party, too. You are told to just believe the message and spread it (allusions to religion aside, which coasterfan has disavowed). There is no effort in explanation, just attention-getting. It's insulting, especially in today's world OF information. Someone who wants to win my mind, heart, wallet, and support will take the time to actually engage with me in communication and thought. When my walls come down that person would then see a flood of said support as well as a population of others who look for the same as I do.


Tis why I back up what I write with links. I don't expect people to blindly believe what I write. Besides others write much better than I do.

The Big Dog's back

Opinion pieces are not facts.


Sorry Piddle Puppy, I don't use the comedy channel, comedians, and left wingnut blogs as backup for what I write. Which is what you use the few times you link to, or more often copy and paste from... after we search out where the copy and paste job came from, you tend to just copy and paste and not link to the original work... for good reason...


THANK you, Big Dog! You're right.

P.S. Hallelujah, Brother, for having finally seen the light!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I about spit my drink on my monitor containing a laugh, thanks. No doubt Contango will have a field day with that quote in future posts.


Yet you BLINDLY believe what others write. I guess if it is on the internet it HAS to be true?


Why is the President sticking his nose into a private business issue?

Doesn't the employee have the power to discuss this issue with his or her employee? Don't they have the right to leave that employer if they don't believe they are being treated correctly? Are they chained to that job or employer forever ?

Can anyone be responsible for themselves?


@ donutshopguy...the basic amount of money ones makes has ALWAYS been set by the federal government. Raised and lowered (which to my knowledge has never happened), the fed has been responsible for setting the minimum wage for all of us, just as they have set the amount of Social security and IRS taxes they take out and Medicare that is deducted. So it isn't just the President who makes this decision. It is just that this president has decided to do something about the minimum wage that has not been done in this particular area for these particular wage earners for some time now. Not all bosses and employees have unions nor can they sit down and reach a decision between them as amicably as you describe. Don't we all wish it were so. So that is why the federal government stepped in to this in the first place and set down guidelines for us all to live with.

You make this sound like this is the first and only president who has ever done this and he isn't. No, and yes, any employee is free to leave but they would be going right back into the same type of job if they got one just like where they were coming from. Nothing would change.

Just a thought. Most people try to be responsible for themselves but not all employers play by the rules either and need to be shown they cannot cheat their employees. Its a two way street. That is one of the reason's we have the federal guidelines to begin with.




We are making this issue much more difficult and complex than it has to be. Whether the issue is overtime, minimum wage or benefits, as an employee I "sell" my services to an employer. The size of the payment that I receive in return for these services is dependent upon how valuable those services are to the employer. If I am not satisfied with the payment that I am receiving, I have two choices: I can find an employer who considers my services more valuable; or I can make my services more valuable by such things as education, experience or just plain old hard work.



Dr. Information

Did you see the new one out from the dictator?
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is proposing new rules designed to protect students at for-profit colleges from amassing huge debt they can't pay off -- and still pass judicial muster after a previous version was thrown out by a federal judge.
The proposed rules drew a sharp reaction from Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, who said in a statement that the regulations would "deny millions of students the opportunity for higher earnings."

"The government should be in the business protecting opportunity not restricting it," Gunderson said.

More government control.


Some supervisors/managers are required to work 50 to 60 hours per week because they are salaried employees but when you do the math it is not that much hourly. I like this idea.


You like this idea? That's not a surprise, because you seem to like everything your boy does. I was a salaried worker for fourty years and there is much more to the pay structure than wages. I accepted the job for many reasons including the extra benefits that went with it. I knew going in that it included more hours. Obama and his dwindling supporters seem to think it's a pay issue. Anyone can certainly see it's a political move. This is just another place that government needs to stay out of and leave this between employers and staff.


@ deertracker.....For YEARS, the middle management has been worked to death by upper management requiring them to do sixty to eighty hours a week or more and live on the SALRARIED take home they get without OT. It is unfair to expect the middle management person to continueally do that much work for no more money than you get on salary without the OT. You think your salaried position is a 40 hour work week.....WRONG and no one says it will be 50 to 90 hours. It doesn't start that way, they just add the hours as you go along. No need to complain, because it is EXPECTED of you. Suddenly you are working 60 to 80 hours a week with no pay increase and your boss goes home at 5 pm while you work the midnight oil burner. You hate it, you mention a raise, they say no and if you complain too ofter or too much, your prize is the pink slip or a tongue lashing. Bye bye job. That is true as true can be. Been there, done that. I, too, LOVE this idea. Its been a long time coming and I hope it works. Watch how fast the low life uppper management takes before they increase the middle guy's salary or mention you don't work more than 40 hours per week. either way you win.