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

"The new Republican party is a shadow operation for those attempting to wrest power from the people and democracy through whatever diabolical means they can formulate."

If by that you mean "the establishment/GOBs" then yes. I agree with the sentiment. Which is why forces are acting within the party to remove those people.

"This is accomplished by contacting your local Independent..." YUP! Right on, sandwich man (or woman)!

"...or Democratic representatives..." NOPE! Seriosuly? You paint the case above against the Republicans and then just presume that the other major party doesn't do the same? I don't want this sandwich any more.

You really had me until you make a senseless presumption that we can't just replace "Republican" with "Democratic" in your opening statement. If you think that the Democrats aren't fraught with GOBs, pay-to-play, social ladders, societal engineering, "Money Mongers", tax cheats, societal hypocrites, and divisive discourse then perhaps I can direct you to...anything, really.

I'll grant you the point that by talking to people of another political affiliation with you can be enjoyable and exciting. I have done that myself. But I can't let your comment slide that the other side of the coin is as pure as the wind-driven snow while its opposite is worn out and greasy.


pntbutterandjelly writes: "I no longer rebut his comments,"

But you'll do it in the third person?

How does that not smack of insincerity Paul?