Is Obama Giving Lip Service or Showing Leadership on Overtime Pay?

None

Stopgap: Obama signs two-week CR.
National Journal
Ron Fournier
March 12, 2014, 5:29 a.m.

Per­son­al ex­per­i­ence and re­search tell me that many U.S. busi­nesses rob their hard­est-work­ing em­ploy­ees of over­time pay by du­bi­ously call­ing them “ex­ec­ut­ives” or “pro­fes­sion­als.” Pres­id­ent Obama says he wants to fix the prob­lem, and he has the power to do so. How this is­sue plays out will be a test of his will, of his word, and of his abil­ity to fully ex­ecute the powers of the pres­id­ency.

Can he lead or just give lip ser­vice?

At is­sue are the over­time pro­vi­sions of the Fair Labor Stand­ards Act, which Con­gress ori­gin­ally passed in 1938. Each pres­id­ent in­ter­prets and ex­ecutes the law dif­fer­ently. For in­stance, Pres­id­ent Bush in 2004 gave busi­nesses more lat­it­ude to clas­si­fy em­ploy­ees as white-col­lar work­ers ex­empt from over­time pay. Uni­ons ob­jec­ted.

Now it’s Obama’s turn. Ac­cord­ing to The New York Times, he has ordered the Labor De­part­ment to over­haul its reg­u­la­tions un­der the 1938 law to:

  • Sig­ni­fic­antly in­crease the salary level be­low which work­ers auto­mat­ic­ally qual­i­fy for over­time. Cur­rently, em­ploy­ers can­not deny time-and-a-half pay for any salar­ied work­er who makes less than $455 per week.
  • Re­quire that em­ploy­ees per­form a min­im­um per­cent­age of “ex­ec­ut­ive” work be­fore they can be ex­emp­ted from over­time pay. Cur­rently, a busi­ness needs only to de­clare that a work­er’s primary re­spons­ib­il­ity is ex­ec­ut­ive, such as over­see­ing a cleanup crew. In oth­er words, the play­ing field is tilted to­ward the em­ploy­er who has a fin­an­cial in­cent­ive to de­clare vir­tu­ally any­body an over­time-ex­empt “pro­fes­sion­al” or “ex­ec­ut­ive.”

Demo­crat­ic eco­nom­ists Jared Bern­stein and Ross Eis­en­brey urged the ad­min­is­tra­tion last year to raise the salary threshold for over­time pay to $984 a week, mak­ing as many as 5 mil­lion more work­ers eli­gible. (Dis­clos­ure: I play pickup bas­ket­ball with Bern­stein and Eis­en­brey, and con­sider them both friends.)

As the New York Times story by Mi­chael Shear and Steven Green­house makes clear, it’s too soon for over­time pro­ponents to cel­eb­rate:

The pro­posed new reg­u­la­tions would in­crease the num­ber of people who qual­i­fy for over­time and con­tin­ue Mr. Obama’s fight against what he says is a crisis of eco­nom­ic in­equal­ity in the coun­try. Changes to the reg­u­la­tions will be sub­ject to pub­lic com­ment be­fore fi­nal ap­prov­al by the Labor De­part­ment, and it is pos­sible that strong op­pos­i­tion could cause Mr. Obama to scale back his pro­pos­al.

The pro­pos­al is cer­tain to be strongly op­posed by the U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce and oth­er busi­ness in­terests, in­clud­ing some who donate money to Demo­crat­ic causes. For all its talk of in­come equal­ity, the White House cov­ets the deep pock­ets of lob­by­ists, bankers, CEOs, and oth­er gil­ded elites. Cav­ing is al­ways a pos­sib­il­ity.

In ad­di­tion, Obama and his team have not been ad­ept at man­aging the fed­er­al bur­eau­cracy or tog­gling the levers of power. The pres­id­ent’s vaunted “pen and phone” cam­paign prom­ises a smarter use of ex­ec­ut­ive au­thor­ity, but so far most of the muscle-flex­ing is re­served for delay­ing and wa­ter­ing down Obama­care. Fum­bling the ball is not out of the ques­tion.

In a sign of its flex­ib­il­ity, the White House has not em­braced the $984 per week mark put for­ward by the Demo­crat­ic eco­nom­ists. It would not be out of form for Obama to prom­ise a big change, grab a Times head­line, and walk away from mean­ing­ful re­form

Un­like some oth­er Demo­crat­ic ideas, Re­pub­lic­ans can’t stretch the truth far enough to cred­ibly call this idea so­cial­ism or wel­fare. It’s as Amer­ic­an as apple pie: If you work hard, you get paid for it — and that’s not hap­pen­ing now. As The Times put it:

Since the mid-1980s, cor­por­ate profits have soared, reach­ing a post-World War II re­cord as a share of eco­nom­ic out­put. The profits of the com­pan­ies in the Stand­ard & Poor’s 500 have doubled since the re­ces­sion ended in June 2009, but wages have stag­nated for a vast ma­jor­ity of work­ers in the same peri­od. Re­cently, work­ers’ wages fell close to an all-time low as a share of the eco­nomy.

In 2012, the share of the gross do­mest­ic in­come that went to work­ers fell to 42.6 per­cent, the low­est on re­cord.

None of this ex­cuses Obama from his re­spons­ib­il­ity to sell the Amer­ic­an people on the rule change — what he’s do­ing and why. The worst thing Obama could do about over­time pay is let the status quo stand. The second worst thing he could do is change the rule without build­ing sup­port for it. Con­gress could re­verse the reg­u­la­tion, es­pe­cially if the Re­pub­lic­ans win the Sen­ate in Novem­ber. So could the next pres­id­ent.

Let’s hope the White House works over­time to get this right.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×