FoxNews Breaking: Prez will force prvt companies to pay OT to salaried employees

[ArcadiaGP]

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/443721538706362368

http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/change...force-businesses-to-pay-overtime-to-millions/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


Pretty sure he has absolutely zero authority to do this. Someone has to have gotten this wrong.

.@FoxNews confirms the Pres will sign an executive order tomorrow to make private companies pay overtime to millions of salaried employees.

I'd love to know his enforcement mechanism. In other news, businesses permanently eliminate overtime.

Just absolute lawlessness.

 

[Birds Away]

He seems to do whatever he wants. He IS the king after all.

 

[avboiler11]

From the Fox News article:

The new regulations to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act reportedly would mandate that businesses provide overtime pay for those who work jobs as varied as fast-food restaurant managers, loan officers, and computer technicians. Currently, businesses are prohibited from denying overtime to a salaried worker making less than $455 per week. The rules that Obama is proposing would increase that salary threshold, though it was not clear by how much.

CNN says the $455 weekly threshold hasn't been raised since 2004, when Bush raised it from $250.

 

[Snapdragon]

Sh**. I retired too soon.

 

[Birds Away]

From the Fox News article:



CNN says the $455 weekly threshold hasn't been raised since 2004, when Bush raised it from $250.

Then perhaps this is something the legislature should consider. You know, like the Constitution says.

 

[ATOMonkey]

It all depends on what part of the act is specified as regulation.

If the type of labor that is available for OT compensation is to be regulated, then it is well within the president's power to change the law with an executive order.

Just remember that this is a result of choices made in 1939.

 

[KLB]

Then perhaps this is something the legislature should consider. You know, like the Constitution says.

So, was it wrong when Bush did it?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Then perhaps this is something the legislature should consider. You know, like the Constitution says.

If the original law makers cede their authority to the executive (via regulatory control), then they really don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Birds Away]

So, was it wrong when Bush did it?

Absolutely.

 

[JetGirl]

So, was it wrong when Bush did it?

ANY time ANY government (regardless of party) sticks their nose in PRIVATE business and hands down a decree from on high... it is wrong.

 

[ATOMonkey]

ANY time ANY government (regardless of party) sticks their nose in PRIVATE business and hands down a decree from on high... it is wrong.

I agree.

Unfortunately, this is another product of those wonderful Fabian Socialists that thrived during the early part of the last century. Nothing better than a strong central government, right?

 

[rambone]

From the Fox News article:

CNN says the $455 weekly threshold hasn't been raised since 2004, when Bush raised it from $250.

The Fox News headlines were somewhat different back when the Red Team was restricting freedom.

 

[HoughMade]

I don't care who did what when.

I continue to wonder what's wrong with people working for what they agree to work for and negotiating a raise or going elsewhere if they think they can do better.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The first thing MSNBC's Oliver Willis did was throw out "Bush did it too".

I don't give two ****s if Bush did it. He was wrong to do it, too. Gov doesn't belong in private businesses.

Absolutely loathe the "But Bush" crowd.

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

What part of " One thing about being President is that I can do what ever I want!" Didn't you all get??

 

[hornadylnl]

The first thing MSNBC's Oliver Willis did was throw out "Bush did it too".

I don't give two ****s if Bush did it. He was wrong to do it, too. Gov doesn't belong in private businesses.

Absolutely loathe the "But Bush" crowd.

The problem with these overreaches is that there is only a minority that complains about it. When a dem does it, dem voters are silent and repub voters wail and Nash their teeth. When a repub does it, repub voters are silent and dem voters wail and gnash their teeth.

It's easy to ignore the minority and keep on keepin on.

 

[Fletch]

The problem with these overreaches is that there is only a minority that complains about it. When a dem does it, dem voters are silent and repub voters wail and Nash their teeth. When a repub does it, repub voters are silent and dem voters wail and gnash their teeth.

It's easy to ignore the minority and keep on keepin on.

Yep, and when the office changes parties and the new guy exercises the exact same powers, the people complaining/supporting turn on a dime and go the other way, because it's not the power that's the problem, it's the person wielding it. Not a principled politician, pol, or commenter on either side.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The problem with these overreaches is that there is only a minority that complains about it. When a dem does it, dem voters are silent and repub voters wail and Nash their teeth. When a repub does it, repub voters are silent and dem voters wail and gnash their teeth.

It's easy to ignore the minority and keep on keepin on.

Is it really an over-reach though, or is he just exercising his legal regulatory power?

 

[hornadylnl]

Is it really an over-reach though, or is he just exercising his legal regulatory power?

Should the federal government be involved in your salary negotiations?

 

[ces6508]

Sh**. I retired too soon.

I was going to say "+1" then I decided, I don't need no stink'n overtime!