6 ms·

sounds like this would only apply to hourly employees, considering the mention of 1.5x pay in excess of 32h.

by baby-yoda 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago
> sounds like this would only apply to hourly employees, considering the mention of 1.5x pay in excess of 32h. As with the existing 40-hour overtime rule, it would apply to non-exempt non-union-contract workers regardless of hourly or salary pay basis; unlike the 40-hour rule it would apply only to large employers.
jader201 5y ago
Possibly, but even if so, seems like it'd be a step in the right direction (at the very least).
- baby-yoda 5y ago
  my initial reaction is this is gov't overreach however considering the current state of healthcare-attached-to-employment, this policy will probably be zero sum in the long run. this allows more employees to hit "full time" status and thus be eligible for benefits. of course mega corps are simply going to re-organize their benefits package to cut out the marginal increase in healthcare and labor costs somehow. those who were scheduled 35h to stay below the cutoff will now only have work for 30h. the "more true" solution, IMO, is decoupling healthcare and other benefits from employment rather than trying to band-aid the symptoms of this poor system with Sisyphean policy like this.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > this allows more employees to hit "full time" status and thus be eligible for benefits Not directly, it doesn't. The full time for mandatory benefits (30 hours) is not changed by the threshold for mandatory overtime dropping from 40 hours to 32 hours. (Of course, if an employer wants to avoid overtime and has the same number of hours of work, but otherwise minimizes headcount, it will need 25% more 32-hour workers qualifying for benefits than it had 40-hour workers qualified for benefits, so it will mean more total workers getting benefits.)

6 ms·

sounds like this would only apply to hourly employees, considering the mention of 1.5x pay in excess of 32h.

by baby-yoda 5y ago

sounds like this would only apply to hourly employees, considering the mention of 1.5x pay in excess of 32h.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> sounds like this would only apply to hourly employees, considering the mention of 1.5x pay in excess of 32h. As with the existing 40-hour overtime rule, it would apply to non-exempt non-union-contract workers regardless of hourly or salary pay basis; unlike the 40-hour rule it would apply only to large employers.
jader201 5y ago
Possibly, but even if so, seems like it'd be a step in the right direction (at the very least).
- baby-yoda 5y ago
  my initial reaction is this is gov't overreach however considering the current state of healthcare-attached-to-employment, this policy will probably be zero sum in the long run. this allows more employees to hit "full time" status and thus be eligible for benefits. of course mega corps are simply going to re-organize their benefits package to cut out the marginal increase in healthcare and labor costs somehow. those who were scheduled 35h to stay below the cutoff will now only have work for 30h. the "more true" solution, IMO, is decoupling healthcare and other benefits from employment rather than trying to band-aid the symptoms of this poor system with Sisyphean policy like this.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > this allows more employees to hit "full time" status and thus be eligible for benefits Not directly, it doesn't. The full time for mandatory benefits (30 hours) is not changed by the threshold for mandatory overtime dropping from 40 hours to 32 hours. (Of course, if an employer wants to avoid overtime and has the same number of hours of work, but otherwise minimizes headcount, it will need 25% more 32-hour workers qualifying for benefits than it had 40-hour workers qualified for benefits, so it will mean more total workers getting benefits.)