Tuesday, August 21 , 2018, 3:58 am | Overcast 67º

 
 
 
 

Veronique de Rugy: Anticipating the Effects of Overtime, Over Time

Wouldn’t it be nice if your boss were forced to pay you more because the government said so? Not if — as the result of the government’s intervention — you lost your job, saw your salary reduced or couldn’t work from home anymore.

Yet that’s what the Obama administration is trying to do by requiring that employers pay overtime for salaried employees who earn less than $50,440 per year.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, most employers must pay time and a half for overtime hours (usually understood as hours worked above and beyond 40 hours per week) for salaried employees who don’t have sufficiently advanced job duties or make less than $23,660 annually.

Employers only have to track the hours of salaried employees eligible for overtime.

Under the new rules, the salary threshold would be raised to $50,440 — and employers would track the hours of salaried employees making less than this amount, no matter how advanced their duties.

The underlying assumption behind the proposed rules is that employers are forcing their employees to work long hours without paying them appropriately.

Increasing the salary threshold, the administration claims, would force employers to dish out higher pay to their employees, hire new workers or give part-time ones longer hours rather than overwork their current workforce.

According to the administration, this mandatory overtime pay would increase the earnings of about 5 million workers.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. With these proposed rules, the administration just added a few more bricks on that already-long road.

For one thing, it fails to demonstrate that there is indeed a rampant problem of underpayment and overwork in our labor force. But even if there were a problem, this would hardly be the way to address it.

I have never understood how anyone can believe that forcing employers to pay employees more could lead to more hiring and more available hours for employees.

After all, labor is like every other good or service. If you raise its price, over time the demand for it will go down.

In a paper about the proposed rules published last summer, Heritage Foundation labor economist James Sherk reviews the literature on the economic impact of expanding overtime coverage and finds that “employers largely respond to new overtime requirements by cutting base pay — leaving total hours and earnings little changed.”

This isn’t surprising unless you think most firms are sitting on lots of unused cash that they could easily use to pay for overtime. Very few firms have this luxury, which means that the only way for businesses to meet the proposed requirements in the short term would be to shift resources around or reduce their profits — whether they can afford it or not.

Over time, companies would find ways to offset these new costs. For example, they might reduce the hours employees work so fewer of them work over 40 hours a week, or they might fire workers who are working over 40 hours and hire part-time workers instead.

In the longer run, employers could reduce the base wages so that total compensation (base wages plus overtime pay) would be the same as before the implementation of the new rule.

Unfortunately, while employees would be unlikely to see their earnings go up, the loss of flexibility in the workplace might be dearly felt. Sherk notes that the rules would “severely limit (workers’) use of the flexible work arrangements and telecommuting options that many rely on to balance their work and family lives.”

At a time when the sharing economy and nontraditional forms of work are expanding thanks to new technology and innovation, these proposed rules attempt to force everyone back into an old and outdated one-size-fits-all model.

So much for good intentions.

— Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a columnist for Reason magazine and the Washington Examiner, and blogs about ecomomics for National Review. Click here to contact her, and follow her on Twitter: @veroderugy. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >