Free Markets, Free People

More business busting regulatory abuse by the imperial President

Market?  What market?  We haven’t had a free market for much of anything in at least the last 75 years:

Business groups and congressional Republicans are blasting regulations President Obama will announce Thursday that could extend overtime pay to as many as 10 million workers who are now ineligible for it.

While liberals lauded the plan as putting more cash in the pockets of millions of workers, business groups warned it would damage the economy and Republicans said it was another example of executive overreach.

That’s right friends, now it appears that the Obama administration has decided … that’s right, “decided” … that in addition to the increase in the minimum wage, now it needs to redefine who is eligible for overtime. And, of course, that redefinition is going to negatively impact who?  Businesses.  And if they have to live with the changes, who then will it effect?

Oh, yeah, those that can least afford it.  Why?  Because it will increase the cost of doing business.  And what do businesses do when their costs increase?  Pass it on to the consumer.

Now, I ask, was that so hard to spell out?  No.  And is it hard to understand?  Again, no.

So why is it liberals can’t follow the logic train to its final destination?

Well that’s fairly simple, they don’t think, they emote.  The bureaucrats, who’ve never had to run a business or turn a profit in order to meet a payroll are experts in what others “need”.  And they’re convinced those who are involved in running a business are just greedy.

“What we’re trying to take a look at is how we can make the labor force as fair as possible for all workers and that people get rewarded for a hard day’s work with a fair wage,” Betsey Stevenson, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters Wednesday.

Right.  Because, you know, the guy who risked everything and has succeeded to the point that he can hire others and thereby give the abysmal unemployment numbers some relief aren’t “fair” – by definition I guess.

“Changing the rules for overtime eligibility will, just like increasing the minimum wage, make employees more expensive and will force employers to look for ways to cover these increased costs,” said Marc Freedman, executive director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Meanwhile in fantasyland:

Stevenson, however, contended that there would likely be an increase in employment as a result of the change, with companies deciding to hire more employees rather than paying existing workers at a higher rate.

Really?  Or perhaps they’ll hire less and use technology to fill the bill.  Technological answers don’t ask for raises, don’t require health care coverage, don’t need overtime, etc.  In fact, it is likely to lead to less employment and more mechanization.

But we should understand the BIG reason:

Proponents say the regulations are an issue of fairness.

“I think that if you put in a full week’s work and you end up being asked by your employer to work longer hours, you deserve to be paid a little extra,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.).

Is that right?  Well, frankly, Rep. Becerra, that’s none of your freakin’ business.  But, I assume you can point out the Constitutional basis for your “thought”, right?

Bunch of idiots.  They are bound and determined to destroy the golden goose because they’re are woefully ignorant of the goose’s anatomy and how it works.

~McQ

35 Responses to More business busting regulatory abuse by the imperial President

  • Once again, Obama attempts to change a law without Congress.  Where’s our resident Political Science guru to tell us just how unconstitutional this is?

    • From what I’ve been able to read, this actually is under presidential purview.
      It is still catastrophically BAD.

  • I wonder if the people who use to work extra hours realize the point to this was to prevent that and that they won’t be able to earn that extra cash anymore.

  • Stevenson, however, contended that there would likely be an increase in employment as a result of the change, with companies deciding to hire more employees rather than paying existing workers at a higher rate.

    >>>> So instead of one guy working 50 hours, there will be two guys working 25 hours a week. PROGRESS!

  • Yep. Exactly as one expects from a fascist economy loving, Cloward-Piven following Collectivist outlaw.
    If you sat down and designed a move that would kill small, entrepreneurial businesses and prevent new business formation, you would certainly have that one high on your list.
    Remember: fascist economics HATES small business.  Too hard to control, you see.

  • While I am totally against the President making this change without Congress, even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.
     
    There are way too many jobs where a person when hired is told “you’ll be salaried and you’ll work 40-45 hours a week” only to find they are required to work 50 – 55 hours.  Terms and conditions of hire are a form of a contract and the company should not be able to get out of those terms without increasing the compensation for the employee.

    • Then they don’t need the Federal government to intervene, do they?

      • Right.  Because the alternative would be for the employee who is getting ripped off to rob the business for his pay that he is due and then local government would get involved by throwing the employee in prison.  So let’s not worry about the feds, let just cut to the chase and put the guy in state care in the penitentiary.
         
        Now that we have gotten rid of the sarcasm, are you saying that the guy who agrees to work 40 hours a week should be forced to work 50 hours a week without compensation?  If you go into a store and buy a pound of meat, are you going to allow the butcher to charge you a for the pound but only give you 12 oz?
         
        I am not sure that I understand the idea that a company that agrees to one thing should be able to do another.

        • Terms and conditions of hire are a form of a contract…

          Which is where my profession comes in.  Contracts are enforced in court.  But you’re a bit overwrought on this topic.  If an employee feels put upon, they can bring it up with their employer.  They can refuse to work the additional hours.  Ultimately, they can walk.
          Nobody needs Uncle Sugar to intervene.

          • No place I’ve ever gotten salary pay from specified in detail how much overtime would be required.  It was always ‘maybe’ and ‘might be’ and ‘sometimes you’ll have to do some overtime” and “sometimes you might be asked to do a lot of overtime depending on the project”.   I have never worked with any company that would define a solid percentage, or the duration for which that percentage would last.
             
            Implied contract?  Sure, but the vagaries would always be their defense, and the net solution would be for the complainant to seek employment elsewhere.
             
            Tough thing, especially if at some point one willingly put on the golden handcuffs.
             
             

          • But you’re right, it’s not what I expect my tax dollars to be spent on unless we’re talking a place like Enron.

          • Yes contracts are enforced in court but at the same time, going to court takes resources which the employee may not have nor recoup even if they win.  I agree that the employee can talk to their employer but that doesn’t change the fact that the employer is not living up to their end of the agreement.  Furthermore, if the employee walks, the company has been enriched because of the employee’s actions while working for the company.  Surely you cannot mean that the company should be able to not only violate the terms of hire but be rewarded for that violation?  (And by the way, hourly employees may refuse to work extra hours, salaried employees cannot.)
             
            As I stated, I am against the President doing this without Congress, but I am befuddled by the attitude of “you don’t like the company lying and taking advantage of you, suck it.”

          • “Furthermore, if the employee walks, the company has been enriched because of the employee’s actions while working for the company.”
            that’s true, and in turn the employee was enriched by the company through compensation, training, opportunity.   This is usually a two way street.   Hell for that matter, they usually own anything you invent or create for them.   So overtime/salary issues could be small potatoes in comparison to say, inventing something like the microwave oven.
             
            Another thing to consider is ‘the company’ is not the guy who hired the employee, and told him what the hours would be during the interview.  So if there’s not a hard and fast in writing company policy that talks about overtime….it becomes an employee’s word against ‘bob’ the guy who did the hiring and may have been out of line (lying) when he said there would be no more than (n) overtime ever.  It’s not always the company that lies to it’s employees, sometimes it’s just their future manager/ hiring manager.
             
             
            I’m puzzled why you’d want to continue to work at a company that, effectively, lies to you (more than once in a great while anyway).
            In any event, Obama’s mandate won’t affect salaried people.  There is no such thing as overtime for our sort, unless the company is in a really generous mood.
             

          • A Prendergast,
             
            that’s true, and in turn the employee was enriched by the company through compensation, training, opportunity.
             
            Which was part of the original conditions of hire.  The company knew going in that these things occur.
             
            It’s not always the company that lies to it’s employees, sometimes it’s just their future manager/ hiring manager.
             
            Then fire the guy who made the claims, pay the worker, and reset the terms of hire.  Companies are responsible all the time for the actions of their employees.  Too often that extends to even illegal actions, but we aren’t talking about that here.
             
            I’m puzzled why you’d want to continue to work at a company that, effectively, lies to you (more than once in a great while anyway).
             
            It is not that I want to work for a company that lies to me but rather feel that the employee should be compensated for the work they have done because of that lie.  For example, say that a salaried manager is told he will work 50 hours a week.  Over the course of the next four weeks, his supervisors demand that he work 65 hours a week.  In four weeks, the company has effectively gotten 5 weeks of work out of an employee who only worked 4 weeks.  The employee can walk and that is fine, but how does he get that time back?
             
            In any event, Obama’s mandate won’t affect salaried people.
             
            Salaried people are the ones this new rule is directed toward.
             
            There are a lot of stupid rules and laws on employment, but to me, if a company agrees to hire a person to work for “x” amount of hours at “y” dollars, they need to live up to that agreement.

          • Ah, salaried exempt vs salaried non-exempt.   Never been on the non-exempt side, I was always lucky enough to be owned 24×7….oh…..wait……

          • I am befuddled by the attitude of “you don’t like the company lying and taking advantage of you, suck it.”
             
            My post never suggests any such thing.  It DOES suggest
            1. you have recourse IF there was a contract, which like most things in life is not “free”  SORRY
            2. people need to buck the fluck up in their own interest
            3. this is NOT a Federal issue  (I’m embarrassed to have to say that here)

    • I don’t think government should be involved at all, but beside that in this job climate this is going to cause problems. We already have a jobs problem, this will reduce the number of jobs or the number of full time jobs, or increase consumer costs or simply destroy small business.

    • There are way too many jobs where a person when hired is told “you’ll be salaried and you’ll work 40-45 hours a week” only to find they are required to work 50 – 55 hours.

      There’s a simple solution for that: quit.

      • Or talk to your boss. Ask for less work or more pay.

        • Or you just shut up and do the extra work and realize that good employees advance, and clock watchers and watercooler lawyers don’t.  I’m salaried for 40 hours and I routinely work late/Saturday to complete my projects because that’s what it takes to get the job done.
           
           

          • This is correct. In my experience you can limit your work if you want to, but in the process you most likely won’t become the “go to guy”. I’ve never seen a company force you to work 50 hours, I have seen them “encourage” that to meet a deadline. It isn’t easy to turn down such “encouragement” if you want to get ahead. Some people push back, but they either have some advantage or else fall behind.
            It really all flows from the economic reality of the situation. A top down government “solution” will make things worse. Obama is in fact making it worse, by hosing up the economy and killing jobs. That means competition for jobs is intense, which means the company can apply more pressure to work 50 hours.
            The real solution is a better job market. Towards that end, Obama could stop meddling. He could follow rule of law. He could suggest legislation to redo the ACA into something less vile. He could reign in his IRS and EPA.
            Note that his instinct is to mess things up, then “fix” things by messing things up even more. It is the Hugo Chavez approach. First, set price controls. Then, when that results in empty shelves, ban “hoarding”. Ratchet as required.

        • If it’s an occasional occurrence, one usually understands the need for overtime/extended effort. If it’s NOT occasional, if it’s endemic due to mismanagement, then (in a normal economy) you’re probably wasting your career away working for that particular company.
          Now, in my own history, I can count the good managers/leaders I’d worked for in 30 years in the workforce (Financial Systems) on one hand. That includes six years in the military.
          So my solution was to finally quit…working for others. Started my own business in an unrelated field and succeeded quite nicely until the market collapsed in 2008, but by then I was ready for retirement as I was pushing 60.
          I sometimes think it should be mandated that everyone should have to engage in entrepreneurship at least one year out of five during their working years.

    • While I sympathize with the worker, the proper course of action is to quit.  Consider the alternative. An employer hires a worker who is lazy and sleeps on the job. The employer can’t go to the government and demand that they help enforce the contract and have him not sleep on the job. They instead simply fire that person, at some cost to their business. (Hiring and firing takes up time and resources.)
      So, is it really such a burden to ask employees who feel they are getting a bad deal to simply quit? They don’t have any capital at risk, and only have to give 2 weeks notice.
      Now, the reason I would prefer this method is the same reason that we don’t want federal marshals in the workplace making sure workers aren’t sleeping on the job…because its intrusive and adds even more cost.
      So, now, employees will find their underemployed lawyer friends or the local regulator, and the business will be sued, and then decide it needs a very strict HR policy which leads to more bureaucratic, expensive, and less flexible workplace. Also, less hiring, and more very careful hiring. This is why Europe has high unemployement: employers are very, very cautious about hiring because of all the rules “protecting” the worker.
      BTW, if you think about it, most exploitation by either employer or employee, is always the shitbirds or jerks, who then create the need for all kinds of rigmarole. Perhaps in rare cases its a jerk employer who is sued by his shitbird employee, in which case hurrah!
       
       
       
       

    • Sorry, but this is just an argument for doing away with salaried employees altogether. Try again.

  • They know as much about running a business as they do about foreign policy.
    Again, if he set out to destroy the country while still trying to maintain his fig-leaf of legitimacy, what would he do different.

  • “Bunch of idiots.  They are bound and determined to destroy the golden goose because they’re are woefully ignorant of the goose’s anatomy and how it works.”

    Bruce, I honestly don’t think it’s ignorance any more. I believe they are willfully trying to destroy the system or at least damage it in such a way that the government will “be forced” to take full control of various industries and by extension the entire economy in order to “save” our capitalist system.

  • I swear that the White House wants, desperately, to have the President impeached by the House.
    The House Republicans already got fooled by the “banana in the tailpipe” with Bill Clinton’s impeachment, wants to avoid it, but they can have lots of fun putting Democrats in embarrassing situations that will pay off some 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now.

  • Bureaucracy is the process which converts energy into solid waste.

  • Bunch of idiots.  They are bound and determined to destroy the golden goose because they want everyone to be miserable and have to rely on their benevolent leadership

    >>>> Fixed it for ya

  • “… Or perhaps they’ll hire less and use technology to fill the bill. ”
    = = = = = = =
    Or perhaps they’re counting on the Repubs to push amnesty through, thereby giving Business a huuuge increase in the labor pool.  “If you have a glut of something, the price for it goes down.”
    (I understand the US Chamber of Commerce is really-really-really Pro-Amnesty.  Guess they think all those “undocumented” folks living “in the shadows” are English-literate PLUS being tech-savvy.   Or else they see some astounding new way to profit from 11+ million additional maids and gardeners…)

  • No, the Chamber Folks are looking for prgrammers and admins – tired of fooling around trying to get more H1Bs.  The maids, nannies and gardeners are just collateral damage.  What baffles me is why they want workers out of the shadows – so they can be covered by laws like the ones discussed above?  The illegals are voting anyhow, how does this advantage the D’s?

  • Sir Thomas More (Man For All Seasons version, anyhow), and a lot of great thinkers afterwards, had a vision of the law as being a known, and knowable to most people, bulwark against the caprice and tyranny of the powerful.
    We are justified in asking if we have anything like a “law” in that context today, and especially as pertains to what I call ObamaDoggle.
    IS there a ACA any longer?
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/373452/pfeiffer-guarantees-no-delay-individual-mandate-andrew-johnson