Federal Judge Stops Obama Administration's Overtime Pay Rule
U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant has sided with plaintiffs in the case who complained that the new overtime rules would have caused an uptick in government costs in their states and made it mandatory for businesses to pay millions in additional salaries. Business groups said the new rule changes would have eventually led to layoffs.
Yet did the complaints argue the facts of the law - or simply that it would cost business owners more money, while rightly reimbursing workers for overtime hours?
The measure, set to take effect Dec. 1, was intended to send a jolt to slow-growing U.S. incomes. The Labor Department's wide ranging overhaul to the overtime rule required employers to pay time-and-a-half to their employees who worked more than 40 hours in a given week and earned less than $47,476 a year.
Supporters of the rule called it "long overdue" as inflation took its toll on overtime protection.
A great many professional caregivers may have benefit from the rule, affecting the “manager” or even “part time” status of some which often required working overtime for no additional pay.
Some business groups who were plaintiffs in the case said the new rule changes would have eventually led to layoffs.
However The Department of Labor issued the following statement regarding federal court's preliminary injunction.
"We strongly disagree with the decision by the court, which has the effect of delaying a fair day's pay for a long day's work for millions of hardworking Americans. The department's overtime rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rulemaking process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule. We are currently considering all of our legal options."
Please return to this website in the coming days for updates on this important subject.