I’ve written this column before. (Sort of.)
Just substitute the words “
maternity leave” for “overtime pay,” and you can see where I’m going.
The federal government’s new overtime rule is causing quite the ruckus among employers and employees alike.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, federal regulators moved on May 18 to more than double the minimum salary threshold – from $23,660 a year to $47,476 – for which many salaried workers are eligible to receive overtime pay. Set to begin Dec. 1, the change is expected to affect 4.2 million employees in its first year, and nearly 45,000 – or 2 percent – of Missouri’s workforce, according to the Department of Labor.
As to be expected, many employers aren’t happy. Bump employee salaries up to meet the threshold or pay them overtime, either way, the rule will have a major impact on the bottom line.
Springfield Chamber of Commerce President Matt Morrow recently wrote an opinion piece for Springfield Business Journal regarding the change. In “
New overtime rule is one-size-fits-none approach,” Morrow describes the rule as “another example of regulatory overreach.”
Mr. Morrow, I respectfully disagree. Paying a livable wage for hard work is about more than regulations – it’s about livelihoods.
I understand he has to advocate for the side of business – that’s literally his job – but somebody needs to advocate for the side of the people.
Springfield officials have made it their mission to address poverty in our city. They’ve identified northwest Zone 1 as exceeding the city’s already high overall poverty rate of 25.6 percent.
In Zone 1, one out of every two people live below the $24,250 federal poverty line. While it’s unknown how many Zone 1 residents would benefit from the new regulations, I bet they don’t think it’s regulatory overreach.
How can we as a city say we’re trying to eliminate poverty with one breath and with the next chastise the government for asking employers to pay living wages?
We can’t, or at least we shouldn’t.
In a separate article, Morrow contends the rule “reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of how jobs are created.” I’ll point to our past coverage, in an interview with National Employment Law Project Executive Director Christine Owens.
“One of the reasons overtime came into being during the Great Depression was that the extra cost of time-and-a-half pay actually becomes an inducement to create more jobs rather than bear the costs,” Owens said, pointing to the National Retail Federation, which has opposed the rule change, but estimates the move would create over 100,000 jobs.
It’s a symbiotic relationship. Employees drive businesses and businesses drive the economy, so it only makes sense that what benefits the employees, strengthens the overall economy.
Like Editor Eric Olson pointed out in a
recent column on Springfield’s poverty situation, it’s easy to crunch the numbers, quote the stats and even out the bottom line, but it’s also easy to forget each one of those figures represents a person. They represent dinner on the kitchen table, a child going to college and a coat in the winter.
The bottom line must become about more than just money, the bottom line must be about the people. A business built on the idea of asking people to work overtime without appropriate pay is a wobbly foundation. It doesn’t give the employees a fair shake or the business a leg to stand on.
When the business agenda aligns with the human agenda, it boosts everyone’s bottom line.
Springfield Business Journal Features Editor Emily Letterman can be reached at eletterman@sbj.net.
