Before I worked at the Washington Examiner, I was a research associate with Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute. Every day I produced a draft of the Economics21 Ebrief newsletter, which required compiling about 20 timely and interesting links a day. This was my responsibility alone, so for the year I worked there, I had to put together a draft the night before every weekday.
It took more than an hour every night to find links and format the newsletter. It was months until I got the process under an hour. In the morning, I spent another half hour inputting final edits from my boss, doing one last proofread, uploading the newsletter to the e21 website and tweeting out a link.
Anyone who was close to me during that time can tell you the newsletter was not my favorite part of the job. For the most part, the newsletter came on top of my nine-to-five duties, so I worked more than 40 hours a week.
Thankfully, my boss, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, was happy to give me extra vacation time to offset my overtime hours. The rigid work hours were sometimes difficult, but it was worth it because I likely wouldn’t have gotten the extra time off in another job.
The new overtime rule from President Obama’s Department of Labor kills that flexibility for millions of people.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2591730
The rule will affect 4.2 million workers who earn between $23,700 and $47,500 per year. It requires employers to pay those workers time and a half for every hour worked above 40 hours a week — even if those workers would rather earn more paid time off instead.
Vice President Biden oversimplified the issue on Tuesday. “Companies will have a choice to make: Either they pay their workers overtime or they cap the work week at 40 hours,” Biden said. “Either way, the worker wins.”
Furchtgott-Roth mentioned a third option to me in an email. Time and a half isn’t an option on a tight nonprofit budget. “I would have had to count your Ebrief hours carefully and send you home at 3. ‎Or I could have paid you overtime and adjusted your base pay down. That’s probably what I would have done. The big disadvantage for you is that I could not have given you extra days off to see your family instead of extra hours worked.”
Same pay, same hours worked, less time off. That’s not ideal for anyone, especially not the low-income workers Obama is trying to help.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2591838
For example, consider a single mother who earns $25,000 a year working in an entry-level position for a small business. Let’s say her parents visit one week and are able to watch her daughter. If her employer gives her the same flexibility Furchtgott-Roth gave me, the mother can work 60 hours that week in exchange for 20 hours off a different week. When her daughter comes down with the flu or chickenpox, the mother can take paid time off to care for her sick child.
Under Obama’s new rule, such flexibility is against the law. She must work 40 hours a week, every week. Even if her parents visit and can watch her daughter, the mother won’t be able to work extra hours for 1.5 times the pay if the small business can’t afford it.
Worse, now the business must closely watch the mother’s working hours from the office to ensure she doesn’t exceed 40 hours a week. Any hope of working from home as needed is gone.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2592069
Obama was trying to help vulnerable workers with the new overtime rule, but millions will lose the flexibility of extra time off. Instead, only the wealthy or certain types of exempt jobs are legally allowed that freedom.
Fortunately for my successor, the Ebrief now has fewer than half as many links as before. But it seems like more and more email newsletters are being launched. To everyone out there who spends their nights preparing a newsletter and will now work longer hours for no extra pay or time off: I feel your pain.
Jason Russell is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
