tom perez made it strike three tuesday after federal judge amos mazzant iii enjoined the labor secretary<u+2019>s new overtime rule, the third labor regulation that courts have blocked in the past month. to adapt donald trump, mr. perez must be getting tired of losing, losing, losing, but the winners here are workers and the economy. labor issued a final rule in may doubling the weekly threshold for salaried workers exempt from overtime pay under the federal labor standards act to $47,476 annually. the regulation, which was set to take effect dec. 1, included an indexing formula that raised the threshold every three years without another rule-making. businesses are required to pay time and a half to employees who work more than 40 hours a week. but congress exempted <u+201c>any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.<u+201d> the labor department has traditionally used a <u+201c>duties test<u+201d> to determine exempt workers. the agency has also employed a secondary salary test to help businesses screen out nonexempt workers: employees earning less than $23,660 annually<u+2014>the threshold set in 2004<u+2014>are unlikely to be engaged in executive or administrative duties. yet many workers earning less than the new $47,476 threshold perform such duties<u+2014>such as fast-food manager or a starting accountant. labor estimated that 4.2 million workers would become eligible for overtime under its new standard without their <u+201c>duties<u+201d> changing. business groups and 21 states sued, arguing that the rule would raise government costs by $115 million and require employers to adjust their payrolls. in preparation for the new rule, employers have been reclassifying salaried workers as hourly employees, capping their hours, hiring more part-time workers and shifting duties to those earning more than the threshold. the upshot is that few workers would get raises, and many could see their pay decline. businesses would also lose flexibility, and states argued that the rule commandeered their resources in unconstitutional fashion. kansas testified that it would be unable to comply with the rule without limiting government services. judge mazzant<u+2014>an obama appointee<u+2014>noted that the <u+201c>significant increase to the salary level creates essentially a de facto salary-only test<u+201d> that exceeds labor<u+2019>s <u+201c>delegated authority and ignores congress<u+2019>s intent by raising the minimum salary level such that it supplants the duties test.<u+201d> he called the rule <u+201c>directly in conflict with congress<u+2019>s intent.<u+201d> the judge issued a temporary injunction for all 50 states because <u+201c>the scope of the alleged irreparable injury extends nationwide.<u+201d> this is a reprieve for employers in states that didn<u+2019>t challenge the rule, though those that have already made accommodations may have trouble rolling back changes. president-elect donald trump could help assure employers by declaring that his administration will not appeal this or other rulings against obama-era rules and will regulate in accordance with congressional intent. president obama calculated he could circumvent congress, but the courts are getting the last word.
tom perez strikes out - wsj
noauthor