Hardy: Labor Rule will Cost Jobs, Lower Benefits for Workers

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

WASHINGTON, D.C. – More than 100 members of Congress are formally criticizing the Department of Labor over a proposed rule that would impact how much overtime pay employers would be required to provide.

The bipartisan complaint, led by freshman Representatives Cresent Hardy (NV-4) and Steve Knight (CA-25), argues that the new rule fails to consider the negative consequences for employees.

“Drastically changing a business’s operating requirements like this will do the exact opposite of raising wages for employees of our small businesses. In many instances, it will harm workers far more than it will help them,” said Congressman Hardy, who serves as Chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight, and Regulations. “Small businesses already operate on such tight margins; it’s amazing that any of them make a living under Washington’s heavy requirements.”

DOL’s proposed rule aims to increase the number of employees required to receive overtime pay.

Under current labor laws, businesses are required to provide overtime pay to employees who make $23,660 or less each year. The new rule would raise the salary threshold to require overtime pay for all employees making less than $50,440 annually. Proposed in 2015, the rule is expected to be finalized by summer 2016.

“The numbers just don’t add up. If this rule becomes final, many employers may be forced to choose between cutting their staff’s hours and benefits, or staying in business at all,” said Congressman Hardy.

“This policy is another example of Washington bureaucrats burdening our small businesses with one-size-fits-all regulations that hurt more workers than they help,” said Congressman Steve Knight.

The Retail Association of Nevada, the National Retail Federation, and 12 additional national employer associations endorse the concerns expressed in the formal complaint.

 

Comments

  1. Melvin RMiller says:

    Its absolutely astonishing to me……that we lose a Supreme Court Justice –
    and the media states how he followed the Constitution.
    I thought thats’ what the Supreme CT was supposed to do?!?

Speak Your Mind

*