Obama Administration Overtime Rule Implementation Gets Stalled By Texas Judge

Millions of Americans are just a week close to getting an overtime pay until last Tuesday when a federal judge from Texas stalled the implementation. The overtime rule is expected to be one of the Obama Administration's final drive for a more progressive private sector.

The current mandatory overtime is applicable to salaried workers earning 23,360 a year, which is almost a thousand dollars below the federal poverty line for a family of four. Once the overtime pay is expanded, more than 4 million workers will be covered by the overtime availability, US News reported.

The proponents of the rule pointed out that this will provide the needed pay raise for lower and middle-class workers. However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce withstood against the rule's implementation as it would "substantially increase the labor costs of ... nonprofit employers and state and local governments." Also, this would mean that small-business owners will need to spend more to pay current employees and might resort to the reclassification of salaried workers to hourly.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Texas Eastern District Judge Amos Mazzant considered the overtime ruling an overreach of executive power. He issued a temporary nationwide injunction against the upcoming rule by the Department of Labor,

In his ruling, Mazzant found that despite the Fair Labor Standard Act's original wording allows the Labor Department "significant leeway to establish the types of duties that might qualify and employee for the exemption, the law does not communicate that Congress intended the Department of Labor to set a minimum salary level for exempt workers. He wrote: "Thus, the Department's delegation is limited by the plain meaning of the statute and Congress's intent."

This explanation could have been acceptable when the regulation was still new during the mid-20th century, but using salary as one of the deciding factors has left the rule on the books under different administration for more than 70 years. If this is the only reason for the Congress' objection, it should have amended the laws a long time ago to assert that it didn't want salary as a factor.

The Depart of Labor said in a statement: "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." They also hinted to work out an appeal.

House Speaker Paul Ryan also issued a statement that the enactment of the rule without going through Congress is already questionable, adding that the rule would be an "absolute disaster" for the U.S. economy.