FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s Overtime Tweak: What is the Fair Price of a Missed Life?

President Obama has noticed that a lot of workers on his 24/7 business paradise are toiling long days, nights and weekends for low pay. He has proposed to update the law on overtime in the interests of growth, America, and fairness. What does the new rule oppose? What does it keep intact? This can tell us a lot about what is being demanded of working people with these preeminent values.

The abuse and proper use of the working poor

Obama’s proposal is meant to stop companies (notoriously, in retail, especially dollar stores) from taking advantage of an outdated rule in the Fair Labor Standards Act which exempts them from paying overtime to salaried managers earning below $23,660. Evidently, it’s common practice to give a title like “assistant manager” to a worker who operates a cash register, stocks shelves, or sweeps the floor, then have him or her work up to 70 hours a week and not pay time-and-a-half for overtime. Everyone instantly knows why companies do this: to maximize the work with a minimum of payment, boosting their profit.

The new rule raises the salary threshold to $50,440 to stop this practice. It’s also well-known why Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, and business groups are screaming mad: if companies have to pay workers more, this hurts their profit.

Obama accuses these companies of “cheating.” He has no problem with long workdays for low pay, because that’s still permitted by the new law. His objection is that these companies cheat workers out of overtime pay. He points out that workers “rely” on overtime pay. Why? This is also well known: a normal day’s paycheck is so skimpy that people have to work around the clock just to get by.

Obama does not object to the goal companies pursue when cutting corners on overtime pay: profit. In fact, making millions is precisely how companies should contribute to the “growth America needs.” Obama objects when these companies undercut “profitable companies like Costco who see paying higher wages as a way to reduce turnover and boost productivity.” These are the kinds of businesses that represent the high tech, high skills, high wage economy that Obama wants to secure the foundation of America’s global power. Reduced turnover means fewer workers end up receiving unemployment or some other government assistance; the company isn’t transferring the burden of its wage costs to the government budget, where people also represent a burden. Productivity means not just extending the working day but intensifying it with the latest technologies.

If higher wages is such a good business strategy, why doesn’t Obama recommend raising wages to $50 hour? Of course, that wouldn’t be realistic. Obama knows low wages are a crucial weapon in the competition not only between companies, but between nations as well. So low wages per se aren’t the problem – only wages that are too low, i.e., that lead to workers withdrawing funds for social assistance from the national budget rather than adding into it. Obama’s concern is not the hardships faced by stressed-out, cheaply-paid workers, but the problem they pose for the state and the national economy.

The legal working day: anywhere from 4 to 24 hours

American companies and “the economy” are always talked about as a big collective “we.” Yet it is also widely acknowledged that workers need state protection from their employers in the form of a legal working day. Why are laws necessary to limit the working day anyway?

The economic interest in getting a lot of work for little pay leads companies to extend the working day as long as the worker is physically and mentally able to endure it. The company is free to disregard the worker’s need to recover their used-up energy because this takes place on the worker’s private time. The company transfers the risk of profitable production to the worker – with consequences for the worker’s health.

Back in the early days of capitalism, the labor movement called on the state to limit work times. The state eventually recognized this was a necessity – not just for maintaining the social peace, but so that the working class is capable of being a working class. Unless restrained by state power, the capitalists destroy the human source of their wealth in the very process of creating this wealth. This could serve as a “teachable moment” about the nature of the economy that is regulated by the “humane,” modern social state.

Most workers see the legal working day and overtime pay as helping them. That’s certainly part of it. But it shouldn’t be overlooked that the state doesn’t do this to stop their ruination. It sets conditions for their ruination which modulate it so that they remain functional. This is not for their sake, but so that they can continue to play the role designated for them in this economic system – as a tool of an interest that is hostile to their well-being.

The fairness of class society

In promoting his overtime plan, Obama likes to quote an old labor movement slogan, but with a twist: “a fair day’s wage for a hard day’s work.” Half the equation (“a fair day’s work”) is quietly dropped. Probably nobody notices; a shorter working day isn’t on the agenda in any nation that wants to compete in the global economy. The only public criticism of the amount of overtime put in by American workers is that this denies part-time workers the one thing they can hope for in life: more work!

The old labor movement slogan serves Obama’s purpose because he wants to be seen as a friend of the working class, but not too soft on them either. So he affirms the ideology of the wage as fair pay. Who would disagree? Neither CEOs or union leaders would argue. The working class must serve business and give everything they’ve got. For this, they should get fair pay. But what is that exactly? Is it $10.10 per hour or $15 or $50? How much is the rent to be paid out of it? How much does food cost? There is no such equation. It’s a question economists and policy wonks will argue forever. If the goal of the economy was to meet people’s needs, nobody would ask it.

Fairness is the belief that the economy is a big communal project. The principle is always invoked when it is discovered that it doesn’t really work out this way: I work hard, why doesn’t it pay off? He doesn’t do anything, why does he get that much? What work is worth is not decided by effort, but what kind of means a person has. Some let their money “work” for them, and others work for money.

Obama claims the new overtime rule helps workers because it will “grow the economy.” Its funny: wealth has been growing for decades; there’s wealth all over the place; America is the richest of all nations. What still needs to grow? One thing: the private wealth of those who own it. And every MBA knows the methods: cutting “overhead” – i.e., the livelihoods of the working class – either by direct wage cuts, automation, outsourcing, or any of the many other methods which are all being applied simultaneously. Is it really so astonishing when growth makes the rich richer and the poor poorer?

Obama’s “help” for workers means more long days packed with hard work, wages so low that they can’t say no to overtime, insecurity, flexibility, and sacrifice for the wealth of others. What a great land of opportunity!

More articles by:

Geoffrey McDonald is an editor at Ruthless Criticism. He can be reached at: ruthless_criticism@yahoo.com

September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail