Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
====Expansion of Overtime Eligibility=====Background===*Expected to be implemented late 2016*On March 13, 2014, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Labor to update the regulations defining which white collar workers are protected by the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime standards [http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/nprm2015/ (DOL)]*The memorandum instructed the Department to look for ways to modernize and simplify the regulations while ensuring that the FLSA's intended overtime protections are fully implemented [http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/nprm2015/ (DOL)]===Rule===*Previously:**”Salaried workers who earn below $455 per week, or $23,660 per year, are automatically eligible for overtime pay–regardless of the nature of their job or the duties they perform.” [http://www.alternet.org/economy/8-questions-answered-about-obamas-new-proposed-overtime-pay-increase (Alternet)]**”Salaried workers whose earnings are $455 per week or more can be exempted from the right to receive overtime if they fall into one of three categories: professionals, administrators, and executives.” [http://www.alternet.org/economy/8-questions-answered-about-obamas-new-proposed in July 2015-overtime-pay-increase (Alternet)]**Many white-collar workers with very low salaries (sometimes just above the overtime threshold) can be classified by their employers as professionals, administrators, or executives–and thus exempted from overtime pay*Proposed changes:*Any *New rule states that any salaried worker who earns less than $50,440 (40th percentile) will be eligible for overtime**Currently the threshold is at $23,660**This would be a 110% increasefrom 23,660===Effects & Consequences===*Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, a research group partly funded by labor unions, has estimated that the higher salary threshold would expand overtime to as many as 15 million additional workers [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-29/obama-said-set-to-expand-overtime-eligibility-for-millions (Bloomberg)]
Regulations in Relation to Small Businesses (view source)
Revision as of 19:23, 10 February 2016
, 19:23, 10 February 2016→Effects & Consequences
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The%20Impact%20of%20Regulatory%20Costs%20on%20Small%20Firms%20%28Full%29.pdf
IRS small business forms aren’t overwhelming for big businesses, but for entrepreneurs “the regulations, taxes, and fees are very costly and subsequently discouraging” [https://medium.com/@JohnTaylorHill/rand-paul-for-entrepreneurs-ac0046305934#.yqnxu19n1 (opinionated post)] [https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Forms-for-Partnerships Forms Small Businesses Must Fill Out]
====Greenhouse Gas Emissions====
*Final rule issued August 2015
*Require states to increase the percentage of power they generate from alternative sources, which are weaker and more epensiveexpensive
*Will this make electricity more costly for people, in particular small businesses?
*”NFIB estimates that about 40% of small businesses will have employees newly eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay. If a business cannot afford to pay managers over $50,000 per year, the business will have to change these employees from salaried exempt to hourly nonexempt employees and prohibit overtime work.” [http://www.nfib.com/article/new-overtime-rule-add-costs-to-small-businesses-and-hurts-workers-70007/ (NFIB-OR)]
*For small businesses to avoid the overtime pay, managers would probably be moved from salaried positions to hourly jobs
**Decreased worker morale
**Fewer salaried, managerial positions → little advancement opportunities
*The proposed rule received some 270,000 comments during the 60-day period after its publication in June 2015. By comparison, the agency received 75,280 comments in response to its last proposed rule update in 2004.
*Many employers—especially small and midsize businesses—wouldn’t be able to absorb the increased labor and litigation costs, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/overtime-rule-would-hurt-more-help (COC)]
*Few workers would actually get bigger paychecks
**"A recent report released by the NRF said that employers were much more likely to cut wages and bonuses or reduce hours to avoid paying overtime. If employers made no changes to their pay and scheduling structure, an option the NRF acknowledged is highly unlikely, overtime costs would run businesses $9.5 billion under the proposed changes" [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obama-overtime-rules-explainer-20150630-htmlstory.html (LATimes)]
*"Employers can respond to these higher costs in several ways. First, they can cut the base or regular wage for workers who will likely receive these overtime payments. Second, they can cut existing workers’ hours and hire new workers who will also work fewer than 40 hours per week. Third, they can cut their hours or their jobs entirely and invest in a machine that can do the same job, perhaps more cheaply. Fourth, they can keep the workers but pass on the costs to consumers in the form of higher prices. Fifth, they can keep the workers, pay them the time and a half premium and bear the brunt of the higher costs." [http://bamsouth.com/new-overtime-pay-regulations-helpful-or-harmful-to-the-employees-supposedly-assisted/ (BAM)]
===Solutions===
*"Government wage mandates are no substitute for economic growth, and contrary to the administration’s assertions, they do little to lift the middle class. If our leaders want to see hiring accelerate and incomes climb, they should pursue pro-growth policies that enable employers to expand, invest, and create more high-paying opportunities for workers." [https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/overtime-rule-would-hurt-more-help (COC)]
*"The U.S. Chamber continues to advocate for commonsense regulatory and legal reform, a simplified tax code that lowers rates for businesses and individuals, long-term investment in infrastructure, and policies that will allow the United States to capitalize on its vast energy resources."[https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/overtime-rule-would-hurt-more-help (COC)]
[[Image:Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 2.45.18 PM.png|500px]]
[[Image:Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 2.31.04 PM.png|500px]]
[[Image:Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 2.56.49 PM.png|500px]]
==='''EPA Evades RFA Act through Clean Water Act'''===
Even more troubling, the rule does not take into consideration the economic impact on small businesses. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, federal agencies must review the cost of a proposed rule on small business; the EPA, however, bypassed this requirement, suggesting the new rule not directly affect small businesses. Key members of Congress disagree, including both the House and Senate Small Business Committees. In comments to the EPA, we at the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) emphasized the proposed regulation "represents bad public policy because it increases regulatory burdens on small business landowners by expanding the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act." We asked the EPA to withdraw the rule until the required comprehensive analysis is complete."
Key Points:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/waters_of_the_united_states_epa_s_proposed_update_to_the_clean_water_act.html Slate]
*The main concerns with redefining the "waters of the United States" to include wetlands and streams is that the EPA could force small business owners, specifically farmers, would face expensive permit costs if they wish to expand their facilities/business or clear vegetation.
*The EPA argues that the redefinition was necessary as before the language of the regulation was too vague, and a large proportion of the pollution is attributed to agricultural runoff (approximately 12,000,000 tons).
*Farmers, legislators, and small business owners are very skeptical of the redefinition and regulation, as they are frightened the EPA could vastly their operating costs, even operations as simple as watering their own crops
*The EPA argues that this is a deliberate misinterpretation of the rule to undermine their efforts to lower pollution (promise they are not trying to hike up costs for farmers/small business owners)
Possible solutions to this issue b/w small business and EPA:
*Clarify more specifically what would require a permit (if you promise you are not hiking up costs, then explicitly write what practices would require the purchase of permit)
*Create subsidies for farmers to cope with increased operating costs (if you are declaring their property, land of the United States, help them come up with ways to clear vegetation without polluting the streams/wetlands
*Law states "A Clean Water Act permit is only needed if a water is going to be polluted or destroyed." (what does this mean for farmers?)
*"Does not regulate most ditches and does not regulate groundwater, shallow subsurface flows, or tile drains. It does not make changes to current policies on irrigation or water transfers or apply to erosion in a field. The Clean Water Rule addresses the pollution and destruction of waterways – not land use or private property rights."
*Intent of law seems well-meaning, main ways to improve regulation would to increase cooperation/transparency/trust between EPA and farmers, so fears of misinterpretations of rhetoric are not misconstrue,
more clear/concise language when crafting the law, rather than lengthy pages of contingencies
===Complexity Costs Money===
*Flexibility in regulations- such as exemptions for smaller companies from mandates: "Building flexibility into new policymaking that allows for more experimentation and measurement is helpful, he notes, as is avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach. “The costs of regulation are more direct and easier to comprehend than the benefits, which are mostly indirect. So there will always be upfront concerns about regulation, which leads back to the importance of building in opportunities to measure the costs and benefits." (refer to another quote on flexibility in regulation from above section also from [http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2014/03/10/the-costs-and-benefits-of-sarbanes-oxley/#734c17db2776 Forbes article])
=='''Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations'''==
All information collected from [http://www.sensibleregulations.org/resources/facts-and-figures/ SensibleRegulations.org]
"Small businesses create two-thirds of the net new jobs annually, employ more than half of the private-sector workforce, and generate nearly 50 percent of annual GDP. America’s small businesses are the backbone of our economy and engines of job creation. "
===Regulations by the numbers =Numbers===*Today, there are 3,348 federal regulations in the pipeline, with nearly 1/3 impacting small business directly. (Source: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Unified Agenda 2013) *According to the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index, small business owners have cited regulations as a top impediment to conducting business for over 65 months in a row. (Source: NFIB Small Business Optimism Index) *United States fell out of the top ten ranks in the ease of starting a business, according to World Bank data. In fact, the World Bank found that it’s easier to start a new business in Portugal, Romania, Panama, Hungary and Belarus than in the U.S. (Source: U.S. World Bank)
*Due to federal regulations, U.S. productivity growth rate is nearly half of its historical rate, dropping from an annual average rate of 2.5 percent since 1948 to 1.1 percent since 2011. (Source: Wall Street Journal, 2014)
*The annual rate of new business starts is about 28% lower today than it was in the 1980s, according to a recent analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data in the Wall Street Journal. (Source: Wall Street Journal, 2014) *Over the last five decades, there has been a tremendous growth of the Federal Register – in 1960 there were 22,877 pages and in 2012 there were 174,545 pages. (Source: Competitive Enterprise Institute) ===Polls Reveal Federal Regulations Hurting Small Business Owners===August’s NFIB Index of Small Business Optimism rose 0.7 points to 95.7. In comparison, between 1975 and 2008, the historical average index value was nearly 100. (Source: NFIB – Small Business Optimism Index) *Nearly 60 percent of small business owners think it’s a bad time for small business expansion. (Source: NFIB – Small Business Optimism Index)*21 percent of small business owners cite regulations as their single most important problem (Source: NFIB – Small Business Optimism Index)*90 percent of small business owners support reforming the regulatory process. (Source: NAM/NFIB Survey, “Small Businesses and Manufacturers: Government a Barrier”)*74 percent of small business owners believe that businesses and consumers are over- See regulated. (Source: Public Notice, “MEMO: National poll on government regulations) *72 percent of small businesses reported that regulations were hurting their “operating environment” (Source: Wells Fargo/Gallup News Release, “Small Business Index”) *67 percent of small businesses do not have plans to hire in the next six months due to poor business conditions (Source: Capital One second quarter 2013 Spark Small Business Barometer) *62 percent of small business owners and manufacturers say that the United States own laws, regulations, rules, taxes and fees impact their business more atnegatively than foreign competitors. (Source: NAM/NFIB Survey, “Small Businesses and Manufacturers: http Government a Barrier”) *55 percent of small business owners say they would not start a business today given what they know now and in the current regulatory environment. (Source: NAM/NFIB Survey, “Small Businesses and Manufacturers: Government a Barrier”) *54 percent of small business owners say countries like China and India are more supportive of their small businesses and manufacturers than the United States. (Source: NAM/wwwNFIB Survey, “Small Businesses and Manufacturers: Government a Barrier”) ===Impact of Federal Regulations===*Federal regulations cost an estimated $515 billion, according to analysis by NFIB. (Source: Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations, “Regulatory Tidal Wave)*Regulatory burdens on Americans increased by nearly $70 billion during President Obama’s first term in office. (Source: Heritage Foundation) *Federal agencies reported $23.5 billion in new annual regulatory costs in 2012 alone. (Source: Heritage Foundation) *President Obama’s FY2013 budget request for regulatory activities was $58.7 billion, compared to $2.8 billion in 1960. (Source: “Growth in Regulators’ Budget Slowed by Fiscal Stalemate: An Analysis of the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013,” The George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis) *Average annual cost of regulations in President Obama’s first two years in office ranged from $8 to $16.5 billion, compared to a $1.sensibleregulations3 to $3.4 billion during the same period under President Bush. (Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center: FactCheck.org/resources/facts) ===Need for Regulatory Reform===*283,615 full-time government employees were dedicated to drafting and enforcing regulations in 2012, while fewer than 50 employees at OMB are responsible for reviewing the new regulatory mandates to ensure they are justified andaccurate prior to implementation (Source: “Growth in Regulators’ Budget Slowed by Fiscal Stalemate: An Analysis of the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013,” The George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis) *From 2003-2010, one-figures/#sthashthird of major rules, costing $100 million or more, did not go through public review and input, despite federal requirements for public comment.I6RSwcYs.dpuf(Source: GAO Report)
