Share This Page

Overtime rule injunction: Another judicial cleanup

| Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2016, 2:30 p.m.

President-elect Donald Trump won't have to roll back all of Barack Obama's economically bereft labor rules. The courts are handling that task themselves.

An injunction by U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III puts the kibosh on the Obama administration's odoriferous overtime diktat. The rule, scheduled to begin this month, would have doubled the salary threshold ($47,476) for employees to be paid time and a half for any hours over 40 worked in a given week. Not only is the rule unlawful, Judge Mazzant wrote that the Labor Department “lacks the authority to implement the automatic updating mechanism.” His ruling is hardly surprising, given that this overtime overreach drew legal challenges from 21 states and more than 50 business groups.

The rule, in itself, is a nonstarter. It would have cost businesses $6.9 billion over the first seven years in compliance costs and would reduce family incomes across the board by $8.5 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office figures cited by The Daily Signal.

Another rule intended to compel businesses to simply roll over on union organizing — the so-called “persuader rule” — got derailed last month by an injunction from Senior U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Cummings.

Rather than shore up these two controversial labor policies with the American people and Congress, President Obama instead used his phone and pen to push through what the courts, to their credit, will not sustain.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.