ShareThis Page
Editorials

Trib editorial: Gov. Wolf's overtime proposal another counterproductive diktat

| Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2018, 9:00 p.m.
Gov. Tom Wolf
State of Pennsylvania
Gov. Tom Wolf

Like minimum-wage laws, Gov. Tom Wolf's proposal to expand overtime-pay eligibility is a government diktat about matters that are not government's to mandate — and likely would hurt those it's supposed to help.

In an end run around the Republican Legislature that's refused his minimum-wage-hike pleas, the Democrat governor wants a phased-in rise in the minimum salary level for overtime eligibility, from the federal $23,660 threshold to $47,892 by 2022. It's similar to an Obama-administration proposal that a federal judge blocked, and it needs approval only from a Democrat-majority agency board.

Calling Mr. Wolf's proposal “legally questionable at best and downright authoritarian at worst,” the Commonwealth Foundation's Nathan Benefield says it “ignores the laws of economics. Gov. Wolf can no more mandate that every Pennsylvania worker earn more money than he can mandate that every family has a pet unicorn.”

Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry chief Gene Barr says it will mean higher business costs, “more burdensome record keeping, less flexibility, a rigid work schedule and fewer training opportunities,” with no guarantee of higher pay for workers “shifted to hourly and restricted from working over 40 hours in a week” as a result.

Mr. Benefield notes that there's “no benefit to mandated overtime pay if your hours get cut.” And as he says, Wolf's proposal is another example of state government “erecting even higher obstacles to overcome” rather than “breaking down government barriers to job creation.”

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.

click me