Ever notice how our regulatory agencies seem to keep turning good intentions into lousy directives?
The latest example arrived last week, courtesy of our friends at the Department of Labor.
They unveiled a final rule aimed at broadening overtime protections for salaried workers. The measure will raise the salary threshold from $35,568 to $43,888 by July 1, and subsequently to $58,656 next January 1.
“This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time,” Acting Secretary Julie Su said in a release. “Too often, lower-paid salaried workers are doing the same jobs as their hourly counterparts, but are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay. That is unacceptable,” she added.
No disagreement with such good intentions. Nonetheless, it appears this situation is turning into a scenario where the solution may prove more harmful than the problem it aims to address. Why? Because this alteration will likely trigger two very bad results for the lower-paid salaried workers Su is advocating for.
As for what could possibly go wrong, two certainties can be taken to the bank.
One is that many of the intended beneficiaries – at least in this sector – are going to become unemployed. Long-term care operators operate within finite budgets. If compelled to adhere to this mandate, more than a few will likely resort to job cuts.
A second is that many frontline employees will find it harder to pursue pathways to success and career growth. Many operators will surely conclude they have no viable option but to eliminate the managerial jobs that have historically allowed workers to advance within their organizations.
So other than making sure many senior care workers get canned while others end up in dead-end jobs, this Labor Department “improvement” makes total sense.
In appreciation …
Warmest congratulations to my friend and colleague Jim Berklan, on his latest remarkable achievement. Jim captured the prize for commentary writing in specialized US business journalism Friday, when he was announced a 2024 Neal Award winner.
For those who toil in the world of business-to-business journalism, there is simply no higher honor than Neal Award recognition.
To say he is well deserving would be an extreme understatement. Having had the incredibly good fortune of collaborating with Jim for more than two decades, I can attest to the fact that he is one of the finest journalists anyone could ever hope to meet. He is an even better person. Well done Jim, yet again.
John O’Connor is editorial director for McKnight’s.
Opinions expressed in McKnight’s Long-Term Care News columns are not necessarily those of McKnight’s.
