An updated version of this report is available here. The updated version includes data on wages lost under the 2019 Trump administration overtime proposal that would have been received under the 2016 rule.

The backstory: Millions of working people are working overtime but not getting paid for it because business interests have successfully challenged a 2016 rule that would have protected them. Federal law requires that people working more than 40 hours a week be paid 1.5 times their pay rate for the extra hours, but allows employers to exempt salaried workers who make above a certain threshold and are deemed to have executive, administrative, or professional duties. Basically, the threshold is supposed to help protect workers with little bargaining power—for example, modestly compensated front-line supervisors at fast-food restaurants—from being forced to work unpaid overtime. But the overtime pay threshold has been so eroded by inflation that people earning as little as $455 per week (the equivalent of $23,660 per year) can be forced to work 60 or more hours a week for no more pay than if they worked 40 hours. In 2016, the Obama Labor Department issued a rule that would have raised the overtime pay salary threshold to $47,476. But in November 2016—just before the rule was set to go into effect—a district court judge in Texas blocked the rule nationwide.

Today, the Department of Labor published a proposal to set the salary threshold under which almost all workers are entitled to overtime pay to $679 per week, or $35,308 for a full-year worker, in 2020. The adoption of this proposal would leave behind an estimated 8.2 million workers who would have gotten new or strengthened overtime protections under regulations finalized in 2016. These 8.2 million workers who would be left behind by the Trump proposal include 4.2 million women, 3.0 million people of color, 4.7 million workers without a college degree, and 2.7 million parents of children under the age of 18. Further, due to the fact that the Trump proposal does not automatically index the threshold going forward, the number of workers left behind grows from 8.2 million in 2020 to an estimated 11.5 million over the first 10 years of implementation.

The 2016 rule, which was held up in court following a challenge by business trade associations and Republican-led states, would have increased the threshold to $913 per week, or $47,476 for a full-year worker, from its current level of $455 per week, or $23,660 for a full-year worker. It would also have indexed the threshold to wage growth on a triennial basis; under the 2016 rule, the threshold would have increased to roughly $51,000 on January 1, 2020.

In publishing the new proposal with a lower threshold, the Department of Labor under the Trump administration is alleging that the 2016 rule set the threshold too high and needs to be corrected. This is not supported by the data. The 2016 rule was well within historical norms; in fact, it would have covered far fewer workers than the threshold had covered in the past. In 1975, more than 60 percent of full-time salaried workers earned below the threshold. By 2016, the share of full-time salaried workers covered by the threshold had dropped to less than 7 percent. The 2016 rule would have just partially restored this coverage, to roughly 33 percent. The Trump proposal would cover less than half of the workers covered by the 2016 rule, just 15 percent.

The 2016 rule did require a large increase in the threshold, but only because the rule had not been appropriately updated since 1975. If the 1975 rule had simply been updated for inflation, it would be roughly $58,000 in 2020—well above the projected 2020 threshold of the 2016 rule, $51,000. The new proposed rule, at $35,308 in 2020, is around $23,000 less than the inflation-adjusted 1975 level.

If the department finalizes its new proposal, millions of workers who should get overtime protections will fall through the cracks. In their proposal, the department provides estimates showing that 2.8 million fewer workers will be affected under their proposal than under the 2016 rule, but this is a vast underestimate, for two reasons. First, they use pooled 2015–2017 data, benchmarked to 2017 wage and employment levels, and state that these figures “are the Department’s best approximation for impacts starting in 2020.” This leads to an underestimate because it doesn’t account for employment growth and other changes in the three years between 2017 and 2020. I correct for this issue to the extent possible by using more updated data—pooled 2016–2018 data, benchmarked to 2018 wage and employment levels—and inflating employment and wage levels based on Congressional Budget Office economic projections for 2018–2020.

Second, the department’s estimate of those left behind leaves out an entire group of workers who would be affected by the rule—those who will no longer get strengthened protections. To understand what a large omission this is, it is useful to keep in mind that there are two groups of workers who would be affected by any update to the overtime threshold. One group consists of those workers who get new protections under a new threshold—namely salaried workers who are bona fide managers, supervisors, or learned professionals who earn above the old threshold but below the new threshold. These workers are not legally entitled to overtime protections under the old threshold but would be overtime-eligible under the new threshold. But there is another large group of workers who are affected by any increase in the threshold—workers who get strengthened protections. Workers who get strengthened protections are salaried workers who earn above the old threshold and below the new threshold but who are not bona fide managers, supervisors, or learned professionals. These workers should have overtime protections under the old threshold—but because they earn a salary and earn above the threshold, they are vulnerable to being misclassified by their employer as overtime-exempt. However, once the threshold rises above their earnings level, their status as overtime-eligible becomes very clear. In their estimate of how many workers get left behind by their proposal, the department ignores the millions of workers who will not get strengthened protections under their proposal but who would have gotten strengthened protections under the 2016 threshold.

The tables below show how many workers will be left behind by the Trump proposal, both overall and broken down by whether these workers would have gotten new or strengthened protections under the 2016 rule. For reference, the tables also provide the underlying numbers of workers who would have gotten new or strengthened protections under the 2016 rule and the numbers who would get new or strengthened protections under the 2019 proposal. Tables 1–3 provide breakdowns by demographics, major industry and occupation, and state.

Table 4 shows the increase in the number of workers left behind during the first 10 years of implementation due to the lack of automatic updating in the Trump proposal. In its economic impact projections, the department does not assume the threshold will be updated in future years. It is worth noting, however, that the department claims that it is “committing to evaluate” the threshold “more frequently” going forward, in particular mentioning a flexible commitment to notice and comment rule-making to increase the threshold every four years. Given that notice and comment rule-making is extremely time- and resource-intensive—the 2016 rule-making took more than two years—this is an enormously inefficient way for the government to operate (and is why huge stretches of time go by between rule-makings). It makes little sense to go through notice and comment rule-making just to maintain a standard—that process should be reserved for when policymakers want to change the substance of a rule, while automatic updating should be used to ensure that the standard does not erode in the meantime. Further, automatic updating provides crucial predictability for employers. With automatic updating, as opposed to a vague claim that updating will be considered every four years, employers know exactly what to expect and when to expect it.

Given the large number of workers who will be left behind under this proposal who would have been covered by the painstakingly justified 2016 rule, we encourage the department to drop this rule-making and instead defend the 2016 rule. Further, defending and then implementing the 2016 threshold would lead to better use of one of the most precious resources of working families in this country—their time—by providing an incentive for employers to balance the additional hours they ask of their workers with the costs of either overtime pay or of raising salaries to the new salary threshold. That incentive is consistent with a fundamental principle embodied in the Fair Labor Standards Act—that workers should receive a fair day’s pay for a long day’s work. The department’s new proposed rule—which is based on the notion that someone struggling by on $35,000 a year is a highly paid executive who doesn’t need or deserve overtime protections—flies in the face of those principles and should be abandoned.

Table 1 Number of salaried workers left behind by the Trump overtime proposal, by demographic group, projected for 2020 Workers left behind by 2019 proposal Under the 2016 rule Under the 2019 proposal Group Total workers left behind Workers who would have gotten new protections under 2016 rule Workers who would have gotten strengthened protections under 2016 rule Total affected workers Workers with new protections Workers with strengthened protections Total affected workers Workers with new protections Workers with strengthened protections Total salaried workers in the U.S. All 8,240,000 3,140,000 5,100,000 13,470,000 4,550,000 8,920,000 5,230,000 1,410,000 3,820,000 59,140,000 Gender Male 4,000,000 1,330,000 2,670,000 6,560,000 1,970,000 4,590,000 2,560,000 640,000 1,920,000 32,570,000 Female 4,240,000 1,810,000 2,440,000 6,910,000 2,580,000 4,340,000 2,670,000 770,000 1,900,000 26,570,000 Parenthood Not a parent 5,540,000 2,120,000 3,410,000 9,060,000 3,060,000 6,000,000 3,520,000 940,000 2,580,000 37,470,000 Father 1,320,000 420,000 900,000 2,130,000 630,000 1,510,000 810,000 210,000 600,000 12,210,000 Mother 1,390,000 600,000 790,000 2,280,000 860,000 1,420,000 890,000 260,000 630,000 9,460,000 Race/ethnicity White 5,250,000 2,160,000 3,090,000 8,220,000 3,120,000 5,100,000 2,970,000 950,000 2,010,000 40,680,000 Black 1,010,000 340,000 670,000 1,680,000 480,000 1,200,000 670,000 140,000 520,000 5,460,000 Hispanic 1,280,000 350,000 920,000 2,410,000 530,000 1,880,000 1,130,000 180,000 960,000 7,230,000 Asian 550,000 230,000 330,000 930,000 340,000 580,000 370,000 120,000 260,000 4,810,000 Others 150,000 50,000 90,000 230,000 70,000 160,000 90,000 20,000 70,000 960,000 Age group 16–24 510,000 200,000 300,000 1,000,000 320,000 680,000 490,000 120,000 370,000 2,800,000 25–34 2,430,000 1,040,000 1,400,000 3,840,000 1,420,000 2,420,000 1,410,000 380,000 1,020,000 13,510,000 35–44 1,830,000 680,000 1,150,000 2,930,000 980,000 1,950,000 1,100,000 300,000 800,000 14,550,000 45–54 1,800,000 640,000 1,160,000 2,880,000 940,000 1,940,000 1,080,000 300,000 780,000 14,330,000 55–64 1,320,000 450,000 870,000 2,170,000 670,000 1,500,000 850,000 220,000 630,000 10,720,000 65+ 350,000 130,000 220,000 660,000 220,000 440,000 310,000 90,000 210,000 3,220,000 Educational attainment Less than high school 320,000 40,000 280,000 800,000 60,000 740,000 480,000 30,000 460,000 1,980,000 High school 1,940,000 450,000 1,490,000 3,470,000 680,000 2,780,000 1,520,000 230,000 1,290,000 9,240,000 Some college 2,440,000 830,000 1,610,000 4,040,000 1,210,000 2,830,000 1,600,000 380,000 1,220,000 12,080,000 College degree 2,620,000 1,280,000 1,340,000 3,800,000 1,790,000 2,000,000 1,180,000 520,000 660,000 20,810,000 Advanced degree 920,000 540,000 380,000 1,360,000 800,000 570,000 440,000 250,000 190,000 15,030,000 Note: Subtotals may not add up to totals due to rounding. Following the methodology used by the U.S. Department of Labor, the estimates include all workers affected by the federal salary threshold increase, and do not account for higher state salary thresholds. Source: EPI analysis of pooled Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 2016–2018, following the methodology used in the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2019 proposed rule, “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees,” 29 CFR Part 541 (published March 22, 2019). Share on Facebook Tweet this chart Embed Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website. Download image

Table 2 Number of salaried workers left behind by the Trump overtime proposal, by industry and occupation, projected for 2020 Workers left behind by 2019 proposal Under the 2016 rule Under the 2019 proposal Group Total workers left behind Workers who would have gotten new protections under the 2016 rule Workers who would have gotten strengthened protections under 2016 rule Total affected workers Workers with new protections Workers with strengthened protections Total affected workers Workers with new protections Workers with strengthened protections Total salaried workers in the U.S. All 8,240,000 3,140,000 5,100,000 13,470,000 4,550,000 8,920,000 5,230,000 1,410,000 3,820,000 59,140,000 Major industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 100,000 10,000 90,000 200,000 10,000 180,000 90,000 – 90,000 490,000 Mining 40,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 20,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 20,000 350,000 Construction 500,000 90,000 410,000 910,000 140,000 770,000 410,000 40,000 370,000 2,740,000 Manufacturing 700,000 250,000 450,000 1,080,000 350,000 720,000 380,000 110,000 270,000 5,660,000 Wholesale and retail trade 1,060,000 380,000 680,000 1,700,000 560,000 1,140,000 640,000 180,000 460,000 6,000,000 Transportation and utilities 400,000 100,000 310,000 670,000 140,000 530,000 270,000 50,000 220,000 3,060,000 Information 210,000 110,000 100,000 310,000 160,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 1,510,000 Financial services 870,000 410,000 450,000 1,330,000 610,000 730,000 470,000 190,000 270,000 5,750,000 Professional and business services 1,090,000 530,000 550,000 1,680,000 760,000 920,000 600,000 230,000 370,000 8,610,000 Educational and health services 1,730,000 780,000 950,000 2,860,000 1,130,000 1,730,000 1,140,000 350,000 780,000 15,600,000 Leisure and hospitality 560,000 180,000 380,000 1,010,000 270,000 740,000 450,000 90,000 360,000 2,830,000 Other services 440,000 120,000 320,000 830,000 180,000 660,000 390,000 60,000 340,000 2,800,000 Public administration 550,000 160,000 390,000 830,000 210,000 620,000 280,000 60,000 220,000 3,750,000 Major occupation Management, business, and financial occupations 1,740,000 1,290,000 450,000 2,480,000 1,810,000 660,000 740,000 530,000 210,000 15,800,000 Professional and related occupations 1,850,000 1,160,000 690,000 2,750,000 1,660,000 1,080,000 900,000 500,000 390,000 20,640,000 Service occupations 950,000 60,000 890,000 1,990,000 100,000 1,890,000 1,040,000 40,000 1,010,000 4,990,000 Sales and related occupations 970,000 360,000 610,000 1,580,000 560,000 1,010,000 610,000 210,000 400,000 5,830,000 Office and administrative support occupations 1,420,000 250,000 1,160,000 2,300,000 370,000 1,930,000 890,000 120,000 770,000 5,200,000 Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 70,000 – 70,000 140,000 – 140,000 80,000 – 80,000 300,000 Construction and extraction occupations 360,000 – 360,000 690,000 – 690,000 330,000 – 330,000 1,580,000 Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 260,000 – 260,000 420,000 10,000 410,000 160,000 – 160,000 1,190,000 Production occupations 290,000 10,000 280,000 480,000 10,000 470,000 190,000 – 190,000 1,330,000 Transportation and material moving occupations 340,000 10,000 330,000 630,000 10,000 630,000 300,000 – 290,000 2,270,000 Notes: Subtotals may not add up to totals due to rounding. Following the methodology used by the U.S. Department of Labor, the estimates include all workers affected by the federal salary threshold increase, and do not account for higher state salary thresholds. Values less than 5,000 are omitted from the table and are indicated with the “–” symbol. Source: EPI analysis of pooled Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 2016–2018, following the methodology used in the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2019 proposed rule, “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees,” 29 CFR Part 541 (published March 22, 2019). Share on Facebook Tweet this chart Embed Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website. Download image

Table 3 Number of salaried workers left behind by the Trump overtime proposal, by state, projected for 2020 Workers left behind by 2019 proposal Under the 2016 rule Under the 2019 proposal State Total workers left behind Workers who would have gotten new protections under 2016 rule Workers who would have gotten strengthened protections under 2016 rule Total affected workers Workers with new protections Workers with strengthened protections Total affected workers Workers with new protections Workers with strengthened protections Total salaried workers in the U.S. All states 8,240,000 3,140,000 5,100,000 13,470,000 4,550,000 8,920,000 5,230,000 1,410,000 3,820,000 59,140,000 Alabama 111,000 44,000 68,000 182,000 68,000 114,000 71,000 24,000 47,000 716,000 Alaska 11,000 4,000 7,000 18,000 6,000 12,000 7,000 2,000 5,000 103,000 Arizona 151,000 65,000 86,000 243,000 92,000 151,000 92,000 27,000 65,000 1,129,000 Arkansas 77,000 33,000 44,000 128,000 45,000 82,000 50,000 12,000 38,000 454,000 California 774,000 281,000 493,000 1,292,000 426,000 866,000 518,000 145,000 373,000 6,644,000 Colorado 173,000 61,000 112,000 278,000 91,000 187,000 105,000 30,000 75,000 1,237,000 Connecticut 72,000 29,000 44,000 117,000 43,000 74,000 45,000 14,000 31,000 722,000 Delaware 27,000 11,000 16,000 42,000 15,000 27,000 15,000 4,000 11,000 177,000 Washington, D.C. 19,000 8,000 11,000 28,000 11,000 17,000 9,000 3,000 6,000 240,000 Florida 691,000 263,000 428,000 1,160,000 377,000 784,000 469,000 114,000 355,000 3,879,000 Georgia 342,000 124,000 218,000 565,000 175,000 390,000 224,000 51,000 172,000 2,101,000 Hawaii 38,000 11,000 27,000 63,000 17,000 46,000 25,000 6,000 19,000 246,000 Idaho 39,000 15,000 24,000 66,000 22,000 44,000 27,000 7,000 20,000 249,000 Illinois 324,000 133,000 191,000 513,000 183,000 330,000 189,000 50,000 139,000 2,502,000 Indiana 162,000 67,000 94,000 268,000 98,000 170,000 106,000 30,000 76,000 1,091,000 Iowa 78,000 35,000 43,000 120,000 48,000 72,000 42,000 13,000 29,000 515,000 Kansas 63,000 27,000 36,000 105,000 40,000 66,000 42,000 13,000 29,000 484,000 Kentucky 108,000 42,000 65,000 173,000 63,000 111,000 66,000 20,000 45,000 664,000 Louisiana 119,000 40,000 80,000 201,000 59,000 142,000 82,000 19,000 62,000 729,000 Maine 33,000 14,000 19,000 48,000 19,000 29,000 15,000 5,000 10,000 216,000 Maryland 154,000 59,000 94,000 248,000 88,000 160,000 95,000 29,000 66,000 1,399,000 Massachusetts 180,000 71,000 109,000 299,000 109,000 190,000 119,000 39,000 81,000 1,672,000 Michigan 192,000 83,000 109,000 296,000 117,000 180,000 104,000 34,000 71,000 1,532,000 Minnesota 126,000 49,000 76,000 181,000 67,000 114,000 56,000 18,000 38,000 1,058,000 Mississippi 67,000 23,000 43,000 117,000 34,000 83,000 50,000 11,000 39,000 413,000 Missouri 163,000 75,000 87,000 258,000 100,000 158,000 96,000 25,000 71,000 1,030,000 Montana 20,000 9,000 11,000 31,000 13,000 18,000 11,000 4,000 8,000 131,000 Nebraska 50,000 19,000 31,000 80,000 28,000 52,000 30,000 9,000 22,000 328,000 Nevada 71,000 25,000 46,000 115,000 36,000 80,000 45,000 11,000 33,000 428,000 New Hampshire 34,000 15,000 19,000 52,000 21,000 31,000 18,000 6,000 12,000 276,000 New Jersey 285,000 93,000 192,000 454,000 137,000 316,000 169,000 45,000 125,000 2,197,000 New Mexico 39,000 15,000 24,000 69,000 22,000 47,000 30,000 7,000 23,000 282,000 New York 601,000 204,000 397,000 996,000 290,000 705,000 395,000 86,000 308,000 4,253,000 North Carolina 278,000 103,000 175,000 443,000 149,000 294,000 165,000 46,000 119,000 1,821,000 North Dakota 20,000 8,000 12,000 29,000 10,000 19,000 9,000 2,000 7,000 123,000 Ohio 226,000 100,000 127,000 371,000 152,000 220,000 145,000 52,000 93,000 1,771,000 Oklahoma 103,000 38,000 65,000 167,000 54,000 113,000 65,000 16,000 48,000 641,000 Oregon 93,000 38,000 56,000 147,000 55,000 93,000 54,000 17,000 37,000 669,000 Pennsylvania 304,000 125,000 180,000 494,000 185,000 309,000 189,000 61,000 129,000 2,218,000 Rhode Island 24,000 10,000 14,000 37,000 15,000 22,000 13,000 5,000 8,000 188,000 South Carolina 152,000 61,000 91,000 235,000 83,000 152,000 83,000 22,000 60,000 874,000 South Dakota 19,000 8,000 11,000 29,000 10,000 19,000 10,000 3,000 8,000 121,000 Tennessee 177,000 77,000 100,000 283,000 105,000 179,000 106,000 28,000 78,000 1,087,000 Texas 832,000 292,000 540,000 1,428,000 429,000 999,000 596,000 137,000 460,000 5,476,000 Utah 65,000 28,000 37,000 102,000 38,000 63,000 36,000 10,000 26,000 499,000 Vermont 18,000 8,000 10,000 26,000 11,000 16,000 9,000 3,000 6,000 115,000 Virginia 221,000 76,000 145,000 377,000 120,000 257,000 156,000 44,000 112,000 1,893,000 Washington 150,000 52,000 97,000 233,000 77,000 156,000 83,000 24,000 59,000 1,301,000 West Virginia 37,000 14,000 23,000 64,000 21,000 43,000 27,000 7,000 20,000 237,000 Wisconsin 120,000 50,000 70,000 177,000 67,000 110,000 58,000 17,000 40,000 929,000 Wyoming 12,000 4,000 8,000 19,000 6,000 13,000 7,000 2,000 5,000 82,000 Note: Subtotals may not add up to totals due to rounding. Following the methodology used by the U.S. Department of Labor, the estimates include all workers affected by the federal salary threshold increase, and do not account for higher state salary thresholds. Source: EPI analysis of pooled Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 2016–2018, following the methodology used in the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2019 proposed rule, “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees,” 29 CFR Part 541 (published March 22, 2019). Share on Facebook Tweet this chart Embed Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website. Download image

Table 4 The number of workers left behind by the Trump overtime proposal will grow to 11.5 million in the first 10 years of implementation : Projected number of salaried workers left behind by the Trump overtime proposal in the first 10 years of implementation Workers left behind by 2019 proposal Under the 2016 rule Under the 2019 proposal Projected standard threshold under the 2016 rule Standard threshold under the 2019 proposal Total workers left behind Workers left behind who would have gotten new protections Workers left behind who would have gotten strengthened protections Total affected workers Workers with new protections Workers with strengthened protections Total affected workers Workers with new protections Workers with strengthened protections Total salaried workers 2020 $51,053 $35,308 8,240,000 3,140,000 5,100,000 13,470,000 4,550,000 8,920,000 5,230,000 1,410,000 3,820,000 59,140,000 2021 $51,053 $35,308 7,940,000 2,950,000 4,990,000 13,010,000 4,330,000 8,690,000 5,070,000 1,380,000 3,690,000 59,180,000 2022 $51,053 $35,308 7,540,000 2,720,000 4,830,000 12,610,000 4,070,000 8,540,000 5,070,000 1,350,000 3,710,000 59,220,000 2023 $55,055 $35,308 9,250,000 3,420,000 5,830,000 14,050,000 4,740,000 9,310,000 4,790,000 1,310,000 3,480,000 59,370,000 2024 $55,055 $35,308 9,350,000 3,320,000 6,020,000 13,990,000 4,570,000 9,420,000 4,650,000 1,250,000 3,400,000 59,630,000 2025 $55,055 $35,308 9,330,000 3,220,000 6,110,000 13,440,000 4,320,000 9,120,000 4,110,000 1,100,000 3,010,000 59,890,000 2026 $59,098 $35,308 10,900,000 3,890,000 7,000,000 15,170,000 5,050,000 10,110,000 4,270,000 1,160,000 3,110,000 60,080,000 2027 $59,098 $35,308 10,560,000 3,690,000 6,880,000 14,710,000 4,820,000 9,890,000 4,140,000 1,130,000 3,010,000 60,300,000 2028 $59,098 $35,308 10,070,000 3,430,000 6,640,000 14,280,000 4,600,000 9,680,000 4,210,000 1,170,000 3,040,000 60,560,000 2029 $63,346 $35,308 11,520,000 4,080,000 7,440,000 15,740,000 5,280,000 10,460,000 4,220,000 1,200,000 3,020,000 60,860,000 Note: Subtotals may not add up to totals due to rounding. Following the methodology used by the U.S. Department of Labor, the estimates include all workers affected by the federal salary threshold increase, and do not account for higher state salary thresholds. Source: EPI analysis of pooled Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 2016–2018, following the methodology used in the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2019 proposed rule, “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees,” 29 CFR Part 541 (published March 22, 2019). Share on Facebook Tweet this chart Embed Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website. Download image

Endnotes

Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees [proposed rule], 84 Fed. Reg. 10900–10969 (March 22, 2019).

Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees [final rule] 81 Fed. Reg. 32391–32552 (May 23, 2016).

See Celine McNicholas, Overtime Ruling Rests on Flawed Logic and Undermines the Rights of Working People to Get Paid for Their Time on the Job, Economic Policy Institute statement, August 31, 2017.

See Celine McNicholas, Samantha Sanders, and Heidi Shierholz, What’s at Stake in the States if the 2016 Federal Raise to the Overtime Pay Threshold Is Not Preserved—and What States Can Do about It: State Action to Modernize Overtime Rules (Research Report), Economic Policy Institute, November 2017.

EPI analysis of pooled Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 2016–2018, following the methodology used in the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2019 proposed rule, Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees [proposed rule], 84 Fed. Reg. 10900–10969 (March 22, 2019).