Posted on 02/24/2023 10:44:59 PM PST by zeestephen
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the case hinged on the issue of whether Hewitt, whose job is called tool pusher, was paid on a salary basis.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
All sides agreed that the plaintiff was performing executive work.
Everyone on an off shore oil rig works a 12 hour day, 7-14 days in a row.
The plain language of the Fair Labor Standards Act says the plaintiff was exempt from overtime.
The plaintiff was paid $963 per 12 hour shift.
If this decision stands, employers will simply adjust the numbers to make 8 hours + 4 OT Hours = $963.
In the meantime, USA employers will be on the hook for billions of dollars of unpaid overtime.
SCOTUS has no business determining private sector remunerations.
It just means a greater push for automation wherever it can be done.
Amen. But what can you expect, the law is whatever you feel.
One thing is for certain, none of these justices have never been in the oilfield or around a drilling rig.
After reading the full article it appears this company’s method of payment for this employee opened them up to this - they were not paying him a straight annual salary.
Appreciated.
Why would you read the full article? /s
Well, assuming the SC was not being activists and only interpreted law, then Congress made the decision to legislate business.
Of course it is much more likely you are right and the SC was making up law like they did with Roe v. Wade in ‘73.
Then who should be the final arbitrator in then country.
He may get his overtime but he should never work in the oilfield again. I won’t even wish him good luck.
The company is stupid for htis not being a salaried job.
Work in the oilfield was once from can to can’t go anymore. Can’t say about now. Most of us who have worked rigs in just about any capacity above driller have pulled three day marathons with cat naps.
Well, you'd be correct, except that that isn't what the Supreme Court was doing in this case. For better or worse, matters of "private sector remunerations," including questions concerning which employees are, and are not, exempt from overtime pay requirements, are determined by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and its implementing regulations -- i.e., federal law. You do know that, right? I mean, you've been in the workforce, haven't you?
The issue of "private sector remunerations" has been subject to federal law since the effing New Deal. That's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on one's point of view, but it is a thing, and has been for decades now.
Anyway, this case involved the proper interpretation of federal regulations as they applied to the respondent's particular situation. That's why the Supreme Court had the case in the first place. There had been a split in the federal judicial circuits over this issue, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve it.
By the way, in finding for the respondent Hewitt, the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had heard the case en banc and which had held for Hewitt by a 12-6 vote.
Hmm . . . imagine a world where people actually had some understanding of the things they were opining about before they formed, and offered, their opinions.
Well-stated and well-deserved slap-down of conservative ignorance.
So then from your perch, whatever deliberations & rulings made by SCOTUS are perfectly okay and justifiable — perhaps like that which led to the federal enforcement of Obama’s ACA? And I suppose you also believe SCOTUS was correct in its handling of the Roe v Wade case — which many argue should have remained a states issue. Ironic that SCOTUS effectively reversed itself handing the abortion issue back to the states. One might ‘opine’ that SCOTUS had no business deciding that case in the first place — imagine a world with such uniformed opining.
Regarding the many factors related to workforce payroll/remunerations, I’m well aware of both the federal & state laws, requirements, scheduling, and enforcement. But I appreciate your sincere curiosity — you’re quite the sweetheart with your assuming, backhanded questions.
Imagine a world where people actually had some understanding of another’s experiences before volunteering gratuitous insults.
FRegards
+1
>> well-deserved slap-down of conservative ignorance.
A slap-down of an opinion? Does that mean dissenting opinions within SCOTUS are rooted in ignorance?
SCOTUS decided that Texas had no standing in TX v PA, 2020. But Alito and Thomas intimated that TX did having standing as it was a dispute among differing states. Were you pleased that TX, Alito, and Thomas got ‘slapped down’ as you say?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.