On Tuesday, the “Big Three” (ABC, CBS, and NBC) networks all highlighted President Obama’s plan to increase the income threshold for salaried workers who earn overtime pay but only CBS This Morning acknowledged the potential harm such a policy change could have on businesses.
ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today were the most one-sided in their coverage of Obama’s proposal with ABC’s Amy Robach touting how the president is “planning to boost wages for millions of American workers by making them eligible for overtime.” None of the networks bothered to mention that Congress must approve any of Obama’s proposed changes to the nation’s overtime pay rules.
On NBC, news reader Natalie Morales essentially provided a press release for the White House when she outlined Obama’s proposal:
Well, some big news on the job front. About 5 million more U.S. workers may soon be eligible for overtime pay. This week the Obama administration will propose requiring overtime pay for workers who earn nearly $1,000 per week. That's nearly double the current amount. Right now salaried employees who are paid more than $455 a week can be exempted from overtime pay if their employer deems them to be managers.
CBS This Morning provided the most coverage of Obama’s plan as co-host Charlie Rose boosted how the president “wants to give about 5 million more Americans a chance to earn overtime pay. The president is supporting a new wage regulation for salaried workers. He says the changes are long overdue.”
The CBS host then turned to Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett, who spent the majority of the segment hyping the proposed overtime rule change, before be briefly acknowledged that businesses could take a huge hit:
The federal government affects wages in two big ways, the minimum wage and overtime. This is not about the minimum wage, it’s about overtime work. And this new rule only applies to those workers who earn a salary who work more than 40 hours per week. This rule would double the wage threshold eligible for time and a half overtime pay. Here is who would qualified. Any salaried worker who earns up to 50,400 per year. How many workers is that? About 5 million.
When would this happen? The new wage rules are scheduled to begin next year and would replace all existing federal overtime rules. Currently employers only have to pay overtime for workers whose salaries are at or below $23,600...Congressional Republicans and those in the small business community strongly oppose this move arguing it will cut into profits, increase labor costs, and, therefore, reduce the possibility of job creation in the future.
See relevant transcript below.
CBS This Morning
June 30, 2015
CHARLIE ROSE: President Obama this morning wants to give about 5 million more Americans a chance to earn overtime pay. The president is supporting a new wage regulation for salaried workers. He says the changes are long overdue. Major Garrett is at the White House and has the numbers from the president's plan. Major, good morning.
MAJOR GARRETT: Good morning. The federal government affects wages in two big ways, the minimum wage and overtime. This is not about the minimum wage, it’s about overtime work. And this new rule only applies to those workers who earn a salary who work more than 40 hours per week. This rule would double the wage threshold eligible for time and a half overtime pay. Here is who would qualified. Any salaried worker who earns up to 50,400 per year. How many workers is that? About 5 million.
When would this happen? The new wage rules are scheduled to begin next year and would replace all existing federal overtime rules. Currently employers only have to pay overtime for workers whose salaries are at or below $23,600. In an op-ed published this morning on the Huffington Post the president said, in part, “right now too many Americans are working long days for less pay than they deserve. That’s partly because we’ve failed to update overtime regulations for years.” Congressional Republicans and those in the small business community strongly oppose this move arguing it will cut into profits, increase labor costs, and, therefore, reduce the possibility of job creation in the future.
