Public Comment 59110

In Re: RIN 1235-AA20
I am writing in opposition to the proposed change to increase the total annual compensation
requirement for “highly compensated employees” (HCE) from the currently-enforced level of $100,000
to $147,414 per year.
I also have comments regarding the timing of implementing the changes, how they can negatively
impact take-home pay, and how the Department of Labor should standardize the payroll cycles for any
employee whose status will change from exempt to non-exempt by any of the new regulations.

Raising Highly Compensated Employee (HCE) Rate Is Unnecessary Regulation
The goal of modifying any overtime regulations should be to focus on those workers at the lower end of
the income scales, to bring people who are working long, hard hours out of poverty.
Employees should be able to decide when they are highly compensated, not the Department of Labor or
other divisions of the government. The true-definition "Highly Compensated" varies greatly across the
country and this proposed regulation ignores this important fact. For those that live and work in some
of our major cities with a high cost of living, $100,000 might not be considered "highly compensated".
However, there are many areas of this country where $100,000 provides a comfortable level of living.
For those that chose to live in locations that have a low cost of living, the existing thresholds are enough
and do not need to be adjusted. Arbitrarily picking a nationwide 90% percentile of wage earners is
misplaced and penalizes workers who are high wage earners but chose to live in areas that offer a low
cost of living.
Moreover, the Department’s statement that some 201,100 exempt workers who earn at least $100,000
but less than $147,414 per year, and who meet the HCE duties test but not the standard duties test,
would somehow gain overtime eligibility is false and misplaced. For those at the lower end of the HCE
threshold, say at exactly $100,000 today. This would amount to a 47.4% raise, which for many
occupations is not supported by the marketplace. Employers are not going to suddenly raise salaries or
pay overtime at this high of a compensation rate. Most employers will alter the work schedules, reduce
job duties and responsibilities, reduce workplace flexibility and increase regulatory burden of these
formerly HCE employees.
The HCE regulation already decreases productivity in the workplace, it can and will diminish the career
path of scores of occupations. This is already occurring at the $100,000 salary level. Raising it 47.4% will
only make the issue worse. My advice is, leave it alone.
Another major issue not being considered is that many employees that are salaried do not have to have
the burden of clocking in and out each day, they don’t have to maintain exact time sheets. When the
government takes a whole class of exempt workers and makes them non-exempt, this increases the
paperwork and regulatory burdens that companies face, and individual employees must endure, as most
companies are suddenly scared about being liable for overtime. Most companies will not pay overtime,
especially at the $100,000 HCE rate, and so there is an overall economic pressure to ensure these
employees don’t work a minute over 40 hours a week. Instead of focusing on the job or task at hand,

now a significant portion of these jobs is spent on tracking time. This is in inefficient and unneeded
burden on employers and employees.
Overall, the Overtime regulations should focus on bringing people out of poverty and let employees who
are highly compensated handle themselves. If they feel they are being taken advantage of by their
employer, they can ask for a raise, or they can find other opportunities. Better yet, move to an area that
is more affordable. Raising the HCE rate is not helpful to these individuals, it’s a nuisance.

Consider Pay Cycles When Implementing Changes:
Standardize Payroll Cycles When Changing Employees From Exempt to Non-Exempt

When companies switch employees from salary to hourly for tracking and controlling overtime, this can
create a sudden and unannounced decrease in take home pay for no good purpose. Many salaried
employees are paid on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. Most companies pay hourly employees on a
weekly or bi-weekly basis. For example, if switching from bi-monthly to bi-weekly, this divides the salary
from 24 to 26 payments throughout the year and results in smaller paychecks. Not only is this less
efficient from a time tracking and payroll basis, but many workers set their bill and payment cycles
around their paychecks. Suddenly, they have less money to pay the bills until there is a month with
three payments if paid bi-weekly, or five payments if paid weekly. The problem is, some employers use
the first Friday of the month to start the bi-weekly cycle, and some use the second. Getting this right
nationwide for every individual and every employee is likely impossible to do without additional
regulation.
We read so much about families living paycheck to paycheck, and when you are thinking of updating the
rules, you are inadvertently taking money away from many individuals who will never see a minute of
overtime under the new regulations and producing smaller paychecks. The Department of Labor should
really look at this very carefully and limit the changes. I’m not a huge fan of adding additional regulation
in these areas – but my advice would be if you are going to make any changes, standardize the payroll
cycles of all employees to ensure that no employee is short changed due to these rule changes. If the
rule is subject to be implemented in January 2020, there should be regulating the weekly or bi-weekly
payment schedule should be paid on of before Friday, January 3, 2020 to ensure that all workers will be
paid 5 (weekly) or 3 (bi-weekly) paychecks within that month. If the regulations are postponed or
delayed, then they should be delayed until May 1, 2020 and the pay cycles for weekly and bi-weekly
employees should be normalized to Friday 5/1/2020 to ensure nobody has a short pay month due to the
regulations. If there are further delays, any month with three Fridays should be selected, and the first
Friday should be regulated as the pay date to ensure weekly and bi-weekly paid employees are not left
short in those months.
Any way you slice it, this gets messy quickly, which is why I am personally not a fan of the government
interfering with matters between employers and employees. Changing the overtime rules does not
increase the amount of overtime that is paid to most employees.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Alan W. Jurison___
Alan W. Jurison
545 Grant Blvd.
Syracuse, NY 13203
[email protected]

May 20, 2019