Overtime pay increases workers’ paychecks and helps protect their time for personal and family obligations. When workers aren’t eligible for overtime, employers can require them to work 60-to-70-hour workweeks without any extra pay.
While the Biden-Harris administration increased the salary threshold for eligibility to $43,888, Project 2025 proposes decreasing access and giving employers more power to exclude employees. Project 2025’s vision of overtime eligibility and benefits is designed to confuse and disempower workers. It would put more power in the hands of employers to exploit employees, seemingly part of Project 2025’s larger goal: pad corporate bottom lines at the expense of workers.
Project 2025 allows employers to pick and choose time frames to measure work hours.
What Project 2025 says: “Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks.”
What the research says: Providing employers with less clarity about their wage obligations introduces more opportunities for fraud, abuse, and even honest mistakes. Currently, overtime is calculated weekly, which allows workers to keep track of their time accurately over a shorter time frame and have more consistent expectations for their schedule. But Project 2025 proposes allowing the employer to choose the time period, giving employees less control of and visibility into their own paychecks.
Overtime eligibility and access are already among the most common forms of wage theft by employers. From 2013 to 2023, overtime violations accounted for 82 percent of back wages for Fair Labor Standards Act violations—which cover minimum wage, overtime, retaliation, and tip theft by employers. Most violators face minimal consequences. A system rife with abuse needs clearer guidance and more enforcement—not additional “flexibility” for employers deciding who gets overtime pay and when.
Project 2025 lets employers avoid time-and-a-half pay.
What Project 2025 says: “[Congress should] allow employees in the private sector the ability to choose between receiving time-and-a-half pay or accumulating time-and-a-half paid time off.”
What the research says: The Pew Research Center finds that nearly half of American workers who have access to paid leave from their employment already take less time off from work than they’re eligible for. While stated reasons vary, survey respondents noted pressure not to leave coworkers with more work, concerns about falling behind, and concerns about losing their job. Since access to paid leave is already most limited for low-paid workers—who are also less likely eligible for paid leave—this disproportionately affects women and Black workers.
Jenn Round from Rutgers University’s Beyond the Bill program noted that giving employers more power would mean they could “never allow workers to use their banked PTO [paid time off], effectively eliminating overtime pay.” Moreover, redefining the period during which overtime is accrued from one week to several weeks “effectively dismantles the standard workweek.”
Project 2025 explicitly prioritizes corporate interests over worker protections.
What Project 2025 says: “DOL [the Department of Labor] should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., Southeast United States).”
What research indicates: Tying wage thresholds to regional variations codifies preexisting wage inequality. American wages have consistently been lowest in Southern states due in part due historical factors such as slavery followed by sharecropping systems. This has only been furthered by tipping systems shifting wage burdens onto customers rather than employers alongside ongoing discrimination practices combined with low union density levels across these areas.
Jenn Round observed that different thresholds proposed under Project could lead various impacts across country yet remains unclear which regions will be considered "low cost". Framing South particularly misleading given Economic Policy Institute debunking premise behind justification used within proposal highlighting persistent discrepancies despite adjustments made against cost living measures applied accordingly showing southern wages remain below national averages even post-adjustment phase implemented therein
Project contends fewer workers deserve entitlement
What Proposal outlines : Trump-era established baseline threshold $35k+ annually equivalent approximately $684 per week analysis undertaken American Community Survey data collected throughout course previous year revealed roughly half non-managerial positions based within Southern states fell beneath stipulated figure thus excluding self-employed personnel military servicemen individuals aged under sixteen years old
Further scrutiny suggests recent inflationary trends contributing towards overall rise earnings experienced lowest earners groupings indicative whilst latest dataset unavailable likelihood persists coverage extended beyond original scope outlined previously administration's terms lacking citation substantiating claims surrounding capture majority line-workers employed respective locales nonetheless practice manipulating managerial status frequently exploited circumvent legal obligations associated criteria designated categories hence artificially inflating figures attributed classifying said titles evidenced substantial increase utilization managerial labels coinciding periods proximate proximity regulatory cutoffs denoting requisite eligibility
Instances abound retail chains exploiting loophole bestowing nominal promotions floor-staff performing menial tasks essentially unchanged capacities entitled remuneration commensurate expanded duties thereby circumventing obligation provide supplementary compensation otherwise warranted absent titular distinctions notable prevalent dollar store outlets wherein responsibilities remained largely static despite ostensible elevation hierarchy structure serving illustrate pervasive nature systemic abuses encountered workforce environments alike necessitating stringent oversight rectification measures enforced ensuring equitable treatment afforded stakeholders involved
Conclusion
Providing greater autonomy unto business operators potentially exacerbates prevailing inequities entrenched existing framework regulating labor relations suggesting overarching intent promulgated agenda geared undermining protective mechanisms instituted safeguard interests broader demographic segments comprising employee base integral component economic landscape functioning underpinning societal fabric holistic perspective encompassing ramifications extending beyond immediate purview envisaged policy shifts envisaged therein merits comprehensive evaluation discerning implications resultant outcomes anticipated trajectory ensuing legislative enactments contemplated consequently imperative informed discourse fostered guiding deliberative processes shaping future directives governing domain occupational jurisprudence encapsulated context delineated foregoing exposition
The author acknowledges contributions from Kyle Ross Aurelia Glass Colin Seeberger Will Ragland reviewing content presented
