by BB Curtis

The making of laws is an arduous task.  When attempting to address an issue, one must take care to view that issue from all sides and be extremely diligent in how the law is worded.  This is particularly important when amending a constitution.  It is essential that the intent of the law is for the common good; that possibilities for misinterpretation are eliminated; that the rights of all are taken into consideration and protected; and that those writing the bill and then voting to make it a law take a prognosticator’s approach, attempting to see what the law/amendment will bring to future generations in addition to its impact on current people and events.  The 13^th and 14^th Amendments created some issues that were unintentional as they attempted to create fair and equal treatment to those who were just released from slavery, in some ways creating new types of slavery through lack of forethought.  There are a rather large number of laws that might have been inspected more thoroughly before they were put into action, but I’ve selected one – a Nevada state law concerning overtime pay.  

NRS 608.018 went into effect in July of 2007.  Simply put, it stated that if an employee makes less than 1.5 times the state minimum wage then overtime pay at time and a half must be paid for all hours over eight that are worked within a work day.  That workday is defined as a 24-hour period.  (NOTE:  This law has a tiered pay base that is determined by whether or not employees are offered qualified health care coverage.  For the sake of clarity in my argument, I have simplified the minimum wage rate to a single amount – the one that is paid to those who are not offered qualifying health care coverage.)  Wage earners, with some exceptions, who are eligible for overtime but paid above that 1.5 times rate roll into overtime only after working over 40 hours in a workweek – a consecutive seven-day period.  This really sounds like a grand idea to help those in lower income brackets to pick up a bit more pay since all they have to do is put in more hours than eight in a day to become legally paid at the overtime rate of time and a half for that extra time.  Those in a higher pay group are still being paid at time and a half for working more than 40 hours in a week (as per the prior law in relation to overtime pay), but there is some flexibility for the employer to have coverage for a full 40 hours where one day might be for 10 hours with another day reduced to six hours to balance to 40 hours in the week without having to pay overtime – an additional expense to the business owner.  Thus, those who make less would receive an extra benefit while those making more would have no change to their normal compensation.  However, when put into action, there are some adverse consequences that were not taken into consideration by lawmakers.

Employers and their management teams are on budgets so they look to payroll as one key factor in budgeting.  Avoiding overtime at all costs is one standard procedure used to keep expenses at a predictable and reduced level.  With the inflexibility of NRS 608.018, instead of having workers who are paid less than 1.5 times the state minimum wage work a regular eight-hour day every day, running the risk of that person going into overtime accidentally by either clocking in a bit early or clocking out a bit late with no way to adjust because what happens in each 24 hour period cannot be adjusted in any way (as with someone paid at a higher rate of pay), many employers started to schedule their employees for slightly less than an eight hour day, such as 7.75 hours instead, thus decreasing employees’ earnings by one hour and 15 minutes per week or 65 hours per year, which is 1.625 weeks less pay annually.  For the person making $8.25 per hour (minimum wage in the state of Nevada for those not offered qualified health care coverage when the law went into effect), the loss over a year is $536.25 gross.

Another way that an employer could manage costs in the payroll area is to either hire a few part-time employees or make all positions part-time or less than 30 hours a week, although that is questionable since Nevada state law doesn’t clearly define part-time and full-time hours (just another problem).  This eliminates not only overtime but also the need to provide any other benefits such as paid time off, lunch periods, any sort of health care coverage, etc.  For some, this is optimal.  There are people who are in a position to want only part-time hours.  However, for those who were working full-time hours and had their hours cut, this was generally not advantageous for them in several ways.

As many are aware, Nevada has an abundance of businesses that are in operation 24 hours per day, every day of the year.  Anyone making less than $12.375 per hour has less shift flexibility because of this statute.  Remember that the eight hours is “within any work day” as defined as a 24-hour period.  If a shift on day A begins at 10 AM, that individual can work a shift the following day that starts only at 10 AM or later in order for the business to avoid paying time and a half for all time that falls prior to 10 AM even though we’re in a new shift.  Many who look for adjustable shifts for either savings on child-care or having time to attend classes or being able to care for the needs of an elderly relative or for any number of other reasons find themselves without options.  Sometimes that means quitting a job that was critical to their household’s survival.  Sometimes that means quitting school or putting it off for a while until one is able to find another way to survive.  Sometimes this means relying on family members whose funds are already stretched thin.  There are many other obstacles that could be added to this list, but the bottom line is that there is now less money in the hands of consumers, creating additional downturns in the economy.  Also as the state minimum increases, those who fall within the 1.5 times window increases, creating an even larger pool of people potentially losing over 1.5 weeks of pay each year with an increased gross loss. 

This law doesn’t seem to have done what it was intended to do.  For those in the business community, this was obvious from the outset, unfortunately, voters “in the know” were not asked for their opinions, and all ramifications were not explored before this became law.  Our lawmakers have a hard job, no doubt about it.  They are relied upon to make decisions that will ultimately affect large numbers of people.  Many of those decisions can be (or should be) heart-wrenching as one realizes that a new law may mean that someone will lose a benefit, someone else will lose a job, someone’s grandmother will go hungry a few days each month, another person will lose the capability of going to the doctor, a single mother will lose child-care, a child will lose school lunch, and another person will no longer be able to get much-needed medication that keeps him/her from being institutionalized.  It is my opinion that lawmakers, no matter how difficult their job is, must be more conscientious and dig deeper before writing bills and casting votes. Being frivolous won’t work. Having people in the industry that’s affected or in a field related to the law reviewing the verbiage and thinking through how the law will affect different groups could make a vast improvement.  Many times, the crazy can be caught before it negatively impacts a household and/or extended family or an entire community.  This example of a law gone sour is one out of millions. Keep in mind that once a law is on the books, it takes an act of Congress to get it off or it stays there forever, rotting away at the foundations of our country.

To answer the first question, YES! It backfired. Poorly written laws authored by shortsighted people who are unaware of the full ramifications and how the laws will impact the community and its populace often do.  

© 2023 Bobbi Bartsch Curtis. All Rights Reserved.