Who benefits from the new overtime Rule

Who Benefits from the New Overtime Rule

Filed in Data, Español, Overtime By on May 18, 2016

Read this article in Spanish. Lee este artículo en español.

Today, the Department of Labor issued a new rule that updates the regulations determining which white-collar, salaried employees are entitled to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime pay protections. The rule increases the salary threshold below which most white-collar, salaried workers are entitled to overtime from the current $455 per week (or $23,660 for a full-year worker) to $913 per week (or $47,476 for a full-year worker).

The updates will impact 4.2 million workers who will either gain new overtime protections or get a raise to the new salary threshold. So who are these workers?

More than half − 56 percent − are women, which translates into 2.4 million women either gaining overtime protections or getting a raise to the new threshold as a result of the rule. We also find that more than half – 53 percent − of affected workers have at least a four-year college degree, and more than 3 in 5 (61 percent) are age 35 or older. And 1.5 million are parents of children under 18, which translates into 2.5 million children seeing at least one parent gain overtime protections or get a raise to the new threshold.

To get a deeper understanding, it’s also helpful to look at the group that affected workers come from – those currently exempt from overtime (that is, white-collar workers who were not entitled to overtime pay before this rule change). Workers currently exempt are those who are paid on a salary basis, earn at least $455 per week, and are employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity (definitions of these categories used in the regulation can be found here). The first column in the table below shows the demographic breakdown of white-collar, salaried workers who are currently exempt from overtime protections.

Chart showing demographic breakdown of workers impacted by overtime updates*Excludes exempt workers who are not potentially affected by the rule because, for example, they are eligible for another overtime exemption. **Includes Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, and those who report more than one race.

The next two columns show the number and share, respectively, of workers currently exempt from overtime who earn below the new salary threshold. These are the currently exempt white-collar workers at the low end of the pay scale who will gain new overtime protections or get a raise to the new salary threshold when the rule is implemented.

We find that currently exempt women are more likely to earn low salaries than their male counterparts, which means that a higher share of them are affected by the rule; more than a quarter (26 percent) of currently exempt women will be affected, compared to just 14 percent for men.

Other groups where a high share of currently exempt workers gain overtime protections or get a raise to the new threshold are workers without a college degree (30 percent), workers under age 35 (29 percent), Hispanics (28 percent), and black non-Hispanics (28 percent).

While the data show that some groups are more affected by the rule than others, they also show that workers who will benefit from the rule can be found across the board. This long-awaited update means that millions of workers from all walks of life will either gain new overtime protections or see a raise to the new salary threshold.

Fact sheets and other materials to help employers and workers understand how the rule will affect them and the broader economy are available dol.gov/overtime.

Heidi Shierholz is the department’s chief economist.

 

¿Quiénes Se Benefician de la Nueva Norma de Sobretiempo?

El Departamento de Trabajo de EE.UU. ha emitido hoy una nueva norma que actualiza las regulaciones que determinan qué trabajadores asalariados profesionales tienen derecho a las protecciones de la Ley de Normas Razonables de Trabajo relativas a salario mínimo y sobretiempo. La nueva norma incrementa el umbral salarial bajo el que la mayoría de los profesionales asalariados cualificarán para sobretiempo, de $455 por semana en la actualidad (o $23,660 por año) a $913 por semana (o $47,476).

Estos cambios impactarán a 4,2 millones de trabajadores que, o bien ganarán nuevas protecciones de sobretiempo, o bien verán aumentados sus salarios hasta el nuevo umbral salarial. Pero ¿quiénes son estos trabajadores?

Más de la mitad -el 56 por ciento-  son mujeres lo que se traduce en que, como resultado de la norma, 2,4 millones de mujeres ganarán protecciones por sobretiempo o verán incrementarse sus salarios hasta el nuevo umbral. También nos encontramos que más de la mitad –el 53 por ciento- de estos trabajadores tienen al menos un título universitario de cuatro años, y más de tres de cada cinco (o el 61 por ciento) tienen 35 años o más. Y 1,5 millones son padres de menores de 18 años, lo que implica que más de 2,5 millones de niños verán que al menos uno de sus padres ganará protecciones por sobretiempo o experimentará un aumento de sueldo hasta el nuevo umbral.

Para entender esto de una manera más profunda también ayuda que observemos al grupo de trabajadores a los que la nueva norma refiere, o sea,  los que en la actualidad no cualifican para sobretiempo. Se trata de todos los trabajadores profesionales que no eran elegibles a recibir paga por horas extra antes de que cambiara la norma. Los trabajadores actualmente exentos son aquellos que reciben su paga en base a un salario fijo, ganan por lo menos $455 a la semana, y están empleados verdaderamente en capacidades  ejecutivas, administrativas o profesionales. (Las definiciones de estas categorías usadas en la norma se pueden consultar aquí).

La primera columna muestra el desglose demográfico de trabajadores de ‘cuello blanco’ asalariados que en la actualidad son exentos a las protecciones de sobretiempo. Las siguientes dos columnas muestran el número y desglose, respectivamente, de trabajadores actualmente exentos de sobretiempo que ganan menos que el nuevo umbral salarial. Se trata de los trabajadores de ‘cuello blanco’ asalariados situados en el punto más bajo de la escala salarial, que ganarán las nuevas protecciones por sobretiempo o recibirán un aumento salarial hasta el nivel establecido en base al nuevo umbral cuando la norma sea implementada.

Encontramos que las mujeres actualmente exentas son más propensas a ganar salarios más bajos que sus homólogos masculinos. Esto significa que la regla aplicará a este grupo en una proporción mayor: abarcará a más de un cuarto (26 por ciento) de las mujeres actualmente exentas en comparación con el 14 por ciento de hombres.

Otros grupos en los que un alto porcentaje de trabajadores que actualmente están exentos a cualificar por las protecciones de horas extras o a conseguir un aumento de sueldo al nuevo umbral son trabajadores sin un título universitario (30 por ciento), trabajadores menores de 35 años (29 por ciento), Hispanos (28 por ciento), y Afroamericanos no Hispanos (28 por ciento).

Si bien los datos muestran que la regla alcanza a algunos grupos más que a otros, también revelan que los beneficiarios por la nueva norma incluyen a trabajadores de todo el espectro. Esta norma altamente esperada significa que millones de trabajadores de todos los ámbitos ganarán protecciones por sobretiempo o verán incrementarse sus salarios hasta el nuevo umbral.

Hojas informativas y otros materiales para asistir a que empleadores y trabajadores comprendan cómo les alcanzará la regla están disponibles en www.dol.gov/overtime.

Heidi Shierholz es la economista jefe del departamento.

Siga el departamento a Twitter @USDOL_Latino y Facebook @USDOLLatino.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (47)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. George Dauphin says:

    I have been alerting the Department of Labor for the past two years regarding my situation. For over two years, I worked for a company, most weeks having to work up to 70 hours per week. My calculations put my salary below minimum wage. Some of the work I did was to benefit the local Democratic Party. My complaints to Charlie Crist, who was running for governor at the time, ended up in my losing my job. It has been a year since I have been struggling to make ends meet with part-time jobs. When I complained to the Florida Dept. of Labor, saying that I was working below minimum wage when you factor the number of hours that I was working without pay, I was told by a DOL official that graphic designers are exempt from the minimum wage laws.
    I have two questions:
    Can I now make a new claim with the U.S. Department of Labor, now that the standards have changed?
    Has the president given consideration to the rule that the minimum wage laws do not apply to graphic designers?

    • SDVeteran says:

      My suggestion George is that if you don’t want to work “70 hours per week” than quit your job. If you want work only 40 hours, find a job that allows that. If you want to work less, then find a job that provides that for you. If you want to make more money per hour then find a job that pays that. If you need more training or education for more pay, then do that on your own time. The bigger and more important question is, why are you asking Charlie Crist, the DOL, or the President for more money or a better way of life? Please get help… but not through the government. You can do this on your own and I believe in you that you can.

      • phyllis says:

        How were you hired? hourly or weekly? If hourly, then over 40 its time and half; if weekly, no clock time….TL

      • Nastaran Khadavi says:

        Your response is VERY inconsiderate of the situation. Clearly, George NEEDS to work to live and can’t quit the job. When he complained, he was fired! He was not able to find another full time position. We don’t get too many choices in this economy. Re-think your response.

    • Penny Nirider says:

      I’m curious if you ever considered finding employment elsewhere. Before I started my own company, if an employer was unfair or dishonest, I found work elsewhere. Now that I have my own small business, I try to be as fair and generous as possible, while still keeping the company afloat. Raising the minimum wage will result in us not hiring students on school breaks, or hiring unskilled individuals and giving them the necessary ‘free’ training to allow them to grow in their careers. The new overtime law will make it necessary to drop the wages of our salaried managers and eliminate their bonuses to adjust for uncertain overtime costs. It will also cause them to lose pay when they leave for portions of the day for personal reasons. There are many more good, honest caring companies than there are bad ones. The bad ones have teams of lawyers and lobbyists to prevent them from being negatively affected by these types of laws. The rest of us can’t afford to maneuver through the loopholes, so our people end up paying the price.

      • George Dauphin says:

        Thank you. Everyone asks why I didn’t look for another job. The answer is that I tried — constantly. It may be that it’s harder to find work once you’re over 55, I don’t know. But I am now working 3 part-time jobs not related to my career. I am not making enough money to pay my bills and have had to declare bankruptcy. I cannot afford insurance, and thanks to Gov. Rick Scott, cannot take advantage of the Medicaid expansion. The company I originally worked for that refused to pay me a fair wage for my hours could have afforded to pay me extra — I know that for a fact. What amazes me in these online discussions is how many people are willing to make excuses for these companies that take advantage of their workers.

  2. Marc Freedman says:

    The Department has grossly overstated the benefit of the new regulation, particularly in comparison to the negative impacts on both employers and employees. Their estimates of how much employees will benefit assumes that newly eligible employees will either get a higher salary or earn the OT premium. The other option is that these employees will be converted to hourly wage earners and not earn OT compensation, and may in fact lose income through more tightly managed hours. The DOL has blithely asserted that such an outcome will benefit employees by giving them more free time, but such an outcome will certainly not be consistent with the administration’s rhetoric about this regulation putting more money in people’s pockets. Furthermore, these new hourly employees will lose workplace flexibility options as well as the use of electronic or remote access because all that time must be captured and compensated.

    • SDVeteran says:

      Agree Marc! Well said. Unfortunately most will not put your logical insights into perspective.

    • Roxy says:

      I agree with Marc. We will probably see an increase in full time jobs being eliminated and replaced with 2 part time jobs for larger companies. Small businesses and small start-up that are already struggling will be put out of business. I thought the whole idea about salaried workers vs. hourly workers is the overtime issue. As a small women-owned business, i can barely cover my own healthcare cost (which is $500/month with $4,500 deductible since i’m not eligible for Obamacare). i’m trying to grow my business which requires overnight travel, meeting with customers, etc which means i cannot financially afford to hire ANY employees because the overtime rules would put me out of business. Thank the government AGAIN for just another reason that companies outsource overseas employees.

      • Morris Stewart says:

        If you can’t afford to pay overtime, then don’t ask workers to work over. It’s your business and life, not your employees. You are building the business for your family, not their’s.

        • Matt says:

          Funny how it’s her business and her life yet the workers need her and business for a paycheck. Maybe those overtime hours allow her small business to expand permanently, hire more workers to cover the hours and pay her tenured employees more. This law is very short sighted.

  3. Linda says:

    I have a question on how this new rule will effect clerical/office workers in a business designated as a farm or agriculture. currently, these people have been told they are not able to collect overtime. Will this new rule update that rule to include these people? and how will this also effect the others classified as farm labor? will they be able to now collect overtime for their work?

  4. Mark T Hancock says:

    This regulation will hurt workers. To pretend otherwise is insulting.

  5. Wanda Fontanez says:

    I need to know if the new rule includes the territories specifically to Puerto Rico

  6. Martha McCorkle says:

    The law is not new…what is new is the limits for its application which have not been adjusted in 25 years. That is going from around $21,000 per year to $47,250 per year. As to hourly workers, they are subject to overtime pay for all hours over 40 per week. So if an employee is putting in 70 hours per week and his salary is $40,000 per year, then he/she will start to earn $28.85 per hour for every hour over 40 hours per week. The employer may cut back the employee’s hours to avoid the overtime pay, but then they must hire someone to work the additional 30 hours in order to maintain the same output. In this example, the employee would receive an additional $21,637.50 if they worked 25 weeks at 70 hours per week. The solution may not be to cut overtime out and hire more folks to do the work, but to give the employee a raise of say $10,000 per year and avoid the problem altogether! From time to time, wages have to be adjusted to keep up with the cost of living. Businesses have simply not been doing that for it employees. Many have been giving their executives massive bonuses for this increase in productivity created by the American worker. Executive salaries have gone from 10 times the average wage rank and file employee’s annual earnings to 3,000 times their average annual earnings. Yet they have not been paying for the services they are receiving – paying for 40 hours and receiving 65 hours in services. This is an attempt to compensate folks for their actual work.

    • Jessica234567 says:

      Well said Martha. Totally agree. I’m salary, but my job pays overtime. It helps bc they benefit from the under staffed overworked employees and we should be paid for it.

    • Dane Jones says:

      Martha, the employer is not going to pay $19.24/hr to the employee ($28.85 at time and a half), they are going to start the employee at $10/hour and pay $15 for OT. The employees earnings will still result in around $40,000 or earnings for the year.

  7. Melanie says:

    So with this new rule ,if my company gives me a raise does that mean they can still demand I work over 40 hrs a week.

    • Danny says:

      Yes, if the company pays an employee over the threshold then the can be kept at their current schedules.
      A company is most likely not paying anyone that is on salary less than 28k to 30k anyway. Which mean an increase in pay for them would be 19k to 17k. Typically you see employees being paid less than 40k not required to work past 40 hours. It’s the level at 40k to 45k simply due to their new found skill sets and eagerness to move up in the company.
      But the key factor here is “Overtime” now if you have people on salary under the threshold but they are only required to work over 40 hours and are routinely working 40 hours a week then no need to do anything.

  8. Dr. Celso Miranda Santos says:

    Puerto Rico will benefit from this new rule???

  9. parker hunt says:

    Mr. Freedman, What workplace flexibility do you speak of? Comp time ? which is illegal, Flex-time? which has to be used in the same week/pay period or lost. If one works 70 hour in a week then were is the “workplace flexibility options”? weak argument man, perhaps what you say is “grossly Overstated”. .

  10. TiredManager says:

    I work for a large retail chain as a manager. When I was offered the position and told about salary and white collar “exemption” it didn’t sound so bad. Sometimes I would have to work more hours without pay, at peak times, holidays, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable. Holiday week? You’re scheduled 6 days. No biggie, it’s a holiday right? Also, I was told that it would be mandatory that I was scheduled 50 hours a week, no specific reason, just because. So, ok I work 10 hours a day now. Well thats a lot of responsibility as the manager, and I’m getting a substantial raise, so ok. Problem is, I have to cover all call ins, perform all my manager duties, and perform basic worker duties because the company won’t allow us to hire more than the budgeted wages allotted for us, regardless of if it was an arbitrary number based on projections. Didn’t matter if the demand was clearly there. I’m scheduled to work 7 days, 80 hours on memorial day week. I’m being paid for 40. This doesn’t count the inevitable call ins I will have to cover. I can’t just quit because the middle class, lower middle class job place has been turned into a part time only atmosphere. I have to just take the punishment to keep a livable job.

    This is why this change was needed. I’m not even close to some of the other horror stories people are having to endure, and I’m being paid probably a lot more than some of these poor fast food managers working way more unpaid hours than me. Don’t give me that “well they should have went to college” trash. They shouldn’t be getting abused by incompetent employers who have built their businesses around “white collar exemption” It was never intended for the people it is being used the most on. It wasn’t intended to be relied on, it was intended for every now and then, Bob needs to come in on Saturday to finish that big report, or stay a few hours late to go over the new program with the boss. Not unload the trucks, and work doubles all the time because the company refuses to fire repeat offenders for calling in all the time.

    I’m happy all these companies are going to get whats coming to them. They’re going to pay for their knee jerk reactions to turn their companies into 5% full time, 95% part time because of the ACA, and then further relying on white collar exemption to hit their unrealistic budgets. If I have to switch to hourly, and have my hours cut sometimes, then so be it, thats reasonable that a company would have to do that sometimes. Whats not reasonable is consistently forcing myself and other workers to work dramatically more than 40 hours and pay them for only 40 hours. I can’t help but think all the people that are upset about this are the very same employers who know they’ve been abusing some of their workers white collar “exemption”.

    • Kygirl says:

      Agree 100%. This change was needed several years ago when companies started to use exempt workers to fill the roles from all those having hours cut and to perform the jobs at the last minute due to corporate visitors or just because. I have worked 13 hour days 6 days a week for the past few years for no reason, other than I was voluntold to do so because corporate needed to make payroll and we sent everyone else home. But we “forgot” that customers don’t care about payroll and someone still has to take care of them.

  11. Jim Riggle says:

    You should be proud…Only doubling? What happened to incremental steps? All this will do is raise prices (again) and provide more taxes for the government. I work with small businesses in small town USA and this is a nightmare for them. We need people in government who are driven to serve all businesses and employees alike (and not by their political agendas and deep pockets) to coming up with more reasonable “regulation minimums”.
    I work with small companies in a town where the government (Public Debt – Ironic?) cannibalizes the local workforce be offering unbelievable pay, benefits and time-off. They leave small businesses to work there and leave the leftover employees and businesses to deal with outcome of staff shortages and higher prices. Government needs to stay out of the way and let the free market drive employee retention. They need to start listening to the people!

  12. chris says:

    under the new law for overtime pay for salary workers, which starts in Dec 2016, i’m consider for
    Executive Exemption. But because i have meet a certain labor percentage I’ll have to send employees home and then me and
    my assistant will have to perform those task? also me and my asst. is on salary. so how would i be exempt from OT if i have to perform job duties of those employees that were sent home. plus working over 55 hours a week.

  13. Dan Chase says:

    Wow it’s amazing how many people say they don’t like this. I think the companies may have brainwashed you. Regardless of what companies end up doing, you’ll earn more. For all those who say just get another job that pays more, and that this rule will hurt employees, does it hurt you to make what you’re currently making, instead of half that? Probably not! Companies have brainwashed people into thinking what’s good for them is good for their workers, and vice versa. For companies who say they’d be out of business if they had to hire someone, chances are the business doesn’t have the market presence to exist in the first place, and you’re just giving viable businesses a reason to pay less. good job!

  14. baton says:

    what about offshore workers on the oil field industry in ships when we work 12 hr day 7 days a wek 28 days straight and companies pays you flat rate a day like $350 depende on the job you do

  15. Susan says:

    I have been studying and researching the Fair Labor Standards Act under which this falls for 15+ years. This is a good rule change for the ethical companies that appreciate and respect their workers. Unfortunately, most companies these days don’t fall under this description.

    I agree with the comment above about the retail market. My husband has a college degree and, at his young age of 62 (yes, this is young), he has been unable to find full-time work and this change in the law will do nothing to help him and will result in more part-timers out there. Shame on the company’s who will give the raise and then expect workers to regularly work 50+ hours a week. The intent of the law was not to give those company’s a free ride to hire and over work individuals who are so tired, they have no time or energy to help kids with homework, spend time with family members, or take care of aging parents. Yes, it is easy to say, one could quit and find another position. It’s not that easy to find full-time positions with benefits.

    I often work 50+ hours a week, but I am fortunate to have a very good salary and excellent benefits. I work for an organization that honors its core values! Two of which are respect and community!

    Too many managers do not realize when you treat your workers well, it will result in less turnover and a savings to the company! I’m hoping some companies will get the message!

  16. Jerry Chandler says:

    My company works little overtime with white collar Associates.
    No one will get more money from this new rule, now everyone with have to clock in and out to ensure compliance with the new rules.

    Thank you Democrats for taking away our liberty to come and go at work.

  17. Darvin Robertson says:

    How are commissioned sale people affected by the new OT rules when their base is significantly below the new cutoff but with commissions would normally be above the cutoff?

  18. Brenda Smith says:

    I’m a salary non exempt manufacturing worker, my employer pays us straight time for hours over 40. Most of us fall below the new rate, will this new rate/ law affect us? Seeing as through we’re non exempt.

  19. John Clerk Palmer says:

    After 26 years with the same company, my base pay is 57K / year. What does this mean to us in the middle.

  20. James says:

    I live in the state of Kansas which is an “employment at will” state. Can my employer fire me to evade paying me the difference?

  21. Laura says:

    I work 60 hours a week with a $600 a week salary. How is this new rule going to affect me?

  22. AJ says:

    IT still doesn’t do enough! When you are hired on as Salary your pay is still based on 40 hours a week unless you agreed to be on a 50 hour work week or XXXX. I am a professional Salary person that was hired in at 40 hours a week. I get forced to work overtime quite a bit and if I don’t like it then use the door and go some place else. I like what i do except when forced to work the extra time. The OT laws should be based on ANYBODY that is required to work above 40 hours to be paid for that time NO Exception. About 10 years ago I did get paid time and a half and double time, by the law. I didn’t get USED and ABUSED then. Now I get forced to work that time frame and now miss my family time at times. It still ISN’T enough it should be back to ANYBODY that is Salary if you work above your approved agreed on work week hours then it should be paid the OT.

  23. Angel Ortiz says:

    A Puerto Rico también se le aplicaría esta norma o quedo liberada de ella?. Puerto Rico will take part of this?

  24. Danielle says:

    I’m currently on salary in NC for $45,000 a year, I work anywhere from 40 to 50 hours each week. Does this mean my salary should be increased to $47,476 a year?

  25. James says:

    I live in a “right to work” state…can my employer fire me to avoid paying the higher wages???

  26. Teresa Pagan Rodriguez says:

    Included Puerto Rico? When is effective that directrices?

  27. Janice says:

    I manage up to 15 people at a time. I hire and fire people. I work in a call center that supports computers and software. I work 40 to 50 hours a week. I have not seen no salary increase and nothing has been said at work about this. My last yearly review I was told I was over paid worker and needed to be working more hours and doing more then my peers. I worked for this company for 11 years. So $40,000 a year is top pay with this company. I read what qualifies for the standard amount required with out paying over time. Is there a deadline that the company has to comply with to get everyone there raises?

  28. Doe says:

    Does this OT rule apply to Immigrant Farm Workers on a temporary VISA?

  29. Richard Robbins says:

    I’ve always wondered why someone who feels like he’s being overworked can’t just find another job. The more the government takes over responsibility for our own actions (such as choosing a different job), the more freedoms we lose collectively as citizens. Besides that, business owners are normally smart enough to find ways to negate whatever benefit is intended with this law as they, justifiably, focus on their bottom lines.

    For companies who can afford it, automating the process of workforce management to deal with this new law makes it at least stomachable. SwipeClock (http://www.swipeclock.com) is on that has integrated compliance with this new law into is employee time and attendance system.

  30. Kygirl says:

    I worked as a retail manager for over 11 years that used and abused salaried exempt employees because they had to cut payroll by cutting hours for hourly employees. That doesn’t mean the customers stop coming and someone has to restock the shelves. So you end up working 6 or 7 days a week to make up payroll for the company to make profit goals. You work 12-13 hour days. Which would be fine if you received any extra compensation for it. But I don’t see how you can look at this situation in any other way than a company taking advantage just because they don’t have to pay you more. And like someone else said, why wouldn’t you just quit, after you’ve given 11 years of your life to a place and you’re making $43,000 a year, it’s hard to give that up and go work somewhere else. What I still fear will happen is that the abuse will just get worse for those of us that make above the threshold for overtime benefits and they’ll just stop asking those making less to work the extra hours and force the extra work on those of us making more.

  31. matt says:

    I am a business owner who has about 40 employees…..the thing that I find interesting is the program does not take into account an American…….who might actually want to INVEST in themselves……what are we telling our kids about this country when the are going to be trained (brainwashed) into thinking about 40 hours………WOW………40 hours ……….that is now the new mindset………not the land of opportunity……not ….INVEST. IN YOUR FUTURE…….Every individual has a choice to to INVEST IN THEMSELVES…..seems to me that this just took lots of choices away from lots of people……how does a young PERSON get ahead……oh …by limiting the investment in themselves to 40 hours per week….VALUE =VALUE……..you cannot ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING IN THIS LIFE WITHOUT INVESTING IN IT………ANYTHING…….FAMILIES……CAREERS……..ANYTHING……..Small and medium sized businesses in this country get lumped in with the “large greedy corporations”……. for anyone that cares to look close enough……there are lots of damn good caring people……. who want to see other people live great lives and do all in their power to create and support the OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS COUNTRY…….i want to thank the govt for forgetting that his is the land of opportunity and now is the land of “the opportunity you can create in under 40 hours”……..this “rule” ……in a “Free” country………does not make me feel very free……….