EAP Pre-Draft Proposed Rule Language (Second Version)

I am writing on behalf of Service Alternatives, Inc., where I work as the Director of Human Resources. We support individuals and families of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities and provide a spectrum of services that include employment services, residential services, wraparound/kinship services, foster care, school-based services, independent living support, consultation, and training. We employ close to 500 people in Washington state.

While we recognize and agree with the need to periodically update regulations, we are deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the state exemption rules. We have exempt employees that work in a variety of executive, administrative and professional positions, with most of them directly responsible for management of services to vulnerable youth and adults in our state.

As a human service provider, our operating budget is dictated by the remuneration rates set in our contracts by the state of Washington. When faced with in an increase in costs, we do not have the option of “raising prices” or otherwise passing on the costs. Like many in the social service industry, our structure is already flat and lean. While the state may believe that employers will be able to bear the proposed increased salary costs, the reality is that we cannot give what we do not have. If the proposed rule is implemented, we will be faced with making difficult decisions that will have a series of negative impacts on our organization, our employees, and the clients and communities we serve.

Our budgets run extremely tight. Based on L & I’s current proposal, anywhere from 75-90% of our currently exempt staff would fall under the proposed salary threshold. We simply do not have the funding to raise all of those employees to the proposed threshold. The large percentage of employees that would have to be reclassified as non-exempt would lose their schedule flexibility, and could also receive cuts to their total compensation (including vacation and health benefits) to offset increased costs. Our ability to provide quality services to clients and communities would be significantly compromised.

In reading the comments on this website and others from those who support the proposed rule, there seems to be an assumption that all employers have a significant amount of money that they are not sharing with their workers and could afford to meet the proposed salary threshold if forced to do so. For many businesses, this simply isn’t true. The increasing number of regulations each year contributes to continuously rising costs, making it difficult for those who aren’t in a few select industries to remain in compliance and stay in business.

Given that the U.S. Department of Labor is preparing to propose updates to the federal overtime regulations in early 2019, it would be preferable for Washington to wait for and align to those standards in regard to both salary threshold and duties tests. If instead the state proceeds with the proposed rule, it should be phased in over a substantial number of years, with a salary threshold that is consistent statewide.

We strongly urge that you reconsider the proposed regulations and implementation timeline. While the intent of this regulatory update is to improve the lives of employees and contribute to economic stability, the current proposal would instead have seriously negative impacts for many of the people it is purporting to help. We at Service Alternatives are deeply committed to our employees, clients, and communities. It is on their ultimate behalf that we ask for this consideration.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Renee Stueckle, SPHR, SHRM-SCP

(Submitted on 12/26/18 by Jeff Goodlake, Rosauers)

I operate a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/26/18 by Jeremiah Miller)

Dear Director Sacks:

My name is Jeremiah Miller and I live in Seattle. I have worked as a labor and employment lawyer for ten years, largely on behalf of low-wage workers.

Please raise the exceptions to entitlement to overtime premium pay to $75,000 per year in order to permit more people to earn overtime when they are required to work more than 40 hours per work.

Because of my work I often come in contact with front line managers and low level supervisors in like wage industries. These people are generally nearly as impoverished as the work force they supervise. Having a ridiculously low income threshold for the overtime premium effectively ensures many thousands of people are forced to work long hours for inadequate pay, often reducing their hourly rate below the minimum wage.

It would help restore one of the major goals of the labor movement in this country: more people would have more leisure because business would have to pay to work them into the ground.

(Submitted on 12/26/18 by Teresa J. LeGrand)

Dear Director Sacks:

My name is Teresa and I live in Olympia, WA. I’ve worked as a caregiver for 16 years and a General Manager for 1 year.

I’m urging you to restore overtime rights so that everyone paid less than 3x the minimum wage (about $75,000/year) gets overtime pay when they work overtime hours. Employers love to say “salary doesn’t mean a 40 hour work week”, but they have no problem removing pay when less than 40 hours are worked. Everyone should be paid for their time.

I have worked in an adult family home, putting in 70 hours in 1 week, and was paid straight pay. I put in between 45-60 hours a week and still make as much as I would had I only worked 40 hours, but the overtime is necessary to keep the business functional and compliant.

If employers had to pay overtime for hours worked over 40 in a week, we would experience less burnout, more productivity and better attitudes. I put my blood, sweat and tears into my work, and I am rarely recognized, thanked or in any way acknowledged. Although I am not in this for just a paycheck, it would make me feel valued to be paid for my hard work.

(Submitted on 12/26/18 by Karen Gilles)

Dear Director Sacks:

My name is Karen Gilles and I live in Seattle I am now retired but I worked as a professional librarian for over 35 years.

I am writing about the overtime rules in Washington State. I never had overtime rights, so even though it will not benefit me for others I’m urging you to restore overtime’s rights so that those who earn less than $75,000 ( triple the minimum wage) gets overtime.

As I mentioned, I never received overtime pay, and as time went on, it became more an expectation than an exception that I would put in more than the required hours per week without additional compensation. I was not alone, and saw the eventual burnout and discouragement, As a basic principle, I think workers should get paid for their time and not work without pay out of fear of losing a job, or loyalty to a place of work.

If employer had to pay overtime rights, not only would it restore just compensation for workers, it would also give employers a firm financial accounting of their labor needs. If a firm is consistently paying overtime, then either the position needs adjustment or the number employed needs to increase

(Submitted on 12/26/18 by Jennifer Hurley)

Dear Director Sacks:

My name is Jennifer and I live in Auburn. I've worked as a social worker for 18 years.

I think everyone should get paid for all the hours that they work, especially if they earn less than $75,000/year. I'm urging you to restore overtime rights so that everyone paid less than 3 times the minimum wage gets overtime pay when they work overtime hours.

As a social worker, I often work 50+ hours per week, just to meet the needs of my clients (and my employers). I figured out that at my last job, I gave them over 12 weeks of free labor within the year. Please restore overtime rights., so that we can get paid for our time.

I believe that restoring overtime rights is fair and the right thing to do.

(Submitted on 12/23/18 by Jay Herzmark, Organized Workers for Labor Solidarity)

We are writing concerning the proposed changes in the exemptions from overtime. We have several concerns about the exemptions you have proposed and in general oppose ANY exemptions at all.

Unpaid overtime is transfers wealth from low-paid workers to well-paid owners. It further exacerbates the immense inequality in the US. It is similar to slavery in that it is forced unpaid work which benefits the wealthy.

The pay that over time determination is based on doesn’t included cost of health insurance, vacation leave, sick leave or most other regularly provided benefits. So even though the requirement is for time and a half, it is usually cheaper or the same cost as hiring additional staff. Paying overtime really costs most employers nothing or almost nothing.

Working 50-60 hours (or more) a week means low paid workers can’t get another job to mitigate their poverty level wages. It also takes away time they need by themselves or with their families. Long hours are also cause sickness and premature deaths.

Workers have fought for the eight hour day since the beginning of wage labor. It was generally won during the depression but since then governments have added one exemption after another and continuously lowered the wage rate in real terms where employers are exempt from paying it.

It is time to put a halt to these poverty wages, over-work and slavery. We strongly urge you to limit all overtime exemptions and require employers to pay all their workers a bonus and/or give workers back their time.

(Submitted on 12/2018 by Michael Myhre, Rosauers)

I operate a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/20/18 by Ashley Gorman)

I operate a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/19/18 by Michael Alfson, Rosauers)

My name is Mike Alfson and I work in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/19/18 by Joshua P. Davidson, Huckleberry's Natural Market)

Hello, My name is Joshua Davidson and I operate Huckleberry's Natural Market, located in Spokane, Washington. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/169/18 by Ronald Mael, Rosauers)

I work for a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/19/18 by Ken Bester, Shawn McAdams, David Erickson, Chad Calvin, and Vicki Pennebaker - Rosauers)

I operate a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/19/18 by Steve Lee)

I operate a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/19/18 by Michelle Nielsen, Rosauers)

I work for an employer in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally.

A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/18/18 by Paul Kapioski, Unified Retailer)

I operate a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/18/18 by Gordon Thompson, Rosauers)

I work for a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery retail industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/18/18 by Jim Dailey, Tom Day, Ryan Wilson, Gary Glennie, and Harry Wilson - Rosauers)

I operate a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/17/18 by Debbie Finn, Rosauers)

I work for a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to work for a company that invests in their employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage their ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between our employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/18/18 by Jack Emmons, Mitzel's American Kitchen)

My name is Jack Emmons. I own/operate and Mitzel's American Kitchen. I am proud to employ 35 people in Kent Washington.

If these rules were adopted as currently proposed, I would consider closing my business. Every year wages increase, we are forced to pay medical leave and now FMLA requirements kick in. Small businesses can't continue to operate with lower and lower margins each year.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on behalf of the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

We understand that an update on this topic is appropriate; however, I would like to raise several concerns with elements of the updated pre-draft proposal. My first concern is about the future of the hospitality industry and its career ladder.

As a business operator, I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of $56,000 - $70,000 adjusted annually or 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. Undercutting and harming my employees by removal of the middle-management career ladder rungs would not benefit them, my business or the state economy.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I am asking L&I to wait for the federal government to update their rules before moving forward with this process. We need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government.

I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the solution and submit my comments to you.