Salaried workers directly benefiting from the proposed increase in the overtime salary threshold, by state, 2014
| State | Total salaried workers* | Directly benefiting salaried workers** | Share of state’s salaried workers that are directly benefiting | State’s share of directly benefiting workers | State’s share of total salaried workforce |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) | (B) | (C)=(B/A) | (D)=(Bx/B1) | (E)=(Ax/A1) | |
| United States(1) | 52,522,000 | 13,463,000 | 25.6% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Alabama | 688,000 | 206,000 | 30.0% | 1.5% | 1.3% |
| Alaska | 94,000 | 18,000 | 19.6% | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| Arizona | 985,000 | 230,000 | 23.4% | 1.7% | 1.9% |
| Arkansas | 365,000 | 130,000 | 35.5% | 1.0% | 0.7% |
| California | 5,947,000 | 1,230,000 | 20.7% | 9.1% | 11.3% |
| Colorado | 1,073,000 | 257,000 | 23.9% | 1.9% | 2.0% |
| Connecticut | 678,000 | 121,000 | 17.8% | 0.9% | 1.3% |
| Delaware | 159,000 | 45,000 | 28.2% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| District of Columbia | 166,000 | 33,000 | 20.0% | 0.2% | 0.3% |
| Florida | 3,618,000 | 1,137,000 | 31.4% | 8.4% | 6.9% |
| Georgia | 1,699,000 | 469,000 | 27.6% | 3.5% | 3.2% |
| Hawaii | 216,000 | 73,000 | 33.9% | 0.5% | 0.4% |
| Idaho | 214,000 | 63,000 | 29.5% | 0.5% | 0.4% |
| Illinois | 2,319,000 | 589,000 | 25.4% | 4.4% | 4.4% |
| Indiana | 936,000 | 267,000 | 28.5% | 2.0% | 1.8% |
| Iowa | 447,000 | 110,000 | 24.6% | 0.8% | 0.9% |
| Kansas | 470,000 | 112,000 | 23.8% | 0.8% | 0.9% |
| Kentucky | 564,000 | 164,000 | 29.0% | 1.2% | 1.1% |
| Louisiana | 710,000 | 225,000 | 31.7% | 1.7% | 1.4% |
| Maine | 182,000 | 45,000 | 24.7% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| Maryland | 1,141,000 | 249,000 | 21.9% | 1.9% | 2.2% |
| Massachusetts | 1,398,000 | 263,000 | 18.8% | 2.0% | 2.7% |
| Michigan | 1,376,000 | 345,000 | 25.0% | 2.6% | 2.6% |
| Minnesota | 1,010,000 | 230,000 | 22.8% | 1.7% | 1.9% |
| Mississippi | 363,000 | 99,000 | 27.3% | 0.7% | 0.7% |
| Missouri | 954,000 | 263,000 | 27.6% | 2.0% | 1.8% |
| Montana | 103,000 | 26,000 | 25.3% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| Nebraska | 321,000 | 88,000 | 27.3% | 0.7% | 0.6% |
| Nevada | 396,000 | 123,000 | 31.0% | 0.9% | 0.8% |
| New Hampshire | 242,000 | 54,000 | 22.2% | 0.4% | 0.5% |
| New Jersey | 1,898,000 | 433,000 | 22.8% | 3.2% | 3.6% |
| New Mexico | 247,000 | 61,000 | 24.6% | 0.5% | 0.5% |
| New York | 4,132,000 | 1,067,000 | 25.8% | 7.9% | 7.9% |
| North Carolina | 1,641,000 | 528,000 | 32.1% | 3.9% | 3.1% |
| North Dakota | 118,000 | 34,000 | 28.8% | 0.3% | 0.2% |
| Ohio | 1,604,000 | 412,000 | 25.7% | 3.1% | 3.1% |
| Oklahoma | 526,000 | 168,000 | 31.9% | 1.2% | 1.0% |
| Oregon | 558,000 | 131,000 | 23.5% | 1.0% | 1.1% |
| Pennsylvania | 2,004,000 | 494,000 | 24.6% | 3.7% | 3.8% |
| Rhode Island | 175,000 | 36,000 | 20.5% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| South Carolina | 735,000 | 211,000 | 28.7% | 1.6% | 1.4% |
| South Dakota | 108,000 | 30,000 | 27.4% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| Tennessee | 841,000 | 254,000 | 30.2% | 1.9% | 1.6% |
| Texas | 4,657,000 | 1,324,000 | 28.4% | 9.8% | 8.9% |
| Utah | 499,000 | 130,000 | 26.0% | 1.0% | 1.0% |
| Vermont | 104,000 | 25,000 | 24.1% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| Virginia | 1,554,000 | 357,000 | 23.0% | 2.7% | 3.0% |
| Washington | 1,127,000 | 222,000 | 19.7% | 1.6% | 2.1% |
| West Virginia | 230,000 | 68,000 | 29.7% | 0.5% | 0.4% |
| Wisconsin | 850,000 | 198,000 | 23.3% | 1.5% | 1.6% |
| Wyoming | 80,000 | 20,000 | 24.4% | 0.1% | 0.2% |
* The sample reflects salaried (nonhourly) workers who are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This excludes certain groups of workers such as the self-employed, most federal workers, religious workers, many agricultural workers, and many transportation workers.
** Directly benefiting salaried workers are those who would newly be guaranteed overtime protection by virtue of their salary alone under the proposed higher overtime threshold, i.e., they make at least $455 a week (the current threshold) but less than $933 a week (the new threshold in 2014 dollars). This includes workers who are newly eligible (they are currently excluded from automatic overtime protection because they are classified, in some cases incorrectly, as executive, administrative, and professional or "EAP" employees); and workers whose rights are strengthened (they are currently at risk of being classified as EAP employees).
Note: Subtotals may not add up to total due to rounding.
Source: EPI analysis of the U.S. Department of Labor's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2015) and Current Population Survey Merged Outgoing Rotation Group microdata (CPS MORG)