https://www.theysayiblog.com/2015/11/dreams-in-overtime-newsweek-on-labor-laws-for-salaried-workers.html?cid=6a00d83534ac5b69e201bb091fe708970d#comment-6a00d83534ac5b69e201bb091fe708970d

After reading the above attached link, please answer the following questions:

#1: For an hourly-paid retail worker, a salaried position is presented as a way to advance their career. Sole-Smith argues that large companies such as Walgreens, Chipotle, and many more, are using the shift to salaried status as a way to avoid paying overtime, without keeping the promise of genuine advancement. What evidence does she present? Give a brief summary. Is her argument persuasive? Why or why not?

#2: Although Sole-Smith's article focuses more on the concerns of the workers, the positions of the companies and industry groups are also explained. How fairly does she treat these opposing views? Point to examples to support your conclusions.

#3: As Sole-Smith explains, it has been the law of the land since 1938 that wage workers be compensated at time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. However, the baseline salary that determines the threshold for overtime qualification hasn't changed in forty years. In addition, the proportion of time a worker spends on managerial tasks can figure into the determination of overtime qualification. Thus, the current debate centers around "how to determine who qualifies for overtime." Should this determination be based on the proportion of time spent on managerial tasks? The salary a worker receives? Some combination of the two? How would you propose solving the problem? Using Sole-Smith and/or the sources she cites as your "they say," explain how you would propose clear and fair guidelines for salaried workers' overtime compensation.