Millions more Americans could become eligible for overtime pay.

The Biden-Harris administration announced a final rule Tuesday that raises the minimum salary threshold to qualify for time-and-a-half pay after 40 hours of work in a week.

Proponents say the new limit will mean lower-paid workers are fairly compensated for long hours, and business groups are expected to legally challenge it.

Here’s what to know:

Starting July 1, 2024, people earning less than $43,888 per year, or $844 per week, would be eligible for overtime pay.

By Jan. 1, 2025, that salary threshold would increase to $58,656 per year, or $1,128 per week.

The rule also includes automatic increases to that salary eligibility level every three years, starting in 2027, to keep pace with the changing labor market and wages.

The current salary threshold to qualify for overtime pay is $35,568 per year based on a limit set by the Trump administration in 2019 — the first increase since 2004.

Proponents say the new rule will ensure people, particularly in lower-paid roles, get paid for their time if they work longer than a traditional workweek.

“Too often, lower-paid salaried workers are doing the same job as their hourly counterparts but are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay,” Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su said in a press release.

It could also cause businesses to adjust their procedures so people work fewer overtime hours, giving employees more time back.

Overtime pay protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act say almost all hourly workers qualify for 1.5 times their pay after 40 hours worked in a week. The new Labor Department rule applies to salaried workers under a certain salary level.

The overtime boost is expected to affect 4.3 million workers, 56% of whom are women and 24% of whom are workers of color, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

Most workers affected are employed in professional and business services, health care and social services, and financial activities.

Roughly 15% of salaried workers are currently entitled to overtime pay, and that will roughly double under the new salary limits. However, it’s far lower than the 60% of salaried workers who were entitled to overtime pay in the 1970s, per the EPI.

Since then, the threshold has not kept pace with wage growth, experts say.

Separately, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule Tuesday banning noncompete clauses, which proponents say will promote job-switching, higher wages, new businesses and innovation.

A noncompete agreement is a contract where an employee agrees to not join or launch a competitor after leaving a company. The FTC estimates 30 million, or 18%, of U.S. workers are currently subject to a noncompete.

The agency estimates the change will increase the average worker’s earnings by $524 per year, lower health-care costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and lead to a 2.7% bump in startups, or roughly 8,500 new businesses per year.

The rule will become effective 120 days after being published in the Federal Register, though business groups are expected to challenge it.

Beleaguered seafood chain Red Lobster is seeking a buyer as it looks to avoid filing for bankruptcy, CNBC has learned. 

The company has considered filing for bankruptcy to help it restructure its debt and get out of a number of costly and lengthy leases, but it’s also sought a buyer in recent months, people familiar with the matter told CNBC. 

At least one firm had been interested in buying the chain, but a deal never came to fruition.

It’s unclear how the chain will ultimately resolve its financial woes. Red Lobster could secure a buyer, it could declare bankruptcy or its lenders could take control of the company.

Even if Red Lobster finds a buyer, it would be hard for it to avoid filing for Chapter 11 as it is trying to get out of many leases and those contracts can be difficult to break outside of bankruptcy, the people said.  

Bloomberg first reported that Red Lobster was mulling a Chapter 11 filing last week. Red Lobster didn’t return a request for comment. 

The longtime chain, known for its cheddar bay biscuits and unlimited shrimp, is looking for a new home at a time when capital is expensive and large restaurant groups are feeling cautious as the broader casual-dining segment lags.

For the past decade amidst ownership changes, Red Lobster has taken on debt and entered into a number of long-term leases across its 700-plus locations, which have weighed on its balance sheet. 

Jonathan Tibus, a managing partner with advisory firm Alvarez & Marsal, was recently appointed Red Lobster CEO after numerous C-suite departures. That turnover has made it difficult for the chain to implement a turnaround. 

The restructuring expert has decades of experience working with struggling restaurant chains, but many of them were smaller than Red Lobster. Tibus didn’t return a request for comment. 

This year marks the 10-year anniversary of Darden Restaurants’ sale of Red Lobster after investors pushed the company to divest. Private equity firm Golden Gate Capital bought the seafood chain for $2.1 billion and embarked on a turnaround. 

Thai Union Group, a seafood supplier and longtime Red Lobster vendor, bought a minority stake in the chain in 2016. With the help of an investor group dubbed the Seafood Alliance, it bought out Golden Gate’s remaining stake in 2020, months into the pandemic.

Unlike many restaurant companies, Red Lobster survived the pandemic without filing for bankruptcy. But longtime leader Kim Lopdrup retired in 2021, beginning a revolving door of CEOs.

Kelli Valade took the top job in 2021, but left a year later to become CEO of Denny’s. Horace Dawson, hired more than a year after Valade’s exit, was in the job for around six months before the company named Tibus as chief executive in March.

But Red Lobster’s problems are bigger than a leadership vortex. The broader casual-dining segment has struggled for roughly two decades in competition with fast-casual chains like Panera Bread and Chipotle Mexican Grill. The pandemic exacerbated the issue, particularly hurting full-service restaurants like Red Lobster.

The seafood chain has also struggled from some self-inflicted wounds, most notably its disastrous “endless shrimp” promotion. Last year, it changed the offer from once a week to daily to boost slower sales in the second half of the year.

But the offer juiced business too much as diners sought cheap deals, pressuring Red Lobster’s bottom line. As a result, Red Lobster reported $11 million in losses in the fiscal third quarter and $12.5 million in losses the following quarter.

In January, Thai Union Group announced plans to sell its stake in Red Lobster.

Southwest Airlines on Thursday posted a wider loss for the first quarter than the same period last year and warned that Boeing’s airplane delays will hamper its growth into 2025.

The airline expects to grow capacity 4% this year, down from a plan to expand 6%. For the second quarter, it forecast growth of 8% to 9% and said revenue would be down as much as 3.5%.

Shares of Southwest were down nearly 9% in morning trading.

The airline said in a quarterly filing that it now expects to receive only 20 Boeing 737 Max 8 planes, down from its previous forecast of 46 of them. The carrier will now delay retiring some of its older Boeing planes and is cutting costs, including by offering staff voluntary time off. Southwest said it expects to end the year with 2,000 fewer employees than it had at the end of 2023.

It will also shut down operations at some airports, including in Syracuse, New York; Bellingham International Airport in Washington; Cozumel International Airport; and Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental.

“Achieving our financial goals is an immediate imperative,” CEO Bob Jordan said in an earnings release. “The recent news from Boeing regarding further aircraft delivery delays presents significant challenges for both 2024 and 2025. We are reacting and replanning quickly to mitigate the operational and financial impacts while maintaining dependable and reliable flight schedules for our Customers.”

The Dallas-based carrier operates an all-Boeing 737 fleet and is acutely affected by Boeing’s aircraft delays stemming from its safety and quality crises.

The carrier had previously warned that slower Boeing deliveries were hampering its growth.

Here is how Southwest performed in the first quarter compared with Wall Street expectations, according to consensus estimates from LSEG:

Southwest lost $231 million, or 39 cents a share, in the first three months of the year, compared with a loss of $159 million, or 27 cents a share, a year earlier when it was dealing with the aftermath of its holiday meltdown.

Adjusting for one-time items, including costs related to labor contracts and fuel, Southwest lost $218 million, or 36 cents a share.

Revenue rose almost 11% to $6.33 billion, slightly below analysts’ estimates as compiled by LSEG.

A made-in-China electric vehicle will hit U.S. dealers this summer offering power and efficiency similar to the Tesla Model Y, the world’s best-selling EV, but for about $8,000 less.

The EX30 from Volvo Cars, the Swedish luxury brand owned by China’s Geely, foreshadows the fierce competitive threat U.S. automakers could face from Chinese EV manufacturers that have surged far ahead of global rivals, especially on affordability.

The $35,000 window sticker of Volvo’s compact SUV hits a sweet spot in the U.S. market, where most buyers cannot afford most EVs. The competitive price reflects an unusual combination of Geely’s China-specific cost advantages and Volvo’s ability to skirt U.S. tariffs on Chinese cars because it also has U.S. manufacturing operations, according to interviews with four sources familiar with Volvo and Geely strategy and several U.S. trade policy experts.

Chinese EV makers can undercut global competitors largely because of the nation’s domination of battery minerals mining and refining, as well as its long-standing commitment to EV development, including heavy government subsidies.

In addition, Geely has slashed manufacturing costs by merging supply chains and sharing platforms and parts with Volvo and other Geely brands, according to two senior Geely managers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly.

Despite its aggressive price, Volvo is targeting hefty profit margins on the EX30 of between 15% and 20% globally, said a third Geely source.

China’s EV dominance will be on display this week at the nation’s premier auto show in Beijing. In the China market, the world’s largest, dozens of domestic EV brands are fighting it out in a price war while foreign automakers have steadily lost market share. The intense competition has driven China’s biggest EV makers, led by BYD, to accelerate exporting of EVs that can capture higher prices and profits in less competitive overseas markets.

The EX30 will be among only a handful of China-made cars sold in the United States, none of them from Chinese brands. Vehicles from China currently face a 27.5% tariff and increasingly strident calls for higher trade barriers from U.S. automakers and their political allies.

But Volvo is eligible for tariff refunds under a law that awards them to firms with U.S. manufacturing operations — such as Volvo’s South Carolina plant — that also export similar products, according to U.S. trade law experts and a source familiar with Volvo’s tariff-avoidance strategy.

The U.S. government does not release details of tariff refunds to individual companies.

Asked about tariff refunds, a Volvo spokesperson said the company pays all legally required duties on cars and parts. She said Volvo, though owned by Geely, is independently operated and designs its cars in Sweden.

Geely declined to comment.

The EX30 could get even cheaper if Volvo and its dealers use an EV-policy loophole enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, championed by U.S. President Joe Biden. The legislation reauthorized an existing $7,500 tax credit for EV buyers — but blocked the subsidy for cars with components from countries, including China, that are deemed an economic or security threat.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service later determined, however, that leased EVs qualify as commercial vehicles and are eligible for a similar $7,500 subsidy with no China-content restrictions.

That could bring a leased EX30’s effective price to $27,500 — a compelling offer for a five-seater electric SUV that Volvo has said will have a 275-mile driving range and a five-second 0-60 mph time. The EX30’s specifications closely match Tesla’s Model Y, and Volvo dealers are touting the comparison. (The Model Y has more cargo room.)

Last weekend, Tesla lowered the Model Y’s price by $2,000 in the United States as part of a series of global reductions. It’s the latest of many Tesla price cuts as it faces softening demand and stiffer competition from China EV makers.

Lance Morgan, sales manager at Volvo Cars Carlsbad in California, said his dealership has already taken deposits for every 2025 EX30 it expects to be allocated.

“I think this could be quite the game-changer for the whole brand,” he said.

Morgan said more than half of his customers who buy currently available Volvo EVs initially lease them to qualify for the U.S. tax credit — then immediately buy out the lease.

The EX30’s price and the buzz it’s generating help explain U.S. automakers’ rising fears of having to compete with low-cost Chinese EV imports.

Industry trade group the Alliance for American Manufacturing said in February that cheap Chinese EVs could cause an “extinction-level event” for U.S. automakers. It warned that Chinese manufacturers could also avoid U.S. tariffs by setting up plants in Mexico, inside the North American free trade zone, then exporting vehicles to the United States.

China’s BYD — which rivals Tesla for the global EV sales crown — announced plans in February for a Mexico plant. BYD offers an array of EVs for less than $30,000 in China, including an electric hatchback that sells for less than $10,000.

In Mexico City in February, BYD announced it would sell the same hatchback in Latin America for about $21,000, still far below any U.S. electric vehicle.

Some U.S. politicians are calling for higher trade barriers, including U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican.

Referring to Volvo’s tariff refund strategy, Hawley said in a statement to Reuters: “Using taxpayer dollars to subsidize Communist China’s auto sector is an affront to American workers.”

When Geely bought Volvo from Ford in 2010 for $1.8 billion, it struck some analysts as an odd pairing. Geely was an upstart automaker from Hangzhou known for producing lower-quality knockoffs of Western cars while Volvo had a long-standing reputation for safety and sleek Scandinavian designs.

The companies came up with a Volvo growth strategy that relied in part on lowering costs by merging supply chains, giving the combined company leverage to drive down supplier costs.

“Our stated goal was to achieve ‘quality of Volvo, cost of Geely’,” one Geely engineering manager said.

The plan worked. Since 2010, Volvo has nearly doubled its global car sales, from 373,525 to more than 708,000 last year.

Geely and Volvo have created a series of shared platforms allowing Volvo and other Geely brands to share batteries, motors, gears and electric power-management inverters — all high-cost EV components that are cheaper in high volumes.

The EX30 rides on an electric-vehicle platform Geely calls SEA, for “sustainable experience architecture”, the Geely sources said. A third Geely official called it the Russian doll of vehicle platforms because it can be modified to produce a wide array of large and small EVs without major assembly-line changes.

One of the Geely engineering managers said 80% of the underbody components in SEA-platform vehicles are now shared among Geely, Volvo and other affiliated brands including Smart, Lynk & Co. and Zeekr, which make vehicles for Chinese and European markets.

Shifting more of its manufacturing to China required Volvo to confront the punishing tariffs enacted by Republican U.S. President Donald Trump in 2018, as part of a larger trade war, and since supported by Biden.

At the time, a Volvo lobbyist requested an exclusion for its mid-size SUVs imported from China, saying in an October 2018 letter that the duties would cause economic harm to consumers and auto workers. The U.S. Trade Representative denied Volvo’s request, as it did for a similar request from General Motors.

The lobbyist’s letter didn’t name specific models but Volvo imported its XC60 utility vehicle from China at the time. It switched production for the U.S. market to Europe to avoid the tariffs.

Now Volvo has found a different way around the tariffs for the EX30, through the U.S. duty drawback program, which dates to 1789. The program originally refunded companies the tariffs they paid on imported raw materials if they used them to build finished products for export. Today, it allows a much broader array of exports to offset taxes on similar imports.

For Volvo, it means exports of its larger EX90 electric sport-utility vehicles built in South Carolina can be used to offset imports of the EX30 from China.

The drawback program, long used by U.S. automakers that source parts globally, has surged in popularity in the U.S.-China trade war. Total drawback claims have more than tripled since the 2018 tariffs, from $1.3 billion to nearly $4 billion last year, U.S. Customs data show.

In addition to a cease-fire in Gaza, protesters on college campuses across the country are calling on their schools to divest from all financial support of Israel.

Divestment usually refers to selling shares in companies doing business with a given country. Divestment has long been a goal of a movement that seeks to limit what it considers hostile operations by Israel and an end to expanding what the United Nations has ruled are illegal settlements.

Now, college protesters are hoping to force their universities to divest to put financial pressure on companies doing business in Israel to meet those two objectives.

“The university should do something about what we’re asking for, about the genocide that’s happening in Gaza,” said Columbia University student and protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who is Palestinian, and noted that students have been pushing for Columbia to divest from Israel since 2002. “They should stop investing in this genocide.”

Israel launched its Gaza campaign soon after the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas, a U.S.-designated terror group that left 1,200 Israelis dead, according to officials, with an estimated 250 people taken hostage. The subsequent military response by Israel has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

Like many universities, Columbia owns shares of various companies as part of its financial operations and endowment. However, information on Columbia’s exact holdings was not immediately available, and it was not clear whether investment information published by Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), the group leading the protests at the school, was accurate.

Whatever the case, while some of the shares Columbia owns may be directly held stock investments, other assets are likely held indirectly through investment instruments like mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that are designed to expose investors to a variety of firms.

And as students at Brown University acknowledged in a separate proposal targeting their school’s alleged Israel-tied investments, excluding specific investments from these indirect stock holding products “would be logistically challenging.”

In fact, they concluded that none of their school’s current direct investments appeared to be in individual companies violating its anti-Israel screening criteria.

Meanwhile, mutual fund and ETF holdings are constantly changing, the Brown students said.

The actual mechanics of divestment thus make it a more difficult undertaking than it may first appear, said Alison Taylor, clinical associate professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

“You get into questions of, ‘What percentage of a company’s business is actually tied to the activities in question?’” Taylor said.

Columbia’s Investment Management Company, which oversees the school’s market assets, does have an advisory committee on socially responsible investing.

This committee has pledged that it will screen against investing in firms that operate private prisons; derive significant revenues from thermal coal; and engage in tobacco manufacturing. It also has had a policy against investing in companies doing business in Sudan. 

So there is precedent for Columbia to limit its financial exposure to socially irresponsible firms, CUAD says. At present, Columbia’s investment in the companies that CUAD accuses of having ties to Israel makes it “complicit in genocide,” CUAD says. 

“By withdrawing from holdings that profit off of Israeli human rights violations, Columbia can invest in other, more worthwhile companies,” CUAD says in a December proposal submitted to the socially responsible investing committee calling for divestment.

The Biden administration is sending out $5.6 million in refund payments to certain Ring home security system customers after the company settled a federal complaint accusing it of security lapses.

In a statement this week, the Federal Trade Commission said it would be sending out 117,044 payments via PayPal to affected customers as compensation for claims that Ring allowed employees and contractors to access consumers’ private videos. The agency accused Ring in 2023 of failing to implement proper security protections, enabling hackers to take control of consumer accounts, cameras and videos.

In a statement sent to The Associated Press, Ring, which was purchased by Amazon in 2018, said that bad actors took emails and passwords that were “stolen from other companies to unlawfully log into Ring accounts of certain customers.’

It said it promptly addressed the situation by notifying any customer “exposed in a third-party, non-Ring incident” and taking action to protect impacted accounts.

Many of the violations alleged by the FTC predate Amazon’s acquisition.

Ring did not immediately address the FTC’s allegations of employees and contractors unlawfully accessing footage, The Associated Press said. Amazon has previously said it disagreed with the FTC’s claims but that it was eager to “put these matters behind us.”

The FTC said customers who have not already been contacted about a refund or who have questions about their payments should contact the refund administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., at  1-833-637-4884, or visit the FTC website to view frequently asked questions about the refund process.