ISS Discussion Paper Series F-147

How are hours worked and wages
affected by labor regulations?:――The white-collar exemption and‘name-only managers’ in Japan ――

July 2009
F-147
Sachiko Kuroda† and Isamu Yamamoto‡
Institute of Social Science
The University of Tokyo1

Abstract*

This paper examines whether overtime regulations have a significant impact on thehours worked and hourly wages, by focusing on so-called name-only managers inJapan. The term name-only manager refers to an employee who has essentially thesame job description as other employees, but who is designated by the company asa manager to exempt them from overtime regulations. As the name implies, theonly difference between those managers and other employees is in the applicableregulations on working time. Using longitudinal data, our main results frommatching estimation indicate no significant difference in hourly wage or hours
worked between the two groups. This implies that name-only managers’ basesalaries are sufficiently higher to compensate for the loss of overtime pay, which
supports the fixed-job model.

*

Data used in this paper is longitudinal data from the Keio Household Panel Survey (KHPS). We
thank professors Yuji Genda (University of Tokyo), Yoshio Higuchi (Keio University), Daiji
Kawaguchi (Hitotsubashi University), Kazuto Sumita (Kanazawa Seiryo University), Kotaro Tsuru(Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, IAA), and Kazuo Yamaguchi (University of
Chicago), and participants at Study group for Labor Market Institution Reform in Japan at REITI
and WEAI Pacific RIM conference 2009 for their valuable comments. Whatever errors that may becontained herein are solely those of the authors. This research is supported by the Japanese
government’s Grants in aid for young scientists (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science;
Research No.19730167 and No. 20730164) and Program for Promoting Social Science Research
Aimed at Solutions of Near-Future Problems “Creation of Employment System that enables Lifelong
Growth for All People” (commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology).

† The University of Tokyo (kuroda@iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp)‡ Keio University (yamamoto@fbc.keio.ac.jp)

2

1. Introduction

This paper uses Japanese longitudinal data to examine the impact of overtime regulations onwork hours and hourly wages. In Japan, many employees are subject to overtime regulations.
When those employees work beyond the statutory work hours, the Labor Standards Act requires
employers to pay a minimum overtime premium of 25 percent. However, some employees inJapan, specifically managers with the title of section chief and higher, are exempt from thisrequirement and are not paid for overtime, as with the white-collar exemption in the US.
There has been a growing number of lawsuits in Japan recently where managers in theservice sector sue their employers for overtime pay. In 2007, for example, a manager of a
McDonalds in Japan filed suit against McDonalds Japan demanding JPY 13.5 million (roughly
equivalent to US$135,000 using an exchange rate of JPY100/US$1) in overtime pay, arguingthat it was illegal to classify store managers as management exempt from overtime regulations
and not pay them for overtime. There has been a succession of similar lawsuits since then bystore managers working for other eating and drinking establishments and menswear chains. The
mass media has dubbed these store managers “name-only managers,” and noted that many ofthese store managers only had the veneer of management, while being forced to work longhours without overtime pay.
Name-only managers argue that companies have designated their store managers as partof management, while only giving them the same salary and authority as a line employee,merely as a ruse to unfairly withhold the overtime pay (125 percent of their hourly wage) that3

they are rightfully due. As noted above, Japan’s Labor Standards Act allows the exemption ofmanagement personnel from regulations on hours worked. That law does not, however,prescribe the conditions that must be met to qualify as management, 1 but instead leaves it up to
the individual companies’ discretion. Consequently, by classifying store managers as
management, even when they do not have a management role, companies can make them workovertime without overtime pay. It therefore seems that the problem stems from the lack of any
clear definition of management within the Labor Standards Act.
From an economics perspective, however, there is some reason to doubt the supposition
that name-only managers in the service industry have really been working for an unfair wage.
Although Japan’s labor market is said to lack mobility, the skills required to manage a chain
eating/drinking establishment or chain menswear store are mostly general in nature. Thus, a
name-only manager who is forced to work for an unfairly low wage should be able to switch
jobs to a similar store owned by another company. A name-only manager may have to workovertime for free, but it may be the case that their base salary is higher than that of other
employees, so as to equalize their wage in effective hourly terms (total salary divided by total
hours worked) to that of other employees.
Japan’s issue with name-only managers brings to mind the fixed-job model of Lewis(1969) and Trejo (1991). In the fixed-job model, there is an ex ante implicit contract between
employer and employee on the total job package, which stipulates the hours of work required to1

Article 41 of the Labor Standards Act only defines a manager as “persons in positions ofsupervision or management or persons handling confidential matters, regardless of the type ofenterprise.”4

do the job and the total wages commensurate with that. The model expects that even when theovertime premium increased, the base wage could be lowered enough to offset that increase, andtherefore there would be no net change in the employee’s effective hourly wage. If the fixed-job
model holds, the effective hourly wage of a name-only manager in Japan’s service sector should
be no different than that of other employees, and the effective hourly wage of an employee
promoted to a name-only manager position should be the same as their hourly wage prior topromotion.
The fixed-job model has been tested with a variety of data, including in Trejo (1991, 1993,2003), Hamermesh and Trejo (2000), and Bell and Hart (2003). Nevertheless, findings on thevalidity of the fixed-job model differ, depending on the country and employees analyzed 2 . Trejo(1991) used the Current Population Survey (CPS) from the 1970s to check whether the wages
of workers who did not receive overtime pay were adjusted upward by the amount of overtime
pay received by non-exempt workers. For the fixed-job model to hold, the base salary ofworkers not paid an overtime premium should increase by the amount of the missing overtime
pay. Trejo (1991) found that wages were adjusted, but not enough to completely offset the lost
overtime pay. Meanwhile, Hamermesh and Trejo (2000) used CPS data in California for 1973,
1985, and 1991 to determine whether there was a decline in the number of workers who worked
more than 8 hours a day when the hours subject to the overtime premium were changed fromover 40 hours per week to over 8 hours per day. For the fixed-job model to apply, a change in

2

In addition to this, Mitchell (2005), using data from the period when the white collar

exemption was narrowed in California, found no major change in workers’ overtime hours.

5the scheme of overtime regulation should not affect the behavior of employer and employee.
This is because if a change in regulation were to cause an increase in overtime pay, it would beoffset by an adjustment to the base salary, and leave total wages unchanged. Using a“difference-in-difference” analysis, however, Hamermesh and Trejo (2000) showed a clear
decline in the number of workers working more than 8 hours per day as a result of the change in
California’s labor laws, and thus found the fixed-job model does not hold.
In addition, Bell and Hart (2003) used the 1998 British New Earnings Survey to look at
how such regulations correlate with hourly wages, including both base pay and overtime pay. In
the UK, there are no rules on overtime work, leaving employers and workers to decide on theirown whether overtime premia are to be paid. If the fixed-job model were to hold, there would
be a negative correlation between base pay and overtime pay, with overtime pay being set
higher when base pay is low. The results from Bell and Hart (2003) support the fixed-job model,
finding a negative correlation between base pay and overtime pay and no major difference withhourly wages including overtime pay.
When testing the fixed-job model, it is important to compare differences in hours worked
and hourly wages for workers doing the same job at the same level of productivity and authority
but under different overtime regulations, in order to isolate the impact of those regulations.
Hamermesh and Trejo (2000) and other works take advantage of the natural experiment createdby changes in the laws regulating overtime premia, by comparing data from before the statutorychange with data from after.

6

In this respect, the dispute over name-only managers in Japan gives us unique data suited fortesting the fixed-job model, because name-only managers, as their name implies, do the samejob with the same authority and discretion as other employees. Name-only managers claim in
their lawsuits that although they do the same basic job as other employees, they are subject todifferent work hour rules because they are called managers, and consequently do not receive
any overtime pay. Examining differences in work hours and hourly wages, either between
name-only managers and other employees, or between the periods before and after an employee
is “promoted” to a name-only manager position, should be an effective way to test the validityof the fixed-job model. In other words, if it can be shown that the hourly wages of a name-only
manager are the same as they were prior to their “promotion,” or the same as other employees, itwould confirm the validity of the fixed-job model.
In this paper, we use data on service sector employees in Japan to check whether hours
worked and hourly wages are different for employees exempted from overtime regulations. Our
analysis uses 2004 to 2008 data from the Keio Household Panel Survey (KHPS). The KHPS is alongitudinal survey of individuals conducted every year since 2004 by Keio University, 3 andhas the broadest coverage of any such survey in Japan. In this paper, we define the sample ofexempt employees as our treatment group and the sample of other employees as our control
group, and derive matching estimates for the average treatment effect (ATE) that exemption
from overtime regulations has on hours worked and hourly wages.

3

KHPS has been conducted as a part of governmental program, the 21st century COE (Centre of

Excellence) program.

7

Our results can be summarized as follows. First, using the survey as repeated crosssection data, we found that name-only managers exempted from overtime regulations worked
longer hours than non-exempt employees among non-university graduates working in theservice sector and employees in the wholesale/retail, eating/drinking establishment, and lodging
sectors. However, we found that the effective hourly wages, including overtime pay andbonuses, of name-only managers were not any lower than those of other employees whenholding the employee’s characteristics constant. That is, name-only managers’ base salary was
higher to make up for their loss of overtime pay, keeping their effective hourly wages as high as
before. This result supports the fixed-job model. Next, using the survey as longitudinal data to
account for unobserved heterogeneity, we found that when an employee was promoted to nameonly manager and made exempt from overtime regulations, their hours worked did not increase
and their wages did not decline. This result also validates the fixed-job model. In other words,
overtime regulations do not seem to have a major impact on the hours worked and wages ofservice sector employees.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we explain our estimation approaches,
and in section 3 we describe the variables and data that we use. We present our results in section
4, and give our conclusions in section 5.

2. Estimation approach
To test for differences in hours worked and hourly wages that can be attributed to exemption
from overtime regulations, we take two approaches. First, in a cross-section approach, we pool8the KHPS data from each year’s survey to compare the hours worked and hourly wages ofnonexempt and exempt employees. Second, in a panel approach, we treat the KHPS data as
longitudinal data to test for changes in the hours worked and hourly wages of employees who
have been made exempt. A detailed discussion of each approach follows.

2.1 Cross-section approach
Under the cross-section approach, we use exempt employees as our treatment group and other
employees as our control group. Using matching estimators, we derive the average treatment
effect on the controls (ATC), that is, the change in the outcome (hours worked or hourly wages)
when nonexempt employees in the control group were exempted from overtime regulations.
Since the potential outcome when nonexempt employees are exempted is unobservable, we
compare the outcome of each nonexempt employee in the control group with that of the exempt
employees in the treatment group that have similar characteristics.
More specifically, following Abadie et al. (2004), we express the relationship between
the outcome and the exemption in the following equation, where Yi is the potential outcome(hours worked or hourly wages) of employee i, and Wi indicates exemption (1 is exempt, 0 is
non-exempt).

⎧Y (0)
Yi = Yi (Wi ) = ⎨ i⎩ Yi (1)

if Wi = 0
if Wi = 1 ,(1)9where Yi(0) represents the outcome when the employee is subject to overtime regulations, andYi(1) represents the outcome when he / she is exempt from those regulations. Then, thepopulation ATC (ATCpop) and sample ATC (ATC) are defined as follows.

ATC pop = E[Y (1) − Y (0) | W = 0] ,
ATC =

(2)

1
∑ (Yi (1) − Yi (0)) ,N 0 i | Wi =0

where N0 is the number of samples in the control group.
Since we can only observe either Yi(0)|Wi=0 (non-exempt outcome for the control
group) or Yi(1)|Wi=1 (exempt outcome for treatment group), we have to estimate theunobservable outcome Yi(1)|Wi=0 (outcome when nonexempt employees in the control groupwere made exempt). In doing so, we use the following three methods: (1) matching, (2)propensity score matching, and (3) propensity score WLS.

(1) Matching
Following Abadie et al. (2004), we define JM(i), the set of indices for the matches for employee
i that are at least as close as the Mth match:

J M (i ) = {l = 1,..., N 1 | Wl = 1, X l − X i ≤ d M (i )} ,

10

(3)

where dM(i) is the distance of the Mth closest characteristic, Xi is the employee characteristic,
and N1 is the number of samples in the treatment group. Based on this, ATC from matching isgiven byATC m =

Yˆi m (1) =1∑ (Yˆi m (1) − Yi (0)) for i | Wi = 0 ,N 0 i|Wi =0

1∑Yl# J M (i) l∈J M (i )(4),where #JM(i) is the number of elements of JM(i). 4(2) Propensity score matching (PS-Matching)
We define the propensity score ei as the probit estimate of the probability of becoming exempt,that is, the probability of falling in the treatment group for employees with characteristic Xi.

ei = Pr( Wi = 1 | X i ) = E (Wi | X i ) .

(5)

Based on this, ATC from propensity score matching is given as follows:4

In estimation, we use a nearest neighborhood matching with M=1. We have done the exact

match on the following variables; age group (20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s), year, and industry. See
also Section 3.2 for details on the variables used for the estimation.

11

ATCp =

1
(Yˆi p (1) − Yi (0)) for i | Wi = 0 ,∑N0 i|Wi =0Yˆi p (1) = ∑ Yl G ((el − ei ) / h )l|Wl =1(6)∑ G((e − e ) / h) ,k |Wl =1kiwhere G() is the kernel function and h the bandwidth parameter. 5(3) Propensity score WLS (PS-WLS)
The propensity score WLS, which is based on Hirano and Imbens (2001), uses the λ calculated
from the propensity score as a weight to regress Wi and individual attributes Xi against Yi (hours
worked or hourly wages). The ATC from propensity score WLS is then given by the estimatedparameter of Wi:

ATC w = γprovidedYi = α + βX i + γWi + ε iweightλ=Wi 1 − Wi+ei 1 − ei(7).

By putting heavier weights on employees within the treatment group close to the control group(employees with a low propensity score) and on employees within the control group close to thetreatment group (employees with a high propensity score), we can compare the outcomes for
those employees with more similar characteristics.

5

In estimation, we use a biweight kernel function and set h=0.06.

12

2.2 Panel approach
In the panel approach, we regard those employees who were made exempt during the year prior
to the survey as the treatment group, and then examine the changes in the outcome (hours
worked or hourly wages) for the treatment group relative to before they were made exempt.
Furthermore, since the outcome can be affected by the business cycle and other factors besides
exemption status, we also compare them with the change in the outcome for the control group(employees with no change in their exemption status from the previous year). In other words,
we conduct a difference-in-difference analysis for hours worked and hourly wages. In doing so,
we use a matching estimator to derive the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). Unlike
the cross-section approach, we do not conduct matching estimation using a propensity scoresince the propensity score, which is the probability of being promoted to manager during theyear, is not conceptually estimable in this case. 6

3. Data
3.1 Overview of KHSP
Our analysis uses longitudinal data from the Keio Household Panel Survey (KHPS) taken in
2004-08. The KHPS, first conducted in 2004, surveys the same individuals every year at the end
6

Our estimation makes two important assumptions: The first is the unconfoundedness

assumption, which signifies that Wi is not endogenous. In our context, this equates to anassumption that workers who work longer hours are not more likely to be made exempt. The
second is the overlap assumption, which means that samples with similar characteristics are
assumed to be present in both the treatment group and control group.

13

of January. From the entire Japan-resident population (male and female) aged 20 to 69, 4,000
individuals were selected at random using two-stage sampling. 7 If a selected person was
married, their spouse was also surveyed. Therefore, almost 7,000 individuals were actually
surveyed in total.
Consecutive surveys of the same individuals were taken since 2005, with a response
rate from previously surveyed individuals of 82.7 percent, 86.4 percent, 91.3 percent, and 90.9
percent. The sample size was increased for the 2007 survey, when another 1,400 individuals
were newly selected. Survey questions cover a wide range of topics, including occupation,
income and expenditures, assets and liabilities, time spent on activities, and perception of those
activities. Kimura (2005) makes a detailed analysis of the KHPS sample characteristics, andfinds no significant differences in the distribution of major variables compiled from the KHPS
survey questions compared with other surveys, including the Population Census and the Labor
Force Survey, both of which are taken by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.
For details on the KHPS, see Higuchi, Kimura, and Naoi (2008).

3.2 Samples and variables
From the KHPS surveys taken from 2004 until 2008, we use the samples of male regular
employees under age 60 and working in the service industry or the eating/drinking
establishment, wholesale/retail, or lodging industries. To focus on the employees receiving the7

The size of this population was 85.75 million people, which is 67.2 percent of the total

Japanese population (based on population estimates made in February 2004).

14

pay of a store manager, we exclude from our sample employees with an annual salary of lessthan JPY4 million. 8 In the panel approach, we exclude job changers and samples who did not
answer the survey for two consecutive years. In addition, we use the 2004 survey data only to
calculate changes in hours worked and hourly wages under the panel approach, while weanalyzed the next four years of data, from 2005 until 2008, under both the cross-section andpanel approaches. This brought the number of samples to 1,374 for the cross-section approachand 980 for the panel approach.
As for the variables indicating exemption from overtime regulations, we define as
exempt employees those respondents who answered that the concept of overtime work does not
apply to them and/or that their compensation included a performance-based annual bonus. For
hours worked, we use the weekly hours worked. For hourly wages, we use an hourly wage
computed by dividing annual compensation including overtime pay and bonus by the number ofhours worked for the year.
The variables in our matching estimate are age, tenure, a management dummy (1 formanagerial personnel, 0 for others) 9 , a university graduate dummy (1 for university graduates, 0
8An annual salary of JPY4 million roughly equates to US$40,000 using an exchange rate of

JPY100/US$1). According to the Statistical Survey of Actual Private Sector Salaries taken by
Japan’s National Tax Agency, the average annual salary of salaried employees working theentire year was JPY4.35 million in 2006. Based on this, we decided to exclude from ouranalysis those employees with an annual income of less than jpy4 million. Including in thesample those employees making less than JPY4 million, however, did not significantly change
the results of this paper.
9

Managerial personnel in KHPS includes, in addition to managers, team chiefs (kakarichos)and other supervisory personnel not included in the category of management. Respondents

15

for others), a poor health dummy (1 for respondents who answered that their usual healthcondition is “not very good” or “not good”), number of household members, a dummy forhaving children under age six (1 for having a child not yet in school, 0 for not), industry
dummies, occupation dummies, and company size dummies. For our panel approach, we alsouse matching variables for changes from the previous year. Table 1 shows the descriptive
statistics for these variables.

4. Estimation Results
4.1 Cross-section approach
Table 2 shows the estimation results under the cross-section approach. For both weekly hours
worked and hourly wages, the table shows the average, standard deviation, and sample size ofthe treatment group and control group, as well as the simple difference between the groups andthe ATC estimates using the three methods described in section 2.1 (matching, PS-matching,and PS-WLS), along with their statistical significance level. 10
Looking first at hours worked in Table 2(1), for the service sector overall, the average
weekly hours worked is 52.50 in the treatment group (exempt employees), longer than the 51.85
for the control group (nonexempt employees). This difference of 0.65 hours (39 minutes) issmall, however, and not statistically significant. Even when controlling for characteristics using
working in managerial positions are included in both the treatment and control groups,
depending on whether they receive overtime pay.
10

For PS-matching and PS-WLS, the balancing property was satisfied in every

16

estimation.

matching estimation, the difference between the groups (the ATC) is not statisticallysignificantly different from zero.
When categorizing by educational level, however, the ATC for non-university graduates
is significantly positive, with the weekly average work hours of exempt employees higher by
2.12 to 2.61 hours than those of nonexempt employees. When looking only at thewholesale/retail and hospitality (eating/drinking establishments and lodging) sectors, the ATC issignificantly positive more often. Specifically, the ATC was 2.66 to 3.45 for the wholesale/retailand hospitality sectors overall, and became larger, 3.22 to 5.25, when limiting the sample tonon-university graduates.
The numbers above suggest that less-educated non-university graduates employed in theservice sector and employees in the wholesale/retail and hospitality sectors work longer hours
when they are made exempt from overtime regulations. It is likely that many of them are theemployees referred to as name-only managers. Our results therefore indicate that name-only
managers tend to work longer hours than other employees.
Nevertheless, as long as they receive a higher base salary equivalent to the lost overtime
pay, they would seem to be fairly compensated for their longer work hours. To confirm this, welook next at the results for hourly wage in Table 2(2), which show that the hourly wage for nonuniversity graduates working in the service sector and for employees in the wholesale/retail andhospitality sectors -- the employees who show a significantly positive ATC for hours worked -is roughly the same for the treatment group as for the control group. For non-university
graduates working in the wholesale/retail and hospitality sectors, as well, the treatment group’s

17hourly wage of JPY2160 was only JPY200 lower than the control group’s JPY2,360. Although
this difference is statistically significant, none of the ATCs are statistically significantly
different from zero when using matching estimation to control for characteristics.
Hence, although name-only managers work longer hours, their hourly compensation(including overtime pay and bonuses) does not seem to be any lower than other employees. Thisimplies their base salary is higher to make up for their loss of overtime pay, and supports thebasic tenets of the fixed-job model.
It should be noted that Table 2 (2) shows a significantly positive ATC in hourly wage
for university graduates employed in the service sector and in the wholesale/retail andhospitality sectors. Many of the university graduates employed in the service sector and in thewholesale/retail and hospitality sectors work in a managerial position at the parent company, afactor we think sets them apart from name-only managers. In other words, they are managers in
the real sense, and their high hourly wage simply reflects the higher productivity of amanagerial position. In this case, a comparison between the treatment group and control groupis not a suitable test of the fixed-job model, because not only the overtime regulations but also
other factors such as productivity and job content differ between the two groups.

4.2 Panel approach
Table 3 shows the estimation results under the panel approach. Unlike the cross-section
approach, it allows us to examine the impact of the overtime regulations when controlling for18

unobserved individual heterogeneity, since we examine changes in hours worked and hourly
wage for the same individual before and after they were made exempt.
To start with, we see no change in the hours worked by the treatment group (employees
made exempt within the past year) that is statistically significantly different from zero. The
same is true for the control group (employees with no change in their exemption status over the
past year). This lack of a statistically significant difference (ATT) between the two groups innearly every case indicates that becoming exempt, i.e., being promoted to name-only manager,
does not cause a change in hours worked. For university graduates, however, ATT based onmatching estimation showed a significantly negative value. As described before, we think thiscan be attributed to other factors, such as promotions of university graduates that result in an
actual change in job content.
The change in hourly wages, like that in hours worked, is small both for the treatmentgroup and the control group, and the difference between the groups is not statistically significant.
In other words, we see no evidence that being made exempt from overtime regulations results ina decline in hourly wages.
Under a panel approach, therefore, we found no increase in hours worked or decline inhourly wages when an employee was promoted to name-only manager and made exempt fromovertime regulations. This indicates support for the fixed-job model, and suggests that overtime
regulations do not have much impact on employees’ hours worked or hourly wages.

19

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we test the fixed-job model of Lewis (1969) and Trejo (1991) by examining
whether overtime regulations have a significant impact on hours worked and hourly wages,
focusing on so-called “name-only managers,” an employee category recently in the news inJapan.
In Japan, name-only store manager refers to an employee who has essentially the samejob description as other employees, but who is designated a manager by the company to exempt
them from overtime regulations and make them ineligible for overtime pay. Japan’s Labor
Standards Act requires employers to pay employees at least a 25 percent overtime premium forhours worked beyond the statutory work hours, but “managers” are exempt from thisrequirement. The legal definition of manager was left vague, however, making it possible forcompanies to simply name an employee a “manager,” irrespective of their actual job, andthereby stop paying overtime. It is said that there are many such employees in Japan’s service
sector, particularly in the wholesale/retail and hospitality sectors.
As the name implies, name-only managers are managers in name only, but do the same
work and are given the same authority and discretion as other employees. The only difference isin the applicable regulations on hours worked. Because of this, a comparison of name-only
managers with other employees makes it possible to identify the impact that overtime
regulations have on actual hours worked and hourly wages. That is, if name-only managers,
despite not receiving overtime pay, earn the same effective hourly wage (total annual salary
including overtime pay and bonus divided by total hours worked) as other employees because

20their base salary is higher, it would mean that the fixed-job model holds. Under the fixed-job
model, overtime regulations have little impact on the effective hourly wages since employer andemployee make an implicit contract for a total job package of wages and hours.
We use longitudinal data on employees in Japan from the Keio Household Panel Survey(KHPS) for the years 2004 to 2008 to examine whether the exemption from overtime
regulations, as is the case for name-only managers, causes any change in hours worked oreffective hourly wages for employees in the service sector, and specifically in thewholesale/retail and hospitality sectors.
Using the survey as repeated cross-section data, we found that name-only managers
exempted from overtime regulations worked longer hours than non-exempt employees for nonuniversity graduates working in the service sector and employees working in thewholesale/retail and hospitality sectors. However, we found that the effective hourly wages ofname-only managers were not any lower than for other employees when controlling for
employee characteristics. This implies that name-only managers’ base salary was higher tomake up for their loss of overtime pay, keeping their effective hourly wages as high as those forother employees. This result supports the fixed-job model. Using the survey as longitudinal datato account for unobserved employee heterogeneity, we found that when an employee waspromoted to name-only manager and made exempt from overtime regulations, their hours
worked did not increase and their wages did not decline. This result also validates the fixed-job
model.

21

Our results suggest that name-only managers, a recent matter of concern and interest inJapan’s service sector, on average earn the same effective hourly wage as other employees,
because their loss of overtime pay as a result of being made exempt has been offset by theirhigher base salary. It is important to note, however, that our analysis only examines the average
impact (ATE) of overtime regulations, and does not imply that there are not any name-only
managers who are paid an unfairly low effective hourly wage. In fact, in the lawsuit filed
against McDonald’s Japan noted in the introduction, the court ruled on the side of the nameonly managers, and ordered the company to pay the unpaid overtime. Another way to interpret
this ruling is that it is precisely because name-only managers are treated fairly on average thattreatment unfair enough to trigger a lawsuit would be deemed unjust by the court.
Another interesting aspect is that this court decision, together with society’s growing
concern and interest, has led McDonald’s Japan and many other companies to introduce new
employment rules that do not classify store managers as part of management. Particularlyinteresting is that although name-only managers will be paid overtime under the new rules, theirbase salary (including store manager allowances and other assignment allowances) will be
reduced such that there is no change in either their annual compensation or effective hourly
wage. In other words, when name-only managers are returned to non-exempt status, their basesalaries are normally reduced to ensure no change in their effective hourly wage. This is what
the fixed-job model predicts. We expect this trend to be further reinforced by a subsequent
directive from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, which adds “the receipt of an
appropriate salary” as a requirement for being classified as management.

22

Recently, there has been heated debate in Japan over which regulations are likely to
produce the most desirable work environment. The government outlined its vision for achieving
economic growth while striking a balance between work and leisure in two publications: Action
Principles for Achieving Work-Life Balance (Shigoto to Seikatsu no Chowa Kenshou ), releasedin December 2007, and Guidelines for Reassessing Work Hours (Roudou Jikan tou Minaoshi no
Gaidorain), released in March 2008.
One debate over work-life balance revolves around the question of whether regulations
on hours worked should be relaxed to allow white collar workers who meet certain requirements
to control their own work hours, i.e., whether there is a need to encourage broader use of a USstyle white collar exemption. Opinion on the effect of such a white collar exemption is divided,with some believing it would prevent Japanese from working such long hours, and others
thinking it would result in even longer working hours. This has been debated repeatedly bylabor, management, the administration, and the Diet, and no conclusion has been reached onwhether the exemption should be expanded.
Because our analysis focuses on the service sector, it is not aimed at predicting theimpact on hours worked and hourly wages from introducing a US-style white collar exemption
to a broader range of Japanese workers. Nevertheless, assuming that the characteristics of theservice sector reflect to some degree those of Japan’s overall labor market, for the fixed-job
model to hold would probably imply that introducing a US-style white collar exemption would
be unlikely to have much effect on workers’ behavior.

23

References

Abadie, A., D. Drukker, J. L. Herr, and G. W. Imbens, “Implementing Matching Estimators for
Average Treatment Effects in Stata,” The Stata Journa, 4(3) (2004), 290-311.
Bell, D. N. F. and R. A. Hart, “Wages, Hours, and Overtime Premia: Evidence from the British
Labor Market,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56 (3) (2003), 470-80.
Hamermesh, D. S. and S. J. Trejo, “The Demand for Hours of Labor: Direct Evidence from
California,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 82 (1) (2000), 38-46.
Higuchi, Y., M. Kimura, and M. Naoi, “Keio Household Panel Survey (KHPS): Outline andPurposes,” in Yano, M. (ed.), The Japanese Economy -- A Market Quality Perspective,
Chapter 2, (Tokyo: Keio University Press, 2008), 21-30 (in Japanese).
Hirano, K. and G. W. Imbens, “Estimation of Causal Effects using Propensity Score Weighting:
An Application to Data on Right Heart Catheterization,” Health Services and Outcomes
Research Methodology, 2(3-4) (2001), 259-278.
Kimura, M., “2004 nen Keiogijuku Kakei Paneru Chosa no Hyouhon Tokusei” (Characteristicsof the 2004 Keio household panel survey sample), in Yoshio Higuchi et al. eds., Nihon no
Kakei Kodo no Dainamizumu II (Dynamism of Household Behavior in Japan), 2005 (inJapanese).
Lewis, H. G., “Employer interests in employee hours of work,” mimeo, University of Chicago,(1969).

24

Mitchell, J., “Forecasting the Effects of the August 23rd Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime
Changes: Evidence from a California Natural Experiment,” mimeo, Department of
Economics, Stanford University, (2005).
Trejo, S. J., “The Effects of Overtime Pay Regulation on Worker Compensation,” American
Economic Review, 81(4) (1991), 719-740.
Trejo, S. J., “Overtime Pay, Overtime Hours, and Labor Unions,” Journal of Labor Economics,
11(2), (1993), 253-278.
Trejo, S. J., “Does the Statutory Overtime Premium Discourage Long Workweeks?,” Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 56(3), (2003), 530-551.

25

Table 1 Descriptive statistics
Treatment group

Control group

45.47(7.98)
15.91(10.97)0.65(0.48)
0.41(0.49)
0.07(0.26)
3.83(1.38)
0.16(0.37)

43.32(8.39)
16.10(10.10)0.50(0.50)
0.37(0.48)
0.08(0.27)
3.75(1.32)
0.23(0.42)

339

1035

44.15
(7.87)
16.17(10.32)0.73(0.45)
0.34(0.48)
0.09(0.28)
3.83(1.34)
0.21(0.41)

43.08(8.13)
16.20(9.64)
0.54(0.50)
0.25(0.43)
0.10(0.30)
3.95(1.49)
0.24(0.43)

103

263

Service sector
Age
TenureManagerial personnel dummy
University graduate dummy
Bad health dummy
Number of family membersChild dummy
Number of sample
Wholesale and Retail Trade, Eating andDrinking Places, Lodging
Age
TenureManagerial personnel dummy
University graduate dummy
Bad health dummy
Number of family membersChild dummy
Number of sample

Notes: Numbers are average, and numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

26

Table 2 Estimation results: cross-section approach(1) Weekly hours of work

Service sector

University graduates

OthersWholesale and Retail Trade,
Eating and Drinking Places,
Lodging
University graduates

OthersATC (a-b)

Treatmentgroup (a)Controlgroup（b)SimpleMatching

52.50(11.56)[339]
50.27(10.18)[139]
54.05(12.22)[200]
56.67(12.33)51.85(10.64)[1035]
51.72(10.07)[379]
51.92(10.96)[656]
53.22(10.59)0.65(0.68)<0.34>-1.44(1.00)<0.15>
2.12 **(0.91)<0.02>
3.45 **(1.29)

0.78(0.91)<0.39>-1.31(1.50)<0.38>
2.21 *(1.15)<0.05>
3.00 *(1.72)

0.89(0.83)<0.28>-2.23(1.37)<0.10>
2.60 **(1.13)<0.02>
2.69(1.70)

0.92(0.71)<0.20>-1.77 *
(1.02)<0.08>
2.61 **(0.95)<0.01>
2.66 *(1.43)

[103]

[263]

<0.01><0.08><0.12><0.06>

52.89(9.27)[35]
58.62(13.30)[68]

52.78(9.35)[65]
53.36(10.99)[198]

0.10(1.95)<0.96>
5.25 **(1.63)<0.00>-2.74(2.28)<0.23>
3.68 *(2.23)<0.10>-1.43(2.47)<0.56>
3.22(2.27)<0.16>-1.28(1.85)<0.49>
3.60 **(1.81)<0.05>

Treatmentgroup (a)Controlgroup（b)PS-Matching

PS-WLS(2) Hourly wage

Service sector

University graduates

OthersWholesale and Retail Trade,
Eating and Drinking Places,
LogingUniversity graduates

Others3.15(1.54)[339]
3.72(1.71)[139]
2.75(1.27)[200]
2.48(1.08)[103]
3.11(1.36)[35]
2.16(0.74)[68]

2.81(1.16)[1035]
2.95(1.20)[379]
2.73(1.12)[656]
2.42(0.85)[263]
2.62(0.91)[65]
2.36(0.82)[198]

ATC (a-b)
SimpleMatching**

0.34(0.08)<0.00>
0.78 **(0.13)<0.00>
0.02(0.09)<0.80>
0.05(0.11)<0.62>
0.49 **(0.23)<0.03>-0.21 *
(0.11)<0.07>

PS-Matching**

0.29(0.10)<0.00>
1.04 **(0.20)<0.00>-0.04(0.11)<0.69>
0.08(0.13)<0.54>
0.85 **(0.25)<0.00>-0.18(0.11)<0.12>

0.17(0.11)<0.10>
0.55 **(0.22)<0.01>-0.05(0.12)<0.68>
0.05(0.15)<0.74>
0.36(0.33)<0.28>-0.04(0.13)<0.75>PS-WLS

0.15 **(0.07)<0.04>
0.39 **(0.10)<0.00>-0.08(0.09)<0.36>-0.01(0.10)<0.95>
0.20(0.18)<0.26>-0.09(0.09)<0.35>

Notes: 1. Numbers in parentheses are t-values. Numbers in brackets are p-values. Numbers in angle
brackets are the number of samples.
2. * and ** indicates statistical significance at 5 % and 1 %, respectively.

27

Table 3 Estimation results: panel approach(1) Weekly hours of work

Service sector

University graduates
OthersWholesale and Retail Trade,
Eating and Drinking Places,
Lodging
University graduates
OthersTreatmentgroup (a)-0.14
(7.72)[115]-1.38(7.48)[48]
0.75(7.83)[67]
0.44(7.27)[39]-0.15(5.34)[13]
0.73(8.15)[26]

Controlgroup (b)-0.17
(6.99)[865]
0.16(6.57)[307]-0.34(7.21)[558]-0.50(7.91)[236]-0.13(7.70)[62]-0.63(7.99)[174]

Treatmentgroup (a)0.08
(0.70)[115]
0.02(0.62)[48]
0.13(0.76)[67]
0.04(0.51)[39]
0.00(0.48)[13]
0.06(0.54)[26]

Controlgroup (b)0.11
(0.57)[865]
0.11(0.62)[307]
0.11(0.53)[558]
0.12(0.44)[236]
0.08(0.54)[62]
0.14(0.41)[174]

ATT (a-b)
SimpleMatching

0.03(0.70)<0.97>-1.53(1.04)<0.14>
1.09(0.94)<0.25>
0.94(1.35)<0.49>-0.02(2.25)<0.99>
1.36(1.68)<0.42>

0.48(1.00)<0.63>-3.77 **
(1.81)<0.04>
0.76(1.20)<0.53>
0.94(1.35)<0.49>-5.46(3.37)<0.11>
1.73(2.10)<0.41>(2) Hourly wage

Service sector

University graduates
OthersWholesale and Retail Trade,
Eating and Drinking Places,
Lodging
University graduates
Others

ATT (a-b)
Simple-0.02(0.06)<0.67>-0.09(0.10)<0.35>
0.02(0.07)<0.77>-0.09(0.08)<0.28>-0.08(0.16)<0.62>-0.08(0.09)<0.36>

Matching-0.06(0.09)<0.52>
0.03(0.14)<0.85>
0.11(0.13)<0.37>-0.11(0.11)<0.34>-0.20(0.26)<0.45>-0.02(0.13)<0.90>

Notes: 1. Numbers in parentheses are t-values. Numbers in brackets are p-values. Numbers in angle
brackets are the number of samples.
2. * and ** indicates statistical significance at 5 % and 1 %, respectively.

28