Why is that silly? If it's less expensive to hire new workers, then that's what will happen. Businesses aren't going to do without the necessary labor to meet their customers' needs.
Exactly, this is always what fails to be mentioned in these discussions. You see the same arguments made when people talk about minimum wage, as if a 30% increase in minimum wage will lead to Burger King firing 30% of its workers. They still have to sell the same number of hamburgers to the same number of customers, they won't just decide to cut production because labor prices increase.
"Fetish of full employment." More people may be employed, but total labor income share won't change. So he's right, of course, but on the whole it's not something to blindly celebrate and he should know that. What he's actually celebrating is that the meaningless unemployment rate may go down. That isn't "fairly treating" people who work overtime -- it's eliminating overtime from the equation. This is good, except for the people who needed the extra hours, whether they were getting paid more or not, to scrape by.
A lot of people don't even get straight time when working overtime hours. That's the real issue, not the thing about time and a half. Wage theft is one of the big ways that companies have been able to spike their profits so high. No one needs extra hours when they're getting paid the same regardless of whether they work 40 or 60. Total labor income will definitely change in that scenario. Maybe what we need is an profession sports league-style salary cap, where labor income is guaranteed to be a set percent of revenue. Nah, socialism only works for the wealthy :)