New overtime pay rules take effect Monday

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5769796/?GT1=4529

 

Contentious overtime overhaul to start

Business groups, unions debate impact of new pay rulesThe Associated Press

Updated: 9:22 a.m. ET Aug. 20, 2004

 

WASHINGTON - In an unprecedented overhaul of the nation's overtime pay rules, the Bush administration is delivering to its business allies an election-year plum they've sought for decades.

 

The new rules take effect Monday after surviving many efforts by Democrats, labor unions and worker advocates to block them in Congress and kill them through public and political pressure.

 

The Labor Department says as many as 107,000 workers could lose overtime eligibility under its new rules, but about 1.3 million will gain it. The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington think tank, says 6 million will lose, and only a few will get new rights to premium pay for working more than 40 hours a week.

 

But no one really knows. That makes the issue harder to demonize politically, a benefit _ or a problem _ depending on the side you take.

 

"I do not see any kind of rush by employers to take away overtime rights," said Bill Schurgin, a labor attorney for the Seyfarth Shaw law firm in Chicago, who represents employers preparing for Monday's change. Critics claim that 6 million workers will lose eligibility is "a red herring."

 

Regardless, "nobody should get their overtime pay taken away," said Karen Nussbaum, executive director of Working America, an AFL-CIO organization created for workers unable to join unions.

 

About 115 million workers are covered by the overtime rules in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.

 

Monday's change is the culmination of decades of lobbying by business groups representing retailers, restaurants, insurance companies, banks and others that have been hammered by workers' overtime lawsuits, many of them successful.

 

Wal-Mart is facing dozens of worker lawsuits claiming they were cheated out of overtime and worked off the clock. An appeals court upheld a $90 million verdict against Farmers Insurance Exchange, sued for overtime by claims adjusters. Other companies that have made multimillion-dollar payouts include Starbucks, Radio Shack, Rite Aid and Bank of America.

 

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao told Congress the new rules would help stop "needless litigation" because it is designed to clarify who's entitled to overtime.

 

She and department officials are traveling the country touting to employers, human resources officials and friendly labor unions what now is called the Fair Pay initiative.

 

"As the new rules become effective, people will come to see that they do exactly what we've said they will do, which is provide a stronger and clearer overtime guarantee for more working Americans," said Deputy Labor Secretary Steven Law. He noted that a judge last month ruled in favor of Geico insurance claims adjusters, citing the pending new rules.

 

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who led the Senate fight to block the regulations, questioned the Bush administration's motives. "Let's face it, some of their major supporters in industries covered in here want this change," he said.

 

The rules could be politically dangerous in an election year when the weak jobs market is a big concern for voters.

 

"There is a risk _ we are in high season," said Rich Bond, political strategist and a former Republican National Committee chairman. "Every word at this point will be parsed, for good or bad."

 

After an uproar from Democrats and labor leaders about the initial proposal and unsuccessful attempts in Congress, with the help of moderate Republicans, to block the final plan, the rules were revised. The Fair Pay title was added and estimates of the number of workers affected were trimmed.

 

"It's absolutely true that it's been much more of a political issue than it should have been," said Michael Eastman, U.S. Chamber of Commerce's labor law policy director. "It's been on the regulatory agenda since the Carter administration. It shouldn't be this controversial."

 

The critics were heard. Gone from the rules are estimates on workers who might lose overtime based on changes to the duties tests, which describe the tasks that entitle a worker to overtime. The draft had said 1.5 million to 2.7 million workers "will be more readily identified as exempt." The new analysis says: "It is impossible to quantitatively estimate the number of exempt workers."

 

Language was removed suggesting employers could avoid extra overtime costs by cutting the hourly wages of newly eligible workers and adding back the overtime to equal the original salary.

 

Sections were added to make clear that police, firefighters and other public safety officers are not exempt from overtime, regardless of rank or pay level. But labor officials say middle- and upper-ranking officers such as lieutenants still could lose overtime.

 

Union workers covered by contracts will not be affected by the change, though labor leaders argue that unions will face tougher negotiations when their contracts expire because of the new rules.

 

The rules address jobs that are targets of lawsuits, spelling out what duties would exempt them from overtime. They include pharmacists, funeral directors, embalmers, journalists, claims adjusters, dental hygienists and chefs.

 

"We wanted clarity and we wanted reduced litigation," Eastman said. "Business was willing to accept some potentially increased labor costs in order to get it."

 

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Guest Paul H.]

This is some bullshit.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

This has already been discussed so I'm not going to comment in fear of contradicting myself and getting busted for it...

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The rules address jobs that are targets of lawsuits, spelling out what duties would exempt them from overtime. They include pharmacists, funeral directors, embalmers, journalists, claims adjusters, dental hygienists and chefs.

 

I just started working at healthsouth (rehab hospital, of course I work in the kitchen), and I was given 90+ hours for the first two weeks, and I better get overtime. 12 hour shifts are bad enough, and having to work 3 straight 12 hour shifts twice (once already this week and once next week) sucks ass as it is, but If I don't get the OT Im going to be pissed.

 

I read a few articles and I think Im safe because I make less than $23,000 a year, but I don't plan to be making less than that for the rest of my life..

[Perfxion 0]

With all the BS talk, what is the new rule made since this made it hard to understand what the hell the rule is.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think what the article is trying to say, is that technically you won't lose your overtime pay if nothing at your work changes, however........

 

Supposedly now you will be exempt from overtime depending on job title, which makes it rather easy for companies to get around this......for example: working at a warehouse packing boxes, you would be considered low level, thus would get overtime, however it is as simple as the HR department reclassifying your job title/role to some squeaky new thing like, "Box handler technician" and if it is considered a "professional job" or something, you can be exempt, even though you still do the same thing. I am not sure if this is 100% accurate, but it sounds that starting monday there is just going to be a huge gray area, so we will all have to wait and see what our employers do, if anything.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

CBS was rather lavishing praise on this tonight on the Evening News.

 

This new administration policy gives more money to lower-income people, while giving less to higher-income people.

 

I can't remember the actual figures of course, but I assume the higher income people are simply not seeing as high a percentage boost in overtime pay, not actually getting less overtime than they started with which is almost what the segment made it sound like. Absolutely nothing was said about the middle class, which makes me suspect that they're getting it in the junk again.

[NoCalMike 0]

CBS was rather lavishing praise on this tonight on the Evening News.

 

This new administration policy gives more money to lower-income people, while giving less to higher-income people.

 

I can't remember the actual figures of course, but I assume the higher income people are simply not seeing as high a percentage boost in overtime pay, not actually getting less overtime than they started with which is almost what the segment made it sound like. Absolutely nothing was said about the middle class, which makes me suspect that they're getting it in the junk again.

well as I understand weren't higher wage earners making a salary, and not hourly wages which means they never got overtime in the first place? I know my supervisor at work is on salary and she doesn't get overtime even if she has to stay 12 hours to make sure some ques are cleared, it sucks because even though she is a "salary" worker, it isn't like her salary is anything special.

 

I think more details about job classification will also play into this new ruling as well. If people start getting notices about their job titles changing, thus overtime rules changed, you are going to get a mighty pissed off work force.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

On the Wall Street Money Report Radio show they said in a nutshell -- if you're making less than $23,000 you'll be getting OT. If you make more than $107+k, you may not.

 

Interesting how all the bitching here over this may go for naught, unless you want THE RICH to get time-and-a-half...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's basically how CBS put it, and is how it has me scratching my head looking for How They Getcha. Specifically, nobody mentions what happens in that middle range.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

This new administration policy gives more money to lower-income people, while giving less to higher-income people.

There's a tradeoff here. At one end of the scale, income is highly valued and this policy tends to shift more lower-end incomed workers into receiving overtime pay. The low-income group tends to be very sensitive to changes in income. The high income peeps aren't getting screwed though, they've got income, but what is more valuable to them is time, cause they can feed/clothe themselves more reliably.

 

So one group gets more money, the other group gets more time. Damn, who'd of thunk to apply economic principles of income and substitution effects to make our labor and wage markets more efficient?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

My only problem with this is I heard the rich people get "comp time" instead, which is a bunch of b.s. because in every place I've been at, when you go to cash in your comp time you have to fight tooth and nail to get a day off.

 

Example: I built up a day of comp time a few weeks ago and went to use it and my boss "couldn't remember" when I built up those extra eight hours. Of course, whenever I work more than my required hours I put them on my time card and note they're being used as comp hours. That ended that debate rather quickly...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

People will try to get away with anything

 

your boss sounds like a cheapskate

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It's happened with more than one job -- the whole management/worker conflict will never go away.,..

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

House Votes to Block New Overtime Rules

 

1 hour, 11 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!

 

 

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - In a sharp rebuke of a new administration policy, the House moved Thursday to block the Labor Department (news - web sites) from carrying out overtime rules that critics argued could deprive millions of workers of their overtime pay.

 

The 223-193 vote in favor of blocking the rules defied the White House. A threatened veto applied to a massive spending bill, now on the House floor, if it contains any language tampering with the rules that took effect Aug. 23.

 

"This is one step in the legislative process. We are continuing to work with the Congress," said Trent Duffy, a spokesman for President Bush (news - web sites).

 

Democrats, united against the rules, were joined by 22 Republicans in voting for the amendment to a $142.5 billion health and education spending bill.

 

The vote was Bush's second election-season defeat in Congress in two days. On Wednesday the Senate disregarded a White House veto threat and voted to prohibit Bush from giving federal immigration jobs to private workers.

 

"The administration has chosen this time to institute new regulations which for the first time in 80 years scale back workers' entitlement to overtime pay," said Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., a sponsor of the overtime proposal.

 

Democrats sought to depict the issue as an election-season example of the Bush administration's insensitivity to worker rights, saying the overtime privileges of up to 6 million workers were at risk.

 

"This is the place where making ends meet happens because people have overtime pay. Republicans cannot grasp that," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

 

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said the veto threat is "the latest evidence of how dead wrong the Bush administration is when it comes to meeting the needs of America's struggling middle class."

 

The White House and most Republicans insisted the rules would update an antiquated overtime pay system and make an additional 1 million lower-paid workers eligible for overtime.

 

"I do think that the clarity that comes with these new rules will help better protect American workers," said Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

 

It was unclear how much impact the House vote would have on the biggest overhaul of overtime regulations in more than half a century.

 

The Senate has yet to take up the health and education bill. House GOP Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he expected that the provision would be removed when the House and Senate meet to work out the final version of the bill.

 

He said that by that time there will be "overwhelming evidence" that the rules are benefiting tens of thousands of workers.

 

Republican Rep. Steven LaTourette (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, who voted for the amendment, suggested there was a middle ground. "I would hope this vote, taken together with some votes in the Senate, will let the administration say, `Well, wait a minute, let's go back and revisit this case.'"

 

Democrats and pro-labor Republicans have fought for more than a year to stop the Labor Department from going ahead with the proposed rules. The administration said they were needed to adjust to changing working conditions and clear up confusion that has led to lawsuits against employers.

 

"For those who receive overtime it's as high as 20 or 25 percent of their income," said Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., co-sponsor of the provision with Obey. "It's the largest government-imposed pay cut in the history of this country."

 

The AFL-CIO, which has lobbied against the new rules, said the 6 million workers facing weakened overtime protections include foremen and assistant managers, nurses, workers in the financial services industry, journalists and others who do small amounts of administrative work.

 

The department said 1.3 million workers who earn less than $23,660 a year would become eligible, while about 107,000 white-collar workers making $100,000 or more could lose eligibility.

 

The department said the amendment would put the overtime rights of millions in jeopardy because the government could no longer protect those making more than $23,660. "Especially hard-hit are police, firefighters, construction workers and others whose overtime rights were explicitly guaranteed for the first time in the new rules," said Alfred B. Robinson, Jr., acting administrator for the Wage and Hour Division.

 

In May, the Senate, by a 52-47 vote on a different bill, approved language stating that no worker who currently qualifies for overtime should lose that eligibility.

 

The Obey-Miller language blocks all aspects of the rules except those that extend overtime to lower-paid workers.

[NoCalMike 0]

well something about sounded fishy, like why all of the sudden they wanted to change the language and leave out the parts talking about 2.7 million workers losing overtime pay.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

If I lose my overtime pay, I'm going to beat up congress. All of 'em. At once.

[Guest Cerebus]

My wife worked as the head teller of a bank for a little while. She was usually working 50-70 hour weeks with no ovetime since she was in a "management" position. Needless to say, the new rules would change that.

 

But if Union gangsters against it? OMGFACISMCRONEYCAPITALISM~!

 

(Not that I'm suggesting that Bush doesn't practice croney capitalism, he most certainly does, I just don't think this is an example of it)