86-ing Overtime Pay in the USA

Timber Loftis · 07-11-2003, 12:41 PM

Hmmm..... gotta pay for those tax cuts somehow. Looks like the economic recession burden woes are going to be shifted from the fat cats to the backs of laborers.

Not that I get paid overtime, not that it affects me personnally (other than to hear the secretaries all up in arms), but I think this is just wrong:
__________________________________________________ __________________

House Defeats Democrats' Bid to Thwart New Overtime Rules
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, July 10 — The House cleared the way today for the Bush administration to impose new rules on overtime pay, narrowly rejecting Democratic arguments that the plan will cost millions of workers the opportunity to earn extra money.

While considering a $138 billion measure that pays for labor, health and education programs, the Republican-controlled House defeated a Democratic proposal to block proposed wage rules that have become the subject of a struggle between business and labor. The vote was 213 to 210. The underlying spending measure was approved 215 to 208.

Under a proposal made this spring by the Labor Department, anyone earning less than $22,100 would qualify for overtime if they worked more than 40 hours, an increase from the current level of $8,060.

At the same time, businesses would gain new authority to exempt white-collar workers and others deemed to hold "positions of responsibility" from extra pay.

Democrats said the proposal would mean that as many as eight million workers like police officers and fire and hospital employees who count on overtime as an essential part of their income could be denied the money.

"Overtime is not a luxury, it is a necessity for many American families," said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California.

Mr. Miller said the administration plan would take "hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned pay" out of families' pockets.

Republicans disputed the estimate of how many workers could lose overtime and said the proposal was an overdue effort to modernize complicated regulations and make 1.3 million low-income workers eligible for overtime pay. The Labor Department estimated that 640,000 workers could lose overtime benefits.

Representative Ralph Regula, an Ohio Republican and author of the spending measure at issue, said House Republican leaders thought the "rules that have been promulgated are fair because it does elevate the million people into an opportunity to make some extra money and get paid for time if they put it in."

The rules have become a point of contention between labor and business, and the two worked the halls of the House to make their case. Fourteen Republicans, mainly from New York and New Jersey, joined Democrats in the effort to block the rules.

Republican lawmakers with ties to labor said some lawmakers uneasy with the new rules were hesitant to vote against them because the House leadership and the administration were making the vote a test of loyalty. The administration threatened to veto the spending bill if it contained the Democratic proposal.

"The White House feels very strongly," said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of Long Island and an opponent of the overtime change.

Mr. King said he believed that it was a political mistake to move ahead with the rule and that "we're just handing an issue to the Democrats."

Other Republicans said the old rules were confusing and had not been updated since the 1970's.

"They simply do not meet the needs of today's 21st-century work force," said Representative John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Democrats could try to stall the wage changes in the Senate, but the House vote will complicate such an effort. If Congress does not object, the administration will be able to move forward with the new rules.

Democrats also challenged the overall bill, saying it failed to provide what was needed for health and education. But efforts to generate more money for those programs by reducing the recently passed tax cut for the affluent were ruled out of order.

skywalker · 07-11-2003, 01:01 PM

It just seems like the Bush Administration is more concerned about business as a whole and not about the individual people that comprise the companies.

I don't see how this can sit well with the average voter as it does affect their "quality of life".

We shall see how this goes in the Court of Public Opinion.

It does not affect me or my wife as we are not paid by the hour.

I think being paid by salary sucks...you always work more hours, never less.

Mark

pritchke · 07-11-2003, 01:18 PM

They can do what I do, refuse to work overtime if it isn't worth it.

If I have made plans with my family I would not be changing them based on the fact that my employer wants me to, unless it is a matter of life and death.

People are going to have to start standing up for themselves. Their lives shouldn't revolve around making some big shot money. When my Dad was working companies actually respected workers, paid them overtime, and appreciated their work. Now the people at the top sound like a bunch of chickens ME!ME!ME!ME!ME!. People need to start telling them to go to hell, and start demanded respect when they are doing good job and are not rewarded for it as if they are only a number. Problem is not enough people stand up to employers as individuals so the employer will just replace them. If enough people stand up to them they will not be firing anyone because then they will have to get off their fat asses to keep their income up.

I don't like Unions but they do serve a purpose in preventing people from being walked over like they are garbage. One of the reasons I don't like them is these days many of them are starting to sound like the people in the head offices, ME!ME!ME!ME!ME! and asking for more then the people deserve bankrupting companies.

Rant Over!!!

skywalker · 07-11-2003, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pritchke:
They can do what I do, refuse to work overtime if it isn't worth it.

If I have made plans with my family I would not be changing them based on the fact that my employer wants me to, unless it is a matter of life and death.

People are going to have to start standing up for themselves. Their lives shouldn't revolve around making some big shot money. When my Dad was working companies actually respected workers, paid them overtime, and appreciated their work. Now the people at the top sound like a bunch of chickens ME!ME!ME!ME!ME!. People need to start telling them to go to hell, and start demanded respect when they are doing good job and are not rewarded for it as if they are only a number. Problem is not enough people stand up to employers as individuals so the employer will just replace them. If enough people stand up to them they will not be firing anyone because then they will have to get off their fat asses to keep their income up.

I don't like Unions but they do serve a purpose in preventing people from being walked over like they are garbage. One of the reasons I don't like them is these days many of them are starting to sound like the people in the head offices, ME!ME!ME!ME!ME! and asking for more then the people deserve bankrupting companies.

Rant Over!!!

It can be pretty difficult to stand up to the boss when you work in a company of 9 people and 3 of them are partners. And also when there are few jobs to be found if you lose yours. Though I tell you this, if either of the 2 other people I work closely with gets canned, I would walk out with them.

Mark

Timber Loftis · 07-11-2003, 01:53 PM

So long as I've got $100K+ in student loans, you won't catch me telling my boss what I will and will not do.

Nor will you catch my secretary doing it. She's been here 15 years and can get away with a lot. She even starts drawing social security when she turns 65 this month. But, in this labor market any secretary is replacable and she needs her job.

And, this is more often the case than not.

When I was in college I experimented with standing up to bosses and walking off of jobs. I remember the good feeling. But, I also remember how much job-hunting sucks. And, I remember how hard job-finding can be. Nope. Won't catch me going all balls-out on my employers. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

Moiraine · 07-11-2003, 02:08 PM

You have elected a right-right-wing government. What do you expect ? Social measures ? I thought lawyers were not supposed to be naïve ...

pritchke · 07-11-2003, 02:29 PM

I walked out on a boss once. Several people had already quit, I think I would have went postal and taken the guy out if I had not walked out. It takes much to get me upset but this guy new all the right buttons to push. He would work everyone over separately telling them what failures they were, and such. When I left though I went one higher over his head to the president, and informed him of my dilemma, and that he would likely have several other people walk out in the next several weeks. Sure enough several other people left and I found out that this along with my talk with the head honcho made him fire the SOB. A little Sweet Revenge. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] I had about $40,000 in loans when I quit, went back to school picked up anoter $20 grand in loans and now they are all paid off. Quiting that place was the best decision I ever made even though it was good money.

As much as I hate applying for new work my happiness is most important and I am not going to work in any place that has an hostile environment. It is no wonder so many people in NA go postal in their jobs.

Timber Loftis · 07-11-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moiraine:
You have elected a right-right-wing government. What do you expect ? Social measures ? I thought lawyers were not supposed to be naïve ...

I'm not naive, I'm educating people. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Besides, this cuts deep into the quick of our labor system in this country. Hourly folks get overtime pay after 40 hours -- it is a basic assumption. I could not have DREAMED this measure would be presented and passed. I hope it gets killed in Senate legislation.

But, there is also a disconnect, a contradiction, to point out here. Bush's steel tarriff (see the thread on this forum) was largely a pro-labor decision. But, this is very much an anti-labor decision.

Even my secretary, who has NEVER disagreed with anything the administration has done and is an AVOWED republican, states she will NOT vote for him again if this passes. He will lose a lot of working class votes he gained by warmongering.

Oh, I think Bush is Right Wing, not Right Right Wing. Unless you're looking at it from the NY Times point of view, that is.

Chewbacca · 07-11-2003, 02:36 PM

I saw a"in-depth" TV new report ob this. Its not all bad, unless the Bush side changed the requirements. First the only people losing overtime make more than 86,000 a year IIRC.

Seond, The people who now qualify for overtime truly deserve it, but it is not broad enough. They should have raised it to $30,000.

Many a retail supervisor and assistant manager sign these dubiuos pay agreements that allow companies to pay them 1/2 time over 40 hours a week.

I signed one a while back when I was promoted to a Manager in training.My promotion and my chance to run my own store depended on it. Since I effected payroll the least after 40hrs, I usually would get scheduled 60+ hrs a week.

Making $8.00 regularly meant making $4.00 an hour overtime. I was getting paid less than the teenage part-timers for doing the tasks of a store manger. I hope with these new rules, less people can be roped into signing agreements like these.

Holy Sh*t...did I just half-way try to defend a Bush decision?
*runs off to hide in a corner*

Rokenn · 07-11-2003, 02:58 PM

If this becomes law I predict that there will be a rather large upswing in union membership. As a union contract can enforce OT rules even if the law says it is not required.

*fondly remembers his union days and getting double overtime for being called in on holidays [img]smile.gif[/img] *

07-11-2003, 12:41 PM	#1
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Hmmm..... gotta pay for those tax cuts somehow. Looks like the economic recession burden woes are going to be shifted from the fat cats to the backs of laborers. Not that I get paid overtime, not that it affects me personnally (other than to hear the secretaries all up in arms), but I think this is just wrong: __________________________________________________ __________________ House Defeats Democrats' Bid to Thwart New Overtime Rules By CARL HULSE WASHINGTON, July 10 — The House cleared the way today for the Bush administration to impose new rules on overtime pay, narrowly rejecting Democratic arguments that the plan will cost millions of workers the opportunity to earn extra money. While considering a $138 billion measure that pays for labor, health and education programs, the Republican-controlled House defeated a Democratic proposal to block proposed wage rules that have become the subject of a struggle between business and labor. The vote was 213 to 210. The underlying spending measure was approved 215 to 208. Under a proposal made this spring by the Labor Department, anyone earning less than $22,100 would qualify for overtime if they worked more than 40 hours, an increase from the current level of $8,060. At the same time, businesses would gain new authority to exempt white-collar workers and others deemed to hold "positions of responsibility" from extra pay. Democrats said the proposal would mean that as many as eight million workers like police officers and fire and hospital employees who count on overtime as an essential part of their income could be denied the money. "Overtime is not a luxury, it is a necessity for many American families," said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California. Mr. Miller said the administration plan would take "hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned pay" out of families' pockets. Republicans disputed the estimate of how many workers could lose overtime and said the proposal was an overdue effort to modernize complicated regulations and make 1.3 million low-income workers eligible for overtime pay. The Labor Department estimated that 640,000 workers could lose overtime benefits. Representative Ralph Regula, an Ohio Republican and author of the spending measure at issue, said House Republican leaders thought the "rules that have been promulgated are fair because it does elevate the million people into an opportunity to make some extra money and get paid for time if they put it in." The rules have become a point of contention between labor and business, and the two worked the halls of the House to make their case. Fourteen Republicans, mainly from New York and New Jersey, joined Democrats in the effort to block the rules. Republican lawmakers with ties to labor said some lawmakers uneasy with the new rules were hesitant to vote against them because the House leadership and the administration were making the vote a test of loyalty. The administration threatened to veto the spending bill if it contained the Democratic proposal. "The White House feels very strongly," said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of Long Island and an opponent of the overtime change. Mr. King said he believed that it was a political mistake to move ahead with the rule and that "we're just handing an issue to the Democrats." Other Republicans said the old rules were confusing and had not been updated since the 1970's. "They simply do not meet the needs of today's 21st-century work force," said Representative John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee. Democrats could try to stall the wage changes in the Senate, but the House vote will complicate such an effort. If Congress does not object, the administration will be able to move forward with the new rules. Democrats also challenged the overall bill, saying it failed to provide what was needed for health and education. But efforts to generate more money for those programs by reducing the recently passed tax cut for the affluent were ruled out of order. __________________

07-11-2003, 01:53 PM	#5
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	So long as I've got $100K+ in student loans, you won't catch me telling my boss what I will and will not do. Nor will you catch my secretary doing it. She's been here 15 years and can get away with a lot. She even starts drawing social security when she turns 65 this month. But, in this labor market any secretary is replacable and she needs her job. And, this is more often the case than not. When I was in college I experimented with standing up to bosses and walking off of jobs. I remember the good feeling. But, I also remember how much job-hunting sucks. And, I remember how hard job-finding can be. Nope. Won't catch me going all balls-out on my employers. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] __________________

07-11-2003, 02:08 PM	#6
Moiraine Anubis Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Up in the Freedomland Alps Age: 61 Posts: 2,474	You have elected a right-right-wing government. What do you expect ? Social measures ? I thought lawyers were not supposed to be naïve ... __________________ [img]\"http://grumble.free.fr/img/romuald.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br />The missing link between ape and man is us.

07-11-2003, 02:36 PM	#9
Chewbacca Zartan Join Date: July 18, 2001 Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth Age: 52 Posts: 5,373	I saw a"in-depth" TV new report ob this. Its not all bad, unless the Bush side changed the requirements. First the only people losing overtime make more than 86,000 a year IIRC. Seond, The people who now qualify for overtime truly deserve it, but it is not broad enough. They should have raised it to $30,000. Many a retail supervisor and assistant manager sign these dubiuos pay agreements that allow companies to pay them 1/2 time over 40 hours a week. I signed one a while back when I was promoted to a Manager in training.My promotion and my chance to run my own store depended on it. Since I effected payroll the least after 40hrs, I usually would get scheduled 60+ hrs a week. Making $8.00 regularly meant making $4.00 an hour overtime. I was getting paid less than the teenage part-timers for doing the tasks of a store manger. I hope with these new rules, less people can be roped into signing agreements like these. Holy Sht...did I just half-way try to defend a Bush decision? runs off to hide in a corner* __________________ Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty?

07-11-2003, 02:58 PM	#10
Rokenn Galvatron Join Date: January 22, 2002 Location: california wine country Age: 61 Posts: 2,193	If this becomes law I predict that there will be a rather large upswing in union membership. As a union contract can enforce OT rules even if the law says it is not required. fondly remembers his union days and getting double overtime for being called in on holidays [img]smile.gif[/img] __________________ “This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000)

07-11-2003, 01:01 PM	#2
skywalker Banned User Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: VT, USA Age: 64 Posts: 3,097	It just seems like the Bush Administration is more concerned about business as a whole and not about the individual people that comprise the companies. I don't see how this can sit well with the average voter as it does affect their "quality of life". We shall see how this goes in the Court of Public Opinion. It does not affect me or my wife as we are not paid by the hour. I think being paid by salary sucks...you always work more hours, never less. Mark

07-11-2003, 01:18 PM	#3
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 50 Posts: 3,491	They can do what I do, refuse to work overtime if it isn't worth it. If I have made plans with my family I would not be changing them based on the fact that my employer wants me to, unless it is a matter of life and death. People are going to have to start standing up for themselves. Their lives shouldn't revolve around making some big shot money. When my Dad was working companies actually respected workers, paid them overtime, and appreciated their work. Now the people at the top sound like a bunch of chickens ME!ME!ME!ME!ME!. People need to start telling them to go to hell, and start demanded respect when they are doing good job and are not rewarded for it as if they are only a number. Problem is not enough people stand up to employers as individuals so the employer will just replace them. If enough people stand up to them they will not be firing anyone because then they will have to get off their fat asses to keep their income up. I don't like Unions but they do serve a purpose in preventing people from being walked over like they are garbage. One of the reasons I don't like them is these days many of them are starting to sound like the people in the head offices, ME!ME!ME!ME!ME! and asking for more then the people deserve bankrupting companies. Rant Over!!!

07-11-2003, 02:29 PM	#7
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 50 Posts: 3,491	I walked out on a boss once. Several people had already quit, I think I would have went postal and taken the guy out if I had not walked out. It takes much to get me upset but this guy new all the right buttons to push. He would work everyone over separately telling them what failures they were, and such. When I left though I went one higher over his head to the president, and informed him of my dilemma, and that he would likely have several other people walk out in the next several weeks. Sure enough several other people left and I found out that this along with my talk with the head honcho made him fire the SOB. A little Sweet Revenge. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] I had about $40,000 in loans when I quit, went back to school picked up anoter $20 grand in loans and now they are all paid off. Quiting that place was the best decision I ever made even though it was good money. As much as I hate applying for new work my happiness is most important and I am not going to work in any place that has an hostile environment. It is no wonder so many people in NA go postal in their jobs.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)