overtime pay

[ivalis]

A provision in the overtime pay laws included in the recently passed budget bill will reduce the number of workers entitled to overtime pay.

Overtime rules classify "professionals" as those with certain pay & responsibilities and also, among other things, those with a 4 year college degree, ineligible for overtime pay.

The Bush administration want to widen the definition of "professional" so that it denies not only those with a 4 year degree but also those who have acquired the equivalent to a 4 year degree obtained through work experience.

Many who got trained while in the military may return home and find that they are now classified as "professionals" an not be eligible for for overtime pay.

[greybeard]

Many who got trained while in the military may return home and find that they are now classified as "professionals" an not be eligible for for overtime pay.
a. It will not affect the vast majority of them. Most won't work in the field the equivilent degree is related to.
b. Last I heard, military people don't get paid overtime. To find out they now won't get what they weren't getting before wouldn't be a big thing I wouldn't think.
c. How many people right out of the military are going to slip into a job meeting the "certain pay & responsibilities" part of that statement?($65,000+/yr-supervisory positions-hire & fire authority)

[VMGRMech]

When I get out I'll likely be working a job with hourly wages in my current job field. After working no less than anywhere from 10-14 hr days in the Corps for the same pay, I'll be god damned if I'll let some company not pay me for my time. I can understand the Corps not paying, hell I'm here to help provide for the nations defense not get rich, but when I get out you better show me the $$$$$$ or I'm gone when the clock hits 5:00

[ivalis]

Grey, the aare saying that certain military training/experience will cause workers to be ineligible for OT when they return to civilian jobs.

The training will be viewed as an equivalent of a 4 yr degree, those individuals will be denied OT based on that.

Ahem, the degree part has nothing to do w/ the field they are working in.

Ahem, again, if you READ my post it says, "and also", those w/ a 4 yrs degree. It then expands the definition of 4 yr degree to include the equivalent, which includes OJT and military training.

Don't ya get it, working men & women screwed again by the administration.

[greybeard]

Hackworth basher :) No offense, but, well, good luck with that. It's an employers market right now. Too many jobs followed Ross Perot's 1992 NAFTA prediction and went 'woosh'!-south of the Rio. :(

[greybeard]

ivalis-better re-read the proposed legislation. A person with a degree (or ojt equivilent) working outside that area of expertise will not be considered exempt from OT pay. That means if I have a degree in business but am doing unrelated manual production work, I am entitled to overtime. The bill will not affect most blue collar workers. The exceptions may be health care, police & fire protection.

Now, I don't like the new changes, and think they are a step backwards, but I am in favor of facts being presented fully, not just partisan rehtoric. To be honest, I don't think the thing will pass constitutional scrutiny, and I believe it will lead to a decrease in the federal tax base. The only way it cannot lead to less tax revenues, is if those affected workers are paid a comapartively large salary, which would likely approach the equvilent of 40hr week + overtime.

[VMGRMech]

Beard, thats the truth, my dream job would be with Lockheed as a Tech Rep. LM tends to take care of thier people from what I've seen

[ivalis]

Grey, apparently it already has either passed constitutional scrutiny or not been challenged for the last 50 yrs. There are various exemptions to the OT law that, in my opion, are absurd. They don't apply to retail, agricultural, and supervisory positions that are created simply to avoid existing law.

You wait & see how the new law is interpreted by the powers that be. You can just bout bet blue collar workers will be screwed again.

[greensideout]

Why should ANYONE be paid overtime? Who came up with the eight hour day-40 hour week anyway?

[greybeard]

Originally posted by ivalis
Grey, apparently it already has either passed constitutional scrutiny or not been challenged for the last 50 yrs. There are various exemptions to the OT law that, in my opion, are absurd. They don't apply to retail, agricultural, and supervisory positions that are created simply to avoid existing law.

You wait & see how the new law is interpreted by the powers that be. You can just bout bet blue collar workers will be screwed again.

We need to make up our minds-are we discussing the new exemptions or the ones that have been in place since '38?
FLSA Exemptions to paying overtime are pretty clear. The usual reason a person doesn't get paid overtime is because he/she does not know their rights, or prefers not to challenge management.

"The administrative exemption’s short test requires that the employee be paid on a salary basis, uses discretion and judgment in his work, and has as his primary duties nonmanual or office work directly related to management policies or general business operations. The professional exemption’s short test also requires compensation on a salary basis and the use of discretion and judgment. In addition, the employee’s work must require advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning acquired by a prolonged course of study."

Appeals courts have held that the bold type part of that FLSA article means the degree-or equivilent-must pertain to the work he/she is actually involved in. One of the standards for that 'short test' (to decide exemption from OT pay)is that an employee must make over $250/wk. The new standards will bump that up significantly, I believe to $450/wk, and $65K/yr.



http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs17.htm

[TracGunny]

When Senate Bill 2323 (S.2323) is posted at http://www.senate.gov/ , I will read it and put my own spin on it.

"The text of S.2323 has not yet been received from GPO

Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed." - received from bill search result.

S. 2323 - Worker Economic Opportunity Act
(Senator McConnell (R) KY and 25 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports prompt passage of S. 2323, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to exclude certain employer provided stock options, stock appreciation rights, and bonafide stock purchases from the calculation of covered employees' overtime pay. In today's tight labor market, many employers use stock option programs as an important tool to attract and retain good workers. The Administration supports such innovative efforts to reward workers. S. 2323 would provide employers with needed flexibility to reward their workers in a global economy without weakening the vital protections provided by the FLSA for American workers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/106-2/S2323-s.html

If there are other bills in the House or Senate designed to change FLSA, please let me know... don't want to go off half cocked, and my life is hard enough as it is... Thanks

[MillRatUSMC]

Salaried employees don't get overtime pay, they are given extra time off in the steel industry.
If this law short changes the blue collar worker, they will make themselves known at the ballot box.
It will against rest in the Electoral College.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
Also some that vote for this might find themselves out of office ASAP...

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo

PS The steel industry is on a down side now, but a while back...some were making more on OT than their regular wages...some were as high as 75K...

[greybeard]

If there are other bills in the House or Senate designed to change FLSA, please let me know... don't want to go off half cocked, and my life is hard enough as it is...
http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/541Handout.htm

Fear not-I'm sure someone will come along and paste the entire proposal in here, complete with any and all ammendments, and any and all constitutional entities that may or may not affect it.

[TracGunny]

Fear not-I'm sure someone will come along and paste the entire proposal in here, complete with any and all ammendments, and any and all constitutional entities that may or may not affect it. ...should we warn Shaffer to increase his server storage...say by a few terabytes…thanks greybeard

[TracGunny]

August 20th - 8:55 am ET

Unprecedented overhaul of overtime pay rules, which was sought by big business, takes effect Monday

LEIGH STROPE
AP Labor Writer

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
http://wire.jacksonville.com/pstories/us/20040820/2384788.shtml