Thursday, July 10, 2003
Overtime, seems to be the next target for Bush
The Bush administration's approach to solving the economy problem seems to give the richer people in our society more money while he is pushing for a modification of the Fair Labor Standards Act to take money away from others. It is like watching a circus magician who makes small colorful balls disappear in one hand only to have them reappear in a different one.
The recently passed Bush tax bill has been pretty well recognized as a windfall for upper income individuals. Prior to that bill passage, back on March 31, 2003, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed regulatory changes, which if adopted, could make more than eight million white-collar employees ineligible for overtime pay.
The Department of Labor rule changes proposed by the Bush Administration in March 2003 would make significant changes to tests which determine who can and can't collect overtime. The result of the new tests being proposed, make it likely that millions of workers will work longer hours at reduced pay. Nearly 80 percent of all workers are in jobs that qualify them for overtime pay, which is time-and-a-half for each hour that is worked beyond the normal 40-hour week. The administration wants to make it easier for employers to exempt many of those workers from overtime protection by classifying them as administrative, professional or executive personnel.
Under the old rules, "educated professionals" were people who had scientific or specialized degrees. These "educated professionals" are ineligible for overtime.
Under the new rules, work experience or technical training can be enough to reclassify them and make them ineligible for overtime.
In another example, according to the old rules "executives" are ineligible for overtime, "Executives" were people who hired and fired workers, set wages and assigned work. The new rules broaden the definition of "executives" to include any workers who occasionally, supervise other workers, even if they spend most of their time doing manual labor.
Once employers are not required to pay for overtime work, the fear is that employers will schedule more of it, and the workers will have to work extra hours to make up for lost overtime.
On the low end of the pay scale, the proposal, states that any worker earning less than $22,100 a year automatically would be entitled to overtime pay, regardless of whether they are paid hourly or earn an annual salary. Workers would get overtime pay despite their management status as long as they earn less than $22,100 a year. Some companies may decide that by boosting some salaries above the $22,100 cap they would avoid paying the overtime.
Employers have been asking for changes in overtime pay regulations because of the confusion around the rules for overtime and mounting lawsuits. Some also say that increased productivity and fewer lawsuits could amount to over a billion dollar savings.
Businesses and labor unions both agree that the current regulations of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which were last updated in 1948, are confusing and outdated. The disagreement comes from how to update standards that determine what jobs must receive an hourly wage of time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week.
Almost 110 million workers are covered by the law, or about 80 percent of the work force.
Officials say those requirements would exempt about 644,000 professional employees earning between $22,100 and $65,000 who now get overtime pay. That figure doesn't include another proposed exemption, for workers making $65,000 or more annually and meeting only part of the jobs duties criteria.
Employees who work under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by unions would not be affected.
According to the Labor Department figures issues on July 3, the "total hours worked were unchanged in June. The average workweek was unchanged at 33.7 hours. In manufacturing, the average workweek was unchanged at 40.2 hours, including 4 hours of overtime."
In a separate adjustment to overtime, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill) introduced a bill called the Family Time Flexibility Act. It gives workers more quality time at home by offering workers time off instead of overtime pay.
The Family Time Flexibility Act would permit employers to allow employees who work more than 40 hours a week to have time off rather than overtime pay. If passed, it would modify the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.
The bipartisan bill was introduced in March by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), with Rep. William Lipinski (D-Ill.) and more than 70 other representatives as co-sponsors. The House Education and Workforce subcommittee passed it April 3. The voluntary agreement was passed by the full committee April 9.
Unions oppose this bill because they fear employers will force workers to take compensatory time instead of overtime pay.
The act allows comp time only if both sides agree to it. And employees will be able to bank up to 160 hours to use for paid time off. They will be able to cancel the agreement at any time and ask for pay instead. Compensation would be at the traditional rate of time-and-a-half.
Another concern is that employers may decide when, the time off can be taken. On the surface, it looks like the proposal isn't such a bad payoff. But only if employees are not forced to take compensatory time instead of money..
So what we have is a nine year high in unemployment, Bush is working at reducing overtime pay for what could be, millions of workers. The The House Education and Workforce subcommittee agreed to a bill which gives workers time off instead of overtime pay. Meanwhile those fortunate few in the upper tax brackets will pay fewer taxes than ever.
The Bush proposal, if passed, will cause workers to work longer hours, if they are available to make up for lost overtime pay. (the Labor Department doesn't put any limit on the number of hours per week an employee must work) The Judy Biggert Bill wants people to have more time off. Meanwhile those stock dividends keep rolling in for those with significant investments. Where is Robin Hood when you need him?
Sources Cited:
Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com
NYTimes Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein
Carol Kleiman Chicago Tribune
Bob Herbert Seattle pi.com
Leigh Strope The Associated Press
The recently passed Bush tax bill has been pretty well recognized as a windfall for upper income individuals. Prior to that bill passage, back on March 31, 2003, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed regulatory changes, which if adopted, could make more than eight million white-collar employees ineligible for overtime pay.
The Department of Labor rule changes proposed by the Bush Administration in March 2003 would make significant changes to tests which determine who can and can't collect overtime. The result of the new tests being proposed, make it likely that millions of workers will work longer hours at reduced pay. Nearly 80 percent of all workers are in jobs that qualify them for overtime pay, which is time-and-a-half for each hour that is worked beyond the normal 40-hour week. The administration wants to make it easier for employers to exempt many of those workers from overtime protection by classifying them as administrative, professional or executive personnel.
Under the old rules, "educated professionals" were people who had scientific or specialized degrees. These "educated professionals" are ineligible for overtime.
Under the new rules, work experience or technical training can be enough to reclassify them and make them ineligible for overtime.
In another example, according to the old rules "executives" are ineligible for overtime, "Executives" were people who hired and fired workers, set wages and assigned work. The new rules broaden the definition of "executives" to include any workers who occasionally, supervise other workers, even if they spend most of their time doing manual labor.
Once employers are not required to pay for overtime work, the fear is that employers will schedule more of it, and the workers will have to work extra hours to make up for lost overtime.
On the low end of the pay scale, the proposal, states that any worker earning less than $22,100 a year automatically would be entitled to overtime pay, regardless of whether they are paid hourly or earn an annual salary. Workers would get overtime pay despite their management status as long as they earn less than $22,100 a year. Some companies may decide that by boosting some salaries above the $22,100 cap they would avoid paying the overtime.
Employers have been asking for changes in overtime pay regulations because of the confusion around the rules for overtime and mounting lawsuits. Some also say that increased productivity and fewer lawsuits could amount to over a billion dollar savings.
Businesses and labor unions both agree that the current regulations of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which were last updated in 1948, are confusing and outdated. The disagreement comes from how to update standards that determine what jobs must receive an hourly wage of time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week.
Almost 110 million workers are covered by the law, or about 80 percent of the work force.
Officials say those requirements would exempt about 644,000 professional employees earning between $22,100 and $65,000 who now get overtime pay. That figure doesn't include another proposed exemption, for workers making $65,000 or more annually and meeting only part of the jobs duties criteria.
Employees who work under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by unions would not be affected.
According to the Labor Department figures issues on July 3, the "total hours worked were unchanged in June. The average workweek was unchanged at 33.7 hours. In manufacturing, the average workweek was unchanged at 40.2 hours, including 4 hours of overtime."
In a separate adjustment to overtime, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill) introduced a bill called the Family Time Flexibility Act. It gives workers more quality time at home by offering workers time off instead of overtime pay.
The Family Time Flexibility Act would permit employers to allow employees who work more than 40 hours a week to have time off rather than overtime pay. If passed, it would modify the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.
The bipartisan bill was introduced in March by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), with Rep. William Lipinski (D-Ill.) and more than 70 other representatives as co-sponsors. The House Education and Workforce subcommittee passed it April 3. The voluntary agreement was passed by the full committee April 9.
Unions oppose this bill because they fear employers will force workers to take compensatory time instead of overtime pay.
The act allows comp time only if both sides agree to it. And employees will be able to bank up to 160 hours to use for paid time off. They will be able to cancel the agreement at any time and ask for pay instead. Compensation would be at the traditional rate of time-and-a-half.
Another concern is that employers may decide when, the time off can be taken. On the surface, it looks like the proposal isn't such a bad payoff. But only if employees are not forced to take compensatory time instead of money..
So what we have is a nine year high in unemployment, Bush is working at reducing overtime pay for what could be, millions of workers. The The House Education and Workforce subcommittee agreed to a bill which gives workers time off instead of overtime pay. Meanwhile those fortunate few in the upper tax brackets will pay fewer taxes than ever.
The Bush proposal, if passed, will cause workers to work longer hours, if they are available to make up for lost overtime pay. (the Labor Department doesn't put any limit on the number of hours per week an employee must work) The Judy Biggert Bill wants people to have more time off. Meanwhile those stock dividends keep rolling in for those with significant investments. Where is Robin Hood when you need him?
Sources Cited:
Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com
NYTimes Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein
Carol Kleiman Chicago Tribune
Bob Herbert Seattle pi.com
Leigh Strope The Associated Press
# posted by Thomas @ 1:50 AM 
