Whaddya mean NO OVERTIME???

ABSTRUSE

Cirque du Freak
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Posts
50,094
New Overtime Rules to Take Effect Monday

By 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 The administration and business groups say the old regulations were out of date and confusing, and were sparking multimillion dollar lawsuits.


The Labor Department (news - web sites) says no more than 107,000 workers will lose overtime eligibility from the changes, 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. Critics say the rules will prompt even more lawsuits.


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 (news, bio, voting record), 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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites)'s labor law policy director. "It's been on the regulatory agenda since the Carter administration. It shouldn't be this controversial."





Many provisions in the draft plan that had become political lightening rods were removed or changed. The analysis of the new rules say "it is impossible to quantitatively estimate" how many workers will lose overtime eligibility. The draft had said 1.5 million to 2.7 million "will be more readily identified as exempt."

Gone is language 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.

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."

Union workers covered by contracts will not be affected by changes. But labor leaders argue that unions will face tougher negotiations when their contracts expire because of the new rules.
 
I've heard about this legislation for about a year now, and I've yet to see a breakdown of what the new regs actually say.

---dr.M.
 
ABSTRUSE:
I suspect that the overtime law revisions will not be anywhere near as dramatic as some of the people on both sides of the issue think.

There were some problems in the old laws. I worked, for a time in, a government facility that was on the '4, 5, 9' system. Employees would work 9 hour days, each day except Friday. On alternate Fridays they would work 8 or zero hours. Thus, they would work 44 hours one week and 36 the next. We had to pay all hourly employees overtime for the extra four hours in the 44 hour week. This last despite the fact that both salaried and hourly workers were willing to kill to get every other Friday off, forget the overtime.
 
Thanks, Alyxen. That means that, as writers, we'd qualify as skilled professionals and be entitled to time-and-a-half for overtime, if we were getting paid a salary.

Which we aren't.

---dr.M.
 
Don't work in the UK - most office workers are expected to work many more hours than they are contracted to without extra payment.

Refusal means that you are classed as 'not a team person' or 'uncommitted' and you will never be promoted.

Breakfast meetings are frequent ploys to see who is really a company person.

It is hell for anyone with child care responsibilities.

Og
 
I can't see why you need to have laws to cover this. Surely if you work your 40 hours (37 in the UK and Europe hehe) then any work over and above that carries a premium.

Salaried jobs (as I understand it) mean you work til the job's done, if that means you don't need to work Fridays then you don't work, you will be paid anyway, if you have to work from 8 am til midnight the same applies.

Far too many companies work almost entirely using part time staff or making overtime (premium or not) obligatory. They make massive savings in taxes by doing it this way, none of which finds its way into paypackets for the shopfloor.

Legislation should concentrate more on making the minimum wage worth working for.

Gauche
 
The trend over here is not to hire anybody. Rather than hiring new workers, companies contract with temporary labor services for 6 months or a year. They pay the service and the service pays you, that way the real employer can get you to work without having to pay scale or give any benefits, and of course, the temporary services give you squat.

It's also a way of gettiking around the unions, where there are still unions.

This used to be the practice for grunt jobs only, but now even professionals and executives are hired out of temp agencies. After 6 months, once the job's done, they cut you loose and you're back on the street.

The agencies pay overtime, but it's minimal, and most temp workers are trying so hard to impress their employers in the hope of getting hired full-time, that they work very long hours without complaint or compensation.

---dr.M.
 
gauchecritic said:
Salaried jobs (as I understand it) mean you work til the job's done, if that means you don't need to work Fridays then you don't work, you will be paid anyway, if you have to work from 8 am til midnight the same applies.

I'm not sure about other industries, but I was in retail management for close to 18 years, and salary, in retail, does not mean you get an extra day off if the work is done early. It means you work a minimum number of hours a week (45 is pretty much industry standard here), and anything over and above that if you need to. You must work those 45 hours, or they come down hard on you. When I first started in it, there was no clocking in and out for salaried people, but more and more companies are making even their salaried employees clock in and out just to make sure they're working the specified number of minimum hours. And, no overtime.
 
There's that damned sound again.

The sound of people knitting, interspersed with the occasional meaty Thunk!
 
gauchecritic said:
I can't see why you need to have laws to cover this. Surely if you work your 40 hours (37 in the UK and Europe hehe) then any work over and above that carries a premium.

Salaried jobs (as I understand it) mean you work til the job's done, if that means you don't need to work Fridays then you don't work, you will be paid anyway, if you have to work from 8 am til midnight the same applies.

Far too many companies work almost entirely using part time staff or making overtime (premium or not) obligatory. They make massive savings in taxes by doing it this way, none of which finds its way into paypackets for the shopfloor.

Legislation should concentrate more on making the minimum wage worth working for.

Gauche

I was salaried for a while at the 'real' job I used to have at the company I work for. No OT, just straight pay, no matter how many hours you worked. It makes sense in that line of work as some days/weeks/months, you are working 10 to 12 hour days, and others you are looking at the clock at 2 p.m. thinking about going home.

In production jobs that I have been in, some have had almost mandatory overtime in that we have to finish the work we have before leaving for the day, others have not. Really depends on the department/company.

In today's day and age of lawsuits and bad press, I don't see any major companies trying to take advantage of the new regulations to stop paying OT to anyone that should be getting it/is getting it now.
 
gauchecritic said:
I can't see why you need to have laws to cover this. Surely if you work your 40 hours (37 in the UK and Europe hehe) then any work over and above that carries a premium.

Salaried jobs (as I understand it) mean you work til the job's done, if that means you don't need to work Fridays then you don't work, you will be paid anyway, if you have to work from 8 am til midnight the same applies.

Far too many companies work almost entirely using part time staff or making overtime (premium or not) obligatory. They make massive savings in taxes by doing it this way, none of which finds its way into paypackets for the shopfloor.

Legislation should concentrate more on making the minimum wage worth working for.

Gauche

Work over the minimum only carries a premium if you are at a basic level such as a shop worker or factory hand. Most office workers HAVE to work much more than their contracted hours or face losing their jobs or forgetting promotion and salary increases. They are likely to be assessed as 'unsatisfactory' or 'uncommitted' employees and made redundant/fired at the first opportunity - despite UK labour legislation.

Og
 
I am sure any system contrived during a Republican administration will be fair, even generous, to the ordinary working person.

I mean, look at the news stories about business claiming its going to cost them a fortune.

</sarcasm>
 
gauchecritic said:
Far too many companies work almost entirely using part time staff or making overtime (premium or not) obligatory. They make massive savings in taxes by doing it this way, none of which finds its way into paypackets for the shopfloor.

Gauche, you've been in my store haven't you?

*g*

Seriously tho, I have a 16 hour contract but usually do more hours on "overtime". The company has now decided that overtime is to be banned because they can't afford the expenditure. I can't live on my basic hours, so I'm trying to find another job, and already the backbiting has started...

*sigh*
 
Just-Legal said:
Gauche, you've been in my store haven't you?

*g*

More than likely. Oh no, wait a minute, no, probably not.

The tallest son might do when he goes to Uni in September though.

Gauche
 
Back
Top