Heroes Don't Need Overtime http://www.ruminatethis.com/ Apparently, the Republican Party under the stewardship of GWB, is so overawed by the courage of our firefighters and police, that they believe such mundane matters as overtime pay are of no concern to these brave men and women. The Omnibus bill just passed by the Senate includes them among the estimated 8 million workers who will now find themselves exempt from being legally entitled to overtime pay. The move is opposed by the 234 thousand strong National Association of Police Organizations. In its January 16 letter to members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee NAPO states, “Under the proposal, an officer who earns as little as $425 a week can be considered a ‘bona fide executive employee,’ not entitled to overtime.” Yes, you heard that, as little as $425 per week. Not quite the income of your average Enron executive. Bush and the Republicans seem to want to spread the ‘love’ to veterans as well. According to the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka : “Under the Bush proposal, if an employer determines that the training veterans have received in the military is equivalent to a four-year professional degree, that employer will now be allowed to deny those veterans overtime eligibility and refuse to pay them anything for overtime work.” From the Monster Salary Center, John Rossheim observes, “Those in the vast midsection of American earners -- with base pay between $22,100 and $65,000 -- face a more uncertain future under the new rules. Nurses, firefighters, paralegals and many more might lose the right to earn during overtime hours.” According to the Economic Policy Institute: “We estimate that—just in the 78 occupational groups we studied (out of 257 "white-collar" occupations)—2.5 million salaried employees and 5.5 million hourly workers will lose their right to overtime pay if the proposed rules are adopted. The total effect of the proposed rule on all occupations is undoubtedly much greater. Employers will not have to convert hourly workers to salaried, but the financial incentive—the option to require that employees work overtime without having to pay for it—combined with competitive pressure will ensure that most will do so.” The EPI further notes that those earning between $22,100 and $65,000 will confront a radically changed set of rules, under which the duties that are exempted from the legal right to overtime are vastly expanded: “The exemption for professional employees has been dramatically expanded to include occupations that not only do not require an advanced degree or postgraduate study, but also those that do not require even an associate's degree or any prolonged course of academic training or intellectual instruction. Knowledge that cannot be attained at the high school level is all that is necessary under the new definition of ‘learned professional’.” “The "executive" exemption is expanded to deny overtime eligibility to low-level supervisors with no real discretionary authority, who do the same work as the employees they supervise, and who spend less than half of their time engaged in managerial or supervisory functions.” "The "administrative" exemption is vastly expanded by removing the requirement that administrators exercise independent judgment and discretion in their work, by removing limits on the amount of time they may spend on nonadministrative work, and by eliminating the requirement that the employee's primary duty must be "staff" work rather than "production" work. The new test—that the employee hold a "position of responsibility"—is broad and vague enough to cover a multitude of jobs that are entitled to overtime pay under current law." “Finally, the primary duty test, which determines eligibility for overtime pay according to job responsibility, is diluted. Employees can be exempted if only one of their several duties qualifies for exemption.” Also, under the legislation, those salaried workers earning over $65,000 have virtually lost their right to overtime pay. __________________ Not that I'm a hero, but this is definitely going to affect me as my base is right at $65k. Much worse though, it will affect our morale and effectiveness. It takes someone about 20 years on average to work their way up from through the ranks to get to a leadership position in the wildland fire organization. Wildland firefighting is not the primary job for most people, so at the same time, they are moving through the ranks of their chosen profession, be it biologist, forester, archaeologist, mechanic, etc. Now, as they have the experience and training to make life or death decisions and to effectively chose courses that will save homes, communities, and businesses, they are told "Hey, no OT for you, you make too much money and you're exempt." That means that folks who know the most and are critical to the success of a well-run incident will be asked to leave their families for two weeks or more, sleep on the ground, maybe get a shower every third day, and work 16 hours a day... for free. It's not going to happen... Some really dedicated folks are calling BS on this and there is already the makings of a revolt underway across the fed agencies and states. It will be extraordinarily tough to get folks out on assignments. If this goes through, we'll have the equivalent of an army being run by corporals. Bad decisions, extra costs, and incomplete attention to safety will be the result. Houses will be lost, natural resources will be damaged unnecessarily, and it is a given that people will die as a direct result of this policy. On top of this, there is a reg going through Homeland Security that will require qualified Fed fire personnel to mobilize when called... if it goes through they can literally have the FBI come by, take you out of your home and now, if the OT provision is not stopped or modified, make you work for nothing. Rumor (and I emphasize RUMOR, though my doubt is not complete after what's come out of this Administration) is that the Bushies want a bad fire season so they can point to the incompetence and say the only way to fix this really bad problem is to privatize the fire organization. Irony is, we don't like using contractors because their safety ethic is nowhere near the Feds/States standards. If we have to use them, they're digging contingency line somewhere far away from the fire or mopping up after an area is cooled down. We don't let them close to a flame front. (I know I'm ranting, but this is really starting to tick me off, especially since nothing in this whole OT policy recognizes that safety is a priority and dependent on experience.) I'm going to bed.
Disgusting. I can't even begin to think how this move can be rationally justified. Of course, some fukchead will manufacture a way to spin this wage-theft and make it look like it's good for our children, our troops, and our land of freedom. Hey, and they can call it "Overtime Relief."
This is bull. The Rich deserve their tax cuts but we just can't afford the overtime of workers who definitely earn their over time pay. It seems like when times are tough we are all expected to sacrifice, except the wealthiest Americans who for some reason get more breaks than normal. The people that Bush is asking to sacrifice... Veterans, Schools, Police, fire fighters, etc. The people who aren't asked to sacrifice when the economy is hurting are the extremely wealthy who get even larger tax breaks than before. This is so wrong.
Good lord, rimrocker, I hope you can sleep. This is the sort of issue that should bring clarity to anyone still wondering how to vote in the election. I would like to see the indefensible get defended by the Bush supporters here. A hell of a challenge that would make for interesting reading.
Oh my lord. That is shameful. There's no other way to put it. Took me a while to click on this thread cause I was upset about the primaries. Shame on me for that. I'd vote LaRouche if I thought it would help remove these assholes from their repeated abuses of power in the name of the number one only thing they care about in this world: money. The real tragedy is that it's not that they don't know that more people will die or that more property will be destroyed -- it's that they don't care. I don't understand how any intelligent person can continue to support these incredible assholes.
butterfly effect- bill goes into effect workers get upset bush says, bring it on bush pulls a publicity stunt cops and feds have to work overtime to protect bush cops and feds slack off something slips through someone else becomes the new president steps taken to change or eliminate bill.
I can't even begin to think how this move can be rationally justified. The people that this will po are more likely than not Democrats. Those crazy *ss union workers. You are either with the President or against him. That GWB's message to Americans.
There's more to the story: AP: U.S. Offers Tips on Avoiding OT Pay AP Exclusive: Labor Department Offers Employers Tips on Avoiding Overtime Pay Under New Rules The Associated Press WASHINGTON Jan. 5 — The Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible under new rules expected to be finalized early this year. The department's advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms, which Labor Secretary Elaine Chao called long overdue. Among the options for employers: cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible. The department says it is merely listing well-known choices available to employers, even under current law. "We're not saying anybody should do any of this," said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank. A final rule, revising the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, is expected to be issued in March. The act defines the types of jobs that qualify workers for time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours a week. Overtime pay for the 1.3 million low-income workers has been a selling tool for the Bush administration in trying to ease concerns in Congress about millions of higher-paid workers becoming ineligible. But the Labor Department, in a summary of its plan published last March, suggests how employers can avoid paying overtime to those newly eligible low-income workers. "Most employers affected by the proposed rule would be expected to choose the most cost-effective compensation adjustment method," the department said. For some companies, the financial impact could be "near zero," it said. Employers' options include: Adhering to a 40-hour work week. Raising workers' salaries to a new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible for overtime pay. If employers raise a worker's salary "it means they're getting a raise that's not a way around overtime," Frank said. The current threshold is $8,060 per year. Making a "payroll adjustment" that results "in virtually no, or only a minimal increase in labor costs," the department said. Workers' annual pay would be converted to an hourly rate and cut, with overtime added in to equal the former salary. Essentially, employees would be working more hours for the same pay. The department does not view the "payroll adjustment" option as a pay cut. Rather, it allows the employer to "maintain the pay at the current level" with the new overtime requirements, said the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division administrator, Tammy McCutchen, an architect of the plan. Labor unions criticized the employer options. Mark Wilson, a lawyer for the Communications Workers of America who specializes in overtime issues, said the Bush administration was protecting the interests of employers at the expense of workers. "This plan speaks volumes about the real motives of this so-called family-friendly administration," Wilson said. He says cutting workers' pay to avoid overtime is illegal, based on a 1945 Supreme Court ruling and a 1986 memo by the Labor Department under President Reagan. But McCutchen disagreed. If changes were made week to week to avoid overtime, they would be illegal. A one-time change is not, she said. "We had a lot of lawyers look at this rule. We would not have put that in there if we thought it was illegal," she said. "Unless you have a contract, there is no legal rule ... prohibiting an employer from either raising your salary or cutting your salary," she said, adding, "We do not anticipate employers will cut people's pay." The department proposed the overtime changes last spring in response to complaints by employers about escalating litigation costs from lawsuits filed by workers claiming they were wrongly denied overtime pay. The final plan does not require approval from Congress. That hasn't stopped Democrats and some Republicans from trying to block the rule, thus far unsuccessfully, out of fear that millions of workers would become ineligible for overtime. Department officials say about 644,000 higher-paid workers would lose their overtime eligibility. But the proposal says 1.5 million to 2.7 million workers "will be more readily identified as exempt" from overtime requirements. Labor unions claim the figure is about 8 million. The issue is expected to be a centerpiece of Democrats' attempts to win back Congress and the White House. The Labor Department is aware of lawmakers' concerns has read tens of thousands of comments about the proposal, McCutchen said. "We understand what the public concerns are and we're going to be doing our best to address them," she said. "It's important to allow us to finish that process so we can back up our words with some good-faith action."
If the department is "merely listing well-known choices available to employers" - why bother listing them if they're so well-known? What's the necessity of a list for facts that are, supposedly, so well-known? More bull****. Like using a "raise" as a trick to actually pay an employee less.
Sickening. Absolutely sickening. This kind of thing makes me really glad that I don't live in the USA.
Un-freaking-believable. I can't believe Americans aren't rioting in the streets over this whopper. Of course, I bet once these "rules" kick in and millions of Americans realize they're working for free, there might be a peep.
Liberals: Do you not recognize the tradeoff? More overtime = more of a burden on payroll = less jobs. So which is it? Higher pay or Higher employment figures? The liberals are once again exposed for hypocrisy.
You have no problem working 80 hours a week for 40 hours pay, because you want to help corporations with payroll burdens. That, my dear friend, is how you spell sucker.
Hipocrisy?? Hypocrisy is conservatives saying people should work their way up in life and taking all the benifits of working hard away from them. Do you realize outside of your pampered little world, people put their kids through college with overtime. People pay their house notes off early with overtime. People build life savings with overtime. People do these things without government help which you want but then you want to take away their means of doing it. Hypocrisy in action.
If you think jobs will come with no overtime you're more gullible than I thought. Do you really think this is supported by corporations who want to increase employment. Maybe they just don't want to pay overtime.
Think of the productivity gains from firing 1/3 of your workers and forcing the remaining workers to work 60 hours a week. WooHoo!!! America, is this is a great country or what?
Hey, I've got an idea- Why don't we just pay workers with company scrip and then they can buy everything they need at the company store. That will really take the burdent off of payroll.
