We discussed this several months back, but here's some more info... <I> <B>8 million may lose OT pay</B> Bush administration proposal would dramatically alter rules for paying overtime, study says. June 26, 2003: 10:55 AM EDT NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - More than 8 million workers in the United States will be ineligible for overtime pay under a plan proposed recently by the Bush administration, a research group said Thursday. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a Washington think tank, examined a March proposal by the Labor Department to change the criteria for paying overtime and found that it would cost 2.5 million salaried employees and 5.5 million hourly employees their right to overtime pay. The proposal could also cause them to work longer hours, the group said in a study published on its Web site. "The millions of employees who will see their pay reduced will, in all likelihood, see their hours of work increase at the same time," wrote the authors of the study, Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein. "Once employers are not required to pay for overtime work, they will schedule more of it." In fact, the study said, the total effect of the proposed rule could be far greater -- the EPI studied its impact on only 78 of the 257 "white collar" occupations identified by the Labor Department. Under current regulations, established by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, about 79 percent of all workers are guaranteed the right to overtime pay, or time-and-a-half for every hour worked above 40 hours in a week. Currently, there are three tests for whether or not an employee is ineligible for overtime -- the employee's level of pay, whether or not the employee is a salaried or hourly worker, and whether or not the employee performs certain job duties. The Bush administration's proposal would raise the cut-off pay level for overtime -- meaning about 1.3 million more lower-wage workers will get overtime, according to the study. But the EPI study said that benefit is more than erased by the rest of the administration's plan, which would change the job descriptions for millions of workers, moving them into "administrative," "professional" or "executive" jobs, which are not eligible for overtime. It also would make it virtually impossible for any workers making more than $65,000 a year to get overtime. The Bush administration has said the new rules are clearer and will lower the chance of employee lawsuits. The EPI study said the proposal could have the opposite effect. "The proposed rule is rife with ambiguity and new terms ... that will spawn new litigation," the study said. </I> I don't know if EPI is a partisan organization or not.
Looks like they are nonpartisan. Their chairman is the head of a big labor union as is the vice chair, so I doubt they lean heavily towards the GOP.
How did the study reach these conclusions? The only facts about the proposals sound fine with me.... 1) Increasing the number of low income people eligible for OT ...sounds good 2) Changing the classifications of some jobs...if the new classifications are applicable, that sounds fine. If they're trying to say janitors are executives, that would of course be bad. But there's not enough detail here for me to say one way or the other. 3) People making over $65,000 won't get OT....this isn't necessarily good, but it's not like the people that make that kind of money need OT anyway. Plus it starts to refute the argument that is bound to come up that the plan is out to hurt poor people. From the previous thread on this subject, it didn't sound bad at all. I would really like to know specifically why it would be a bad thing. Info please???
You would be surprised how quickly you can go through "making over $65,000........... but it's not like the people that make that kind of money need OT anyway." Try living in a nice, middle class neighborhood in Austin with 2 kids, a mortgage and a dog. Try thinking about what your going to shell out when they go to college. Ponder trying to actually save some money for that, emergencies and the like. Then dwell on what your going to retire on. I'm glad the dog isn't college material.
By the by, this is different than the bill we were talking about previously that gave employees the option of time off in lieu of overtime pay.
Major, you left off the most interesting and telling part of the article: <i> Shortly after the study was released, the national labor organization AFL-CIO said the Labor Department had canceled a union hearing on the issue, scheduled to take place on June 30 in a Labor Department auditorium. "The fact that Labor hasn't held any public hearings on their proposal to cut overtime pay, and that they have abruptly canceled the union movement's paid reservation to hold a hearing on the issue, is another sign of the administration's refusal to permit debate and dissent," AFL-CIO spokeswoman Kathy Roeder said. "It is a grave disservice to the millions of workers who stand to lose from the overtime proposal." The White House could not immediately be reached for comment. </i> http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/news/economy/epi/index.htm
I understand and I wasn't meaning to say that those people are rich. My point was that I believe this is above the average income level, and that this affects people that make over $65k per individual not household. Regardless, my thought was that this seems to affect the 'richer' negatively and the 'poorer' positively. This doesn't follow the typical Bush MO, and I was trying to understand some of the specific cons that the study was referring to.
I heard the average family income in the US is around $41,000 for a husband, wife and two kids. This bill blows. It's just another step by this administration to screw working people in favor of The Man. I'll bet you the people who are getting reclassified lose a lot more in overtime pay than they are getting in their tax break. By requiring overtime pay for over 40 hours the government was giving some protection to salaried worker that his employer couldn't steal away more of his precious little free time. That free time this is actually HIS LIFE. "Well times are tough Bob, the company is not making it's bottom line. We are all going to have to cut back, do more with less, give some extra effort, burn the midnight oil." Meanwhile the CEO makes 7 million a year in salary, 20 million in stock options and gets 50 million when he gets fired for lying about on the company income statement so his options are worth even more money. But you can't say anything or you'll be fired ( Texas is a right to work state as in ' you have no right to work') and you've got that mortgage, the kid's braces , three car payments to consider. If you ever do get to vote for somebody that might actually make a difference I hope you do. Even though you can't tell anybody you did because you'll be branded as a the worst kind of social pariah, A Liberal. Jeep
What is the surprise. The bill is good for big business and weatlhy business owners, the workers and middle class get screwed. The same continuous pattern from the Republicans. You'd think that eventually after tiring of all the flag waving and diversionary issues like abortion, school prayer, anti-affirmative action, handguns etc. that the middle class would eventually wise up to their self interest.
I have a close friend who would like to... assuming this would affect him. He's a salaried computer engineer (services servers and the like) who gets a significant % of his income from overtime. He has 2 kids in college, works his butt off and never hesitates to take the service calls he could shine off on to someone down the food chain. If this affects him, it'll be a major blow. And don't say that the overtime is something he could never count on anyway. They are BEGGING him to work it. And he does, even when he'd prefer not to. I'm really getting sick of this. Surely the Administration will run out of things they can do for Big Business and consider the Middle Class for a spell. Aren't they getting worn out coming up with new goodies for Corporate America??
I need a civics lesson... Is this a proposed law? If so, can a president propose a law? Or does a member of congress have to do it? When a president comes up with a "plan" does he/she get a congressman to sponsor it? Thanks.
This is true but this averages in senior citizens who's only source of income is social security, families who recieve welfare, minimum wage earners who can barely get by, and rural families that have very low cost of living.
I would suggest to everyone who is against this proposed plan to get on the phone and call your congressman. I suggest asking all of your friends and fellow employees who have a stake in this to call your congressman as well. Don't just sit around complaining, put democracy into action.
This is a proposed change in regulations at a Executive Branch agency. Congress makes laws, the Executive Branch departments enforce them. To do so, they often have to make rules and regulations to make the law more specific, as the laws as written, are relatively vague. So, despit the title of the thread, there is no bill (there is an overtime related bill working its way through the Congress, but it's completely different), and these changes do not require Congressional approval. They can be implemented at the Labor Department without consulting the Congress at all. Now, the Congress could stop the proposed changes by passing a law that specifically contradicts what the Labor Department wants to do. But that's the only way the Congress gets involved. The courts could also get involved to interpret whether the new regs violate what the law means (or what the courts think it was supposed to mean).
An excellent description, mrpaige. If the change is enacted, who here thinks the present Congress will pass a law recinding it?
