posted on August 15, 2004 08:00:43 PM new
I, too, think part of this issue is how and which companies make some employees exempt and non-exempt. One pays over time...the other usually pays a larger salary for doing a job...however many hours it takes to do it. Hourly vs salary employees.
-----------
Another example I believe may be part of all these lawsuit issues is when employees who work under say either supervisors or managers and they make more money than their sup. or mgr. does because they are being paid time and a half for all hours they put in on the job.
Happened with my husband....what seems like a million years ago.
He worked for a company as an hourly employee. In September of that year he had mentioned to his supervisor the fact that it was so nice not having anymore FICA deducted from his paychecks...and how nice that was to have that extra money...until the next Jan. 1 paycheck.
His supervisor was VERY surprise to learn my husband had made more money that he [the sup.] did [he was salaried]....when he was my husband's supervisor. He felt it not fair to him that those who worked under him should be making more money than he was.
So...this may be part of the lawsuits...just like was mentioned in one of the previous links.
posted on August 15, 2004 09:22:25 PM new
Linda, I have had personal experience with exactly that situation. Unfortunately, in this case the jealousy was between a salaried dispatcher and an hourly employee. This turned quite ugly, when the dispatcher took revenge by cutting back on the jobs to this one employee.
I think the rules are all to vague with to much room for misuse.. for example I read where Walmart had 30 lawsuits against them right now for promoting employees to supervisory positions, (although their duties never changed).. when in fact it was so they would be classified ineligible for overtime pay.. this kind of thing sends up red flags..
I agree too with who ever it was that brought up the question.. why this has been kept so quiet.. so many still have no idea that this is going to take place... Drdo
posted on August 15, 2004 09:52:02 PM new
Dr.D - Your mention of the WalMart situation is nothing new. It's been going on for at least 36 years that I'm aware of....maybe longer.
That went on all the time, in business - corporations - when my husband first began working...after graduating from college. He was hourly...offered a salaried supervising position...with much more responsibility [employees he was responsible for]. The company, too, was trying to eliminate his overtime [of course, not saying that]....way back then...by offering the promotion they avoided paying the OT. But...my husband refused it. He knew he was making more as an hourly employee than we would at the beginning superivors pay scale.
As he progressed through his career though...he learned that if the salaried position paid well enough...it was worth accepting the promotion...because the offered salary then paid more than what he was making with the hourly wage [with OT]....and he didn't have to work as many hours to earn it.
I believe this is the issue with so-called promotions of 'managers' in companies mentioned. The employee is so thrilled he's/she's getting promoted they might not stop to realize they might be losing income by accepting it. Therefore....the lawsuits.
I believe as Elaine Chao has stated this 'revision' is meant to clarify more than anything....these boundries. And in doing so some will lose the OT they are currently getting...but more [according to the figures in the link I posted] will benefit from this update in the rules. It's been decades since this 'law' was previous written. It is time for an update and more clarification, imo.
posted on August 15, 2004 10:10:11 PM new
It's really nice to see two posters have a great discussion.
Dr. Dolittle a question. If you would make that 10,000 more what would that do to your taxes? I know with me after 12 hours of overtime in a 80 hour period the government took a really big chunk of it.
Didn't walmart pay the women employees less than the male employees and the women have a class action suit against them. Maybe I am wrong on that but it was a big deal about a couple of months ago. Maybe a little longer ago.
posted on August 15, 2004 10:16:00 PM new
Just as I thought , linda, knows so much more than the AFL-CIO when it comes to labor.
But let's put it in perspective....the Republicans have always been against the average worker. Eliminating overtime is just one example among many that's sending our workers back to the stone age.
Why do you think bush was so quiet about it?
Even that dork knew it was wrong but he just follows instructions from the corporations who contribute heavily to his campaign fund.....you know, the "haves and have mores". Now let's add to their name....how about the "eliminate overtime and we "have more" ".
posted on August 15, 2004 11:32:57 PM new
What I KNOW, cf, is that this change does NOT affect union workers.
---------------------
Since you obviously didn't read the link I provided, I'll do like YOU do and copy and paste the whole factcheck.org article....just for you.
----------
Would Bush Eliminate Overtime Pay for 8 Million?
A TV ad from an anti-Bush group says so. But it's based on a study that actually says something different.
March 5, 2004
Modified: March 5, 2004
Summary
The latest TV ad from the Moveon.org Voter Fund says "George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers," referring to new overtime rules that the Department of Labor has proposed. The 8-million figure (hotly denied by the Bush administration, of course) comes from a study by the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute.
The ad misquotes the study, however. What the study actually says is that an estimated 8 million would lose the legal right to premium overtime rates should they work more than 40 hours per week. It does not say they would actually lose pay as the ad says. In fact, the 8-million figure is inflated by many part-time workers who never get overtime work, or overtime pay, even though they now have the right to it.
Analysis
The Moveon.org ad shows a worker in a hardhat punching a time clock as he leaves an empty factory at night, then drives home to a stack of bills and a sleeping family.
[Moveon.org Ad]
"Worker"
Announcer: Times are tough. So you work overtime to make ends meet. Then you find out George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers. Two million jobs lost. Jobs going overseas. And now, no overtime pay.
When it comes to choosing between corporate values and family values, face it, George Bush is not on our side.
"You work overtime to make ends meet," the announcer says, "Then you find out that George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers. . . . No overtime pay."
This is offered as evidence for the ad's main message -- that Bush sides with "corporate values" over "family values" and "is not on our side."
8 Million? Who Says?
The Bush administration flatly denies that its overtime proposal would affect anywhere near 8 million. In fact, the Department of Labor estimated last year when it first proposed the new rules that there would be 1.3 million low-paid workers who would gain the legal right to overtime, outnumbering what it estimated were 644,000 higher-paid, white-collar workers who would lose coverage.
That's still the administration position.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said at a Senate subcommittee hearing on Jan. 20, 2004:
Chao: Let me be clear. The department's overtime proposal for white-collar workers will not eliminate overtime protection for 8 million workers as alleged. . . . We believe that 1.3 million workers will gain overtime, they'll be guaranteed overtime, and less than about 644,000 may potentially face the prospect (of losing the legal right to overtime.)
The 8-million figure comes from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank whose board of directors includes the heads of several major labor unions. EPI has devoted an entire web page to defending its calculations.
Some Gain, Some Lose
Even EPI concedes that many low-income workers would be gaining the right to overtime pay. Under the proposed rules any employee making less than $425 per week would be eligible for overtime benefits, up from the present level of $155, a figure that hasn't been changed since 1975.
In its study, published in June 2003, EPI said that change "is sorely needed."
Later, EPI estimated that fewer than 737,000 workers would gain coverage, not the 1.4 million estimated by the Department of Labor. A business-backed group, the Employment Policy Foundation, estimates that 3.4 million would gain.
Most of EPI's criticism (and that of Democrats in Congress) focused on who would lose overtime coverage. The proposal would change the rules for determining when white-collar workers can be classified by their employers as exempt from overtime pay for extra hours. The proposed rule changes are extensive, covering executive employees who can hire and fire others, administrative employees in a "position of responsibility", so-called "Learned Professional Employees" who have "knowledge of an advanced type," creative professionals, outside sales workers and certain computer workers such as systems analysts or software engineers. (None of these groups look very much like the blue-collar factory hand in the Moveon.org ad, by the way.)
EPI said the administration's 644,000 figure was way off because it counted only those employees who were actually received overtime pay, and left out a larger group of workers who would have been legally entitled to overtime pay but didn't work the extra hours to earn it. "DOL only counts the loss of current overtime pay, not the loss of the right to receive overtime pay," wrote EPI's Ross Eisenbrey.
That's the distinction the Moveon.org ad misses. Even EPI isn't predicting 8 million will lose pay -- only a legal right to pay. And as EPI study author Jared Bernstein confirmed to FactCheck.org, the 8 million figure includes part-time workers who don't get overtime pay now because they never work overtime hours. That alone inflates the number by 1.5 million.
Who's Right?
Which is closer to the truth, EPI's 8-million figure or the Labor Department's 644,000? In fact there are no solid figures on how many workers qualify for overtime now, so all estimates involve more than the usual amount of educated guesswork. But the Moveon.org ad has no basis at all for suggesting that 8 million could actually lose pay -- not even EPI's figures support that.
The ad might truthfully have said, "George Bush wants to change overtime rules for millions of workers and some of them might lose pay." That would soften the ad's impact, but it would have the virtue of being factually correct.
Sources
Press Release "U.S. Department of Labor Proposal Will Secure Overtime for 1.3 Million More Low-Wage Workers: Department Seeks to Modernize 50-Year-Old Wage Regulations" US Department of Labor, Employment Security Administration 27 March 2003.
Testimony of Elaine Chao, US Secretary of Labor, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Senate Appropriations Committee 20 Jan. 2004.
Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein,?Eliminating the right to overtime pay : Department of Labor proposal means lower pay, longer hours for millions of workers? Economic Policy Institute 26 June 2003.
Ross Eisenbrey "The Truth Behind the Administration's Numbers on Overtime Pay" Economic Policy Institute December 2003.
"Policy Backgrounder: 3.4 million gain overtime rights under proposed FSLA rule" Employment Policy Foundation 9 Sept 2003.
"The Facts Behind the EPI White-Collar Numbers," Employment Policy Foundation 9 Sept 2003.
posted on August 16, 2004 04:18:05 AM new
Linda_K, you can copy and paste all you want. The bottom line is under Geo Bush this country has less jobs that pay less with fewer benefits.
Of course the 950 American troops who have died in Iraq won't have to worry about over time pay will they.
JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS WILL CLEAN UP THE BUSH CHENEY MESS.
posted on August 16, 2004 06:12:10 AM new
bootclan, Republicans lie about the facts as the truth confounds and constricts their nefarious goals.
The simple truth about this overtime issue is that employers want to hire fewer workers and work them longer without paying overtime. The goal, of course is to save billions of dollars for corporate interests.
The Bush administration has lost the labor vote by promoting such policies against worker protections.
posted on August 16, 2004 07:12:12 AM new
Oh, thank you linda, I'm just so "flattered" that someone who likes torturing children cares what I think...........
I don't read your links because they are so slanted and biased and are so different from everything I've read in books , newspapers, heard on the radio or from any other source.
Besides in the end YOUR C&P says bush wants to eliminate overtime. And thats all that matters to me.
Anybody and everybody can argue the numbers.
The people who have their OT eliminated will know who they are.
Now for the comedy relief part of this post, linda says,
"I'll do like YOU do and copy and paste the whole factcheck.org article....
YUP, right, linda, I taught you to cut and paste long articles ????
That's hilarious...shows how far you are removed from reality.
posted on August 16, 2004 08:16:09 AM new
Twelve..that is the point though.. who is doing the deciding?
If (hypothetical situation) a blue collar worker, non-union,
hourly wage earner, earns 75,000. a year but with overtime earns say 95,000. a year.. works hard and long hours, performs a service, never drags his feet,etc.. On call 24/7 and always ready to leave out when called...will his boss win or lose...if he decides to hire two less qualified workers to eliminate the experienced workers overtime...
IMO.. no this won't save the employer money.. even if he hires the two less qualified workers at a much lower wage...
why?... because in the end, the two less experienced workers will take much longer getting the job done.. and in the end, the employer will have to call the experienced worker in to re-do the job. So why not pay the experienced worker all the over time he needs..the job will be done correctly..
Believe me.. I have seen this time and time again..
now if this experienced worker is denied the OT.. because his base pay exceeds the allowable...or he is in a supervisory position.. for instance "Lead Man" on a job..this will end up hurting both the employer and the employee.. Doc
posted on August 16, 2004 08:24:17 AM newI'm just so "flattered" that someone who likes torturing children cares what I think...........
Don't be...because that would be another HUGE misconception you hold.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those are only two reasons why we need to:
posted on August 16, 2004 08:28:55 AM new
This does not affect hourly wage earners... no where does it say it will take away OT from an hourly non-exempt wage earner... this applies to salaried non-exempt... which means right now they can get ot...
Salaried personnel should not be getting OT, there are other compensations... this just will straighten that out.
posted on August 16, 2004 08:38:48 AM new
Linda's last post:
"" "I'm just so "flattered" that someone who likes torturing children cares what I think..........."
Don't be...because that would be another HUGE misconception you hold.""
Linduh, anyone with a brain could "read" the sarcasm in that sentence.
Then you said, "Since you obviously didn't read the link I provided, I'll do like YOU do and copy and paste the whole factcheck.org article...."""""just for you. """""
Oh, linda, it SOUNDS like you care what I think..?????????
posted on August 16, 2004 08:45:25 AM new
Twelve, I hope you are right. I thought I had read that it would affect hourly wage earners, if their employers worded their position as being in charge of two or more other employees.. I am not sure about this.. so I will try and do some more research.. Doc
