posted on August 14, 2004 07:59:44 PM new
This is from the AFL-CIO which I'm sure doesn't know as much about labor problems as linda does but give them A for effort.
New Reports: Bush Rules Could Cost 6 Million Overtime Pay and Harm Working Families
July 14—At least 6 million workers will lose their right to overtime pay under final Bush administration rules scheduled to take effect Aug. 23, according to a new Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analysis released July 14—one day after former high-ranking Labor Department officials reported that the new overtime rules will substantially erode the overtime rights of America’s workers.
“It’s hard to take the administration’s claims of wanting to help workers seriously, when those who will lose outnumber those who will be helped by 16 to one,” says EPI Vice President Ross Eisenbrey, author of the report Longer Hours, Less Pay.
The Bush administration’s changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) would establish new rules for employers to determine if workers are eligible for overtime pay. When the proposed rules were announced last year, the Bush administration claimed it was streamlining the overtime regulations and expanding the number of workers eligible for overtime pay. But workers, their unions and other groups charged the move would deny millions of workers their overtime pay.
Under the new rules, workers who earn as little as $23,660 per year—about $5,000 above the poverty line for a family of four—could see their jobs reclassified as ineligible for overtime pay.
The rules changes will affect workers throughout the economy. For example, as many as 2 million administrative workers will lose their overtime rights under a rule change that makes “team leaders” ineligible for overtime pay, even when they do not supervise others on the team, the EPI report says.
The new rules also will end overtime eligibility for some 900,000 workers without college or graduate degrees who will be newly classified as exempt professionals—nearly 1.4 million workers reclassified as executives under the new rules, another 130,000 chefs, sous chefs and cooks, 160,000 financial services workers and 117,000 teachers and computer programmers—according to EPI.
The EPI report came on the same day House Democrats renewed their efforts to protect overtime pay. The House Appropriations subcommittee, on a party-line vote July 14, defeated
posted on August 14, 2004 08:33:38 PM new
Bush and Cheney are hanging themselves with attacks on the middle and working class people of this wonderful country.
VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS THESE MEN WILL STRAIGHTEN THE BUSH CHENEY MESS OUT.
JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS WILL MAKE A BETTER COUNTRY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY.
posted on August 14, 2004 08:51:41 PM new
Hi Crowfarm, thank you for your reply. I have read Linda's links as well.
I hate to have to admit to all, that I am more confused than ever.
If I read correctly the numbers have been adjusted and the earning's allowable is somewhere around 90,000 for a certain sector of the work force?
Who gets to decide where one fits on the list of eligibility? Since it is not based only on your salary, but your job classification etc.
I understand that the reason for this ruling was because of the large amount of law suits and disputes between employers and employees in regard to overtime pay..
What does that mean exactly? The employers do not want to pay the overtime?
Another point they make is that the purpose of overtime pay is to help the low earner achieve the necessities... who decided this?
I don't see why it can't be used to attain some luxuries as well as basic necessities..why can't the employee who earns 100,000 a year enjoy the extra from overtime pay? Who does it hurt, if he/she works to earn it?
I just don't get it...lol.. I have been saying that a lot on this board lately..
Now, tell me, is this a done deal? Drdo
posted on August 14, 2004 09:07:01 PM new
I don't think it's a done deal YET.
It does show how much bush hates the average worker. It's simple, he wants to turn them into underpaid drones so CEOs and stockholders make more money...
Unless someone is a salaried worker any time worked over 40 hours should be overtime.
To eliminate this is a giant step backward, back to the time when a employer could tell an employee how long they have to work...
10, 12, 14 hours if they wished.
Isn't life, especially in the "greatest country in the world", supposed to improve with time ?
How many steps back will we take ? Until children are once again working 8-12 hours with no protection?
Until we have no paid sick days or vacation ?
Until working 6-7 days a week is mandatory?
And if a person feels safe because they don't fall into a group that won't get OT, just wait.
These things sneak in on little cat feet and once in the door they grow and spread like a cancer.
I know people who aren't even aware bush tried this! Why not? Why didn't he have it on the front page of every newspaper if it's so wonderful ??????????
posted on August 14, 2004 09:08:00 PM new
"JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS WILL MAKE A BETTER COUNTRY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY".
How bigpeepa. Please stand behind this statement, a statement you make regularly, and tell us how he is going to do that.
posted on August 14, 2004 09:11:06 PM new
I do not believe Bush hates the common worker. Aside from their potential vote I believe they are beneath his and his parties notice.
It is known that he considers the wealthy his base.
posted on August 14, 2004 10:25:46 PM new
Here is a for instance... if I presently earn 70,000 a year, but I work as many hours as I can get in overtime, which brings me up to say 90,000 a year.. If this is passed, I will only be able to earn the 70,000 is that correct? So, I am not permitted to better myself? Don't get it! Just don't get it!Drdo
[ edited by drdolittle on Aug 14, 2004 10:29 PM ]
posted on August 14, 2004 10:47:39 PM new
Crow did you change your ID to bigpeepa, are you and bigpeepa one in the same.
I did ask him that question because he always seems to bring the same things up and I did want him to answer it. But you always seem to want to get into my conversatons with others. What did I expect
posted on August 14, 2004 10:55:54 PM new
Dr.dolittle maybe the job you are doing can be done in a normal work week and if so go negotiate with your employer about a raise in Pay. Or is it your business. I can speak from experience. Money doesn't mean everything, sometime you have to have a life. Working as many overtime hours that I did in my life took away my weekends, holidays and nights. Some moments with my family I will never know and I feel bad about that. But now I am done and enjoying my life. I never regretted the overtime work but somedays I wish I would have never had to. My overtime was mandatory as I worked in healthcare on call.
I don't think you have to have money to be happy, some say it does and I will have to disagree with that. JMHO
posted on August 15, 2004 06:15:42 AM new
Libra s been in the sherry again!
Says,"I did ask him that question because he always seems to bring the same things up and I did want him to answer it. But you always seem to want to get into my conversatons with others. What did I expect "
Uh Libra, Yoohoo, this is an open chat room.....want a private conversation with Bigpeepa (you little devil)....then email him.
Your next post......you trot out the old BS about money not being everything but if you would've had more money you wouldn't have had to work so much and miss so much of your family life. If you wouldn't have had mandatory OT you wouldn't have missed your family so much.
You say, "I never regretted the overtime work but somedays I wish I would have never had to. "
LIBRA that IS regretting the overtime .
This is , as the Republicans love to say, the Greatest country in the world".
So why can't a 40 hour week provide the necessities so people can spend more time with their families....isn't this what "FAMILY VALUES" is all about ????
AND if you or your employer does need the overtime shouldn't you be compensated monetarily for the time you have to spend away from your family , the extra effort OT takes, the quality of your family life declining because you're at work alll the time???
Bush wants to take away overtime pay to make corporations even wealthier than they already are....he doesn't give a damn about family values !
posted on August 15, 2004 07:00:10 AM new
This WILL NOT affect the average hourly paid worker.
If you are/were what is considered a salaried non-exempt employee then this may affect you... why should you be paid OT along with a stated salary? If you are incapable of completing your tasks in a 50 hour work week (which is what most salaries are based on) then you are in the wrong job.
Who does ot hurt? Everyone doolittle... employeers aree required to pay more unemployment insurance for ot, production costss are not based on ot, so if more ot occurs than is expected it does affect the bottom line.
However I say again this will not affect the average hourly worker... no matter what some people say.
posted on August 15, 2004 08:15:32 AM new
Again:
""And if a person feels safe because they don't fall into a group that won't get OT, just wait.
These things sneak in on little cat feet and once in the door they grow and spread like a cancer.
I know people who aren't even aware bush tried this! Why not? Why didn't he have it on the front page of every newspaper if it's so wonderful ?????????? ""
Pretty soon employers say," well, we don't pay those employees overtime why should we pay the other employees OT ?????"
posted on August 15, 2004 09:51:06 AM newIf you are/were what is considered a salaried non-exempt employee then this may affect you... why should you be paid OT along with a stated salary? If you are incapable of completing your tasks in a 50 hour work week (which is what most salaries are based on) then you are in the wrong job.
Sorry, but a 40 hour work week is the standard,not 50. And "overtime" comes when the employer asks or tells you to work over that amount. It is not a matter of the worker be "incapable" of finishing their tasks within the 40 hours.
In my case, I have been working a lot of overtime this summer because we were short-staffed to begin with & then another person in my department had to have surgery & was out all summer. And summer is one of our busiest times of the year.
A friend of mine has been working overtime because his employer demands it, and he is afraid of losing a good-paying job. The company he works for would rather pay overtime than hire more employees & pay their benefits, you see.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on August 15, 2004 09:59:10 AM new
And since my salary is for 40 hours per week, when I have to work over that I expect to bepaid for my time. Or at the very leastreceive comp time for it--and sometimes I prefer to get comp time rather than money.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on August 15, 2004 10:28:28 AM new
Woohoo Crow can C&P (great). You seem to be the queen of answering others questions but when it comes to you asking questions it's a different story. Remember the thread where you spelled that word wrong. You said don't comment on it. You started a thread but you only wanted the person you asked the question to to answer it. You seem to have a different standard when it comes to your posts verses others. I guess that is the liberal way. Do as I say not as I do.
Yes I did work a lot of overtime because that was my job. So what. I didn't make the big buck though. No complaints. I did lose a lot of family time including holidays & weekends and sometimes I regretted it. I did work a job that didn't pay overtime but gave us time and a half. Enjoyed 6 vacations in one year. Can't beat that. You seem to be in the 2 buck chuck all the time with your whimsical posts. Maybe the reason you had a 9% reduction in salary is because you are to bossy.
Weather is beautiful today so it is off to enjoy it.
posted on August 15, 2004 10:31:12 AM new
Libra.. that was just a hypothetical situation..
I was trying to make a point, that some people who may not earn 100,000 a year in base salary, could choose to work enough overtime hours to reach such an amount...
I don't think one should be limited to "making a living" or "making ends meet".. with the use of overtime pay.
I think if you are willing to work overtime to afford a higher standard of living..or the luxuries, you should be allowed to do so.
posted on August 15, 2004 10:34:15 AM new
"The company he works for would rather pay overtime than hire more employees & pay their benefits, you see."
That is the problem and maybe that practice has to stop and maybe that is the reason that this is being suggested. Benefits are a great percentge of the salary and companies are trying not to pay them so that they can make more money. People need to work and they also need benefits. What would happen if your friend said they wouldn't work overtime? Do you think they would fire them and have to train another employee? Maybe hire more to replace them. It's a no win situation for the employee but for the company they make big dollars.
Sorry I said I was leaving but I didn't see bunni's post.
posted on August 15, 2004 11:49:38 AM newPeople need to work and they also need benefits. What would happen if your friend said they wouldn't work overtime? Do you think they would fire them and have to train another employee?
I asked him that. He said that people who have refused to work overtime have been let go--it intimidates the other employees, who take up the slack. These days you just don't want to lose your job as it's too hard to get another one that pays as well. So the employer has him over a barrel.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on August 15, 2004 03:23:14 PM new
Yes, however as salaried employees are for the most part not paid ot and they usually make more in the short term over their hourly subordinates.... it is expected they produce a few more hours than their "regualar" 40... supervisors are supposed to be the first in and the last to leave... that there puts them over 40 hours...
posted on August 15, 2004 04:12:34 PM new
Libera63, When will you cold hearted,selfish, greedy republicans understand that I don't like what you stand for. I am at war with people like you. I am fighting for the middle and working class people of this fine country. I have only one agenda and that is to defeat your failed republicans leaders in November.
If you want to know how John Kerry and John Edwards are going to make a better country for the middle and working class. Just go to http://www.johnkerry.com and you will find out.
JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS WILL MAKE A BETTER COUNTRY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY.
posted on August 15, 2004 04:27:45 PM new
Hey Twelvetoes, I believe guys like you will only be happy when American workers are working 80 hours a week for a 40 hour a week paycheck. Well it's not going to work that way after John Kerry becomes President.
JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS WILL MAKE A BETTER COUNTRY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY.
posted on August 15, 2004 04:54:08 PM new
Well thanks bigpeepa that doesn't tell me a thing only that JK and associates are going to tax the wealthy and give to the poor and middle class. Sort of like a Robin Hood. He has so many things he is going to do you and the liberals will never afford it and you will be in the lower and middle class like most of us here. You don't need to get testy I just asked you a question which you didn't answer but directed me to a webpage which I will not go there. How is he going to finance all his programs?
posted on August 15, 2004 05:03:48 PM new
But Dr. I know what you mean about money but I was just explaining the other side of the story. I was also just trying to explain that even though you work overtime you have to give up something else. Family for one. and that was one thing I regretted. One Thanksgiving I had just sat down to a family dinner that I prepared. The phone rang and I didn't return home until 6 hours later. I can say I got great pay but I also missed having dinner with my family. I guess one has to set priorities in life as to what is more important. Just debating this great question by the dr.
posted on August 15, 2004 05:13:55 PM new
Libra says, "Well thanks bigpeepa that doesn't tell me a thing only that JK and associates are going to tax the wealthy and give to the poor and middle class"
WHER LIBRA DID HE SAY THAT...???????????
I know you possess superior intellect, Libra , but no liberal and certainly not John Kerry proposes "taking" money from the rich to give to the poor ....god forbid!
BUT you goat!. BUSH GAVE THE RICHEST 1% of the people in this country a HUGE tax break.
MUCH bigger than middle income and lower income people.
Why can't you neocons realize that. The WORLD knows it!
Don't believe me ???? ASK THEM! THEY ADMIT IT! The Democratic ones do anyway!
Ask a Nobel prize winner in economics....Libra, they are smarter than you, they know more.
John Kerry just wants people to pay their FAIR SHARE! And right now it's not fair!
posted on August 15, 2004 07:15:25 PM new
Libra63, You keep asking questions but you are so close minded that you won't go to John Kerry's web site. Anyone that won't look at both sides is a person I will not try to reason with. You need to inform yourself. Once again you want answers go to John Kerry's web site he has got answers to your uninformed questions.
JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS WILL MAKE A BETTER COUNTRY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY.
