posted on August 20, 2004 06:19:28 AM
Contentious Overtime Overhaul to Start
Fri Aug 20, 5:08 AM ET
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 Labor Department (news - web sites) says as many as 107,000 workers could lose overtime eligibility under its new rules, 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.
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.\"
The critics were heard. Gone from the rules are estimates on workers who might lose overtime based on changes to the duties tests, which describe the tasks that entitle a worker to overtime. The draft had said 1.5 million to 2.7 million workers \"will be more readily identified as exempt.\" The new analysis says: \"It is impossible to quantitatively estimate the number of exempt workers.\"
Language was removed 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.
Union workers covered by contracts will not be affected by the change, though labor leaders argue that unions will face tougher negotiations when their contracts expire because of the new rules.
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.\"
This should also spur the economy even more, no employers can pay a wage that is online with the job.
for those grousing... salaried positions are not always based on 40 hours per week anyway... brother was just offered a nice salaried position but was told he would be spending at least 55 hours a week there....
posted on August 20, 2004 07:15:15 AM
"""the Bush administration is delivering to its business allies an election-year plum they\'ve sought for decades."""
Wonderful! Another strike against the American work force brought to you by the demon Bush!
posted on August 20, 2004 07:52:17 AMBusiness owners create jobs, but of course your socialist mind can't process that fact..
That would be true if businesses were not downsizing, laying off employees, going out of business or outsourcing employees. Have you forgotten about these things that take place as well.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 20, 2004 08:00:44 AM
Thanks for that post Twelve..now I have to consult the Heartburn Thread.
Call me a skeptic.. but in my experience, anything that helps big business only hurts the guy in the middle.. I wonder how this will affect the self-employed contract worker?
posted on August 20, 2004 08:19:25 AM
No I haven't forgotten how in the 90's businesses had a license to cook the books and artificailly inflate wages...
Downsizing was and is needed to keep a business healthy... better to lose some than all.
posted on August 20, 2004 04:09:31 PM
I am glad I don't work a public job anymore. I wouldn't want to work a 70-80 hour work week at minimum wages with no benefits. I'll stick with E-Bay and the flea market.
posted on August 23, 2004 07:54:02 AM
Today the new rules take affect, should be interesting how it turns out... Labor boards are ready to investigate any reclassifications...
