09-10-2003, 03:50 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Junkie
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Here ya go j8bear. For what it's worth; the opinion of someone whose vote counted. No journalists to be seen here:
http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/prop...ertime_rul.htm
Quote:
Proposed Changes to Overtime Rules
The Bush Administration Department of Labor has proposed a regulation that could have the effect of eliminating overtime eligibility for millions of American workers.
On July 10, I voted for the Obey amendment that would have prohibited the Department of Labor from proceeding with the regulation. The amendment, which was considered during debate on appropriations for the Department of Labor, failed by a vote of 210-213. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and other Republican leaders lobbied wavering Members during the vote to ensure that the Administration could proceed with its regulation.
The Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted in 1938, established the 40-hour work week by requiring that employers pay workers time-and-a-half for any hours worked over that amount.
The law and the regulations the implement it exempt some workers from overtime eligibility based on the conditions and duties of their jobs. Currently, a worker who is paid by salary, not an hourly wage, and whose primary duties are managerial, administrative, or professional, is not eligible for overtime. These rules result in occasional disputes over whether an employee’s primary duties are managerial, or whether a job meets the definition of “professional.”
The Bush Administration’s new regulation would establish three tiers based on salary level and job duties. Under the new rules:
* Workers who earn a salary of $65,000 or more would get no overtime pay regardless of their job duties.
* Salaried workers who make more than $22,100 per year and perform work that is of “substantial importance” or requires high-level training would not be eligible for overtime pay.
* Worker who makes less than $22,100 would be eligible for overtime pay regardless of their job description.
The changes would have the effect of taking overtime pay away from a large number of workers, while adding overtime eligibility to a small number of workers. It would not affect workers who earn an hourly wage, unless their employers transferred jobs from wage to salary status to avoid paying overtime.
The Administration claims they are merely simplifying and clarifying the regulations by making it easier to determine which workers are entitled to overtime pay and which are exempt. That obviously is not true. Determining whether an employee’s work is of “substantial importance” is not easier or clearer than determining whether the employee is a manager or administrator. The effect of the regulation would be to eliminate overtime pay for many salaried workers who are not part of their company’s management. It is not clear how many workers would be affected because we cannot predict how “substantial importance” would be applied to the thousands of different jobs in the economy.
The Department of Labor issued the proposed regulations on March 31, and received more than 70,000 comments in the 90-day public comment period that ended June 30. The Administration is expected to take several months to consider changes before publishing a final regulation with responses to the general themes of the public comments. Because the Department of Labor is amending regulations that are already authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act, it does not need Congressional approval to proceed.
During consideration of the bill to fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Rep. Obey offered an amendment that would prohibit any funds from being spent to issue a regulation that would take overtime pay away from any worker who currently is entitled to overtime. The Obey amendment would have allowed the rule change to grant overtime to all workers who earn less than $22,100, while preventing the Administration from proceeding with the changes for other salaried employees.
I voted for the Obey amendment, but it failed due to intense lobbying by the Republican leadership. The appropriations bill was approved by the House later that day by a vote of 215-208. I voted against final passage. The appropriations bill must be passed by the Senate, so there still is a chance that language to stop the regulations may be inserted.
I will support any further efforts in the House to block the regulation from being implemented. However, because the Republican leadership supports the new regulation, Speaker Hastert will not allow a vote on a bill dealing with the overtime matter by itself.
|
|
|
|