Bush's dreams of regressing labor laws dies. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 09-10-2003, 08:13 AM

Senate votes to block new Overtime rules

This defeats Bush's efforts to destroy overtime pay for many american workers.

All the Dems minus Zell Miller voted to protect our overtime rules.
Plus Republicans: Campbell (CO), Chaffee (RI), Murkowski (AK), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), and Stevens (AK) and independent Jeffords (VT)

Overall very good news. It shows we can still successfully oppose Bush and protect america.

The_Dude · 09-10-2003, 10:13 AM

Good news indeed.

Lebell · 09-10-2003, 10:24 AM

For those of you who don't feel like clicking the link:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Votes to Block New Overtime Rules
2 hours, 46 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Wednesday to bar the Bush administration from issuing new overtime pay rules that Democrats and organized labor said would take money from the pockets of millions of workers.

The vote was 54-45, and left the fate of the controversial new regulations uncertain. The House blessed the administration's proposal earlier this year, and congressional negotiators will have to untangle the disagreement In addition, the White House has raised the possibility of a veto if Congress tries to block the rules.

Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), D-Iowa, who led the effort to block the proposed rules, said the Department of Labor had acted in a "very heavy-handed manner" in crafting a proposal that would "wipe away the overtime protections" enjoyed by millions.

But Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., said the vote was premature — that the Labor Department (news - web sites) hadn't yet finished drafting the new rule — and the claims by labor and its allies were wildly inflated. The number of workers who would be cut off from overtime eligibility is more like 800,000, he said, and he noted that a different part of the proposal would have extended overtime pay to 1.3 million workers not currently eligible.

The vote occurred as the Senate struggled to complete work on a $137.6 billion spending bill for the year beginning Oct. 1 for health, education and labor programs.

In a series of votes, Democrats led an effort to add funds to a variety of accounts, but were turned back.

A call to add $300 million for low-income heating assistance was rejected on a vote of 49-46, 11 short of the 60 needed. As drafted, the measure includes $2 billion for the program.

The vote on a call for an additional $50 million for a child vaccination program was 47-49, 13 less than needed.

The overtime issue was heavily lobbied on both sides, and in a rarity, all four of the Democratic presidential contenders arranged their schedules to be present. All voted to block the regulations.

The voting was largely along party lines, although six Republicans voted to block the Labor Department from proceeding and one Democrat, Sen. Zell Miller (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia, sided with the administration.

The proposed rules — which would not affect workers under union contracts — will take affect as soon as early 2004 unless a law is enacted blocking them.

Standing in Democrats' way is the Republican-led House, which in July voted to uphold the rules by 213-210 after the chamber's GOP leaders switched several votes at the last moment.

The new rules would also make overtime available to 1.3 million additional low-income Americans, the administration says, by raising the annual pay below which overtime must be paid to $22,100. That figure is currently $8,060, where it was set in 1975.

The Democratic amendment would not rescind that part of the proposed rules.

According to the Labor Department's latest figures, 11.6 million workers earned overtime pay in 2000.

Stare At The Sun · 09-10-2003, 12:46 PM

w00t.

j8ear · 09-10-2003, 03:07 PM

Regressing? I guess since this is a "TILTED" forum that supposition is reasonable.

Good news indeed! Why?

I ask: What do we know about the proposed rule changes?

From the info provided...NOTHING. All we have are party rallying cries and theorectical statistics.

I believe the article even said the rules were as yet unfinished. Leave it to my home town rag to come up with scant details.

*sigh*

What a sad life it must be to be a lobbiest or politician. A puppet for who ever funds your pathetic existence. Same I guess can be offered about party die hards (minus the funding part).

-b-

Macheath · 09-10-2003, 03:50 PM

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.

j8ear · 09-10-2003, 05:35 PM

Thanks...and with that:

* Workers who earn a salary of $65,000 or more would get no overtime pay regardless of their job duties.

Agree

* 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.

This is the sticking point I guess? To me "substantial importance" or "high level training" means you should go find a job that pays more then 22k, AND should have no trouble doing so.

No matter what the deal is if it comes from the governement everyone should realize that it will be vague, and of course the Feds themselves will be exempt from it's regulation.

* Worker who makes less than $22,100 would be eligible for overtime pay regardless of their job description.

Concur.

Seems to me the only people who are better off under the current rules are those who make more then 65k. It would be ashame to hinder those poor downtrodden souls with the burdens of no over time.

Anyway that's just my take on the spin that this politician presented.

This knuckle head actually wanted to ONLY add overtime eligibility.

Let's not forget something very important....if overtime wasn't paid....overtime most likely WOULD NOT be worked.

-bear

Macheath · 09-10-2003, 06:01 PM

Um, j8bear.

When you wrote the quote correctly:

Quote:

* Salaried workers who make <span style="color: rgb(51, 255, 51);">more</span> 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.

did you accidentally read it as:

Quote:

* Salaried workers who make <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">less</span> 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.

because I didn't really get your argument.

j8ear · 09-10-2003, 06:29 PM

i did read it wrong...

But im not really arguing anything.

I'm just trying to learn *why* Bush is considered regressive (in this regard)...and why defeat of this bill is so welcome.

Superbelt · 09-10-2003, 06:50 PM

It's regressive because the only thing it will achieve is to broaden the gap between the rich and the rest of us. The rules Bush wants to put in place will have us working more overtime and not getting paid for it. And under the rules a company doesn't have to compensate a worker for the comp time he has accrued for 5 years. In that time a lot of things can happen, like the company making tons of money off the interest they save, and perhaps the worker getting fired so the company doesn't have to give him his 2.5 years of vacation time he has earned by that point.

That's why it's regressive. It's making us slaves

Superbelt · 09-10-2003, 06:52 PM

And ya know, in most of the rest of the industrialized world 3 weeks paid vacation is a standard, for every full time job. Government protected and mandated. Americans are the most productive workers in the world because we don't take vacations.

It's sad.

ctembreull · 09-10-2003, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
Thanks...and with that:

* Workers who earn a salary of $65,000 or more would get no overtime pay regardless of their job duties.

Agree

At first blush, this looks like a reasonable thing - but imagine the worker in San Francisco, just as a f'r'instance. He may make $65,000 - but that doesn't mean he can afford to support himself in that city. Many folks can support themselves on that much - some cannot. There's a lot of circumstances, I think, where this stricture is not a good move - it's nothing more than pandering to the average.

Quote:

* 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.

This is the sticking point I guess? To me "substantial importance" or "high level training" means you should go find a job that pays more then 22k, AND should have no trouble doing so.

Problem here is that there's nothing to stop a company from declaring someone's job "important" for arbitrary reasons. Imagine this: a floor manager at Wal-Mart has received some training on customer relations, some on basic management, etc. He doesn't make much, but his overtime covers most of his shortfall. If this rule were to pass, Wal-Mart could declare his job "substantially important" - and then require him to work more than 40 hours per week, without paying him overtime. How can they require this, you ask? With the advent of "at-will" employment contracts, companies can release an employee for any reason or for no reason at all. Wal-Mart could quite easily make his job security a function of his willingness to work overtime for no extra pay - and there'd be nothing in the law to prevent it. I find that substantially unfair. You?

Overtime pay laws are, first and foremost, the guardians of the 40-hour work week. That's what the Administration is seeking to undo here.

Perhaps tangentially, I hesitate to bring any worker-compensation laws before our Congress right now - given that in this time of deficits and a poor economy, they've just voted themselves yet another pay raise. Cute, eh?

Superbelt · 09-11-2003, 03:22 AM

Also.

Say you have ten employees all getting overtime. Say 10 hours a week of overtime each on average. That's 100 hours of overtime pay your company is paying out.

You make 5 of them "substantially important" and stop paying them overtime. But instead of their normal 10 hours of overtime you now make them work 20 hours of overtime to cover the entire 100 hours because you don't have to pay them for it anymore. Now those 5 are screwed out of compensation for their work and the OTHER 5 are screwed out of their overtime hours because they are being heaped onto the "important" employees.

RoadRage · 09-13-2003, 10:57 AM

The proposed rule change is a bad idea all the way across the board.

1. Companies would declare everyone "of substantial importance" just to prevent the paying of overtime.

2. Few jobs allow opting out of overtime. Refusal to work overtime can be grounds for termination.

3. If you don't pay for the overtime, that is money that doesn't circulate in the local economy. Less money circulating means job losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again.

4. Overtime makes companies have to strike a balance between working current employees more versus hiring new employees. Remove the overtime requirement and:

a. No new employees are hired while the current ones are forced to work more, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again.

b. The current employees become more prone to "accidents" and "illness", resulting in lost productivity. Enough employees "sick" one day, and the business has to shut down. You can't make money if you're not open for business. Not working means less money circulating means job losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again.

c. Massive walkouts due to exhuastion of overwork forces a company to hire significant underskilled workers. The product suffers because of this and the company goes into decline, leading to job losses and stockholders losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again.

Any possible gains from this are extremely short-term in nature. This is a long-term disaster waiting to happen. The lack of the current overtime rules is one of the problems that led to the formation of unions back in the early 1900s, and the removal of this rule would led to a revival of labor and profesional unions in less than a generation.

If you don't think this is possible, I will cite you an example. Grandy's Restaurants had been an expanding restaurant chain in the Southwest until 1997. Then they decided to set a cap on what the store manager can earn. Nearly two-thirds of the store managers walked out within a month and almost all within a year. The company's last profitable year was 1998. Ever since, they've been in decline, closing restaurants, not advertising, paring back menu selections, and removing the senior citizen's discount in an effort to stay alive. They blame the decline on customer's changing habits. They don't realize that when the store managers walked, the replacements were substantially inferior, leading to the hiring of poor employees and a lowering of food quality. When the food sucked, customers didn't come back.

Ideas like this is why I don't consider Bush II a conservative. A true conservative wouldn't propose such idiocy.

09-10-2003, 08:13 AM	#1 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Bush's dreams of regressing labor laws dies. Senate votes to block new Overtime rules This defeats Bush's efforts to destroy overtime pay for many american workers. All the Dems minus Zell Miller voted to protect our overtime rules. Plus Republicans: Campbell (CO), Chaffee (RI), Murkowski (AK), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), and Stevens (AK) and independent Jeffords (VT) Overall very good news. It shows we can still successfully oppose Bush and protect america.

09-10-2003, 10:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	Good news indeed. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

09-10-2003, 10:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	For those of you who don't feel like clicking the link: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senate Votes to Block New Overtime Rules 2 hours, 46 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo! By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Wednesday to bar the Bush administration from issuing new overtime pay rules that Democrats and organized labor said would take money from the pockets of millions of workers. The vote was 54-45, and left the fate of the controversial new regulations uncertain. The House blessed the administration's proposal earlier this year, and congressional negotiators will have to untangle the disagreement In addition, the White House has raised the possibility of a veto if Congress tries to block the rules. Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), D-Iowa, who led the effort to block the proposed rules, said the Department of Labor had acted in a "very heavy-handed manner" in crafting a proposal that would "wipe away the overtime protections" enjoyed by millions. But Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., said the vote was premature — that the Labor Department (news - web sites) hadn't yet finished drafting the new rule — and the claims by labor and its allies were wildly inflated. The number of workers who would be cut off from overtime eligibility is more like 800,000, he said, and he noted that a different part of the proposal would have extended overtime pay to 1.3 million workers not currently eligible. The vote occurred as the Senate struggled to complete work on a $137.6 billion spending bill for the year beginning Oct. 1 for health, education and labor programs. In a series of votes, Democrats led an effort to add funds to a variety of accounts, but were turned back. A call to add $300 million for low-income heating assistance was rejected on a vote of 49-46, 11 short of the 60 needed. As drafted, the measure includes $2 billion for the program. The vote on a call for an additional $50 million for a child vaccination program was 47-49, 13 less than needed. The overtime issue was heavily lobbied on both sides, and in a rarity, all four of the Democratic presidential contenders arranged their schedules to be present. All voted to block the regulations. The voting was largely along party lines, although six Republicans voted to block the Labor Department from proceeding and one Democrat, Sen. Zell Miller (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia, sided with the administration. The proposed rules — which would not affect workers under union contracts — will take affect as soon as early 2004 unless a law is enacted blocking them. Standing in Democrats' way is the Republican-led House, which in July voted to uphold the rules by 213-210 after the chamber's GOP leaders switched several votes at the last moment. The new rules would also make overtime available to 1.3 million additional low-income Americans, the administration says, by raising the annual pay below which overtime must be paid to $22,100. That figure is currently $8,060, where it was set in 1975. The Democratic amendment would not rescind that part of the proposed rules. According to the Labor Department's latest figures, 11.6 million workers earned overtime pay in 2000. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-10-2003, 03:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Regressing? I guess since this is a "TILTED" forum that supposition is reasonable. Good news indeed! Why? I ask: What do we know about the proposed rule changes? From the info provided...NOTHING. All we have are party rallying cries and theorectical statistics. I believe the article even said the rules were as yet unfinished. Leave it to my home town rag to come up with scant details. sigh What a sad life it must be to be a lobbiest or politician. A puppet for who ever funds your pathetic existence. Same I guess can be offered about party die hards (minus the funding part). -b- __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

09-10-2003, 05:35 PM	#7 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Thanks...and with that: * Workers who earn a salary of $65,000 or more would get no overtime pay regardless of their job duties. Agree * 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. This is the sticking point I guess? To me "substantial importance" or "high level training" means you should go find a job that pays more then 22k, AND should have no trouble doing so. No matter what the deal is if it comes from the governement everyone should realize that it will be vague, and of course the Feds themselves will be exempt from it's regulation. * Worker who makes less than $22,100 would be eligible for overtime pay regardless of their job description. Concur. Seems to me the only people who are better off under the current rules are those who make more then 65k. It would be ashame to hinder those poor downtrodden souls with the burdens of no over time. Anyway that's just my take on the spin that this politician presented. This knuckle head actually wanted to ONLY add overtime eligibility. Let's not forget something very important....if overtime wasn't paid....overtime most likely WOULD NOT be worked. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

09-10-2003, 12:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	w00t.

09-10-2003, 06:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	i did read it wrong... But im not really arguing anything. I'm just trying to learn why Bush is considered regressive (in this regard)...and why defeat of this bill is so welcome. __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

09-10-2003, 06:50 PM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	It's regressive because the only thing it will achieve is to broaden the gap between the rich and the rest of us. The rules Bush wants to put in place will have us working more overtime and not getting paid for it. And under the rules a company doesn't have to compensate a worker for the comp time he has accrued for 5 years. In that time a lot of things can happen, like the company making tons of money off the interest they save, and perhaps the worker getting fired so the company doesn't have to give him his 2.5 years of vacation time he has earned by that point. That's why it's regressive. It's making us slaves

09-10-2003, 06:52 PM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	And ya know, in most of the rest of the industrialized world 3 weeks paid vacation is a standard, for every full time job. Government protected and mandated. Americans are the most productive workers in the world because we don't take vacations. It's sad.

09-11-2003, 03:22 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Also. Say you have ten employees all getting overtime. Say 10 hours a week of overtime each on average. That's 100 hours of overtime pay your company is paying out. You make 5 of them "substantially important" and stop paying them overtime. But instead of their normal 10 hours of overtime you now make them work 20 hours of overtime to cover the entire 100 hours because you don't have to pay them for it anymore. Now those 5 are screwed out of compensation for their work and the OTHER 5 are screwed out of their overtime hours because they are being heaped onto the "important" employees.

09-13-2003, 10:57 AM	#14 (permalink)
RoadRage Stay off the sidewalk! Location: Oklahoma City, OK	The proposed rule change is a bad idea all the way across the board. 1. Companies would declare everyone "of substantial importance" just to prevent the paying of overtime. 2. Few jobs allow opting out of overtime. Refusal to work overtime can be grounds for termination. 3. If you don't pay for the overtime, that is money that doesn't circulate in the local economy. Less money circulating means job losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again. 4. Overtime makes companies have to strike a balance between working current employees more versus hiring new employees. Remove the overtime requirement and: a. No new employees are hired while the current ones are forced to work more, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again. b. The current employees become more prone to "accidents" and "illness", resulting in lost productivity. Enough employees "sick" one day, and the business has to shut down. You can't make money if you're not open for business. Not working means less money circulating means job losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again. c. Massive walkouts due to exhuastion of overwork forces a company to hire significant underskilled workers. The product suffers because of this and the company goes into decline, leading to job losses and stockholders losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again. Any possible gains from this are extremely short-term in nature. This is a long-term disaster waiting to happen. The lack of the current overtime rules is one of the problems that led to the formation of unions back in the early 1900s, and the removal of this rule would led to a revival of labor and profesional unions in less than a generation. If you don't think this is possible, I will cite you an example. Grandy's Restaurants had been an expanding restaurant chain in the Southwest until 1997. Then they decided to set a cap on what the store manager can earn. Nearly two-thirds of the store managers walked out within a month and almost all within a year. The company's last profitable year was 1998. Ever since, they've been in decline, closing restaurants, not advertising, paring back menu selections, and removing the senior citizen's discount in an effort to stay alive. They blame the decline on customer's changing habits. They don't realize that when the store managers walked, the replacements were substantially inferior, leading to the hiring of poor employees and a lowering of food quality. When the food sucked, customers didn't come back. Ideas like this is why I don't consider Bush II a conservative. A true conservative wouldn't propose such idiocy. __________________ Join TFP Team SETI 43K workunits complete, 34 members, more of each needed.