W's War on Overtime suffers a defeat - The Orange Mane

Hogan11 · 09-09-2004, 03:52 PM

House Votes to Block New Overtime Rules

49 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a sharp rebuke of a new administration policy, the House moved Thursday to block the Labor Department (news - web sites) from carrying out overtime rules that critics argued could deprive millions of workers of their overtime pay.

The 223-193 vote in favor of blocking the rules defied the White House. A threatened veto applied to veto a massive spending bill, now on the House floor, if it contains any language tampering with the rules that took effect Aug. 23.

"This is one step in the legislative process. We are continuing to work with the Congress," said Trent Duffy, a spokesman for President Bush (news - web sites).

Democrats, united against the rules, were joined by 22 Republicans in voting for the amendment to a $142.5 billion health and education spending bill.

The vote was Bush's second election-season defeat in Congress in two days. On Wednesday the Senate disregarded a White House veto threat and voted to prohibit Bush from giving federal immigration jobs to private workers.

"The administration has chosen this time to institute new regulations which for the first time in 80 years scale back workers' entitlement to overtime pay," said Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., a sponsor of the overtime proposal.

Democrats sought to depict the issue as an election-season example of the Bush administration's insensitivity to worker rights, saying the overtime privileges of up to 6 million workers were at risk.

"This is the place where making ends meet happens because people have overtime pay. Republicans cannot grasp that," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said the veto threat is "the latest evidence of how dead wrong the Bush administration is when it comes to meeting the needs of America's struggling middle class."

The White House and most Republicans insisted the rules would update an antiquated overtime pay system and make an additional 1 million lower-paid workers eligible for overtime.

"I do think that the clarity that comes with these new rules will help better protect American workers," said Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

It was unclear how much impact the House vote would have on the biggest overhaul of overtime regulations in more than half a century.

The Senate has yet to take up the health and education bill. House GOP Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he expected that the provision would be removed when the House and Senate meet to work out the final version of the bill.

He said that by that time there will be "overwhelming evidence" that the rules are benefiting tens of thousands of workers.

Republican Rep. Steven LaTourette (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, who voted for the amendment, suggested there was a middle ground. "I would hope this vote, taken together with some votes in the Senate, will let the administration say, `Well, wait a minute, let's go back and revisit this case.'"

Democrats and pro-labor Republicans have fought for more than a year to stop the Labor Department from going ahead with the proposed rules. The administration said they were needed to adjust to changing working conditions and clear up confusion that has led to lawsuits against employers.

"For those who receive overtime it's as high as 20 or 25 percent of their income," said Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., co-sponsor of the provision with Obey. "It's the largest government-imposed pay cut in the history of this country."

The AFL-CIO, which has lobbied against the new rules, said the 6 million workers facing weakened overtime protections include foremen and assistant managers, nurses, workers in the financial services industry, journalists and others who do small amounts of administrative work.

The department said 1.3 million workers who earn less than $23,660 a year would become eligible, while about 107,000 white-collar workers making $100,000 or more could lose eligibility.

The department said the amendment would put the overtime rights of millions in jeopardy because the government could no longer protect those making more than $23,660. "Especially hard-hit are police, firefighters, construction workers and others whose overtime rights were explicitly guaranteed for the first time in the new rules," said Alfred B. Robinson, Jr., acting administrator for the Wage and Hour Division.

In May, the Senate, by a 52-47 vote on a different bill, approved language stating that no worker who currently qualifies for overtime should lose that eligibility.

The Obey-Miller language blocks all aspects of the rules except those that extend overtime to lower-paid workers.

Bronco_Beerslug · 09-09-2004, 04:53 PM

Great news for all Americans that work for a living!!!!!!!!!

alkemical · 09-09-2004, 04:59 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-10-2004, 01:41 AM

W's War on Overtime suffers a defeat

Now is as good a time as any for the frat boy to start getting used to the idea of defeat.

Rohirrim · 09-10-2004, 06:09 AM

Here's another fun fact: The Bush administration has pulled back on its plan to open 58 million acres of national forest to roadbuilding - until after the election.

Pretty soon, the elk hunters in the Rocky Mountains won't even have to climb down off their ATVs to shoot. Even the fattest slob will be able to reach the higher valleys without breaking a sweat. Of course, that old style experience of hunting in the peace of the forest and the mountains will be history.

Hogan11 · 09-10-2004, 07:42 AM

Notice that no W backers have chimed in on this??

Even they have to be happy he lost on this one...

Mile High Shack · 09-10-2004, 07:52 AM

I don't get OT and I am mgmt anyway

so it doesn't effect me either way

Rascal · 09-10-2004, 08:12 AM

I don't get overtime anyway and no i'm not mgmt, and if I do work overtime I don't get paid extra. Because of that I haven't paid attention to it and I actually have no idea what it is about.

Assuming you guys are correct, a hint of doubt there but anyway, this would be one of those instances where I disagree with Bush.

Mile High Shack · 09-10-2004, 08:14 AM

well, I think it's a more complicated issue than the left makes it, BUT

I don't want to see anyone lose $$, people work hard for it, well most do....

I think labor laws are outdated though, so a tweaking is in order, but no one should suffer because of it.

watermock · 09-10-2004, 08:18 AM

What a line of crap.

I propose we dismantle Manhatten and sell it back for a few beads.

I have run over 3 deer in the past two years they are so prolific.

WTF are you going with this?

Caribou have proliferated around the pipeline.

What a line of crap

Rascal · 09-10-2004, 08:20 AM

I agree the labor laws are outdated. But I'm not familiar enough to discuss it and I don't really care anyway.

watermock · 09-10-2004, 08:37 AM

I can bring perspective.

Companies were able to work employees W/O overtime before.

The bill needs work.

Now they HAVE to give overtime, and therefore, employees will go into the sea.

They just don't get it.

I will talk about this bill later. It's not written correctly and it's attached to a bunch of other crap.

Here is a fact. People are willing to take cake hours without overtime.

They used to place them in different accounts. Now, it has to be placed as overtime and companies will not pay 1.5.

That is the real deal. It's actually a well intentioned bill, but it's not going to have the right result.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-10-2004, 03:18 PM

Pretty soon, the elk hunters in the Rocky Mountains won't even have to climb down off their ATVs to shoot. Even the fattest slob will be able to reach the higher valleys without breaking a sweat.

Next step is for the Smirk misadministration to repeal any applicable park alcohol consumption laws so those fat, slovenly ATV-riding Bubbas won't have to put down their Spoors Light while pursuing that elusive trophy/validation of their masculinity.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 09-10-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

well, I think it's a more complicated issue than the left makes it, BUT...

"Ah don't unnerstand it myself...can't 'splain it...Ah sure am glad I got 'ol Rush and Sean Hannity to do mah thinkin' for me!"

Hogan11 · 09-10-2004, 04:03 PM

If I'm the DNC, I'd start hammering this issue into the ground pronto. They should've been all over this from the get go IMO.

Raider Bill · 09-10-2004, 07:17 PM

I wasn't going to loose my OT so I could really care less.

Raider Bill · 09-10-2004, 07:29 PM

Under todays rules a cook making 8 grand a year can be exempt from overtime pay, because he oversees 2 kitchen workers, but a mechanic making 70 grand gets overtime. The new rules will not eliminate overtime protections for nurses, carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, laborers, teamsters, construction workers, production line workers and other blue-collar employees; and will not affect union workers covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Raising the threshold to 22 thousand for overtime pay would have given 1.3 million people an instant raise.

Under the new rules, those white-collar workers who make more than $65,000 would lose their right to overtime . But keep in mind the original reason for such laws: To benefit poor laborers. Middle-class managers and professionals were never supposed to be covered

The biggest benificary of the old rules is trial lawyers.

Because current law is so confusing, many companies struggle to determine which jobs are eligible for overtime, and which are not. Trial lawyers exploit this confusion: They pore over work roles until they find groups that seem mislabeled, and then file class-action lawsuits. It's a booming business. In 2001 there were more suits filed over overtime pay than suits alleging discrimination in the workplace. And why not? If a lawyer can convince a court to agree that a company has made a mistake, he can force that company to shell out millions of dollars in back pay. For example, two years ago, the Farmers Insurance Exchange of California was slapped with a $90 million judgment because it hadn't been paying overtime to its claims adjusters. More recently, Radio Shack and Starbucks surrendered without a fight. Those companies coughed up $30 million and $18 million, respectively, to settle out of court with store managers."

Cito Pelon · 09-11-2004, 01:15 AM

Who do you know that gets OT? GWB is full of crap. Very few people get OT.

Who gets OT? Union people get OT, and that .... is ... it.

It's an attack on unions, simple as that. And a pretty good attack. Cut off the arms and legs, and who is left to challenge your power? Easy victory, piece by piece.

I admire the strategy, and I'm amazed everyday people, middle-class people, buy into it.

Cito Pelon · 09-11-2004, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njbil

Under todays rules a cook making 8 grand a year can be exempt from overtime pay, because he oversees 2 kitchen workers, but a mechanic making 70 grand gets overtime. The new rules will not eliminate overtime protections for nurses, carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, laborers, teamsters, construction workers, production line workers and other blue-collar employees; and will not affect union workers covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Raising the threshold to 22 thousand for overtime pay would have given 1.3 million people an instant raise.

Under the new rules, those white-collar workers who make more than $65,000 would lose their right to overtime . But keep in mind the original reason for such laws: To benefit poor laborers. Middle-class managers and professionals were never supposed to be covered

The biggest benificary of the old rules is trial lawyers.

Because current law is so confusing, many companies struggle to determine which jobs are eligible for overtime, and which are not. Trial lawyers exploit this confusion: They pore over work roles until they find groups that seem mislabeled, and then file class-action lawsuits. It's a booming business. In 2001 there were more suits filed over overtime pay than suits alleging discrimination in the workplace. And why not? If a lawyer can convince a court to agree that a company has made a mistake, he can force that company to shell out millions of dollars in back pay. For example, two years ago, the Farmers Insurance Exchange of California was slapped with a $90 million judgment because it hadn't been paying overtime to its claims adjusters. More recently, Radio Shack and Starbucks surrendered without a fight. Those companies coughed up $30 million and $18 million, respectively, to settle out of court with store managers."

Then why did a Republican-controlled Congress give it the cold-shoulder? You're posts are alway geared toward keeping people poor and ignorant. I've seen many like you before.

You're a Huck-ster.

watermock · 09-11-2004, 02:41 AM

Mock would make you work for free overtime.

That's the way I get it in the car business.

Work till mdnight and you love it.

Hey Jake, are they giving you Overtime pay?

watermock · 09-11-2004, 02:43 AM

Seat to Pee On:

"Under todays rules a cook making 8 grand a year can be exempt from overtime pay."

It's impossible to work for 8 grand a year unless your a total retard.

TheDave · 09-11-2004, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njbil

Under todays rules a cook making 8 grand a year can be exempt from overtime pay, because he oversees 2 kitchen workers, but a mechanic making 70 grand gets overtime.

Just trying to do a little math here... Isn't minimum wage about $6+ an hour... if that's the case a full time worker couldn't make less than $12k a year. Maybe that has more to do with his OT limitations than him overseeing 2 subordinates... Just a thought

RunByDesign · 09-11-2004, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watermock

Mock would make you work for free overtime.

That's the way I get it in the car business.

Work till mdnight and you love it.

Hey Jake, are they giving you Overtime pay?

Gee...whose the "retard"?

Raider Bill · 09-11-2004, 06:53 PM

The current regulation is antiquated.

Before a worker may be considered exempt for overtime, there are three tests that must be met. First, the “salary-basis” test specifies that a worker must be paid on a set salary; hourly employees who work more than 40 hours in a given work week are generally eligible for overtime. Second, the “salary-level” test determines that any worker who earns less than a certain salary is automatically eligible for overtime, regardless of his or her job. Finally, a “duties test” allows certain executive, administrative, and professional employees to be exempt from overtime based on the kind of work they do.

The salary test has not been updated in nearly 30 years, and the duties test has gone even longer without any significant changes. One consequence of the lack of updated rules is that the minimum salary needed for a worker to be exempted from overtime is an absurdly low $155 per work week. The new regulation would raise the salary test to $455 per work week: any worker paid less than $455 per work week (or $23,660 per year) would automatically receive overtime protection, regardless of job duties.

The new rules mainly simplify the duties tests, but make few substantive changes.

Under the current rules, there are both short duties tests and long duties tests to determine whether or not an employee is exempt from overtime. Which test is administered depends on the employee’s salary level. But because of the failure to update the regulation, the long test has become irrelevant and the “short test” applies to all workers earning more than $13,000 per year. Under the new final rules, a single “standard test” for each occupational category (administrative, executive, and professional employees) replaces all of the old tests.

The new rules are particularly valuable for low-level supervisors. Under the current “short test,” an “assistant manager” who regularly supervises two other employees could be designated exempt from overtime. Under the new rules, supervisors must have the authority to hire and fire, or their suggestions in that arena must be given “particular weight” in addition to the other managerial duties. This is a significant tightening of the executive duties test that will result in fewer exemptions.

Similarly, for administrative and other office employees, employers will find it more difficult to deny overtime under the new rules. The regulation dictates that the employee, as part of his or her job duties, must exercise “discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.”

The new duties test for professional employees will have little, if any, effect on who receives overtime. The current rules state that the primary duty of a professional is “work requiring knowledge of an advanced type” that is “customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study,” which is the same language used in the new rule. Both the old rule and the new rule make a narrow exception for cases where substantial experience exists, such as an attorney who did not attend law school. That type of worker may still be considered a professional.

The new regulation means more employees will be eligible for overtime, not fewer.
In their new study, EPI would have policymakers believe that some 6 million white-collar (Why does the AFLCIO care so much anyway?) employees would lose overtime protection were the new overtime regulation adopted. This is based on the flawed premise that many hourly workers would be converted to a salary-basis and denied overtime. Because the overtime rules are either the same or change so minimally, employers who would be inclined to attempt this would have already done so.

According to a forthcoming analysis by The Heritage Foundation, nearly 1.3 million currently exempted workers who earn between $155 and $455 per week would receive overtime protection under the new regulation that they do not enjoy now. Because the new regulation makes it more difficult to exempt administrative and executive employees, more workers would be eligible for overtime protections.

The only workers who may lose overtime protections because of the new regulation are certain individuals earning more than $100,000 per year. Most of these workers are executives or professionals who are not eligible for overtime, anyway. Even if all of these highly paid employees lost their overtime protection—which is unlikely—only about 272,000 workers would lose overtime, according to this same Heritage study. A more reasonable estimate would be that around 100,000 highly compensated workers may lose their overtime.

Conclusion
The new overtime regulation is a welcome modernization from the outdated rules that employers must currently use. Contrary to the Economic Policy Institute’s assertions, the new regulation would ensure that more employees enjoy overtime protections, not fewer.

watermock · 09-11-2004, 07:05 PM

You don't get it do you.

I can leave a car deal on the table and walk away from a 400 commision, and it's 10:30 at night and the Finance Table is waiting as well.

So is the turnkey.

Guess who gets the ovetime?

C'mon, tell me. Who gets the overtime?

The Fat Guy eating Dohnuts gets the overtime. Guess what he does. He presses a button and clocks out.

09-09-2004, 03:52 PM	#1
Hogan11 Rock-N-Roll Historian Let's take these SOB's out!!!!!! Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: W.NY.B.C. Posts: 21,300 Adopt-a-Bronco: Floyd Little	W's War on Overtime suffers a defeat House Votes to Block New Overtime Rules 49 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - In a sharp rebuke of a new administration policy, the House moved Thursday to block the Labor Department (news - web sites) from carrying out overtime rules that critics argued could deprive millions of workers of their overtime pay. The 223-193 vote in favor of blocking the rules defied the White House. A threatened veto applied to veto a massive spending bill, now on the House floor, if it contains any language tampering with the rules that took effect Aug. 23. "This is one step in the legislative process. We are continuing to work with the Congress," said Trent Duffy, a spokesman for President Bush (news - web sites). Democrats, united against the rules, were joined by 22 Republicans in voting for the amendment to a $142.5 billion health and education spending bill. The vote was Bush's second election-season defeat in Congress in two days. On Wednesday the Senate disregarded a White House veto threat and voted to prohibit Bush from giving federal immigration jobs to private workers. "The administration has chosen this time to institute new regulations which for the first time in 80 years scale back workers' entitlement to overtime pay," said Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., a sponsor of the overtime proposal. Democrats sought to depict the issue as an election-season example of the Bush administration's insensitivity to worker rights, saying the overtime privileges of up to 6 million workers were at risk. "This is the place where making ends meet happens because people have overtime pay. Republicans cannot grasp that," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said the veto threat is "the latest evidence of how dead wrong the Bush administration is when it comes to meeting the needs of America's struggling middle class." The White House and most Republicans insisted the rules would update an antiquated overtime pay system and make an additional 1 million lower-paid workers eligible for overtime. "I do think that the clarity that comes with these new rules will help better protect American workers," said Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. It was unclear how much impact the House vote would have on the biggest overhaul of overtime regulations in more than half a century. The Senate has yet to take up the health and education bill. House GOP Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he expected that the provision would be removed when the House and Senate meet to work out the final version of the bill. He said that by that time there will be "overwhelming evidence" that the rules are benefiting tens of thousands of workers. Republican Rep. Steven LaTourette (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, who voted for the amendment, suggested there was a middle ground. "I would hope this vote, taken together with some votes in the Senate, will let the administration say, `Well, wait a minute, let's go back and revisit this case.'" Democrats and pro-labor Republicans have fought for more than a year to stop the Labor Department from going ahead with the proposed rules. The administration said they were needed to adjust to changing working conditions and clear up confusion that has led to lawsuits against employers. "For those who receive overtime it's as high as 20 or 25 percent of their income," said Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., co-sponsor of the provision with Obey. "It's the largest government-imposed pay cut in the history of this country." The AFL-CIO, which has lobbied against the new rules, said the 6 million workers facing weakened overtime protections include foremen and assistant managers, nurses, workers in the financial services industry, journalists and others who do small amounts of administrative work. The department said 1.3 million workers who earn less than $23,660 a year would become eligible, while about 107,000 white-collar workers making $100,000 or more could lose eligibility. The department said the amendment would put the overtime rights of millions in jeopardy because the government could no longer protect those making more than $23,660. "Especially hard-hit are police, firefighters, construction workers and others whose overtime rights were explicitly guaranteed for the first time in the new rules," said Alfred B. Robinson, Jr., acting administrator for the Wage and Hour Division. In May, the Senate, by a 52-47 vote on a different bill, approved language stating that no worker who currently qualifies for overtime should lose that eligibility. The Obey-Miller language blocks all aspects of the rules except those that extend overtime to lower-paid workers.

09-09-2004, 04:59 PM	#3
alkemical Guerrilla Ontologist rorrim\|mirror Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Future Posts: 42,698 Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia	yes!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-09-2004, 04:53 PM	#2
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	Great news for all Americans that work for a living!!!!!!!!!

09-10-2004, 01:41 AM	#4
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	W's War on Overtime suffers a defeat Now is as good a time as any for the frat boy to start getting used to the idea of defeat.

09-10-2004, 06:09 AM	#5
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,854	Here's another fun fact: The Bush administration has pulled back on its plan to open 58 million acres of national forest to roadbuilding - until after the election. Pretty soon, the elk hunters in the Rocky Mountains won't even have to climb down off their ATVs to shoot. Even the fattest slob will be able to reach the higher valleys without breaking a sweat. Of course, that old style experience of hunting in the peace of the forest and the mountains will be history.

09-10-2004, 07:42 AM	#6
Hogan11 Rock-N-Roll Historian Let's take these SOB's out!!!!!! Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: W.NY.B.C. Posts: 21,300 Adopt-a-Bronco: Floyd Little	Notice that no W backers have chimed in on this?? Even they have to be happy he lost on this one...

09-10-2004, 07:52 AM	#7
Mile High Shack Ring of Famer Cock-a-doodle-do Join Date: May 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 17,010	I don't get OT and I am mgmt anyway so it doesn't effect me either way

09-10-2004, 08:12 AM	#8
Rascal RIP Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,581 Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf	I don't get overtime anyway and no i'm not mgmt, and if I do work overtime I don't get paid extra. Because of that I haven't paid attention to it and I actually have no idea what it is about. Assuming you guys are correct, a hint of doubt there but anyway, this would be one of those instances where I disagree with Bush.

09-10-2004, 08:14 AM	#9
Mile High Shack Ring of Famer Cock-a-doodle-do Join Date: May 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 17,010	well, I think it's a more complicated issue than the left makes it, BUT I don't want to see anyone lose $$, people work hard for it, well most do.... I think labor laws are outdated though, so a tweaking is in order, but no one should suffer because of it.

09-10-2004, 08:18 AM	#10
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	What a line of crap. I propose we dismantle Manhatten and sell it back for a few beads. I have run over 3 deer in the past two years they are so prolific. WTF are you going with this? Caribou have proliferated around the pipeline. What a line of crap

09-10-2004, 08:20 AM	#11
Rascal RIP Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,581 Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf	I agree the labor laws are outdated. But I'm not familiar enough to discuss it and I don't really care anyway.

09-10-2004, 08:37 AM	#12
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	I can bring perspective. Companies were able to work employees W/O overtime before. The bill needs work. Now they HAVE to give overtime, and therefore, employees will go into the sea. They just don't get it. I will talk about this bill later. It's not written correctly and it's attached to a bunch of other crap. Here is a fact. People are willing to take cake hours without overtime. They used to place them in different accounts. Now, it has to be placed as overtime and companies will not pay 1.5. That is the real deal. It's actually a well intentioned bill, but it's not going to have the right result.

09-10-2004, 03:18 PM	#13
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Pretty soon, the elk hunters in the Rocky Mountains won't even have to climb down off their ATVs to shoot. Even the fattest slob will be able to reach the higher valleys without breaking a sweat. Next step is for the Smirk misadministration to repeal any applicable park alcohol consumption laws so those fat, slovenly ATV-riding Bubbas won't have to put down their Spoors Light while pursuing that elusive trophy/validation of their masculinity.

09-10-2004, 04:03 PM	#15
Hogan11 Rock-N-Roll Historian Let's take these SOB's out!!!!!! Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: W.NY.B.C. Posts: 21,300 Adopt-a-Bronco: Floyd Little	If I'm the DNC, I'd start hammering this issue into the ground pronto. They should've been all over this from the get go IMO.

09-10-2004, 07:17 PM	#16
Raider Bill ........ Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Southern New Joisey Posts: 4,199	I wasn't going to loose my OT so I could really care less.

09-10-2004, 07:29 PM	#17
Raider Bill ........ Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Southern New Joisey Posts: 4,199	Under todays rules a cook making 8 grand a year can be exempt from overtime pay, because he oversees 2 kitchen workers, but a mechanic making 70 grand gets overtime. The new rules will not eliminate overtime protections for nurses, carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, laborers, teamsters, construction workers, production line workers and other blue-collar employees; and will not affect union workers covered by collective bargaining agreements. Raising the threshold to 22 thousand for overtime pay would have given 1.3 million people an instant raise. Under the new rules, those white-collar workers who make more than $65,000 would lose their right to overtime . But keep in mind the original reason for such laws: To benefit poor laborers. Middle-class managers and professionals were never supposed to be covered The biggest benificary of the old rules is trial lawyers. Because current law is so confusing, many companies struggle to determine which jobs are eligible for overtime, and which are not. Trial lawyers exploit this confusion: They pore over work roles until they find groups that seem mislabeled, and then file class-action lawsuits. It's a booming business. In 2001 there were more suits filed over overtime pay than suits alleging discrimination in the workplace. And why not? If a lawyer can convince a court to agree that a company has made a mistake, he can force that company to shell out millions of dollars in back pay. For example, two years ago, the Farmers Insurance Exchange of California was slapped with a $90 million judgment because it hadn't been paying overtime to its claims adjusters. More recently, Radio Shack and Starbucks surrendered without a fight. Those companies coughed up $30 million and $18 million, respectively, to settle out of court with store managers."

09-11-2004, 01:15 AM	#18
Cito Pelon Attack at all times . . . Happy dog at the Divide Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: AFC West Championshipville Posts: 15,217 Adopt-a-Bronco: Elvis	Who do you know that gets OT? GWB is full of crap. Very few people get OT. Who gets OT? Union people get OT, and that .... is ... it. It's an attack on unions, simple as that. And a pretty good attack. Cut off the arms and legs, and who is left to challenge your power? Easy victory, piece by piece. I admire the strategy, and I'm amazed everyday people, middle-class people, buy into it.

09-11-2004, 02:41 AM	#20
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	Mock would make you work for free overtime. That's the way I get it in the car business. Work till mdnight and you love it. Hey Jake, are they giving you Overtime pay?

09-11-2004, 02:43 AM	#21
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	Seat to Pee On: "Under todays rules a cook making 8 grand a year can be exempt from overtime pay." It's impossible to work for 8 grand a year unless your a total retard.

09-11-2004, 06:53 PM	#24
Raider Bill ........ Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Southern New Joisey Posts: 4,199	The current regulation is antiquated. Before a worker may be considered exempt for overtime, there are three tests that must be met. First, the “salary-basis” test specifies that a worker must be paid on a set salary; hourly employees who work more than 40 hours in a given work week are generally eligible for overtime. Second, the “salary-level” test determines that any worker who earns less than a certain salary is automatically eligible for overtime, regardless of his or her job. Finally, a “duties test” allows certain executive, administrative, and professional employees to be exempt from overtime based on the kind of work they do. The salary test has not been updated in nearly 30 years, and the duties test has gone even longer without any significant changes. One consequence of the lack of updated rules is that the minimum salary needed for a worker to be exempted from overtime is an absurdly low $155 per work week. The new regulation would raise the salary test to $455 per work week: any worker paid less than $455 per work week (or $23,660 per year) would automatically receive overtime protection, regardless of job duties. The new rules mainly simplify the duties tests, but make few substantive changes. Under the current rules, there are both short duties tests and long duties tests to determine whether or not an employee is exempt from overtime. Which test is administered depends on the employee’s salary level. But because of the failure to update the regulation, the long test has become irrelevant and the “short test” applies to all workers earning more than $13,000 per year. Under the new final rules, a single “standard test” for each occupational category (administrative, executive, and professional employees) replaces all of the old tests. The new rules are particularly valuable for low-level supervisors. Under the current “short test,” an “assistant manager” who regularly supervises two other employees could be designated exempt from overtime. Under the new rules, supervisors must have the authority to hire and fire, or their suggestions in that arena must be given “particular weight” in addition to the other managerial duties. This is a significant tightening of the executive duties test that will result in fewer exemptions. Similarly, for administrative and other office employees, employers will find it more difficult to deny overtime under the new rules. The regulation dictates that the employee, as part of his or her job duties, must exercise “discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.” The new duties test for professional employees will have little, if any, effect on who receives overtime. The current rules state that the primary duty of a professional is “work requiring knowledge of an advanced type” that is “customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study,” which is the same language used in the new rule. Both the old rule and the new rule make a narrow exception for cases where substantial experience exists, such as an attorney who did not attend law school. That type of worker may still be considered a professional. The new regulation means more employees will be eligible for overtime, not fewer. In their new study, EPI would have policymakers believe that some 6 million white-collar (Why does the AFLCIO care so much anyway?) employees would lose overtime protection were the new overtime regulation adopted. This is based on the flawed premise that many hourly workers would be converted to a salary-basis and denied overtime. Because the overtime rules are either the same or change so minimally, employers who would be inclined to attempt this would have already done so. According to a forthcoming analysis by The Heritage Foundation, nearly 1.3 million currently exempted workers who earn between $155 and $455 per week would receive overtime protection under the new regulation that they do not enjoy now. Because the new regulation makes it more difficult to exempt administrative and executive employees, more workers would be eligible for overtime protections. The only workers who may lose overtime protections because of the new regulation are certain individuals earning more than $100,000 per year. Most of these workers are executives or professionals who are not eligible for overtime, anyway. Even if all of these highly paid employees lost their overtime protection—which is unlikely—only about 272,000 workers would lose overtime, according to this same Heritage study. A more reasonable estimate would be that around 100,000 highly compensated workers may lose their overtime. Conclusion The new overtime regulation is a welcome modernization from the outdated rules that employers must currently use. Contrary to the Economic Policy Institute’s assertions, the new regulation would ensure that more employees enjoy overtime protections, not fewer.

09-11-2004, 07:05 PM	#25
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	You don't get it do you. I can leave a car deal on the table and walk away from a 400 commision, and it's 10:30 at night and the Finance Table is waiting as well. So is the turnkey. Guess who gets the ovetime? C'mon, tell me. Who gets the overtime? The Fat Guy eating Dohnuts gets the overtime. Guess what he does. He presses a button and clocks out.