Say bye bye to over-time

[Malachi151]

I'm posting the whole article because you have to sign up to see it:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harris1jun01,1,1227169.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomm ent%2Dopinions

Old 9-to-5 Grind Begins to Look Good

By Seth Harris, Seth Harris, a former senior policy advisor to both secretaries of Labor in the Clinton administration, teaches labor and employment law at New York Law School.

More than 2.5 million jobs have disappeared since President Bush took office. Most workers' real wages have stagnated or declined. Families' retirement savings have shrunk with the stock market indexes. Deflation lurks. Consumer confidence, our economy's levee against recession's floodwaters, teeters. Even a quick victory in Iraq has not changed the fact that the opening years of the 21st century have been an orange-coded, pink-slipped era of insecurity for the nation's middle-class families.

Many workers try to avoid sinking into the economic mire by putting in longer hours on the job. According to a 2001 International Labour Organization study, Americans now work almost a full week more per year than they did in 1990. The average workweek in most American industries exceeds 40 hours.

But instead of rewarding hard work, President Bush and the Republican congressional leadership are taking steps that would only compound workers' economic insecurity.

In March, the White House proposed new Labor Department regulations that would, according to the most conservative estimates, exclude 650,000 middle-class workers from receiving premium pay for overtime hours worked. The proposed regulations dramatically expand provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act exempting white-collar workers from overtime protections.

Characteristically, the Republican leadership in the House has an even more extreme plan. Under a proposal to be considered this week, employers would no longer be required to pay workers time and a half for overtime. Instead, employers could give workers 1 1/2 hours of time off, so-called "comp time," for every overtime hour worked.

The Senate version would abolish the 40-hour workweek entirely. Employers would not be required to give workers any extra compensation — time or money — unless they worked more than 80 hours in two weeks, or 50 hours in one week.

If enacted, either proposal would deprive many middle-class families of the added earnings they need for their children's college tuition, their own retirement or even to meet their monthly bills.

Middle-class families are undeniably hard-pressed for time, but workers would not get greater flexibility in return for the money this proposal would take out of their pockets. Employers would decide when workers may take time off. As Justice Clarence Thomas said three years ago in a Supreme Court case interpreting similar rules governing public-sector workers, the law "grants significant control to the employer over accrued compensatory time." By comparison, existing overtime law is surprisingly flexible. In fact, every flexible work arrangement contemplated by the comp-time proposal is already legal under current law.

"Flextime," with workers starting and ending their days at varied times, does not require overtime pay. Neither do "split shifts" — working four hours in the morning and four hours at night, for example. Ten-, 12- or even 14-hour workdays do not trigger overtime liability. The same is true of work on weekends and holidays.

"Flexiplace" arrangements, with employees working at home, in their car or from other remote sites, do not fall under the overtime law. In fact, employers can combine flextime and flexiplace arrangements without paying overtime. A working mother could put in six hours at the office, leave to pick up her kids at school and then work two hours at home after the kids had gone to bed.

Under existing law, employers could also permit their employees to work 50 hours in one week and 30 hours in the next or give extra time off for every overtime hour worked. In these two circumstances, the only difference between the Republicans' proposal and current law is that the proposed overtime rules would authorize employers to cut workers' pay in return for these flexible arrangements.

Comp time has nothing to do with flexibility or befriending families. It's about who gets the money. In this era of economic insecurity, middle-class families should have the extra pay they are struggling to earn.

[Skeptical Greg]

And your take on this is?

[Sundog]

I can already hear the free-marketers lining up to defend this one. "So? If the worker doesn't like it, they can go work somewhere else."

[Tony]

In this era of economic insecurity, middle-class families should have the extra pay they are struggling to earn.


I think this guy is arguing for more tax cuts. :D

[Malachi151]

Some more info on this:

You haven't seen the latest, then. I'm looking for the last union bulletin I got about this.

Turns out that the "comp time" promised in this bill is totally voluntary for the employer. Employers will decide for themselves how much or even IF they will offer it in lieu of overtime pay.

My take on ALL this, meaning the war in Iraq, the weakening of the dollar, the issues with the EU and euro-zone, the tax cuts of Bush, this, etc, is that this is the beginning of global corporate takeover.

The multi-nationals are no longer concerned with the American market, they are not tided to any countries in particular, they are looking for cheap labor and ways to secure fortunes.

No tax on dividends, the repeal of the estate tax, weaker labor laws, income tax cuts targeted at the rich, acquisition of Iraqi oil and pressure on OPEC, etc.

Here is the deal The system is breaking down, the rich know this, is has been breaking down for 20 years despite appearances otherwise. See, when stagflation hit, that was the sign that capitalism had run its easy growth course in America, back in the 1970s.

When Reagan came in the Supply-Siders had developed a plan that was designed to benefit the wealthy in a last hurrah as the system fizzled out to failure.

So, over the past 20 years the economy has been taken out of the hands of the middle class and put into the hands of the rich. Bush is now in to finish the work of his family and related crooks in the theft of the American, and really global economy. Thast why he had to steal the election, this was a "mission critical" situation.

So during these 20 years many wealthy have been stealing from the system and amassing huge fortunes, of course with Bush in office they will all get away with it, a few examples may be made of sacrificial lambs, but for the most part the billions of dollars stolen from the American people will be kept by the crooks, and safely invested in tax free dividend paying accounts.

Reagan was a puppet of the wealthy elite, Bush and Bush are members of it.

The Bush family is the largest crime family in the world, pulling the biggest theft history right now. Bush Sr. got good practice with the S&L scandal, where the Bush family and their cronies made millions of dollars at tax payer expense. Of course other people did too, that was just a side effect. I mean it all started with Prescott Bush and the 1.5 million he made off the Auschwitz labor camp in Nazi Germany, etc.

I mean read my paper my views are clear. I think that the American wealthy elite brought the fascists in Europe to power in order to stop the global Socialist Revolution. FDR had to instigate the attack on Pearl Harbor in order to get us into war because the wealthy American elite were going to let Hitler take over Europe, it was an arrangement between the wealthy Americans and the fascists. Hitler's goal, and that of the wealthy Americans was the extermination of the Jews and the destruction of Marxism. Wealthy American Anglos of courses hated both and saw both as a a threat.

FDR took maters into his own hands to get us into the war because Congress was going to let it happen, because it was a Republican Congress in cahoots with the wealthy American elite.

After the war and FDR died the wealthy America elite gained political power, with many of the supporters of the fascists taking political positions. Since that time our country has been taken over by this relatively small group of ultra-rich and powerful fascists. Nixon, Bush, and Bush, are all direct members of the wealthy American fascists, Reagan was puppeted by them.

All the major corporations are fascist companies, Ford, GM, Dow, Alcoa, DuPont, Exxon, etc, and many more.

The mentality of these people is a fascist mentality, one of superiority, one that powerful men are meant to rule the world with the little guys serving them. They believe that society is a product of disparity and that the people are meant to be manipulated by the superior leaders who can lie to them and guide them as they please, that people need to be manipulated, that religion is an important part of social manipulation, and that their goal is to acquire as much wealth as they can for themselves to put themselves further and further above society in a position to dominate and rule it and develop a way of life for themselves that is superior to that of the average man, because it is impossible for everyone to share.

They have never been "in control", they have only been working very hard to protect their position and have significant influence. Its never been possible to control the American system, but they do their best.

This is pretty much the culmination of about 60 years of work on the part of the wealthy American fascist elite to secure a new global aristocracy. No doubt they have international people cooperating too.

This is all because capitalism cannot work without exploitation. They know this, they also do not believe in equality or democracy. They create economic anarchy from which they use their might to gain control among the chaos. They know that the system cannot work for everyone, so they are just going to work the best they can to make it work for themselves.

So, yep, now you can call me crazy, but as I say, read the paper in my sig and its all laid out and documented. :D

[Skeptic]

My take on ALL this, meaning the war in Iraq, the weakening of the dollar, the issues with the EU and euro-zone, the tax cuts of Bush, this, etc, is that this is the beginning of global corporate takeover.

Ah, yes. The good ol' conspiracy theory.

Hey, what's not to believe? It makes perfect sense that EVERYTHING that happened in the last 60 years is part of a multi-generational, top-secret, all-powerful conspiracy that no outsider knows anything about... except for YOU.

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Ah, yes. The good ol' conspiracy theory.

Hey, what's not to believe? It makes perfect sense that EVERYTHING that happened in the last 60 years is part of a multi-generational, top-secret, all-powerful conspiracy that no outsider knows anything about... except for YOU.

Would you feel better if I said I thought it was pure opportunism, given the fact that the middle and lower classes elected this president and gave him a free hand, despite the fact that historically such arrangements have caused lasting damage to people outside the financially supported class. ( I mean supported by financial activity, as opposed to labor, there.)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I can't believe this! Are you seriously telling me that there is legislation in America that forces employers to pay overtime at a specified rate? I thought you believed in free markets?

For the majority of white collar workers in the private sector in the UK the reality is that overtime is unpaid. By that I mean, not just that it is not paid at a premium rate or that you get time off in lieu, but that it is completely unpaid with no compensating time off.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Some more info on this:



My take on ALL this, meaning the war in Iraq, the weakening of the dollar, the issues with the EU and euro-zone, the tax cuts of Bush, this, etc, is that this is the beginning of global corporate takeover.

Perhaps. I think that similar things have been said about the "end of times" by religios nuts since time immemorial. The question of course is, who is doing the taking over.

The multi-nationals are no longer concerned with the American market, they are not tided to any countries in particular, they are looking for cheap labor and ways to secure fortunes.

They are looking for cheap labor to enhance stock price. Tell me, what is the economic impact of contracts in China, India, and other third world countries? Remember, "cheap labor" is a relative term


No tax on dividends, the repeal of the estate tax, weaker labor laws, income tax cuts targeted at the rich, acquisition of Iraqi oil and pressure on OPEC, etc.

What problem do you have with reduced (not no) taxes on estates and dividends? How many americans are affected by a cut in dividend taxes?

Here is the deal The system is breaking down, the rich know this, is has been breaking down for 20 years despite appearances otherwise.

hang on a minute. What system where? I know a fair number of wealthy people. what should I ask them? "Is the system breaking dwn and when did you know it?" Be specific.

See, when stagflation hit, that was the sign that capitalism had run its easy growth course in America, back in the 1970s.

Whoa. Let's take a look at the Dow. Looks pretty good to me, or are you talkin about the last few years?

When Reagan came in the Supply-Siders had developed a plan that was designed to benefi t the wealthy in a last hurrah as the system fizzled out to failure.

They did, did they? Do you have evidence ofthis conspiracy?

So, over the past 20 years the economy has been taken out of the hands of the middle class and put into the hands of the rich.

When was "the economy" in the hands of the middle class?

Bush is now in to finish the work of his family and related crooks in the theft of the American, and really global economy. Thast why he had to steal the election, this was a "mission critical" situation.

If your initial contention is true this might be true. But I question your contention and you have provided no evidence for your conclusion

So during these 20 years many wealthy have been stealing from the system and amassing huge fortunes, of course with Bush in office they will all get away with it, a few examples may be made of sacrificial lambs, but for the most part the billions of dollars stolen from the American people will be kept by the crooks, and safely invested in tax free dividend paying accounts.

Define "stolen". Tell me more about "tax free dividend paying accounts", do you mean local Municipal bonds? The things that fund schools and water supplies, and infra structure? Those are the only tax free investment that I can think of, if you know of others please share. So your problem is that these horrid people are investing in municipalities? Basically loaning money for reasonably long terms at ****** rates that won't change as interest rates rise? Is that the core of your problem?

Reagan was a puppet of the wealthy elite, Bush and Bush are members of it.

Puppet. Who pulls the strings? What power do these people (who I am sure you can name) hold over an American President?

The Bush family is the largest crime family in the world, pulling the biggest theft history right now.

Slander.

Bush Sr. got good practice with the S&L scandal, where the Bush family and their cronies made millions of dollars at tax payer expense. Of course other people did too, that was just a side effect.

So then, the powerful people pulling the strings were NOT the primary benificeries? Do you think that that makes sense?

I mean it all started with Prescott Bush and the 1.5 million he made off the Auschwitz labor camp in Nazi Germany, etc.

Elucidate

I mean read my paper my views are clear. I think that the American wealthy elite brought the fascists in Europe to power in order to stop the global Socialist Revolution.

Might be so, if so there is some merit to it. But don't forget our European friends. The would have been no Hitler without the collusion of the UK and France. Frankly, that was a revolution that should have been stopped

FDR had to instigate the attack on Pearl Harbor in order to get us into war because the wealthy American elite were going to let Hitler take over Europe, it was an ar rangement between the wealthy Americans and the fascists.

We have heard the canard against FDR. I think it is balderdash. Do you have proof?

Hitler's goal, and that of the wealthy Americans was the extermination of the Jews and the destruction of Marxism. Wealthy American Anglos of courses hated both and saw both as a a threat.

Wait, I was with you until now. Are you saying that the Jews don't control the US? Interesting, until you veared off here, this could have been a boffo post on Stormfront


FDR took maters into his own hands to get us into the war because Congress was going to let it happen, because it was a Republican Congress in cahoots with the wealthy American elite.

I suspect he wanted war against Germany. That sorta shoots holes in the notion of letting Hitler take over Europe though, does it not?

After the war and FDR died the wealthy America elite gained political power, with many of the supporters of the fascists taking political positions. Since that time our country has been taken over by this relatively small group of ultra-rich and powerful fascists. Nixon, Bush, and Bush, are all direct members of the wealthy American fascists, Reagan was puppeted by them.

Interesting contention. What about the Democrats?

All the major corporations are fascist companies, Ford, GM, Dow, Alcoa, DuPont, Exxon, etc, and many more.

Define Fascist in this context

The mentality of these people is a fascist mentality, one of superiority, one that powerful men are meant to rule the world with the little guys serving them.

Which people? Who are they?

They believe that society is a product of disparity and that the people are meant to be manipulated by the superior leaders who can lie to them and guide them as they please, that people need to be manipulated, that religion is an important part of social manipulation, and that their goal is to acquire as much wealth as they can for themselves to put themselves further and further above society in a position to dominate and rule it and develop a way of life for themselves that is superior to that of the average man, because it is impossible for everyone to share.

And so it ever was. So what. Makes you want to stay in college, no?


They have never been "in control", they have only been working very hard to protect their position and have significant influence. Its never been possible to control the American system, but they do their best.

So they turn their baleful gaze outward to the rest of the world and help us to dominate. There is a problem with this? Hell, if it's not going to be us it will be the Limeys or the Frogs or the Dagos, right?

This is pretty much the culmination of about 60 years of work on the part of the wealthy American fascist elite to secure a new global aristocracy. No doubt they have international people cooperating too.

The wealthy are now and always have been an elete. Again, so what?

This is all because capitalism cannot work without exploitation.

Nonsense, pure mindless rhetoric

They know this, they also do not believe in equality or democracy. They create economic anarchy from which they use their might to gain control among the chaos.

Yup. That is how Dow was litigated into bankruptcy and how PM was looking into chapter 7 protection. That is why our airlines teeter on the brink of insolvency and why the railroads (created by an earlier group of demons) are largely defunct. And why Bell got broken up and why US Steel sorta went away. Why IBM came perilously close to the same thing. Give me a logical argument with real life support for these silly contentions

They know that the system cannot work for everyone, so they are just going to work the best they can to make it work for themselves.

And so it ever was. Your alternative is......????

So, yep, now you can call me crazy, but as I say, read the paper in my sig and its all laid out and documented. :D

Whew. You are crazy
They

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
I can't believe this! Are you seriously telling me that there is legislation in America that forces employers to pay overtime at a specified rate? I thought you believed in free markets?

For the majority of white collar workers in the private sector in the UK the reality is that overtime is unpaid. By that I mean, not just that it is not paid at a premium rate or that you get time off in lieu, but that it is completely unpaid with no compensating time off.

I don't know any white collor worker that gets overtime.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ed

Well, Ed, you did say one thing I agree with. The US system does indeed penalize the successful. I'd argue that's just another flaw.

Now, what did it do with Enron? The S&L scam?

I don't think, personally, that there is any kind of conspiracy, rather I think there is a strong hostility to the average person in this government, a contempt and dislike that is evidenced by the continuous destruction of rights, economic welfare, and so on.

The people running the government now appear to be much like those running business 10 years ago, where the focus was entirely on short-term outcome, regardless of the long-term effects. Witness, then, Dow, Union Carbide, GM, AT&T, etc, all of whom spent their capital on the here-and-now.

Yes, we broke up AT&T, and now we have cheap chaos in the market. Yes, long distance calls are cheap, when you can connect. No longer do we have a 6 9's network, now it's between 1 and 2 9's if my own experiences are any measure. You don't have to get much worse than that to go into catastrophic failure.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ed


I don't know any white collor worker that gets overtime.

Ditto.

There is something called the 'exempt' worker, who does not get paid overtime in usual situations, and so on. If I understand Malachi's point, one of the goals is to increase the number of people under this umbrella to include skilled trades.

The other part, eliminating overtime pay for basic labor, seems pretty extreme to say the least. I can see a voluntary program wherein a worker, at their acceptance, could take the 1.5 comp time instead of overtime, that would be not only useful, but humane as well. Simply removing any penality at all for an extended workweek gets us right back into the situation that created the law in the first place. That situation was in fact brought to us by elite rich folk who cynically worked people to death.

I'm split on the issue, let's say. I've seen labor take serious advantage of management using overtime, and I've seen management use overtime or lack thereof as a way to injure employees. It's safe to say that in labor situations, I trust neither side.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
I can't believe this! Are you seriously telling me that there is legislation in America that forces employers to pay overtime at a specified rate? I thought you believed in free markets?

For the majority of white collar workers in the private sector in the UK the reality is that overtime is unpaid. By that I mean, not just that it is not paid at a premium rate or that you get time off in lieu, but that it is completely unpaid with no compensating time off. Wage earners in this country get overtime pay, salaried workers do not. Generally, white collar workers are sallaried workers. However, there are some white collar workers who are paid on a wage basis (like all employees of the State of Minnesota, for example). Some of these folks, although they work for wages, do not get overtime (like my wife, who works for the Department of Economic Security, incidentally).

What they are talking about is increasing the number of people who work for wages, but are exempt from overtime rules.

I am under the impression that the proposal is that it would be the employee, and not the employer, who got to choose between 1.5 pay, and comp time.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Could you explain the difference between a wage earner and a salaried worker to me - I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

Thanks

[jj]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Could you explain the difference between a wage earner and a salaried worker to me - I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

Thanks

A salaried employee gets a fixed amount per week, month, or year, rather than an "hourly wage".

A wage-earner gets paid by the hour.

[Malachi151]

I'll see you DOW and raise you workers pay:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=1869938212

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w2.gif

Hmm.. notice anything....

[corplinx]

Overtime is one of the great perks of some jobs. Airline pilots love overtime and make out like bandits. Fedex pilots have built their dream homes on overtime.

I think making overtime pay optional might be a good way to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. Companies that don't pay it will lose their best and brightest to companies that pay it. Ye who offer the best benefits get the spoils.

As long as working anything over 40 hours is optional I don't see a problem with it. Of course, some people who work 5 hours overtime a week to make ends meet now won't like it if their boss decides to pay regular rate. Now this perosn must work 7.5 hours for that same money.

[Ed]

I vaguely recall that one had to work 40 hours + x hours before overtime kicked in. Ring any bells?