Senate blocks Bush attempt to steal from the working man again

[shemp]

Senate Blocks Overtime Changes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/11/politics/main562735.shtml)

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 proposed rule earlier this year, and congressional negotiators will have to untangle the disagreement.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who led the effort to overturn 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.

[subgenius]

"Slave driver the tables are turning, Catch a fire, you're going to get burned..."----Bob Marley

Thanks to Tom Harkin and his party and the handful of Republicans who stood for their principles.

[Jon_in_london]

Missa presden' ha' pity awn the workin' man!

[corplinx]

The bill would have fixed the exemption amount for low income wage earners and allowed more low wage earners to recieve overtime.

The controversial part isnt explained in the linked article. My guess something to do with lowering the exemption amount on the top end?

Once again, the media isnt liberal or conservative, just lazy.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by corplinx
The bill would have fixed the exemption amount for low income wage earners and allowed more low wage earners to recieve overtime.

The controversial part isnt explained in the linked article. My guess something to do with lowering the exemption amount on the top end?

Once again, the media isnt liberal or conservative, just lazy.

I wasn't able to come up with much actual information on the proposed changes in the law. I distilled it down to this: It seems mostly to affect low end "managers". Example a McDonalds manager who is given the lowest salary whereby the company doesn't have to pay him overtime as a salaried managerial worker. McDonald's will now have to fork over more pay to get that "manager" to the level where they don't have to pay overtime.

It doesn't affect jobs covered under a bargaining unit or union. But it also raises the top end of that salary, so that say, a DMV (or MVD as they like to be called now :rolleyes: ) worker earning 60,000 dollars a year to lose your records can't claim overtime to make up for taking a longer lunch. (pardon my conservative spin, but I couldn't resist)

The laws do need to be looked at, as they haven't been updated since 1948, and are the cause of quite a few lawsuits these days.

[Jedi Knight]

I wouldn't blame Bush for this legislative attempt to get rid of overtime. What this was in fact was an attempt to get the legislature to take a look at a festering problem that has existed in corporate America for some time.

Who is eligible for 'overtime'? That is a good question.

The new legislation was going to be vetoed simply because it did not narrowly define those workers eligible for overtime. If you are employed at a company and your position is categorized as some form of 'specialist' in that field, that would be one such position under the new legislation that would eliminate overtime.

Nurses are 'specialists'. Try keeping nurses in hospitals if they can't get paid for overtime. Law enforcement officers are also 'specialists'. They regularly are paid overtime for working many hours per week above the 40 hour shedule.

The big fear was the redefining of what an employee is. Corporations would certainly have taken advantage of this. Is a secretary a 'specialist' or 'manager'? A corporation would have redefined them to be if they could get out of paying overtime.

The Senate was never going to pass this legislation. It would have angered large segments of their constituencies. This was just a litmus test. It is a first step however, in approaching this difficult problem of figuring out who the worker bees are in US industry and the service industry and who the leaders are. That is what the issue is about.

JK

[Pyrian]

I am a salaried worker. This means that the hours I work have little bearing on he money I make - I get a set amount per year, regardless, unless I specifically take unpaid leave. Nobody really tracks when I come in and when I leave. I tend to work an 8 hour day, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less, but often come in late or on weekends to finish projects.

Honestly, I like the flexibility.

Others in my company are what are called hourly employees. There is a great deal of regulation and restriction on when they must work - mostly handed down from the government. If they work more than 8 hours in a single day, they get paid overtime (note that THEY cannot make this decision, it must be agreed with their superviser) (IIRC, this is a California law, not a Federal one). If they work on a weekend or holiday, they get overtime. Oddly, this makes it very difficult for them to have any sort of flex-time, but is intended to keep them from being taken advantage of.

Salaried employees are relatively easy for their company to take advantage of - IF the salaried employees stand for it. (I don't.) Unpaid hours worked in, say, the video game industry are frankly legendary.

Anyway, I don't know what the legislation is about, but I suspect it has something to do with companies' recent habits of putting as many people as possible on salary to reduce overtime expenditures (as opposed to, say, hiring more people :rolleyes: ).