Bush's Proposal Could End Overtime Pay for Millions of Workers

Status
Not open for further replies.

TarpleyG

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
2,980
This may have been discussed here already but I didn't see anything. Anyway, what is all this about? What right does the .gov have to tell businesses they cannot pay overtime to certain people that make X amount of dollars? I am a full-time salaried employee (exempt I think is what they call me) and I cannot earn overtime. I work when I need to work. I usually put in 40 hours, sometimes more. I believe our rules are state driven here in Florida which is the way I prefer it.

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

http://www.saveovertimepay.org/bushproposal.htm

Bush's Proposal Could End Overtime Pay for Millions of Workers

Lower pay, longer hours and unpredictable work schedules are some of the changes working families could face under the proposed changes to overtime.

The Bush administration proposal to loosen the rules that determine which employees are entitled to overtime pay could cut paychecks for 8 million workers, possibly including police officers, nurses, store supervisors and many others. Millions would face unpredictable work schedules and reduced pay because of an increased demand for extra hours for which employers would not have to compensate workers, according to an Economic Policy Institute report released June 26. The administration has indicated it wants to issue final regulations before the end of the year.

Under the Bush overtime scheme:

Millions of salaried workers making between $22,101 and $65,000 who now are eligible to receive overtime pay could be reclassified as executives or administrative or professional employees—and would no longer qualify for overtime pay.
Relatively low-salary earners who have supervisory responsibilities or management-related responsibilities would be penalized, as would workers with advanced education or specialized training. Some of the jobs affected could be jobs police officers, nurses, retail managers, insurance claims adjusters and medical therapists hold.
Employees not covered by the new rules also could be hurt: By reclassifying many of their workers as exempt from overtime pay, employers most likely would assign overtime only to them and eliminate overtime for other workers.
Anyone making $65,000 or more a year likely would lose overtime pay, effectively eliminating many middle-income wage earners' much-needed extra pay.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor's own estimates, the Bush administration's proposed rule changes could mean between 2.1 million and 3.3 million workers would face unpredictable work schedules because of an increased demand for extra hours for which employers would not have to pay time-and-a-half.

The Bush administration claims its plan would give overtime protections to more workers by allowing anyone who earns $22,100 or less to automatically qualify for overtime pay. But many of those workers, such as fast-food employees, already are covered.

Many working families depend on overtime to pay bills—especially during the current economic recession that has resulted in stagnant and declining wages coupled with increasing costs of health care, prescription drugs, child care and other essential expenses. The Bush proposal would cut into many of those families' paychecks.
 
I beleive the phrase "Kiss my a$$" is quite appropriate here.

A president has about as much authority, place, and reason to be determining what goes into my wallet when I work as I have authority, place, and reason to determine who goes in and what goes on in his bedroom.:rolleyes:
 
The proposal allows the Company to trade you time-off for overtime pay. The whole idea was to give more "time off" to people who have Mom and Dad working and a bunch of kids. They have to give you time-and-a-half in "time off" if you spend OT at work.

Further, they readjusted the baseline salary at which OT must be paid (or comp. time)--UPWARD. I forget the numbers, but the idea behind this was to catch up with inflation--the old numbers are from the 1950's. Essentially, more people will be eligible for OT unless they are 'management.'

The article you posted is the AFL-CIO's spin on the law.
 
The real question to someone who gives a rat's ??? about limited powers of government is how is it that the federal government can require overtime pay?

What happened to the right to contract?
 
Pure union propaganda you posted there. Wanna guess who's behind "saveovertimepay.org"?


The legislation allows more power to the EMPLOYEE to swap time off for overtime, something that is currently not allowed in most cases. More power for the workers? Wait a minute, you mean more power for the workers that didn't come from the union ?


Can't have that, now, can we? Why, the first thing you know you'll have workers getting the idea that they can actually work out their own destiny with management without the union's help?

No, THAT'S a bad idea! :rolleyes:
 
Well there is nothing else left to take. They've already taken everything else that wasn't protected by law. They can't lay off someone who is already doing the job of 3 or 4 people. They can't take our benefits away twice ya know. How else do you expect these millionaires to make double digit profits year after year?

Just be glad this pyramid scheme has only collapsed around the edges so far and enjoy what little you have while that lasts. :)
 
I have a hard time understanding how giving the employee permission to make a deal with his employer to swap time off for overtime pay is TAKING anything. Nobody is forced to take the time off - it only happens if the employee REQUESTS the swap.


Try reading the actual legislation instead of the union propaganda.


Interesting.... I searched Google for a link to the text, and found a number of sites that are for and against the bill. (HR1119) The PRO sites linked to the text. The ANTI sites did not.


Hmmmm. Now why would that be?


:rolleyes:
 
I'm still trying to figure out what business the government has telling anyone how much they can or cannot be paid. Doesn't the government have something better to do? Shouldn't they be off guarding the coasts or pestering foreigners or something?
 
Well, that's the larger point, Tam, and much more important than arguing about the degree of control they have. (Which should be ZERO.)


But given the current bad situation, a little more toward more employee choice is a good thing.

The libs got where they are by little tiny steps. It's a great tactic. It works. We shouldn't scorn the method.
 
I would just like to go on record stating that any attempt to to remove millions of workers from overtime eligibility is probably some sort of pinko-commie-fascist-centrist antigun plot! I don't know about the rest of you but OT is where %90 of my gun buying dollars come from. And if there are more like me just think of the compound damage to gun manufacturers.

Beyond that, I haven't actually read much about this and have nothing to contribute to the discussion beyond a little firearm related content in hopes of keeping an interesting thread open. Good luck and keep on educating the masses.
 
Y'all have forgotten that this change was spawned by another change several years ago when the government told me, the employer, that I COULD not ask people to work overtime in exchange for time off. I COULD ONLY pay them overtime, regardless of whether the employee would rather have had the time off. Furthermore, if an employee even inadvertantly worked even one minute "overtime" I had to pay time-and-a half. So we installed a time clock and everyone now has to punch in and out and is subject to dismissal for working unauthorized overtime.

I had to classify my employees FOUR ways to determine who was eligible for the new rules and who wasn't. It was a giant government intrusion into business, now they are trying to "fix" it.

Screw'em all.
 
any attempt to to remove millions of workers from overtime eligibility


<sigh>



READ THE BILL!!!!!!!!!

It does NOT "remove" ANYBODY "from overtime eligibility".

It gives the EMPLOYEES the OPTION ... thats OPTION... I said OPTION of CHOOSING to take time off instead of overtime.


If you WANT the overtime pay you GET the overtime pay and YOUR EMPLOYER HAS NO CHOICE ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Will someone explain to me why that would be a problem?


(After you've read the bill and explained why you believed the media and the liberal spin, of course.)
 
Follow the money, folks.

If Joe Unionmember decides to work overtime for "time and a half," he pays a portion of it as union dues, right?

If he decides to work the overtime so that he can "bank the time" for a long weekend with his kids at the range, the union doesn't get anything, right?

No wonder the union leadership doesn't like it.
 
Not quite right. My union dues were a set amount; two hours pay/ month. The union gets more money by having more members, not by having its members work more hours.
If I decided to work overtime for "time-and-a-half", I got to pay more taxes, not more union dues.
But I guess that funding for our wild overseas spending has to come from somewhere.:uhoh:
 
Last edited:
The money for all the wild overseas spending has to come from somewhere.

Ah. That would explain why the Republicans are pushing this bill and the Socialists are opposiing it.

:rolleyes:

BTW, you might want to look at the Federal budget sometime and see where the money actually goes.



(HINT: The media lies.)
 
Well, there's gotta be something...

I mean, think of this:

Joe Blow works is butt off, only gets a solid week of vacation, so he buys plane tickets and flies the family to Disney - there went the overtime....

Fred Blow, on the other hand, opted to spend more time with his family, so he took the time rather than the money. He's got two weeks vacation, so he drives his family to Disneyland, and stops on the way to see Rock City, Meramec Caverns, and several other attractions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top