Save.Overtime.Pay.Org

March 8, 2004 3:46 PM

Save Overtime Pay
Warning: AFL-CIOfilter
From the site: "Under a proposal by President Bush, more than 8 million workers might not be paid extra for the overtime hours they work."
Yeah, I saw the "might" in there too.
They do have a summary page of Bush's proposal and hey, here's a little cartoon to help explain things.
And this article in today's Miami Herald helps explain the issue a little better than this one from the National Center for Public Policy Research which quotes The Heritage Foundation and Secretary of Labor Elaine Choe.
As I understand it, they want to move the level of mandatory overtime pay from about $8000 a year to $22K but there's so much double speak and rhetoric that my head's only just stopped spinning.
posted by fenriq (27 comments total)

from Miami Herald: The Department of Labor says: 1.3 million low-wage workers would gain overtime protections, while only 644,000 paid hourly workers would lose overtime benefits under the proposed new definitions of duties.

The Economic Policy Institute says: 8 million white-collar workers would lose their overtime benefits under the proposed rule changes, and only 700,000 salaried, low-income workers would benefit.

now that's a bit of a gap.

what scares me the most is the exemption for "administrative duties:" For those performing administrative duties, the proposal would replace the "discretion and independent judgment" test with a new requirement that employees must hold a "position of responsibility." seems too broad to me.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:56 PM on March 8, 2004

Listen, you've got to understand. We need to make it more difficult for those people who are least likely to vote for us to be able to afford to get to the poles, geddit?
posted by donfactor at 4:06 PM on March 8, 2004

donfactor, that's precisely what I needed to hear. Thanks for the clarification.
posted by fenriq at 4:18 PM on March 8, 2004

Better fact check yo' self.
posted by techgnollogic at 4:30 PM on March 8, 2004

tech, that's why I noted the "maybe" in the FPP. I'm still not clear on it, the factcheck page helps a little but doesn't really get into the proposal and instead attacks the ads knocking the proposal.

That's well and good but what's the skinny? Why should ANYONE lose the right to overtime pay? If I work overtime then I'd want to be compensated for it. Otherwise, the only reason to do it is to not lose your job and that feels an awful lot like exploitation.
posted by fenriq at 4:46 PM on March 8, 2004

damn terrorist labor unions trying to destroy america with their propaganda. just like those evil firemen and teachers.
posted by badstone at 4:51 PM on March 8, 2004

fenriq, as far as i can tell, the strongest argument for the changes to overtime pay is the fact the current law is too ambiguous and that workers and lawyers are exploiting that fact to sue employers too much, wasting corporate money that would be better spent on salaries.

from the NCPCR (conservative org) link above: In 2001 there were more suits filed over overtime pay than suits alleging discrimination in the workplace.

i don't buy it, however. it seems like another bone for big corporations.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:14 PM on March 8, 2004

techgnollogic: well that factcheck is about as useless as the terms "Learned Professional Employees" who have "knowledge of an advanced type".

Unless this legislation is a lot less ambiguous I see nothing that will keep the things in that cartoon from coming true. Sounds like an excuse to underpay people, and then chop out the only way for them to make some extra money.
posted by MrLint at 5:32 PM on March 8, 2004

My two cents -

let employers fuck their employees out of money. They will see just how productive strangled employees are, and how hard it is to attract talented employees when you have a reputation for fucking your work force.

I don't believe in government controls on pay (minimum wage etc) so this development doesn't bother me exactly. I only worry that some employers may use this to fuck their employees and learn the hard way that treating your employees like humans is actually in their best interest. (Rational self interest ala Rand)
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 5:51 PM on March 8, 2004

I think this is supposed to help small to mid sized companies.
And thus help the economy.

What I think would help more imho is preventing things like Keating and Enron.

Also if large companies would quit hiring CEO's that stay for short periods of time then bailing with 500 million severance packages would have a trickle down effect.

But we live in a *Hey as long as I get mine, go ahead and screw the other guy* society.
The other guy is usually the small guy.

Next on the agenda put a sin tax on used automobiles!
posted by Trik at 6:16 PM on March 8, 2004

They will see just how productive strangled employees are, and how hard it is to attract talented employees when you have a reputation for fucking your work force.

The problem with this (as with most "market-based re-adjustments" that involve actual human lives), is that what if employees have no choice because every single company is doing the same thing? I've long lost faith in the ability for modern business to try and reap the benefits of happy employees - it goes against fundamental corporate philosophy. They don't teach that shit in business school.

It will end up just another race to the bottom - businesses searching for the absolute limit they can fuck their employers over before they go ape-shit. But hey, maybe it could work...maybe drastic reductions in the quality of working conditions could inspire some unionization!
posted by Jimbob at 6:30 PM on March 8, 2004

They will see just how productive strangled employees are, and how hard it is to attract talented employees when you have a reputation for fucking your work force.

GE is well known for working their employees far beyond any rational norm. Sure they have a little more turnover, but the additional productivity they get before people decide it's not worth it more than makes up for the added hiring costs.
posted by mosch at 6:39 PM on March 8, 2004

If rational self interest ala Rand worked, we wouldn't need unions in the first place.

Alas, we do.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:40 PM on March 8, 2004

I wonder why the working class hates Bush so much.

Free handouts! They all want free handouts!
posted by the fire you left me at 9:15 PM on March 8, 2004

Jimbob! :)

I don't know if you follow the economy very closely, but the hot band steel sector is in the shitter. Most cold rolling mills are in the red.

I work for one of the few companies still making a profit. The only other plant in our market that was even able to *match* our profits has an infrastructure 4-8 times as large as ours. All this is extremely odd because we are a top tier distributer. We offer a higher quality product, but we charge more. When shit gets tight, the first things you sacrifice are luxuries - such as paying a premium for higher quality paint application processes etc.

Getting to my point - my company has this really odd philosophy. We treat our employees fairly. All full time employees are given benefits, vacation, health coverage, co-pay for health club membership, smoking cessation incentives, education stipens etc etc etc. FWIW - we recently won an award for the most psychologically healthy work environment in our division. None of this was wrestled away from the echelons. This was company policy from the get go.

As a result, after 6 months, we have around a 2 percent turn over. That is insane especially for manufacturing positions! national turnover is like 7.8% Our pay scales and benefits attract the most talented from the industry. We have a competent and able team.

The echelons have figured out that treating people well pays.

This isn't just crazy randian theory - this is crazy randian theory manifested and it is good.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:48 PM on March 8, 2004

PS - in our two original plants, we have no unions.

We recently accuired a new plant in california that was previously owned by a company where the mangement saved money by firing people who had been there longer and thus has more raises under their belts. A former employee told me people at that place spent 40 of the time covering their asses, 40 percent of the time looking for their next job, 10 percent of the time fucking off, and 10 percent of the time working.

They needed a union. Now, the union really just gets in the way of things.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:51 PM on March 8, 2004

My impression was that it was the union wages/benefits that destroyed a lot of the steel mills. LTV went belly-up partially because it could no longer afford to pay not only its employees (including time and a half for overtime, double time for Saturdays, double time and a half for Sundays, and triple time for holidays) but also its retirees pensions and health insurance. Rouge was just bought out by Severstal (based in Russia) after bleeding money for years. ("Labor contracts in the steel industry were totally out of line with the reality of a changing world," said David Littmann, chief economist for Comerica Bank, according to a Detroit Free Press article.)

These are companies that treated their employees fairly in the matter of overtime pay. They are also companies that had a lot of workers coming in on Saturdays and Sundays and marking time because there wasn't enough work to keep them busy, yet they'd kick up a fuss if it cutting OT was suggested.
posted by Oriole Adams at 10:21 PM on March 8, 2004

Next on the agenda put a sin tax on used automobiles!

Must erase before karl rove sees this !!!
posted by nofundy at 4:57 AM on March 9, 2004

8 million white-collar workers would lose their overtime benefits under the proposed rule changes, and only 700,000 salaried, low-income workers would benefit.

I don't see how 700,000 "salaried, low-income workers" could benefit from any change in overtime laws, for two simple reasons:

1) low-income workers are typically hourly or piece-rate, not salaried -- not sure where you'd find hundreds of thousands of low-income workers on salary

2) if they were in fact salaried, that means they don't get overtime anyway, so changes to overtime regs don't affect them.
posted by kindall at 9:06 AM on March 9, 2004

kindall,

I don't see how 700,000 "salaried, low-income workers" could benefit from any change in overtime laws, for two simple reasons:
"the "salary-level" test stipulates that employees earning less than a certain level each week cannot be exempt" The proposal stipulates the new minimum jumps to $22,000 from it's current value of $8000. An example would be, someone who is making 10,000 per year would have been exempt and now they can't be.

I think this affects fewer people than we think.

It's pretty confusing, nonetheless.
posted by jlachapell at 9:53 AM on March 9, 2004

Actually, there are complicated rules about who can be considered "salaried." This statement will need to be revised if the rule changes go through. To be salaried now, you have to have a certain educational level to do your job (doctor, accountant, research analyst) or be in a supervisory position (apartment manager, head cashier). Part of the rule change classifies military training as "education" (you learned to work on cars in the Army therefore you are a trained mechanic eligible for salary). Also, if memory serves, there is a minimum pay level at which you can be declared salaried no matter what you do for a living, but it's fairly high.

By far the more important part of this set of proposed rules is the "comp time" rules. These say that your Lumberghian boss can make you work overtime now and promise to let you have 1.5 times that amount of time off at some point within the next 13 months. Although the Administration paints this as family friendly, allowing you time off to go to teacher conferences and doctor's appointments, the truth is that the ability to take this time is at your boss's whim. Good luck getting the time off at any time that would be useful to you. Frankly he hopes you forget you have the time coming to you at all.

This is bad for job creation, because why should Lumbergh hire a new guy when he can make you and a co-worker work twice as hard? Never mind that you might be more productive if you only worked 8 hours a day instead of the 10 or 12 expected but undocumented ones.
posted by ilsa at 10:31 AM on March 9, 2004

Also, if memory serves, there is a minimum pay level at which you can be declared salaried no matter what you do for a living, but it's fairly high.

Two years ago, that rate was $27.68 per hour. If you made more than that per hour and you were an employee, not a contractor, then your employer was not required to pay you 1.5x rate for overtime because you were considered a "salaried professional". Contractors were a different story, they just don't show up after 40 hours if you're not going to pay them overtime...and why on earth would they?

By far the more important part of this set of proposed rules is the "comp time" rules.

Absolutely! The way this law is written is Draconian for employees and a windfall for businesses.
posted by dejah420 at 11:31 AM on March 9, 2004

This WILL screw many people who deserve much better than they have as it is. I was once one of these workers.

I was required to have a BA (Mental Health Counselor) to get the job in the first place. The shifts were 22 hours each - overnight stay at the facility required. I was paid $8.00 an hour for the first 8 hours, $ 10.00 an hour for the next 10 hours, back to $8.00 for the remaining 4 hours. I was making 18K a year. Overtime (and a second job) was the only way to keep my head above water. This wasn't a long time ago, either - 5 years ago. And I doubt that the pay scale has gotten any better.

My responsibilities were to monitor and supervise 15 severely mentally ill adults - supposedly with the assistance of a "Recreation Counselor" who worked from 5 - 9 PM. However, we spent years without one because the pay was so miserable, so it was usually just me from 5 PM to 8 AM the next morning.

Under these rules, I would have had overtime stripped away - I would be considered a "Learned Professional Employee". I mean, come on - I wasn't being paid enough as it was! And this was not specific to the organization I worked for, it was the standard for everyone in similar situations.

Think about it - an entire class of workers essential to public safety (who do you think makes sure that the Paranoid Schizophrenic with a history of violence takes his medication?) - reduced to poverty wages. The problem of qualified employees leaving for greener pastures becomes worse and the only people left are the incompetents, the folks who are crazier than the clients, and the living saints, who there aren't nearly enough of.

If this passes you can bet that you'll here more stories of mentally ill who die on the streets because they've slipped through the cracks (underpaid, overworked social service workers have a hard enough time keeping track of people as it is) and of people who end up going off their meds and comitting senseless crimes - remember the guy in NY who pushed that woman in front of a train?
posted by echolalia67 at 12:33 PM on March 9, 2004

I wonder why the working class hates Bush so much.

Free handouts! They all want free handouts!

$300 checks all round then!
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:38 PM on March 9, 2004

Hmm. I bet this will go over with the Police and Fire Dept employees. After all, they get certifications (degrees for Criminal Justice and Fire Handling protocols, etc.)
posted by Nauip at 1:19 PM on March 9, 2004

Actually, there are complicated rules about who can be considered "salaried." This statement will need to be revised if the rule changes go through.

Although many companies ignore the rules. I worked for one for about a year - the "girls" in the office (as the female employees were called) were considered salaried, in that we didn't get paid for overtime. However we also didn't get paid for sick days, jury duty, and other assorted trifles. I eventually did some investigating and (anonymously) got the state involved, because it turns out they're very interested in lack of overtime pay...they're missing out on some payroll taxes, you see. I don't know what ultimately happened, because I left the company in the midst of all the ballyhoo.
posted by Oriole Adams at 2:14 PM on March 9, 2004

the truth is that the ability to take this [comp] time is at your boss's whim. Good luck getting the time off at any time that would be useful to you.

What exactly is the justification for assuming that companies would be any stricter about when you take comp time than when you take regular vacation time?
posted by kindall at 4:53 PM on March 9, 2004