Bush Plan May Cut Overtime for Millions

[Drift3r]

"Bush Plan May Cut Overtime for Millions"


"(AP) - More than 8 million professionals would lose their overtime pay under a Bush administration proposal to change the types of jobs that must receive more money for extra work, says a study by a union-supported think tank. The analysis being released Thursday by the Economic Policy Institute is among the first to assess how many workers might be affected by the Labor Department's revisions to the overtime rules, which were proposed in March. Businesses and labor unions agree that the current Fair Labor Standards Act regulations are confusing and antiquated. But they disagree about how to update them. More..."



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030625/ap_on_re_us/overtime_pay_4

 

[Lucky]

It's important to note, at least until further studies come out, who this was funded by-unions. Hopefully a non-biased study will analyze these rule changes.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Lucky
It's important to note, at least until further studies come out, who this was funded by-unions. Hopefully a non-biased study will analyze these rule changes.

The Bush Plan does not affect employees covered by unions.. The plan provides OT for lower paid who were not covered while denies it for some higher paid who were... like draftperson...

 

[308nato]

AP-The Labor Department estimated that under its proposal, at least 644,000 well-paid, white-collar workers would lose overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week, while 1.3 million lower-wage workers now exempt from overtime would become eligible, or must receive a raise.

AP-Labor Department officials say the changes renew the focus on low-wage earners, which the law was intended to protect. Business groups long have complained that the convoluted rules require overtime pay for already well-compensated and highly skilled professionals while ignoring those at the bottom.

It seems from a cursory glance to follow the democrats whining about the tax cuts. The rich don't need the money and the working poor do. I would think liberals would applaud this (especially since their union dingleberries would be excluded from any change).

 

[Drift3r]

It's seem as if they are going after white-collar jobs with this new change.

"The Labor Department estimated that under its proposal, at least 644,000 well-paid, white-collar workers would lose overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week, while 1.3 million lower-wage workers now exempt from overtime would become eligible, or must receive a raise."

How is this fair ?


"Among the millions of jobs that will lose overtime, according to the study: emergency medical technicians, paralegals, licensed practical nurses, draftsmen, surveyors, reporters, editors, chefs, cooks, dental hygienists and health technicians. Workers covered by union contracts will not be affected."

I see a large increase of new unions or at least a large increase in the current numbers of people joining unions !

 

[LunarRay]

union link

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
I see a large increase of new unions or at least a large increase in the current numbers of people joining unions !

See Lucky's post above............

Union membership is dropping and members aren't as much in lock step as they used to be. The unions need to save a few more people from "the man" in order to have the proper union mentality in its ranks once again. The coffers are running low as well.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: HJD1
union link

That link is missing a few of the salient details.

 

[Corn]

That link is missing a few of the salient details.

But it says what he want's to hear. Details smeetails, those are for Republican geeks!

 

[Zebo]

Loser. This man gonna have 200 million trailer trash and 5 million millionaires by the time hes done.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 308nato

Originally posted by: HJD1
union link

That link is missing a few of the salient details.

It didn't mention the lower paid that would get a raise if not the OT. The folks as an example to lose OT beside drafters are;
EMT's, paralegals, LPnurses, chefs, cooks, reporters, hygenienists, health tech's.
It gives wide latitude to reclassify employees...

Lets see.... who can I reclass.... all those CAD operators... and.. oh boy... and they work all sorts of OT... this will be fun. NOT!

 

[JellyBaby]

Businesses and labor unions agree that the current Fair Labor Standards Act regulations are confusing and antiquated. But they disagree about how to update them.

First of all I don't understand why 8 million people would suddenly lose their OT pay. Last I checked businesses still had the freedom to pay OT without permission from Uncle Sam.

But anyway, what would happen if this Act was repealed (or at least the portions related to overtime compensation)? The OT issue then becomes an agreement between employer and employee. Government would dispair it loses power. Unions dispair as they lose power.

Would workers dispair?

If Business A decides not to pay overtime, Business B would do so to gain a competitive edge and to attract the best employees. If Business A survives, it may attract employees who don't need OT like students.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Corn

That link is missing a few of the salient details.

But it says what he want's to hear. Details smeetails, those are for Republican geeks!

Corn... Corn... assumptions again??

I posted that link because after my first post I saw indications that the Unions said this or that.. so I posted the link..

I use to be a shop steward when I carried the mail way back when...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Businesses and labor unions agree that the current Fair Labor Standards Act regulations are confusing and antiquated. But they disagree about how to update them.

First of all I don't understand why 8 million people would suddenly lose their OT pay. Last I checked businesses still had the freedom to pay OT without permission from Uncle Sam.

But anyway, what would happen if this Act was repealed (or at least the portions related to overtime compensation)? The OT issue then becomes an agreement between employer and employee. Government would dispair it loses power. Unions dispair as they lose power.

Would workers dispair?

If Business A decides not to pay overtime, Business B would do so to gain a competitive edge and to attract the best employees. If Business A survives, it may attract employees who don't need OT like students.

I can assure you that if this becomes law as proposed I will immediately be directed to re class anyone that fits the bill to a non OT status.
In small outfits where the profit goes into the owners pocket... the 'savings' means steak versus hamburger.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Businesses and labor unions agree that the current Fair Labor Standards Act regulations are confusing and antiquated. But they disagree about how to update them.

First of all I don't understand why 8 million people would suddenly lose their OT pay. Last I checked businesses still had the freedom to pay OT without permission from Uncle Sam.

But anyway, what would happen if this Act was repealed (or at least the portions related to overtime compensation)? The OT issue then becomes an agreement between employer and employee. Government would dispair it loses power. Unions dispair as they lose power.

Would workers dispair?

If Business A decides not to pay overtime, Business B would do so to gain a competitive edge and to attract the best employees. If Business A survives, it may attract employees who don't need OT like students.

Dream on. Employers pay the absolute minimum they are allowed to. Whether by market forces or state and federal mandates. Since their exists an employee demand for hourly jobs, and most hourly positions require little specialzed skill or training ever increasing this demand, the workers will get screwed with more hours at the same pay. Or they can quit and strave.

 

[JellyBaby]

Employers pay the absolute minimum they are allowed to.

Huh? Businesses pay well to retain talent and they pay well to hire employees for in-demand positions to name a few circumstances where they go above and beyond "absolute minimum".

As for starvation, isn't that why minimum wage laws exists? Either way, I'm not sure how getting rid of the federal OT pay requirements would lead to an increase in rumblebellies.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
"Bush Plan May Cut Overtime for Millions"


"(AP) - More than 8 million professionals would lose their overtime pay under a Bush administration proposal to change the types of jobs that must receive more money for extra work, says a study by a union-supported think tank. The analysis being released Thursday by the Economic Policy Institute is among the first to assess how many workers might be affected by the Labor Department's revisions to the overtime rules, which were proposed in March. Businesses and labor unions agree that the current Fair Labor Standards Act regulations are confusing and antiquated. But they disagree about how to update them. More..."



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030625/ap_on_re_us/overtime_pay_4

Are there 8 million professionals that still have a job???

 

[JellyBaby]

Are there 8 million professionals that still have a job???

Yeah but they live and work from India and China.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Employers pay the absolute minimum they are allowed to.

Huh? Businesses pay well to retain talent and they pay well to hire employees for in-demand positions to name a few circumstances where they go above and beyond "absolute minimum".

As for starvation, isn't that why minimum wage laws exists? Either way, I'm not sure how getting rid of the federal OT pay requirements would lead to an increase in rumblebellies.

Did'nt I say market forces which is the same thing you are saying? My post was market forces would dictate that hourly employees ar'nt worth much which is percisly why they are protected (by laws) and I'm not as a salaried employee.

You're always paid what you're worth. (unless the government thankfully steps in in the effort of balance as in the case of low and moderatly skilled)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, Shrub says that by lowering pay, more money will be available to hire other lower paid individuals. I have a better idea. Since highest level corporate level compensation went up and average of 61 percent last year, let's have a 100 percent tax above a certain dollar amount. That would hire quite a few people. The execs can handle it.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Well, Shrub says that by lowering pay, more money will be available to hire other lower paid individuals. I have a better idea. Since highest level corporate level compensation went up and average of 61 percent last year, let's have a 100 percent tax above a certain dollar amount. That would hire quite a few people. The execs can handle it.

Gee Hay, You'd seek to deny them the incentive for the cleaver art of swindle? gee... what's an education for if not to exploit it...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Well, Shrub says that by lowering pay, more money will be available to hire other lower paid individuals. I have a better idea. Since highest level corporate level compensation went up and average of 61 percent last year, let's have a 100 percent tax above a certain dollar amount. That would hire quite a few people. The execs can handle it.

Gee Hay, You'd seek to deny them the incentive for the cleaver art of swindle? gee... what's an education for if not to exploit it...

Well... someone earlier was saying "good" because the "rich" wouldnt get overtime. As I see it, someone who supervises a few people in a McDonalds for 30k is now too rich. If hitting people making 30 or 40k a year is good, then getting the big execs who make millions must be even better.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Well, Shrub says that by lowering pay, more money will be available to hire other lower paid individuals. I have a better idea. Since highest level corporate level compensation went up and average of 61 percent last year, let's have a 100 percent tax above a certain dollar amount. That would hire quite a few people. The execs can handle it.

Gee Hay, You'd seek to deny them the incentive for the cleaver art of swindle? gee... what's an education for if not to exploit it...

Well... someone earlier was saying "good" because the "rich" wouldnt get overtime. As I see it, someone who supervises a few people in a McDonalds for 30k is now too rich. If hitting people making 30 or 40k a year is good, then getting the big execs who make millions must be even better.

Well.. yeah .. I see your point..but if we tax them that much we've no hope to stimulate the economy... the poor people will just invest it.
The middle class will donate it to feed the poor so whose gonna buy all that capital equipment which means the companies that pay the bazillions to the exec's will fold and the exec will be collecting food stamps and welfare while the Mcdonald's guy drives the exec's used Porche.... On second though...

 

[Ferocious]

Bush's assault on the middle class continues!

A purely capitalistic society can only exist where the middle class is weak and/or small.

 

[HappyGamer2]

I take this as another sign america is in big trouble and in a much bigger slide than what the whitehouse wants to admit.

It's time for a new pres, Bush has to go.

were will the money go that is saved?, to the top boys of the company mostly and some to the shareholders

PS: this is getting more like socialism, equal pay for everyone but the big shots