Bush wanted to stop over time pay

[pappy]

i was talkin to some1 an they mentioned this 2day.  after 40 hours there wouldnt be no time n half it would jus be straight pay.  It didnt pass in congress.  but dunno bout u but i think thats fucked up.  

[infinite59]

i was talkin to some1 an they mentioned this 2day.  after 40 hours there wouldnt be no time n half it would jus be straight pay.  It didnt pass in congress.  but dunno bout u but i think thats fucked up.  

[Trauma-san]

Tom, that's just something someone told you.  Maybe you should find 1 shred of evidence before you think it's fact.  Bush never did that, never had anything to do with anything LIKE that.  

[M Doggâ„¢]

Need anymore proof

http://www.saveovertimepay.org/

http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/underattack.cfm

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/houseotvote

http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/news/economy/epi/

8 million may lose OT pay

Bush administration proposal would dramatically alter rules for paying overtime, study says.
June 27, 2003: 2:54 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - More than 8 million workers in the United States will be ineligible for overtime pay under a plan proposed recently by the Bush administration, a research group said Thursday.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal Washington think tank, examined a proposal by the Labor Department to change the criteria for paying overtime and found that it would cost 2.5 million salaried employees and 5.5 million hourly employees their right to overtime pay.

The proposed changes, which were first introduced in March, will be implemented by the Labor Department after a "public comment" period, which expires on Monday.

The EPI questioned the appropriateness of the Labor Department's implementing such sweeping proposals without Congressional approval.

"There is no reason to believe...that Congress has authorized the Department of Labor to dramatically reduce coverage...taking overtime protection away from millions of workers," wrote the authors of the study, Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein. "Yet that is exactly what the Department of Labor has proposed."

Under current regulations, established by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, about 79 percent of all workers are guaranteed the right to overtime pay, or time-and-a-half for every hour worked above 40 hours in a week.

Currently, there are three tests for whether or not an employee is ineligible for overtime -- the employee's level of pay, whether or not the employee is a salaried or hourly worker, and whether or not the employee performs certain job duties.

Under the current rules, any employee making more than $155 a week -- about $8,000 per year -- could be excluded from overtime, if they had a salary and a job description that fell into certain categories.

The good news is that the regulations would raise that cut-off amount to $425 a week -- about $22,100 per year -- actually adding about 1.3 million lower-wage workers to the ranks of people eligible for overtime, according to the Labor Department.

But the EPI study said that gain is more than erased by the rest of the administration's plan.

For one thing, many workers earning a salary of more than $65,000 a year will now be excluded from overtime -- at least 1.3 million workers, according to the EPI study.

More critically, the job descriptions of millions of workers would be moved into certain "administrative," "professional" or "executive" categories that would exclude them from overtime.

For example, "learned professionals" are ineligible for overtime. Under the old rules, "learned professionals" were only those people who had scientific or specialized degrees. Now, work experience or technical training can be enough to make a worker ineligible for overtime.

In another example, "executives" ineligible for overtime, according to the old rules, were people who hired and fired workers, set wages and assigned work. The new rules broaden the definition of "executives" to include any workers who occasionally supervise other workers, even if they spend most of their time doing manual labor.

According to the EPI study, which used Labor Department and General Accounting Office data about worker pay and qualifications, the total effect of the three changes is to exclude at least 8.025 million workers from overtime -- and probably more, the study said, since the EPI only looked at 78 of the 257 "white collar" occupations identified by the Labor Department.

The proposal could also cause workers to work longer hours, since the Labor Department doesn't put any limit on the number of hours per week an employee must work, the group said in a study published on its Web site.

"Once employers are not required to pay for overtime work, they will schedule more of it," the study said.

The Bush administration has said the new rules are clearer and will lower the chance of employee lawsuits. The EPI study said the proposal could have the opposite effect.

"The proposed rule is rife with ambiguity and new terms...that will spawn new litigation," the study said.

The national labor organization AFL-CIO complained that the Labor Department had stifled public debate about the proposed changes.

For example, they said the Labor Department had canceled a union hearing on the issue, scheduled to take place June 30 in a Labor Department auditorium.

"The fact that Labor hasn't held any public hearings on their proposal to cut overtime pay, and that they have abruptly canceled the union movement's paid reservation to hold a hearing on the issue, is another sign of the administration's refusal to permit debate and dissent," AFL-CIO spokeswoman Kathy Roeder said. "It is a grave disservice to the millions of workers who stand to lose from the overtime proposal."

The White House could not immediately be reached for comment.

[Trauma-san]

well, I guess you're right then.  I apologize.  I'm voting for Kerry.  




















Just kidding.  

[pappy]

Tom, that's just something someone told you.  Maybe you should find 1 shred of evidence before you think it's fact.  Bush never did that, never had anything to do with anything LIKE that.  

think mdogg summed it up nicely for me

[Woodrow]

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal Washington think tank

Everybody's got an agenda

[M Doggâ„¢]

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal Washington think tank

Everybody's got an agenda

LOL... along with the 3 other sources I got. I just posted the CNN article. Click the other links, I got 4 sources all together... I could get more if you like, I studied this topic greatly in college.  

[Woodrow]

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal Washington think tank

Everybody's got an agenda

LOL... along with the 3 other sources I got. I just posted the CNN article. Click the other links, I got 4 sources all together... I could get more if you like, I studied this topic greatly in college.  

So I'm supposed to think that a Site called: "Saveovertime pay" a site called "Union Voice" and the largest union in the US are going to be unbiased?

Get real.

[M Doggâ„¢]

here's an unbiased article. You want more, I got many articles. Tell me what you want? Because obviously, you don't want the truth.

http://truthout.org/docs_04/011804J.shtml

    Overtime Pay for Millions of Americans in Peril
    By Katherine Stapp
    Inter Press Service

    Thursday 15 January 15 2004

     NEW YORK -- An electronic technician with the U.S. Navy, John Garrity has two young children and another on the way. He often works extra hours to help make ends meet, but worries that under new overtime pay rules proposed by the Labor Department, he will lose about six thousand dollars a year.

     "It's a pay cut and an attack on workers' rights," he said in an interview. "They're trying to roll the clock back. People fought and went to jail to have a 40-hour work week so they could spend more time with their families. The president just wants to pay back his corporate friends."

     On Wednesday, an international trade union criticized the United States for having ratified only two of eight global conventions on core workers' rights, calling that one of the "worst rates of ratification in the world."

     The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) said the country has "a serious record of continuing labor rights violations involving some of the world's best-known companies, such as Wal-Mart."

     The Bush administration has touted the new overtime rules as a long overdue update of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, pointing out that they would extend overtime pay eligibility to an estimated 1.3 million low-income workers.

     Under federal law, hourly employees are entitled to time-and-a-half pay (150 percent of the normal rate) if their work week extends beyond 40 hours.

     But a study last year by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a non-partisan Washington think tank, found the new rules would also remove overtime pay protection from some eight million workers by reclassifying them as executives, professionals--in the case of Garrity, for example--and administrators.

     Workers earning more than $65,000 a year would also be exempt from overtime pay.

     "Our experience is that the Department of Labor has been pretty unresponsive to our criticisms," said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at EPI. "We've written extensively about the serious, fundamental flaws in their analysis of the impact of this change, yet they've done little to address the issues we've raised."

     Labor Department officials contest the study, saying the changes would affect fewer than one million higher-paid workers.

     But many Democrat and Republican politicians oppose the new regulations.

     Last year, both the Senate and House of Representatives passed an amendment to the proposed rules that preserved overtime pay protection for most workers. The amendment, named after its sponsor, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, was later dropped from a spending bill under intense pressure from the White House.

     The Labor Department is now pushing the regulations as an administrative rule change--for which it does not need congressional consent--that would likely take effect in March.

     In a move that provoked outcry among unions, the department has also published information for employers on how to legally avoid paying overtime to low-income workers who could be eligible for it, though it insists it does not recommend such tactics.

     "This is a draconian proposal," said Lou Gerber, chief lobbyist of the Communications Workers of America.

     "The administration has been deaf to the votes of Congress. The real issue is why isn't the administration proposing to raise the minimum wage, rather than cutting overtime pay?"

     Legislators are currently on winter recess, but a hearing on the overtime rules is planned for Jan. 20.

     "The idea behind our lobbying efforts right now is to get them to put the Harkin amendment back in the bill," said Kelly Ross, a legislative representative with the AFL-CIO, which represents more than 13 million workers.

     "It will be a lot harder to fix it once it's passed."

     The National Organization of Women (NOW) has also opposed the changes, noting that many of those affected would be women working in middle-income jobs, like nurses, secretaries, cooks and paralegals.

     "Think about a working mom whose boss requires her to work an extra four hours one night," said NOW President Kim Gandy in a statement. "Without the guarantee of overtime, she has to pay the babysitter while she's doing work for which she isn't getting paid extra."

     The ICFTU reported that, "women hold nearly half the executive and managerial jobs in the United States, but they fall short of men at the top ranks of the salary ladder."

     "Discrimination in respect of employment and occupation is prohibited by law. However, there is still a wage gap between men and women and between different ethnic groups," it added.

     Industry groups that support the Labor Department's position argue that the EPI study was faulty, and assert the new rules would actually result in a net increase of people entitled to overtime pay protection.

     "These regulations have not been comprehensively modified since 1949 and are out of step with today's workplace," said Sandra Boyd, a vice president at the National Association of Manufacturers.

     "Employers want these regulations reformed for two reasons: to reduce compliance costs--you shouldn't need to hire a team of lawyers and consultants to figure out how to classify employees--and to reduce litigation exposure," Boyd said.

     Last year, the Labor Department investigated more than 31,000 worker complaints and recovered $212 million in unpaid overtime wages, a 21 percent increase over 2002.

     A particularly notorious case was retail giant Wal-Mart, which is fighting dozens of lawsuits around the country brought by employees who say they were forced to work unpaid overtime.

     Tammy McCutchen, who heads the Labor Department's wage and hour division, says increased productivity and fewer lawsuits under the new rules could mean savings of up to 1.9 billion dollars for employers.

     "Overtime pay is very hard to get even if you are entitled to it," says Jonathan Rees, a history professor at Colorado State University who has written extensively on labor issues.

     "The fact that the Bush administration would rather take away this right than enforce this law is an obvious sign of their domination by corporate interests."

[M Doggâ„¢]

Also, Republicans split, and pass a Democrat bill that allows more people to collect unemployment. That's huge in California with all the lay offs right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/congress.unemployment/index.html

House votes to extend unemployment benefits

From Ted Barrett
CNN
Thursday, February 5, 2004 Posted: 11:06 AM EST (1606 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Thirty-nine Republicans in the House of Representatives crossed party lines to join Democrats in approving a measure that would extend the unemployment benefits for about 375,000 people whose regular benefits have run out for six-months.

The vote may be little more than symbolic, lawmakers from both parties predicted, because opposition from GOP leaders is expected to prevent the measure from ever becoming law, which means unemployed workers are unlikely to receive the benefits.

The measure, which would extend the temporary federal unemployment insurance benefits, was attached to an unrelated bill dealing with community block grants.

Democrats hailed the vote as evidence that there is majority support in the GOP-controlled House for the extension -- an issue Democrats have pushed for months.

But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, dismissed the vote as a "clever political stunt" designed to give the Democrats fodder for the campaign season.

"Sometimes people vote for political reasons," DeLay said about the GOP defections. "It's more important to provide jobs than unemployment."

A Republican aide said the extension was not needed because the economy is improving and the unemployment rate is down.

[Woodrow]

here's an unbiased article. You want more, I got many articles. Tell me what you want? Because obviously, you don't want the truth.

"It's a pay cut and an attack on workers' rights," he said in an interview. "They're trying to roll the clock back. People fought and went to jail to have a 40-hour work week so they could spend more time with their families. The president just wants to pay back his corporate friends."

 

You're in college but you haven't learned shit...

Unbiased?

TAKE A CLOSER LOOK YOU TWIT.

I hate ignorant people.

[LuvMilkshakes]

LMAO @ engel refusing to admit that Bush is doing this to help out big business. I mean how dumb do you have to be to not see this. MDogg lists many sources, and this idiot picks out ones and says "those are biased". Do you expect someone to find this information on shit like NewsMax? Why don't you believe the CNN link?

[Woodrow]

What a sorry existANCE (spelled wrong just for you)

Don't you have a life Jamal?

[M Doggâ„¢]

here's an unbiased article. You want more, I got many articles. Tell me what you want? Because obviously, you don't want the truth.

"It's a pay cut and an attack on workers' rights," he said in an interview. "They're trying to roll the clock back. People fought and went to jail to have a 40-hour work week so they could spend more time with their families. The president just wants to pay back his corporate friends."

 

You're in college but you haven't learned shit...

Unbiased?

TAKE A CLOSER LOOK YOU TWIT.

I hate ignorant people.

We'll take from the White House then...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040106-4.html

...and Forbes, a supporter of big business.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/11/21/rtr1157407.html

As I said, I got sources for days on this, do you want me to get anything else for you sir. May I add that I did learn lots and college, I ask you, want can you say to counter my argument. I mean after all, I even got a conservative magazine one this. This is from the National Review, a highly conservative magazine. Here's the information of when this was printed. I really think you should check out this mag, you'd love it. As Jay-Z once said, What more can I say.

Copyright 2003 National Review  
National Review

September 29, 2003, Monday
SECTION: The Week; Volume LV, No. 18


-- Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938, employers have to give overtime pay to some employees if they work long hours. Which employees? Well, that's not always clear -- and the confusion has made for rich rewards for trial lawyers. Elaine Chao's Labor Department is trying to update and clarify the regulations. The current rule automatically grants overtime to anyone who makes less than $8,000 a year. Chao would raise that threshold, as labor activists have long demanded, to $22,000. But many workers would be reclassified so that employers would no longer be legally required to give them overtime pay. The unions have therefore launched an ad campaign accusing President Bush of being the Grinch who stole overtime. If we had our druthers, Chao's new regulations would be scrapped, along with the old ones: Wages and work conditions are properly a matter to be worked out by employees and employers competing in an open market. But at the very least, congressional Republicans ought not let the unions scare them away from supporting Chao's modest deregulation.