Plan Expands Eligibility for OT Pay.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Plan Expands Eligibility for OT Pay.
16
Tue, 04-20-2004 - 9:16am

Plan Expands Eligibility for Overtime Pay.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25433-2004Apr19.html


The Labor Department will allow workers who earn up to $100,000 a year to be eligible for overtime pay, a substantial shift upward from an earlier proposal that Democrats had promised to make an issue in the presidential campaign.




More low-wage workers would become automatically eligible for overtime under the final rules, due to be released today, according to Labor Department documents describing the regulation. Police, firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians and licensed practical nurses will also be assured of eligibility for overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours a week.


The overtime rules, which haven't been revised in 50 years, have become a major subject of political dispute. The changes have been avidly sought by a wide coalition of business groups. But both houses of Congress voted last year to block the Bush administration's attempt to issue the rule because of controversy over the number of workers who might be adversely affected.


A research organization that focuses on labor issues estimated that the proposed changes would cost up to 8 million workers their chance to earn overtime. Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao has countered that the original rules would cost fewer than 1 million more highly paid workers their overtime checks, while expanding overtime eligibility to millions of lower-wage workers.


The changes to be announced today amount to a more generous proposal for workers on both ends of the pay scale.


"The final rule accomplishes exactly what we intended from the start, which is to preserve and protect overtime rights for white-collar workers," Chao said in a statement last night. "We are pleased to see people recognize the significant gains to workers under our final rule. Now there can be no doubt that workers win.''


Some business lobbyists said they had heard that substantial changes were being made in the rules, although they didn't know exactly what to expect. Michael Eastman, director of labor policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said he was disappointed that the Labor Department had increased overtime eligibility for "highly compensated" workers making $65,000 to $100,000 a year.


"But we're hopeful there are other improvements in the regulations that will help us in other ways," Eastman said. "Politics is a process of compromise, and any changes over the current law are better than nothing."


Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a critic of the proposed rules, said in a statement last night: "The Bush Administration simply is not trustworthy on this issue, and I am beyond skeptical about these so-called revisions. This President has gone out of his way time and again to undercut working families' right to overtime pay for overtime work. . . . The Senate will soon have the opportunity to stand up and be counted on this issue, and I look forward to the debate."


The Labor Department received more than 75,000 letters during the public-comment phase of the process, and thousands more since, with many writers critical of the Bush administration for making changes workers feared would cost them money or force them to work longer hours. Employer groups and the administration had argued the rules were a much-needed update of regulations issued in 1938, when the U.S. economy was much different.


The department's summary of the final rule said the changes could give up to 1.3 million low-wage "white collar" workers an additional $375 million in compensation each year. Under the current rules, workers who earn less than $8,060 are automatically eligible for overtime -- a level set in the 1970s. The proposed rule had called for raising the cap to $22,100. Under the final rule, however, workers who earn up to $23,660, or about $455 a week, will be automatically eligible for overtime.


Some 5.4 million salaried workers who are unsure of their eligibility will be guaranteed overtime rights under the final rule "regardless of their job duties," one Labor document said.


The new regulations will also make no changes to educational requirements or specialized training received in the military.


Some employers, veterans and many labor-activist critics had viewed the proposed regulations as permitting employers to view workers who had attended college or had received specialized military training as potentially exempt from overtime pay under an expanded professional exemption. The Labor Department had said that interpretation was erroneous, but the new language is expected to clarify the question and ensure that veterans, in particular, do not lose overtime pay.


Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, the labor-backed research organization that has analyzed and criticized the Labor Department's proposal, said it sounded as though the department "had made some positive changes." But he said he would reserve judgment until he could review the actual regulations.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 04-20-2004 - 9:23am
I personally do not have a problem with people making overtime.

My problem comes with the contractors that work in shifts, where the overnight shift automatically gets paid the overtime wage.

To me, if you are assigned to work the late shift as your normal hours, then this is not overtime, this is normal time. If you do not like the shift you are assigned, you have two choices, get another job, or stick it out until a spot on the day shift opens.

I use the highway projects as an example. They usually do their work between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm, and then from 7 pm and 5 am to avoid causing traffic delays during rush hour. Since these are their normal working hours, why is it mandatory that the people working the later shift (which is a different crew) be paid eiother time and a half or double time? This is one area that I would like to see corrected.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 04-20-2004 - 9:46am

Is it overtime or a pay differential you're refering to? When I worked in

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 04-20-2004 - 9:53am
The fact is that most people wouldn't accept the job at the lower payrate.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 04-20-2004 - 2:49pm

I think a lot of the shift/pay differential is also due to unions and the contracts that they have negotiated.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2003
Tue, 04-20-2004 - 3:43pm
I know here in CT, that is not the case. My father works as a foreman for a highway construction co. and he does not nor does his workers get overtime just for working nights. And there is no difference in pay..day vs night.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 3:07pm
Well at least one state has it right.

When I lived in NY, that was one of the major things I was against. I had a friend that worked on the roadways, and he would always request the night shifts, as they were paid time and a half as the standard, even though that was his normal 45 hour shift.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 3:51pm

You have to think of it the other way though, in NY there is certainly an incentive to have work occur at night, any politician proposing to have the LIE closed from 7-6 would be voted out of office in about 15 seconds.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 5:51pm

I hope that this update hasn't been posted...I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread yet...so, if it has been, my apologies!


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1153&slug=Overtime%20Pay


Wednesday, April 21, 2004 · Last updated 6:04 a.m. PT


Dems challenge Bush overtime overhaul


By LEIGH STROPE
AP LABOR WRITER


WASHINGTON -- Democrats are challenging the Bush administration's overtime pay overhaul, saying many white-collar workers will lose premium pay despite election-year promises that the effects will be minimal.


The new regulations, which were previewed Tuesday and will take effect in 120 days, specify a number of white-collar jobs that will be exempt from overtime pay eligibility. They include pharmacists, funeral directors, embalmers, journalists, financial services industry workers, insurance claims adjusters and human resource managers. Others are management consultants, executive and administrative assistants, dental hygienists, physician assistants, accountants and chefs.


Even athletic trainers with degrees or specialized training, computer system analysts, programmers and software engineers generally will be exempt.


"The devil is in the details, and we just got the details," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who led Senate opposition to the earlier version of the proposed regulations.


Labor Department officials say those jobholders are not eligible for overtime anyway, based on case law. (me:


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 5:58pm

Just an interesting little comparison...


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1153&slug=Overtime%20Glance


Tuesday, April 20, 2004 · Last updated 11:09 p.m. PT


Highlights of overtime rules


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Highlights of the Labor Department's new rules on overtime pay for white-collar workers, and what critics say:


PLAN: White-collar workers earning $455 a week ($23,660 annually) or less are eligible for overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week. About 1.3 million workers will be newly eligible for overtime pay.


CRITICS: They question the 1.3 million figure, saying they think far fewer workers will become eligible. They point to administration documents that suggest employers can avoid paying workers more by cutting hourly wages and adding overtime to equal the original salary; or by raising salaries to the new $23,660 annual threshold, making them ineligible.


PLAN: White-collar workers earning $100,000 or more a year who also perform any administrative, professional or executive duties are exempt from overtime pay.


CRITICS: There is no "highly compensated test" in current law, so moving the threshold to $100,000 from the $65,000 initially proposed is just making a very bad idea a bit better. Some question the administration's legal authority to make the change. Overtime earned is counted toward the $100,000 threshold.


PLAN: Changes to duties that determine whether an employee is a professional, executive or administrative and exempt from overtime will result in "very few, if any" workers losing overtime.


CRITICS: They question how the administration can revamp the list of duties and not affect workers' status. They claim some of the changes clearly expand the definitions to exempt more workers.


PLAN: Jobs identified as generally exempt from overtime pay include pharmacists, funeral directors, embalmers, journalists, financial services industry workers, insurance claims adjusters, human resource managers, management consultants, executive and administrative assistants, purchasing agents, registered or certified medical technologists, dental hygienists, physician assistants, accountants, chefs, athletic trainers with degrees or specialized training, computer system analysts, programmers and software engineers.


Department officials say legal challenges and case law have made clear those jobs generally are already exempt.


CRITICS: They say the Labor Department, not case law, is deciding those jobs are exempt. They question how the administration can say few workers will lose overtime pay when the list of jobs ineligible for overtime pay is so long.

cl-nwtreehugger



iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Thu, 04-22-2004 - 9:43am

Actually most of those jobs are normally exempt, Administrative Assistant is new however, and would be a big hit to most Administrative Assistants that I know.

Pages