House Republicans Vote to Cut Workers' Pay

[OnyxCougar]

Once Again, GOP Lawmakers Attack Workers’
Overtime Pay Protections

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

WASHINGTON, DC -- Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee dealt America’s workers another blow today by voting against an amendment to protect overtime pay. The amendment, offered by Representative David Obey (D-WI), the committee’s ranking Democrat, came in response to the Bush Administration’s restrictive new overtime rules that take effect August 23 and would deny eligibility for overtime pay to 6 million workers.

“Welcome to the Bush Economy,” said Representative George Miller (D-CA), the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, who has worked with Obey to oppose the new Bush rules.

“If you are lucky enough to have a job, now you will be able to work longer hours for less pay. Republicans in Congress think that is just fine,” said Miller. “Well, it is not fine with America’s workers and their families, and it is not fine with Democrats in Congress. The new rules represent one of the most harmful changes to the nation’s labor laws in generations. This fight is not over.”

Obey’s amendment, offered in committee to a federal spending bill for the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, would have protected the right to overtime pay for any worker that now has it. Obey’s amendment was defeated by a vote of 29 to 31. Every Committee Democrat voted to protect overtime pay, while not a single Republican did.

The vote came the same day that a new report (pdf file) from the Economic Policy Institute revealed that the new overtime rules would deny overtime pay eligibility to 6 million workers who are currently eligible. That report came on the heels of another report (pdf file) by former Department of Labor officials showing that the regulations would deny eligibility to “large numbers” of workers and create more confusion and litigation.

“We will use every means available to us to keep fighting to protect overtime pay, now and after August 23,” said Miller.

“Since 2001, corporate profits have exploded by more than 60 percent while wages have stagnated,” said Miller. Yet the Bush Administration feels compelled to do even more to help its corporate friends, no matter how rich they get, and no matter how much workers have to suffer in exchange.

“These revised overtime rules are just the latest salvo in an all-out assault on America’s middle class families, many of whom depend on overtime pay to maintain their standard of living. The Bush Administration and the Republican congressional leadership have failed to produce an economic policy that stimulates economic growth and helps businesses succeed while still ensuring that workers get their fair share,” Miller added.

For more information on Overtime, see: http://edworkforce.house.gov/democra...rtimeinfo.html.

[wolf]

Is it just me, or is that article a mass of hysterical generalities that never really says how and to what extent OT is damaged or denied to people?

[Happy Monkey]

The details are in the link.

[Cyber Wolf]

Ok, granted, I just got to this thread and I haven't had a chance to go to all the links yet, but does either of them point so a place one can look up the criteria for who gets OT pay and who doesn't? And when will this take effect? This kind of news really sucks because the incoming work at my job is going to increase 3 fold and will present extremely juicy OT opportunities. I want my time and a half, blast it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, HM's link spells it out.

[Beestie]

From the partisan and biased source (not even a left-leaning paper but the democrat spin machine itself) linked above:

However, the Bush administration has increased the salary threshhold (the salary below which overtime compensation is guaranteed) from $155 per week to $455 per week.

This change will INCREASE the number of employees eligible for overtime by 1.3 Million workers. 1.3 Million workers. That's 1.3 Million workers who will now be eligible for overtime that were not eligible for overtime before the Bush administration made them eligible for overtime.

The dems claim that this number (1.3M), the one change that increases the number of eligible workers is vastly and tremendously overstated while asserting that all of their (the dems) numbers are dead-on accurate if not conservative (no pun intended).

Overtime rules are a clusterF***ing mess and no one knows how many people will fall in and out of the newly defined protected classes. But, focusing only on those who fall out while paying short shrift to the newly included makes for good election year politics.

[xoxoxoBruce]

+1.3 million -6 million = net -4.7 million. I don't like the math.
I wouldn't expect anything Bush backs to favor people over business.

[Kitsune]

I don't like the math.

I know my employer does.

[lookout123]

i'll have to dig some more to see how much this really changes things, but at first glance i don't really see that big of a difference. the increase in the salary test is a positive but even that is being spun as a negative on the link. from what i see, some of what the dems are calling take-aways are not, at least not from the current law. they are take-aways from the initial proposals that were made for change. that is the same thing that the dems did with advertising on bush's "stripping away money from PA education" - the funds were increased year over year, but not to the extent that was wanted.
in my previous life as a hiring manager, i can tell you that overtime laws are different state to state anyway. all this law does is set the minimum benchmark. CA, for instance, has extremely aggressive OT laws; if you have a pulse and are there for more than 8 hours, it's time and a half.
anyway - it's obvious there will be some negatives in here, but the sky isn't falling and life won't really change that much.

[wolf]

I read that report, and another one that was even more difficult to follow.

What I see is that it says that if your'e salaried you don't qualify for overtime.

Welcome to the real world. Heck, it's already the case that in many companies for hourly employees, they run an 8 hour day with a one hour lunch (half hour of which is mandated by law to be paid) and pay hourly employees on a 37.5 hour week ... that cuts a lot of OT right there, since it doesn't kick in until 40 hrs are worked.

[Kitsune]

What I see is that it says that if your'e salaried you don't qualify for overtime.

The problem is that if you are employed by places like Wal-Mart, you are considered a full-time employee at 28 hours and, therefore, aren't eligable for OT. Try living on those wages and working 40 hours/week so that you can't hold a second job.

Oh, and you are eligable for benefits at W-M once you are considered full time. Their healthcare plan is great: 20/80 coverage!

...oh, what's that? They pay the 20%? Ouch.

[lookout123]

they never did qualify for OT then. it has always been 40 hours/week or 8 hours/day in some states.

and wal-mart sucks, no doubt about it. don't shop there.

[Cyber Wolf]

Anyone have a link to a document outlining how the Republicans claim this whole business is going to function? Anything with a Republican spin on it, so to speak? I wanna see both sides.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Oh, and you are eligable for benefits at W-M once you are considered full time. Their healthcare plan is great: 20/80 coverage!

...oh, what's that? They pay the 20%? Ouch.

And no mental health benefits ...

And I've seen more than one Walmart worker who when I called the insurance company, they were never actually enrolled into the plan ... even though I was holding what appeared to be a valid card in my hand.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

The problem is that if you are employed by places like Wal-Mart, you are considered a full-time employee at 28 hours and, therefore, aren't eligable for OT.

No one working 28 hours a week should be getting OT. What happened to an honest day's pay for an honest day's work? And since when did benefits (i.e., health insurance) become entitlements? If WalMart's employment policies aren't to someone's liking then they are advised to seek employment elsewhere. Its not like the old mining towns of the 19th century where pennies per day was the only option and you were lucky to get it.

Yet, everyone seems to enjoy WalMart's low prices. Maybe WalMart is passing the savings along to the consumer in the form of low prices. Hrm.... HEY, let's pass a law freezing WalMart's prices but make them pay OT and 100% healthcare costs - we'll definitely win the election that way! **pats self on back** Oh, and let's pass another law to prohibit them from firing anyone too! Checkmate, WalMart! Man, I'm on a roll, baybee - let's see how the GOP can stop me now!