House Republicans Vote to Cut Workers' Pay

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/democrats/overtimeinfo.html.

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?

The details are in the link.

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.

Yes, HM's link spells it out. :(

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.

+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.

I don't like the math.

I know my employer does. :mad2:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kitsune wrote:

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.

Kitsune wrote:

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!

Ah, I misunderstood the article when I first read it. For some reason they mentioned the Wal-Mart ordeal, but it appears to be a seperate issue -- something about a pending class action. In my mental blurring of the summary article on wages and OT, I thought they were paying people for only 28 hours and making them work more.

I thought they were paying people for only 28 hours and making them work more.

They do that. :(

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.

Oh yes it is, after WalMart (more correctly its customers) drove all the other employers out. :eyebrow:

I don't see how that could possibly be legal. How in the hell does anyone survive on ~$15k/year?

They don't...or just barely.

I find it amazing that people love to say,"Well if you don't like what's going on here, then leave and find something else", blah blah nonsense. Like it's *that* easy for some people to find a job. Hell, they wouldn't be at Walmart in the first goddamned place if they could have worked somewhere else!!!!!!

:mad: :mad2:

what holds people to a job that they hate? no doubt there are some people that have no options, but i find that group to be pretty small. i have found most people that are "stuck" in a position are really afraid to take the leap required to move into a different career, unwilling to sacrifice what they do have to get something better, or just not confident enough to say "i can do that"

complaining about not be able to get a better job isn't pointless if one isn't committed enough to their own success to do what it takes to become qualified for a better position.

There is also the factor that it's hard to survive in the meantime when you have absolutely no savings.

It's some of both I'd wager.

There are areas where the dearth of jobs funnels people to WalMart. Especially after they have killed most of the businesses they compete with in that area.

There are also people unwilling to risk what they have for what they might. They could do with a little bit of initiative or a bit of "shut the fuck up or fix it."

lookout123 wrote:

what holds people to a job that they hate? no doubt there are some people that have no options, but i find that group to be pretty small.

Maybe there are options, but the others are worse.

what holds people to a job that they hate? no doubt there are some people that have no options, but i find that group to be pretty small.

Um, you don't get out much, do you? I invite you to visit any rural town out in the Middle of Nowhere (Eustace: "yargh!") and talk to some of the residents about their ability to change jobs, pack up and move, etc. It isn't easy when you have little resources to change jobs and simply surviving takes all your income.

Or maybe they're just ignorant and aren't committed. I dunno.

it doesn't change the fact that unfortunate as it may be, this is a matter of choice.

as far as them not having savings to do it - i can understand that one, but then the question can be asked, have you gone to check into career counseling programs because many folks qualify for some type of assistance there? what type of car are you driving? taken a vacation lately? got a big screen tv? etc...

i know that it sucks to have to go without, i've done it - but it is a matter of prioritization.
when i chose to leave my solid income employment to go into my current field, i sold my truck to eliminate the payment, cancelled trips and vacations for 2 years, and watched what money i had saved evaporate while living a lifestyle that was less than i was accustomed too. but it was important to me, so i was willing to take the risk.
that isn't the right move for everyone, but i bristle when people say they are being held down.
some people say there are no jobs in their area. then pack the car and go somewhere else. if you choose to stay, acknowledge it is your choice.

So your point is that not everyone who feels trapped actually is? Granted.

How about the rest?

kitsune - i am from the middle of nowhere. the home of John Deere, previously dominated by international harvester, the rock island lines, etc... there is no opportunity there. i packed the car and left. my 3 best life long friends are still there. every time i go to visit or i call them, they talk about the lack of opportunity, but when i suggest they try moving the answer is always something about needing the government to fix the employment situation there. ah, bullshit - it's not going to happen, you can wait a lifetime for someone else to improve your situation for you. i chose to leave. i picked phoenix because i like the weather, the mountains, and a growing economy. when i left i was towing everything i owned and i had $1100 in my checking account for gas and motels. i'm not the smartest guy, the most educated guy, the best looking guy, or the best anything guy. i was willing to take risks and work hard. when i was in a job that i saw going nowhere is started looking. i moved up slowly, taking some jobs i hated just to get the skills to do something else. if i can do it anyone can.
again - taking large risk isn't for everyone, but no one is holding anyone down. it is a choice to stay in your situation, alter your situation, or scrap the whole damn thing and move on.

career counseling programs

You're joking, right? Where would the average person find such a critter? :confused:

That's pretty cool, Lookout123. When I visited some of the small towns in South GA where industry had fallen, I saw a lot of families that were unable to move on to other place, etc. Its good to see that it can be done with enough willpower.

Maybe its just some people fear change and movement? I'm not sure why so many would simply elect to suffer. A lot of the farmers I spoke with were too old to pick up another skill or get hired on somewhere else. A lot of them had families to worry about that couldn't be neglected in order to move to another city, etc. I've never considered what I would do in that position but I think being single and not having kids means I could be very flexible: the next day, I could sell all my stuff and find someplace new to go and work.

bruce i'm not kidding. check with your local DES office. i used to clerk for the Veteran's Affairs dept inside one of the DES offices. they typicall don't offer highpaying jobs, but they do help find jobs and they offer skills upgrade training. none of them are going to turn a mechanic into an accountant, but if someone is serious they should be willing to treat their career like a ladder - one step at a time.
besides the DES many colleges offer basic skills training in a number of areas at a reasonable cost, and obviously offer grants, scholarships, and loans.

thanks kitsune - i really am not looking for a pat on the back, i am not special, i haven't done anything extraordinary.
i seriously bristle when i hear people say that there are no jobs and ________is holding them back. what i have found is that no one can hold me down, but myself.
life is about weighing the risks and prioritizing. when i was a headhunter/recruiter a new VP came in and told me the only way i was going to make "real" money is in sales. i asked him to allow me to train in the sales dept in addition to my normal duties, he said no - he didn't think i had what it took to be a salesperson. i hadn't him my resignation on the spot. he asked where i was going and i told him i didn't know, but i knew that i would be selling something. i decided that if i was going to learn sales i was going to go into the most demanding sales environment around. 2 weeks later i was a car salesman (go LJ!). later that year i sold that VP a ford Excursion and just raked him over the coals on it, to the point that my commission on that deal paid my mortgage for 2 1/2 months. i sent him a thank you card with a PS that said "not bad for a guy who doesn't have what it takes to be a salesman, huh?"
i knew i wanted more, i took the leap and 2 positions later it has really paid off.

One thing that I ran into in South Georgia that I thought was very cool is the Georgia Freenet Project. Obviously, a lot of people don't have computers, so the state has several trailers that they haul around and setup temporary computer labs. The locals that elect to can get free training on how to use a computer when the van shows up in their town. I thought that was a very cool way to help assist those that need to expand their careers and feel trapped in a small town. Its run by volunteers.

lookout123 wrote:

what holds people to a job that they hate? no doubt there are some people that have no options, but i find that group to be pretty small.

It's bigger than you think.

i have found most people that are "stuck" in a position are really afraid to take the leap required to move into a different career, unwilling to sacrifice what they do have to get something better, or just not confident enough to say "i can do that"

Don't forget that in order to get something better, sometimes it takes more than what that person has, and I don't mean "guts" either.

complaining about not be able to get a better job isn't pointless if one isn't committed enough to their own success to do what it takes to become qualified for a better position.

Not always that easy.

Careers in IT, that's a great route to wallmart these days ;)

lookout123 wrote:

none of them are going to turn a mechanic into an accountant,

How about an accountant into a LION TAMER!
[size=1]sorry, just a bit of Python...[/size]

i think i will back out of this now. needless to say i believe in the indominatable will of men and women. those who want something badly enough, will attain it.