House defies Bush, votes to block new overtime rules

[Joeychgo]

House votes down new rules changing overtime eligibility
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - The House voted 223-193 Thursday to block the Bush administration's sweeping new eligibility rules for overtime pay, giving Democrats a significant victory that they hope will boost the party's standing among middle-class voters in key battleground states in the fall election.

Twenty-two pro-labor Republicans, most of them from the north and Midwest, joined a solid bloc of Democrats voting to prevent the Labor Department from enforcing the regulations, which took effect Aug. 23. But it is unclear if Thursday's action will stand.

The White House warned this week that President Bush might veto the underlying bill - a $142.5 billion measure funding education, worker training and health programs in 2005 - if it contains the overtime amendment attached to it Thursday.

Last year, the House added a similar provision blocking the rules, but GOP leaders, under strong pressure from the White House, jettisoned it during final House-Senate negotiations on the bill. But repeating that maneuver could be more politically perilous as the election nears, according to some legislative aides.

Business lobbies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Restaurant Association, favor the new rules, while major labor organizaitons have been seeking to undo them.

Thursday's vote came after months of political contention. Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has vowed to repeal the rules if elected, and Democrats have denounced the regulations as "the biggest pay cut in history."

Rest of the article HERE

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

:Beer

 

[MonsterMark]

Congratulations, I guess. Now less people will be eligible for overtime pay.

 

[Lincolnman]

Right on for Labor and the MIDDLECLASS :invasion:

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Congratulations, I guess. Now less people will be eligible for overtime pay.

You are undoubtedly referring to:

Under the new rules, workers who earn less than $23,660 a year will become automatically eligible for overtime pay, compared with the current threshold of $8,060, which was set in the 1970s. But critics say this gain is more than offset by other provisions that exempt certain administrative and white collar workers from overtime even if they work more than 40 hours a week.

Most of the people making between $8,060 and $23,660 a year are not working full time jobs anyway, so how is all of a sudden becoming "eligible" for OT going to help? Another empty promise. Thanks for throwing a bone...... but NO THANKS!

 

[Lincolnman]

You are undoubtedly referring to:



Most of the people making between $8,060 and $23,660 a year are not working full time jobs anyway, so how is all of a sudden becoming "eligible" for OT going to help? Another empty promise. Thanks for throwing a bone...... but NO THANKS!

Amen brother! :Beer :yourock: :iconcur:

 

[MonsterMark]

New overtime rules add needed clarity

[font=arial,helvetica]Your voice: Stephen S. Eberly [/font]






[snip]The federal government thought so, too, and on Aug. 21, instituted new rules that clarify employee rights and employer obligations. The revisions reflect changes in working America over the past several decades. The result is that:

• Overtime protections remain in place for blue-collar workers and emergency personnel.

• Certain highly paid employees are not entitled to overtime pay.

• The salary ceiling is higher for white-collar exemptions.

That is good news, and here's why.

The U.S. Department of Labor's revisions represent the first overhaul on overtime pay exemptions since 1949. Many of today's jobs didn't even exist in imaginations in 1949, much less in reality. Trying to apply decades-old guidelines to current employment practices created confusion for management and workers. Evaluating whether employees were non-exempt - meaning they were entitled to overtime if they worked more than 40 hours in a week - or exempt was difficult, based on complicated formulas and time analysis.

Today's rules make it easier. The job title doesn't matter when it comes to exemptions; the work does. While it's still true that salaried workers who perform certain types of work can be exempt, the tests to determine the exemption are simpler. These tests focus on the primary responsibility of the employee. If it is managing and making decisions, for example, that person is a good candidate for exempt status.

The government expects the new rules will provide overtime pay to an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers. While the new rules may cost employers in the short term, in the long term employers will save because of smoother compliance, reduced court costs, and quite simply, fewer headaches.

How the new regulations affect employees' status must be determined for each individual. This is a good time for employers to review and analyze pay practices. It may be time for employers to make a change, too.

--- Stephen S. Eberly is a partner in the Cincinnati office of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. He specializes in employment and labor matters.

Once again, the Dems who claim to support the working class, screws them over.

 

[Pepsi2185]

Im sorry, this is nothing to do with presidents, dems, reps neither. That ammendment was a huge pile of crap. You guys all know whatever loophole companies can find to cut costs they will.

 

[Lincolnman]

:yourock:

Im sorry, this is nothing to do with presidents, dems, reps neither. That ammendment was a huge pile of crap. You guys all know whatever loophole companies can find to cut costs they will.

 

[Joeychgo]

Ultimately, I think the proposed rules were little more then a farce. They just shifted things around a little...... Some would benefit, others would lose. But the issues wouldnt be resolved.

The spirit of exempt, salaried employees wasnt so companies could take advantage of the employees. Yet, companies routinely do so. As an example. If your a restaurant manager, your SCHEDULED for 50 hours a week, every week. No OT, and usually, you work 53-55 hours. But if the restaurant is slow, nobody is allowed to go home early. There is always something to do somewhere.

Thats not right. Basically, the loopholes in the rules have allowed companies to ignore the 40hr rule and move it to 50-55 hours. Restaurant companies actually ADVERTISE a 50 hour work week in their help wanted ads -- like its a PLUS! That should tell you something.

My problem? Several points. First, this costs jobs. For every 4 managers working 50+ hours, you could create another job by enforcing the 40hr rule better. Second, those extra 10-15 hours a week are hours those people are not spending with their children - that is 2 hours per day! -- Isnt it more important to spend that time parenting?

Im talking about the common practice of SCHEDULING people to work 50+ hours a week, and hiding behind these rules to save money. IM not talking about scheduled to work 8-4 but it takes til 6 to get the job done, im talking your there 8-6 at least REGARDLESS of if your job was done. Ever watched a restaurant manager work? They are often working along side a $6 an hour employee, doing the same tasks. They arent performing a 'Managerial' task most of the time, and the Managerial tasks they USUALLY complete, is completing paperwork ~~ thats it.

Thats the most simple rule to be made. If you routinely SCHEDULE an employee to work more then 40 hrs, he is not exempt from OT.

 

[MonsterMark]

I agree Joey but the basic intent of the legislation was to provide more overtime pay to low wage earners.

 

[Joeychgo]

I agree Joey but the basic intent of the legislation was to provide more overtime pay to low wage earners.

Then why would some people LOSE?

Whether or not more people would be served is debatable depending on who you talk to and whos numbers you use.

Their salary threshold, 23,000 a year - breaks down to about $9 an hour @50 hours......... You would make the same if you only made $8 an hour and got overtime for the extra 10 hours.

Most Servers make 10+ an hour...

These are the low wage earners we are talking about right?

Trust me when I say, they did nobody in the restaurant business any favors. I dont know what their intent was, but I can tell you, the whole thing goes against the spirit of the original wage laws and against common sense. This is but another law set to benefit the big money people, and not the little guy.

And you wonder why im not republican? This is one of GW's deals Bryan. This is the kind of thing that Keeps me from voting from GW. He may or may not be good fighting the war on terror (a different discussion) - but domestically, especially for the middle and little guy - he is terrible. He is doing nothing while those jobs go overseas, he is doing nothing while all our costs skyrocket, mostly due to fuel, but he is benefitting the upper income people, who take their money and spend it overseas settin up new companies in china. Where is the sense???


And before you give me the "Trickle Down Economics" speech, realize -- "Trickle Down Economics" = "We're pissing on you"

 

[Lincolnman]

Then why would some people LOSE?

Whether or not more people would be served is debatable depending on who you talk to and whos numbers you use.

Their salary threshold, 23,000 a year - breaks down to about $9 an hour @50 hours......... You would make the same if you only made $8 an hour and got overtime for the extra 10 hours.

Most Servers make 10+ an hour...

These are the low wage earners we are talking about right?

Trust me when I say, they did nobody in the restaurant business any favors. I dont know what their intent was, but I can tell you, the whole thing goes against the spirit of the original wage laws and against common sense. This is but another law set to benefit the big money people, and not the little guy.

And you wonder why im not republican? This is one of GW's deals Bryan. This is the kind of thing that Keeps me from voting from GW. He may or may not be good fighting the war on terror (a different discussion) - but domestically, especially for the middle and little guy - he is terrible. He is doing nothing while those jobs go overseas, he is doing nothing while all our costs skyrocket, mostly due to fuel, but he is benefitting the upper income people, who take their money and spend it overseas settin up new companies in china. Where is the sense???


And before you give me the "Trickle Down Economics" speech, realize -- "Trickle Down Economics" = "We're pissing on you"

GO JOEY GO!!! :dj:

 

[Joeychgo]

GO JOEY GO!!! :dj:

GAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[djKale]

Second, those extra 10-15 hours a week are hours those people are not spending with their children - that is 2 hours per day! -- Isnt it more important to spend that time parenting?

That's exactly what I have been thinking lately. I have been SCHEDULED for 72 hours per week for the last six weeks. It really doesn't make any sense to me. The company could hire more employess and probably save money. Even if it doesn't actual save dollars, it would be a HUGE morale booster.

:: frustrated ::

Kale

 

[Lincolnman]

That's exactly what I have been thinking lately. I have been SCHEDULED for 72 hours per week for the last six weeks. It really doesn't make any sense to me. The company could hire more employess and probably save money. Even if it doesn't actual save dollars, it would be a HUGE morale booster.

:: frustrated ::

Kale

Thats too much like right. :headbang: