New Overtime Rules to Take Effect Monday

DKSuddeth

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
5,175
61
48
North Texas
WASHINGTON - In an unprecedented overhaul of the nation's overtime pay rules, the Bush administration is delivering to its business allies an election-year plum they've sought for decades.

The new rules take effect Monday after surviving many efforts by Democrats, labor unions and worker advocates to block them in Congress and kill them through public and political pressure. The administration and business groups say the old regulations were out of date and confusing, and were sparking multimillion dollar lawsuits.

The Labor Department says no more than 107,000 workers will lose overtime eligibility from the changes, but about 1.3 million will gain it. The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington think tank, says 6 million will lose, and only a few will get new rights to premium pay for working more than 40 hours a week.

But no one really knows. That makes the issue harder to demonize politically, a benefit — or a problem — depending on the side you take.

"I do not see any kind of rush by employers to take away overtime rights," said Bill Schurgin, a labor attorney for the Seyfarth Shaw law firm in Chicago, who represents employers preparing for Monday's change. Critics claim that 6 million workers will lose eligibility is "a red herring."

Regardless, "nobody should get their overtime pay taken away," said Karen Nussbaum, executive director of Working America, an AFL-CIO organization created for workers unable to join unions.

About 115 million workers are covered by the overtime rules in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.

Monday's change is the culmination of decades of lobbying by business groups representing retailers, restaurants, insurance companies, banks and others that have been hammered by workers' overtime lawsuits, many of them successful.

Wal-Mart is facing dozens of worker lawsuits claiming they were cheated out of overtime and worked off the clock. An appeals court upheld a $90 million verdict against Farmers Insurance Exchange, sued for overtime by claims adjusters. Other companies that have made multimillion-dollar payouts include Starbucks, Radio Shack, Rite Aid and Bank of America.

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao told Congress the new rules would help stop "needless litigation" because it is designed to clarify who's entitled to overtime. Critics say the rules will prompt even more lawsuits.

yahoo news

Now, the question that I have is after these take effect and there actually is a rush by employers and 6 million+ lose OT, will the reaction by the pro-bush crowd be 'so what?' or will there be any outrage, or will it be a non-reaction similar to the immigration stance?
 
DKSuddeth said:
Now, the question that I have is after these take effect and there actually is a rush by employers and 6 million+ lose OT, will the reaction by the pro-bush crowd be 'so what?' or will there be any outrage, or will it be a non-reaction similar to the immigration stance?

Now I have a question.... if the labor department is right, are you going to come back and say, I over-reacted by thinking the The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington think tank, was being honest?
 
Anyway, labor is worth whatever somebody will pay you for it. If you are not willing to work in a job that doesn't have overtime, don't take the job.

All those against this are actually happy to see it. They are just trying to give Bush a black-eye.

The UNIONS are fighting hard against this. Why? Unions are exempt. They are covered under collective bargaining agreements. The Unions are just against this as they think it make the prez look bad. The labor department is right, but you won't hear that from the media/left/democrats/unions, etc.

The unions WANT this to pass. That way they can RECRUIT more union workers. They can say, "hey, we pay overtime....."
 
freeandfun1 said:
Now I have a question.... if the labor department is right, are you going to come back and say, I over-reacted by thinking the The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington think tank, was being honest?

I personally don't care which group is what but if it will make YOU feel better, I'll call the 'liberal washington think tank' a bunch of overreacting idiots. My issue with this legislation, and the ongoing political process's in general, is the ever-increasing look and feel of big-business owned politicians.
 
If I recall, this policy allows companies to 'not have to' pay overtime? This is a HUGE benefit for those who are willing to work more than 40 hrs for straight pay. There are people who NEED the hours, but can't work them because the company can't afford time-and-a-half.
 
DKSuddeth said:
I personally don't care which group is what but if it will make YOU feel better, I'll call the 'liberal washington think tank' a bunch of overreacting idiots. My issue with this legislation, and the ongoing political process's in general, is the ever-increasing look and feel of big-business owned politicians.

"It's been on the regulatory agenda since the Carter administration. It shouldn't be this controversial."

Me thinks you are just being paranoid.
 
freeandfun1 said:
Me thinks you are just being paranoid.

Let me ask you this, why should an employer have to pay overtime to every employee? So if I send somebody to a trade-show for a week to meet customers, should I have to pay them overtime? You have to think beyond factory workers.

If someone has an employee that they need to send to 'trade shows' then I would think that the employee should be a salaried employee, but thats just me.
 
DKSuddeth said:
If someone has an employee that they need to send to 'trade shows' then I would think that the employee should be a salaried employee, but thats just me.

But that is what this law is clearing up. Who is salaried and who isn't. It is also allowing employers to provide comp time instead of pay.

Not every business is a huge corporation. A matter-of-fact, small businesses make up about 80 - 85% of the employers.
 
freeandfun1 said:
The unions WANT this to pass. That way they can RECRUIT more union workers. They can say, "hey, we pay overtime....."

I was under the impression is was difficult to get on full time with most unionized companies. There are companies in Canada where people work for years without being able to join, which means they are without benefits. Unless you mean Unions want more employees to organize and join the local chapter, then I would agree with your point.
 
Said1 said:
I was under the impression is was difficult to get on full time with most unionized companies. There are companies in Canada where people work for years without being able to join, which means they are without benefits. Unless you mean Unions want more employees to organize and join the local chapter, then I would agree with your point.

They want you to join so they can get your dues from you, so they can continue to support the DNC with YOUR money and so they can gather more power.

JMHO!
 
freeandfun1 said:
They want you to join so they can get your dues from you, so they can continue to support the DNC with YOUR money and so they can gather more power.

JMHO!


Ahmen brother! Unions do have a small amount of usefulness, but, for the most part, I think they would rather see an employer go bankrupt before going back to the bargaining table.
 
Ok im confused on this.

Under the new law people will be allowed to work past 40 hours for straight pay if they want to? It will be the Companies discretion to offer overtime to its employees? Whats the deal here?
 

Forum List

Back
Top