What about Bush* ending overtime pay in the US?

[DemBones DemBones]

I posted this yesterday in GD, to little response. Since I only posted after not seeing any other posts about this, I've been wondering why this issue isn't resounding at DU. No one here can relate to it? Lost among too many other stories?

Leading Democrats Go AWOL on Overtime Vote

Seven House dems, including Gephardt, missed the vote on guaranteed overtime pay. The measure, which passed 213-210, would deny overtime pay to between 1 million and 8 million American workers. Kucinich was present for the vote and voted against it.

". . . Under the new rules, backed by the Bush administration and campaigned for heavily by business lobbyists, those employees would still have to put in extra hours. They just wouldn't get any extra pay. Instead, some would qualify for comp time—try paying the rent with that—and others would simply be reclassified as executives, even if they wield little managerial authority."
The article states that the bill is likely to pass the Senate and that none of the Democratic candidates except Kucinich and Dean returned phone calls. The author isn't particularly happy with them, either, since they haven't made this a major issue and only Kucinich promises to reverse this bill when elected. The White House, on the other hand, worked overtime to do away with overtime pay.

". . . The president took a high-profile stand before the House vote, threatening to veto the education, health, and human-services spending bill if an amendment blocking his new overtime rules wasn't lifted. For a president who has presided over the largest net job loss since Herbert Hoover to show such determination to cut workers' overtime pay is, in the words of UFCW chief lobbyist Michael Wilson, "handing the Democrats an issue."

"If only. The day after the defeated amendment in the House, Wilson did show some fire in his belly toward the Democrats, and Gephardt in particular. Wilson said he now wants all the candidates to state publicly that on the day they're elected president, they will immediately announce the reversal of the Bush policy. So far, only Kucinich has said unequivocally that he will."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0329/valance.php


What is with the Democrats? Do they think Americans want overtime pay eliminated? This will be disastrous for the many who depend on working regular overtime hours. Receiving comp time is not the same as getting money to pay your bills! I expect that people deprived of overtime pay will lose not only the luxuries like fishing boats, family vacations, and college educations for their kids, but also the necessities like cars, homes, medical expenses. Some will be forced into bankruptcy, if they are even able to file under new laws designed to protect creditors. Of course the Bushies already took care of their friends there by requiring that credit card companies must be paid before any other obligation a bankrupt person has. It seems unfair to me that the government will allow corporations, which should have substantial business acumen, to go bankrupt but will deny the "privilege" to individual citizens, especially in an economic climate that encourages people to overextend themselves financially.

[lcordero]

1. Thing is that I wouldn't even know how to retaliate other than e-mailing

and trying to call the DNC chairman, Pelosi and my Representative.

[leftyandproud]

2. the reason..

I think is that overtime pay has NOT been eliminated...From what I've read on the bil, the decision is left up to the employee...They now have the option of comp time or overtime. Comp time is a ripoff in my view...since it is based on their regular hours. You can get 8 hours overtime, which is 1.5X your regular pay, your you can take an equal number of hours off. I would rather have the overtime, but if someone really wants the time off, it's up to them. I don't think the bill eliminates overtime. It just gives people the choice...at least that is what I've read about it.

[punpirate]

3. No, it's not entirely up to the employee...

... because of the deferral clause. The _employer_, at its discretion, can defer either financial compensation and/or comp time for up to 13 months.

Moreover, it puts everyone over something like $23K per year in the non-exempt category, if the employer chooses to do so (how many would not?).

Once exempt, comp time is a thing of the past. Most employers say comp time is an available option, but it's designed to prevent one from taking it. If you have deadlines to meet, guess what--they're always there, and as an exempt employee, it's your job to see that they're met.

Believe me, I know--I spent 3-1/2 years doing 80-90 hours a week, and took about 80 hours of comp time in that period, even though that translated to almost three years worth of actual comp time.

What's the easiest way to ensure that someone can't use the comp time accrued? Pin their job to performance results, then lay off someone in that department. Someone has to make up for that lost manpower.

Cheers.

[dfong63]

5. decision left to the employee, but

... if you make the wrong choice, they'll find a way to punish you.

tax cuts for the rich, overtime pay cuts for the working people.

[Code_Name_D]

4. You can kiss the 40hours work week good by.

The problem is that this bill removes a vital check and balance in the labor field. It's not just time and 1/2, but a system to regulate the 40 hour work week.

Under 40 hours, you get your normal wages. W. But any thing over 40 is then Wx1.2. But again, any thing over 80 hours is double time. So lets say you put in 120 hours a week. A grueling work schedule. I know, I have had to work this on more than one occasion. You would pull in the following.

(40 x W) + (40 x W x 1.5) + (40 x W x 2)
40w + 60w + 80w
180w

Or the equivalent of 180 hours works for normal wages. Subtract 180 – 120 = 60 hours. So the employer paid me the equivalent of 60 additional hours. But what if you highered 2 additional people? This changes the formula.

(40 x W) + (40 x W) + (40 x W)
or literally, 120w

Now quick quiz. Which is cheaper? 180w or 120w, per week? You guessed it. When the system is aloud to work, long hours actually encouraged employers to higher more people and reduce the hours. This made it easier for those already on the pay role, but also effected unemployment as well by bringing in new workers.

The 40 hour work week was FDR's answer form some of the slave like conditions many workers were having to endure on the job. In fact, a 24 hour work cycle was actually common during the height of the great depression. Minors would spend whole weeks in the mines, and only being aloud short brakes. Sleep deprivation became one of the occupational hazards. It seemed ridiculous that some workers were working themselves to death, latterly, even while long lines of the unemployed snaked around the building.

But over time pay was the means of enforcing the 40 hour work week. It wouldn't require any federal agent looking over the employer's shoulder ether in that the system is self regulating.

But some where in the 70's, they let the system start to brake down as benefits began to accumulate on the workers pay check. The biggest one there happens to be health care. And these benefits change the formula significantly.

The one worker at 120 hours.
(40 x W) + (40 x W x 1.5) + (40 x W x 2) + B
40w + 60w + 80w + b
180w + b

The three workers at 40 hours each.
(40 x W) + B + (40 x W) + B + (40 x W) + B
120w + 3b

Now its no longer cut an dry because there is a second factor in the works. If B is 30 times larger than w, or more, than it becomes cheaper to make you work longer hours, than to higher more help. In real life terms; if you're monthly benefits are worth more than 120 times your hourly wage (30 times 3 weeks), than it becomes cheaper to make you work more hours, than to higher more workers.

A lot of this stuff is mandatory too. Things like workers compensation, expenses to your employment that you do not normally see on your check.

But do away with over time, and look what happens.

One worker at 120 hours.
120x + b

Three workers at 40 hours.
120w + 3b

Again, which is cheaper?

Now some yaw-who is no doubt going to come along and say, "But Code Name, the workers will be compensated through comp time!" Okay, lets look at that.

As I understand comp time, for each hour over time you work, you get an hour off. So, if you work 80 hours, you warn only 80w, but have 40 hours off. But I have one question. Is this with, or without pay?

Let's assume it's with pay, and with a rate equal to W. You work 80 hours, so you earn 80w. Plus, you have 40 hours vacation time at W for 40w in pay promised to you when you take that time off. Supposedly at your choosing. So you have acquired 120w in pay for 80 hours work. Hmm, that don't sound right, dose it. Let's try that again. This time (for the sake of consistency) you work 120 hours. You have just earned 120w + 80w in promised pay for a grand total of 200w for 120 hours worked. That would make the old over time pay system cheaper than this comp time plan, so Mr. Cynicism tells me that this can't be the case. Even if you only get half pay for this comp time, than this is no better than the current over time pay.

BUT. I notice one caveat. The word "promised" becomes key. The employee wouldn't earn this money in the same week he worked. And quite possibly, not even in the same month. And I wonder what this will do to the "mandatory over time" employees like what you would find at Cessna and Beachcraft. Here, 80 hour work weeks is normal, with the "over time" being above 80 hours. Of course, the employees still get time and a half. What happens to that comp time then?

Oh, but no pay for this comp time looks extremely attractive to the pointy haired boss, because of the formulas I just gave you. Even more, he now has a free-be to lay you off with out actually laying you off. The idea that you can chose when you can take this time off is dubious at best. You will probably have as much say as how much over time you have to work, and when. Then there is an old adage in business that seems to be in vogue now, "better for me to owe it to you, than to cheat you out of it."

But regardless of weather it is paid comp time or not, it has no effect on that check against the average work hours per employee. The 40 hour work week is standard, regardless of the pay grade. Get rid of over time, and there is no longer any control over the average hours worked. Especially with lay-off's all the rage for fashionable CEO's.

This bill isn't just going to effect those who are on over time. It will effect us ALL. If your not working over time now, you will be soon.

[jafap]

7. I need time and a half for reading this post

This has been talked about before on DU. Many agreed with me that it will come back to haunt the Repubs. Maybe they are doing it now because they have the voting machines rigged.
I emailed my Republican congressman about it and said basically "I effing dare you to". I also emailed the labor department, and asked them if they were sure that Carl Rove had authorized this move.
I just read HR 1119 yesterday, although we are probably talking about a different bill by now. Anyway, it does seem to provide safeguards - the comp time is time and a half (that is if you work a 60 hour week, you would get paid 40 hours and earn 30 hours of paid comp time, so you would earn 70 hours, just like now), and must be used or paid in the next 13 months, and is at the discretion of the employee, and cannot be made a condition of employment, etc.
I can see a problem if over-time is only offered to those who will take comp time, but I have never seen over-time offered on a pick and choose basis. My prediction is that if people lose over-time pay because of this that they will not only vote those responsible out of office - they will tear them apart with their bare hands.

[Code_Name_D]

8. When a safeguard isn't a safeguard.

Anyway, it does seem to provide safeguards - the comp time is time and a half (that is if you work a 60 hour week, you would get paid 40 hours and earn 30 hours of paid comp time, so you would earn 70 hours, just like now), and must be used or paid in the next 13 months, and is at the discretion of the employee, and cannot be made a condition of employment,

One question I have what happen to double time? Any thing over 40 is 1 and 1/2 your wages. But any thing over 80 hours is twice your wages. Is that in there too?

My second question is how will this compensation be provided? To use your example, lets say I work 70 hours in a week. Do I earn 60w in wages that week, and retain (which can take up to a year to receive) 10w in wages + 10 hours off? (I will call that scheme A) Or do I earn only 40w in wages that week, and retain 30w in wages and 10 hours off? (That I will call scheme B) The later would be extremely blatant, but I would not put it past them.

Thirdly, I have to ask a safe guard for whom? The unions don't want this, but industry douse. This alone should tell us something is up. In fact, the vary manner in which the ever time law is being changed, tells us that these safeguards do not exist. Because they can always come back next year, and removed the safeguards in the provisions, or find a new loop hole. One always has to read the fine print, because trust me, not all of the cards are on the table here, and several aces are still unaccounted for.

If comp time is indeed time and a half, then why change the current system? Obviously, because these payments can be deferred for 13 months, or "ahem" one year. Oh boy, I am already seeing a bureaucratic night mare there. But let's take a closer look at this.

For one thing, we will have to expand our model from one week, to one year or more. So lets take another look at the current model with two years work time. With an optimal work week. That would be 48 work weeks at 40 hours each. For a grand sum of 1920w. Now lets say in one month, the worker has 4 weeks of 60 hour days. That would be 80 additional hours

That would be 1920w + (80w x 1.5) or 2040w.

Now under the new plan. If we assume scheme A, and that this comp time is paid in the same year, we run into a problem. Where dose the comp time work into this scheme. To claim comp time, you have to take time off. So the formula above would be incorrect. Some where in there, 80 hours or regular work time must be replaced by the comp time.

So the correct formula would look like this.
1920w – 80w + (80w x 1.5)
1840w + (80w x 1.5)
1920w

Ah, now we are getting to see a fuller picture. In other words, our genie pig would lose the equivalent of 120w in wages between the two systems.

But lets look at scheme A where the comp time is deferred to the next year. No joy here. You would just earn:
2000w with no comp time compensation.

Of course, that 80 hours comp time would turn up the next year. But again, only if you take that time off? Same as above.

Now what happens if the time runs out? The idea that they would have to pay this at the end of 13 months would seem to imply that the company would have to pony up at the end of the period, so here you might take in the full 1920w + (80w x 1.5). But here is what I ran into last year, running out of work. If this would happen to our gunny pig, what choice dose he really have?

[ikojo]

6. Gephardt's no show on July 10 overtime vote

I wrote a letter to the editor and had it published in the St Louis Post Dispatch. That is one way for people to get the issue out there. I also posted this information on the St Louis indymedia site which is another way of reaching people.

TRUST ME this resonates with me because I work in the insurance industry and have worked for employers who required 30 hours a month of MANDATORY overtime.

If I work overtime I want to be paid MONEY not comp time but MONEY. If you as an employer requires me to work additional hours that should come at a HIGH cost. Remember that when overtime laws were instituted it was to act as a DETERRENT to the employer and encourage hiring more people rather than making current employees work more hours.

Since Bush and his rich friends have never really worked a job and had to depend upon the resulting check there is no way they will ever understand what cutting out overtime pay will do. Remember most people in the Senate are millionaires or pretty darn close to it and some of them are Democrats.

[fortyfeetunder]

9. I am going to keep kicking this one up until we get a clue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59234-2003Jul28.html?referrer=emailarticlepg

What most Americans don't realize is businesses are all for eliminating OT pay. The most draconian measure is the definition of learned professionals. A police officer or fire fighter could very well fit in that category.

..."Business groups, on the other hand, applauded the department's work and asked for more exemptions.

The Illinois Credit Union League asked for language making it clear that loan officers, executive assistants, compliance specialists, credit managers and bookkeepers hold a "position of responsibility" and should be exempt from overtime requirements.

The National Funeral Directors Association asked that funeral directors and embalmers be specified as ineligible for overtime to avoid "confusion and litigation" over their employment status.

The National Association of Broadcasters, which represents owners of television and radio stations, wants the rule to make it more explicit that television and radio reporters, producers, directors, news camerapersons, and "other relevant jobs" are ineligible for overtime..."

These aren't the big wigs, these are us little people who can be exempted from OT pay....