Screwed by a Bush?

[Scott]

I can't believe it. How many of us got screwed last night when the Bush administration got it's wish and changed the overtime rules?

I guess I shouldn't be pissed, after all 20% of the lowest paid Americans are now elidigible for overtime where they were not before and thousands of companies will save millions.

Yup easier to pay overtime to someone who makes $10.00/hr as opposed to me making 3x that much. Of course the happy companies will get the low income individuals productivity as opposed to mine, If there's any justice maybe the companies will get some screwing too.

I sit here thinking that I may just quit my job, let my house go to hell and join that 20%. It truly "no longer pays" to work your ass off to become a more productive member of society, a better parrent, a better home owner etc. One by one all the incentives that kept my nose to the grindstone are being removed.

I bust my ass to make my house/yard better and got a new assessment, yup my taxes went up. My neighbor let his go to hell and some of Jimmy Carters friends came over and spent thousands to up-grade his property, along with the property tax break he also got, he's pretty happy.

WTF? Color me really pissed this morning. Thanks for putting up with the rant.

So did you loose your overtime? Were you even aware of the bill?

Guess I'm just another Ant!

[CDave]

Got a link to what happened?

[at100plus]

What 'rules' did he change?

I think you're right, Jimmy Carter and his buddies would like to reward the lazy for standing on the corner all day, collecting section 8 and drinking a 40, but I think you may have the Bush administration's intentions all wrong.

[heath brinkley]

what happened? I don't keep up with all that ****, all it does is piss you off. It's not like you can do anything about it anyway.

[heath brinkley]

Just went to USA today and read,, but it gave no details to speak of. Do you know the details of the new ruling?

[Scott]

Here's the link.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Valentine
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:25 AM
To: Scott Raby
Subject: info

Scott
you may want to offer your comments (on or before Monday).....go to
article....see links at bottom


Bush Plan May Cut Overtime for Millions

link
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20030625%2F181602537.htm&sc=1110&photoid=20030625RE111

Information
on submitting comments:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/proposed/2003033101.htm
<http://channels.netscape.com/ns/wrap/linker.jsp?rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchannels.netscape.com%2Fns%2Fnews%2Fstory.jsp%3Ffloc%3DFF-APO-1110%26idq%3D%2Fff%2Fstory%2F0001%252F20030625%252F181602537.htm%26sc%3D1110%26photoid%3D20030625RE1 11&rcn=Return%20to%20News&turl=http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/proposed/2003033101.htm>



<!--
.floatleft190 { width:190px; float:left; padding: 0px 0px 10px 0px;}
-->
Bush Plan May Cut Overtime for Millions By LEIGH STROPE
WASHINGTON (AP) - More than 8 million professionals would lose their
overtime pay under a Bush administration proposal to change the types
of jobs that must receive more money for extra work, says a study by a
union-supported think tank. The analysis being released Thursday by
the Economic Policy Institute is among the first to assess how many
workers might be affected by the Labor Department's revisions to the
overtime rules, which were proposed in March. Businesses and labor
unions agree that the current Fair Labor Standards Act regulations are
confusing and antiquated. But they disagree about how to update them.
The Labor Department estimated that under its proposal, at least
644,000 well-paid, white-collar workers would lose overtime pay for
working more than 40 hours a week, while 1.3 million lower-wage workers
now exempt from overtime would become eligible, or must receive a
raise.
Overall, nearly 22 million workers could be affected, though specific
jobs and their status could not be determined, officials said.
But the institute says the department ``woefully underestimates'' the
changes that would occur if the proposal is implemented.
In 78 job classifications that the group examined out of 257
white-collar occupations, an estimated 8 million workers would lose
their right to overtime pay.
Another 1.3 million people would lose overtime pay under the proposed
salary test that exempts all nonmanual workers earning $65,000 or more,
regardless of their duties.
The new definitions of professional, administrative and executive
employees remove specific duties and education requirements, giving
employers wide latitude to reclassify their workers, the study says.

Among the millions of jobs that will lose overtime, according to the
study: emergency medical technicians, paralegals, licensed practical
nurses, draftsmen, surveyors, reporters, editors, chefs, cooks, dental
hygienists and health technicians.
Workers covered by union contracts will not be affected.
Labor Department officials say the changes renew the focus on low-wage
earners, which the law was intended to protect. Business groups long
have complained that the convoluted rules require overtime pay for
already well-compensated and highly skilled professionals while
ignoring those at the bottom.
Monday is the last day to submit comments on the proposal.
On the Net:
Labor Department proposal: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/
<http://channels.netscape.com/ns/wrap/linker.jsp?rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchannels.netscape.com%2Fns%2Fnews%2Fstory.jsp%3Ffloc%3DFF-APO-1110%26idq%3D%2Fff%2Fstory%2F0001%252F20030625%252F181602537.htm%26sc%3D1110%26photoid%3D20030625RE1 11&rcn=Return%20to%20News&turl=http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/>

Information on submitting comments:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/proposed/2003033101.htm
<http://channels.netscape.com/ns/wrap/linker.jsp?rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchannels.netscape.com%2Fns%2Fnews%2Fstory.jsp%3Ffloc%3DFF-APO-1110%26idq%3D%2Fff%2Fstory%2F0001%252F20030625%252F181602537.htm%26sc%3D1110%26photoid%3D20030625RE1 11&rcn=Return%20to%20News&turl=http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/proposed/2003033101.htm>

06/25/03 18:15
© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information
contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or
otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The
Associated Press.


ere's the link

[CDave]

I see the problem, Bush got the Unions involved.:mad:

Just another reason to castrate Unions power..

[at100plus]

That article is very vague. Hard to draw any conclusions.

[heath brinkley]

well, looks like I may have more time on the lake beginning next year.;)

[halveb]

I personally think overtime is the biggest ripoff for business. I myself haven't been eligible for overtime for many years. As someone who is responsible for productivity I don't like to see anyone working overtime.

Studies have shown your average person is productive for about 60% of the day. The other 40% is taken up with chit chat, day dreaming, whatever. Before you flame me I would like to say I am no exception to the rule (there are actually few who are).

After 8 hours productivity falls even more yet in many cases you have to pay the person at 150% of their rate of pay and in many cases up to 200% of their rate of pay. Look at this from the business owners standpoint and when you do don't think of Walmart think of one of the guys on this board who services outboards. Can he charge you 50% more because someone worked overtime? I doubt most people would be willing to pay extra to get less. So who absorbs those dollars?

My second point is that it isn't good for anyone to consistently work more than 40 hours. I know many people do to makes ends meet but in the long run it isn't good for you. There are many poorly paying jobs and I'm glad that I'm not in one of them. For the unfortunate that are there are three options:

1) Get a better job (not just better pay for same work especially if it above that average wage for that job since that will only last awhile...you will get cut).

2) Adjust your lifestyle so it matches your income (very difficult for most people).

3) Work your butt off by putting in too many hours (probably die young from too much stress :( ).

[at100plus]

Halvb makes some good points.

From what I see, there are more and more slouches making good money these days and doing little production. That affects the businesses and in turn affects the economy.

Lots of people are enjoying the free ride the libs have been pushing for in the name of rights and equality....

In my opinion, George Bush is looking out for the big picture, the future. He makes real changes, (not changes that appear great now and cause disaster later). Bush is not afraid to appeal to the intelligent who can forsee the benefit of these changes.

In a way, I think the democrats feel the majority of people are stupid, that's why they appeal to the right here and now, (give it to me now and give it to me for nothing mentality). That's the difference between liberal and conservative in a nutshell.

[CDave]

Well I work offshore as a mechanic and work seven days on/seven days off.

I'm on a offshore platform for 7 days. I can't go home at night, I can't do anything but work or be on stand-by until there is work to do. I get payed 12hrs a day for 7 days.
If I didn't get OT pay there would be no incentive to do what I do. If my employer can't pay me OT they will have to adjust my hourly rate to compensate me and the other mechanics or we will find other fields to work in. So, weither I get OT or not I'm gonna make the same money, more or less. There is already a shortage of people that want to do what I do so cutting OT isn't going to work.

It's not uncommon to work 24 or more hours straight or have to get up in the middle of the night to fix a compressor. If these compressors aren't runnin' Y'all ain't gettin' no Nat Gas. Think about that come winter time.

I've got a better plan, Instead of cutting OT why not cut all the government programs that suck our paychecks dry, close to 50% in taxes, and I won't have to work the hours I do.

[heath brinkley]

I see your pionts about productivity, but I'm with CDave.
I work 16 hour shifts which have often tuned into 24 or 40 straight. I am one of only a couple who work the shift, and sometimes alone for 8 of 'em. If work is there, it must be done and be done quickly, so we have to be productive since there is noone else to do it for you. If I don't receive overtime, I'm not going to put myself in those circumstances anymore. Then who will be more upset when administration can't find anybody to cover those shifts. If you employee's are only productive 60% of the shift, find new employee's.

[at100plus]

Cddave is right though, if the gov't doesn't govern what companies pay in terms of overtime, the demand and the value of the job will dictate, hence, people will get paid what they are worth. What I'm saying is, companies will adjust the salary to attract the quality of employee it needs to do the job and to work the hours it needs. The problem this new law might address is the slouches who do nothing and just show up to the job for more than 30 hours. Those who are overpaid soley because of these OT laws.

I think George W is working on all that wasteful tax money going into useless programs too don't you?

[Scott]

The blanket statement that I am "well compensated" doesn't apply. I work through an engineering company. I have no benefits. Do I make good money? yes I'm well paid, but when they call me in after my 40 the extra pay is my only compensation.

I just take issue with the "already well compensated" statement. To assume that because I make X dollars, I don't need any more, or that I shouldn't be paid any more. And then to justify taking away my OT because low income person X dosent make as much. WTF.

Low income person X should have worked 2 jobs to put himeslf through college, he should have worked and lived the next 2 years of his life in a crap apartment to pay off his student loans.....then maybe low income person X would be making more, of course then low income person X would be higher income person X and "they" would just take away any extra money he made to pass it along to another low income person X.

I'm sorry, this just smacks of a big business kiss ass and another re-distribution of wealth. Companies will now be able to pay overtime to those making less money and say FU to others. Lets see if I am available the next time they call me after my 40. And let's see if low income Bubba can solve the problem when they call him.

I do my job, I do it consistantly and I do it well. Thats why I'm not low income person x. For the first time in my life I wish I WAS IN a union.

Love George, support him, voted for he and his father, but this move seems wrong to me.

[heath brinkley]

I'm with you Scott. Like I said, more time on the water, cause I damn sure won't be doing over 40 without OT.

[Scott]

see halvb's point and yes there are those who take advantage of the OT if available. But there are those of us that don't count on it as part of our income, that don't live way past our means but did see the OT as payment for the inconvienience of the extra hours we were asked to work.

Sea ya on the water Heath!

[sho305]

I don't find the details yet, but sounds to me like this removes some union-like blanket laws about OT pay. If it is that bad unions will spring up and get it back, or people will not work that job and pay will go up. In any case, the easy OT $$ will get cut out and we will gain what the lazy dude was getting for nothing.

I worked 60-80hrs straight pay at a job, though it was not described that way of course; they just got around it and I was still happy to take the cash they offered. Most of the OT was waiting for something to happen because the customer could not manage their affairs competently(oops, they are bankrupt now!). People just will not work it if they don't want to. On some jobs it is much cheaper to work the same worker for more hours even with OT due to the job type and costs. They know it, and will get paid for it. Most salary people I know get hot at over 45-50 hours unless they are raking the bucks or a bonus.

I sure wish more people looked at their taxes and saw how much goes to Uncle Sam....I think you should have to pay it like a bill:D Write a check every month and people would feel it.

[halveb]

There are many jobs (off-shore drilling, etc.) where it isn't economically feasible to have nice and neat 40 hour shifts. In those cases usually people are well compensated to deal with the unpleasantness of working hard and long hours. My comments weren't directed at situations that I would consider Industry standard.

I agree if overtime is a normal part of a work environment and the government has stepped in and forced straight time pay most of those situations will change the base wage so there is no effect to the worker (in essence I hope they don't see it as a windfall).

Scott,

I know what you mean about hourly wage and it ain't what it seems especially to those who are salaried with benefits (of which I am one). In my tax business I console people all the time about what it takes to be an independant contractor. Most people don't even realize their employer is paying half of their social security bill. The first time they do their taxes and find an extra 7.65% bite taken out (even though I have told them about it) it comes as a big shock.

If I were you I would sit down with company that represents you as an independant or if you are truly on your own with the company you contract with and let them know you are concerned about the affect this will have on you. I think you may be surprised, if they like your work they may say we can work it out such that you will still get compensated the same based on your average number of hours put in.

Good luck and see you at the Rumble.

[BK]

Most business owners are probably going to love this new ruling. OT pay cuts deep in the profits of small companies.

If we still owned our boat company, this new law would probably have cut our payroll expense by 15%. The problem we'd have would be the angry plant manager and shop foreman who would now be spending those extra 10 hours per week not getting paid for their time.

We didn't always ask the workers to stay overtime every week, and it was always voluntary. Not many would pass on getting time and a half. Only when the boats were still not finished and the customer was on his way to pick it up did we need to ask them to stay longer.

It could be that they'd sandbag some times, when they had extra bills coming up, and they purposely drag their feet on building the boat so they'd get time-and-a-half, but as long as the boat got done when necessary, that's all that mattered to us. Happy employees meant well-built boats.

That overtime pay meant a lot to our employees, and I knew some of them stayed on with us (passing up higher-paying no-OT jobs) - because of the bonus of OT.

I'm not sure what this new law is going to do for the US overall. It may force companies to switch top employees from hourly wages to much higher base-salaries, which could in turn increase product prices.

On the other hand, many companies are sure going to be happy about eliminating OT for those job listed under the exemption. For a little while, anyway.
Until their employees start leaving.

[Scott]

It's not so much the OT. I never really received that much. It's the reason ther'er taking it away from me that burns me, to give it to someone else.

As they put it....."this will allow companies to pay overtime to the 20% of the lowest paid Americans"

To, in essence, tell me that I'm doing to well, I don't deserve more
is BS. You deserve what YOU WORK FOR.

This socialistic attempt to "level the playing field" or make it "fair" for all is wrong. Fair, seems to mean "work hard" to pay for those who won't.

Could it be that the lowest 20% is the lowest 20% for a reason?

To those companies who will now save millions...you often do "get what you pay for."

[BK]

Most states have laws that already protect the lowest 20% workers, so that an employer can't force someone to work over 40 hours without some kind of monetary compensation.

Unless they are eliminating the millions of "contract laborers" who really are employees?

They may be passing law that will force them be on the payroll. In that case, those contract labororers are going to be ticked off -- because they earn so little that they typically dont file tax returns and much of the time they are paid in cash.

Many businesses like contract labor because that kind of employee would not qualify for benefits, vacation or OT pay. And the boss would not have to send an equal share of Fed taxes like he must do with his regular payroll employees.

Now that they are being 'protected' and will start getting OT, they'll also have to start paying SS and Federal taxes out of their pay too.

Seems like collecting Federal taxes of millions of contract laborers was more of the incentive for this new law. I could be wrong.

[RedAllison]

but what real effect is this going to have? If we put that "20%" on the OT roles what will that do? It just might put a few more dollars in their pocket and just MIGHT make them less likely to rob us by getting on the various welfare programs. ANY cuts from those lists is a PLUS (and might actually make them no longer qualified for those programs and that IS a bonus)! Look guys, they ALL cost us XXXXX amount of dollars to deal with. Do we get something out of them with a program like this? Or do we keep having our paychecks RAIDED and pay them to slouch off for the rest of their lives?
Another "plus" might just be that it DOES cut employment expenses for American companies. Say what you will about making them more profitable, but would you rather they streamline their laborforce budget or just upright shut the doors and move to Mexico, China or wherever? It might not be THE best solution for the folks that got all that OT before, but at least they still even HAVE a job to gripe about.
American's (ESPECIALLY those of labor union membership) have pushed and pushed and pushed for the last 30 years to get so much regulation, redtape and beuracratic boosheut put into law to prevent their employers from "getting one over on them" that its reached a point where it is simply less trouble and more profitable for a corporation/employer to just close up shop and say to hell with American labor or at least outsource so that they dont have to foot the bill and deal with the headahces or a laborforce.
"Cradle to Grave" employment and taking care of an employees retirement, healthcare and basic necessities should NOT be the responsibilities of employers. The marketforces and global competition have made such outdated mechanics of employment simply to costly to promote anymore.
ANYTHING that keeps jobs here and appeases the corporations/employers might not be the most "beautiful solution in Eutopia" but being realistic about just keeping the jobs here is MORE important.

Remeber the first rule of business and the very definition of it... An entity whose purpose for existence is to MAKE A PROFIT!
RA

[CDave]

This is the line that gets me steemed!
Quote:
Workers covered by union contracts will not be affected.
:End Quote.

So big paying union jobs are uneffected and non union is F---ed. SO if you don't belong to a socialist Union you are F---ed.
Don't you Union boys flame me because I was in a Union for 6years and pray to the lord above I'm never in one agian.

If you ever wanna see socialism/communisum at work join a union.
They will tell you who to vote for, where to shop, what products you can buy and the products/stores you better not be caught with/in.

[heath brinkley]

politics give me a headache.
I just keep bustin' my ass, and try to ignore where the 30% or more of my paycheck goes.
Like I said, it's not like all our opinions are going to make a difference. we know what has gone wrong with this world, but there's nothing we can do to stop it.:(

[heath brinkley]

never been in a union, but from what I've seen CDave, it looks like your right about the communism remark.

[BK]

A person in the lower 20% wage bracket, who is an hourly payroll employee is already protected by the 40 hr/week Overtime law.

So I'm doing some researching on this to see which workers are *really* going to benefit from this.

LIke I said above, I'll bet this entire change is to do away with the "contract labor" tax evading loophole.

[heath brinkley]

Originally posted by BK


LIke I said above, I'll bet this entire change is to do away with the "contract labor" tax evading loophole. [/B]

That's a real good possibility BK. I'm sure govt. boils at the though of those tax dollars getting away from them. And that (contract labor) is something that goes on ALOT.

Also, like I, as well as BK and others have said, It's not been made real clear on how it's going to work yet. what exactly is changing and how is it changing. BK let us know what you find out, I checked the USA today website, and it wasn't real clear either.

[BK]

Funny, but I am one of those 20% low-pay 'contract laborers' who could really end up benefitting from this new law! (meaning, I'd now be able to get great insurance and vacation).But more than likely I'd probably just get let go.

Unlike some contract laborers, (and you are right - this way of paying employees and avoiding taxes is very common) I already pay my taxes every year - and under contract labor, the rate is 30%! That's a huge chunk of a tiny salary like mine so it hurts like heck -- and you have to pay it all at once. If I didnt love my job and what I was doing, I would have quit last year because after deducting the tax, the pay just wasn't worth it. I could work somewhere else for 5 times what this job pays, and work less hours too.

My tax burden was a mid-4-digit figure last year, to be paid in one lump sum - OUCH!! That hurt!

I can certainly see why many contract laborers DONT file their taxes.

[Raceman]

"In a way, I think the democrats feel the majority of people are stupid..............."

I tend to agree with em. Want some examples????? Hillary in the Senate, Chapaqudick Teddy in the Senate, Barney *** in the Senate. Jerry Springer having a real chance of getting in the Senate. The list is endless.

That having been said, as a small business owner, I think the overtime situation does need some revamping, or more specifically the hourly paid worker's expectation in general. My thinking is, and has always been (even when I was a payee instead of a payor) that an employee is only selling one package....... his focussed time, ability, and expertise. Functioning as an employer now, it's frustrating to see how many things employees expect to be paid for (personal leave, sick leave, vacation, daily breaks, etc) but when there's an opportunity to do a little extra for the job they always want overtime or extra time off. How many employees that are "on the clock" sit around and play on the internet, handle personal business on the phone, chat with friends on the phone, or co workers in the office, then expect extra compensation if they can't walk out of the office dead on quitting time.

From my perspective, in many cases, the compensation is for time spent rather than actual time worked and is very one sided to the employee. I don't think the workforce's attitude of expectation of this is isolated and I think it's a major reason this country has slipped from the industrial giant it was decades ago. I've got this stupid idea that if I buy 40 hours of someone's time I should get 40 hours of work, not punctuated by paid breaks, personal agenda and distraction. If a person is being paid 30 bucks an hour and is only putting forth full effort half the time, he's makin' 60 bucks an hour pure and simple. Factor in all the paid leaves the work force now demands and the number goes much higher.

[at100plus]

Exactly. You should see how many people get away with making all the money for not doing any work in a large Police Dept!!! It's contageous too, everyone walks around complaining, and nobody does any work, then suddenly the people who had a good work ethic see the slouches getting paid the same money and they start complaining and doing less work.

Problem is, this next generation has never had it hard, never had to work for anything.