iaamoac wrote: > > First, let me say that you just have to be really skeptical about a > press-release like this with few details and no links to see what the > details of the actual policy are. I know that my internal "spin- > sensors" went off with blinking lights when reading this, so I would > definitely like to know the *rest* of the story, or at least the > other side of it. This is the same organization, after all, that > opposed a Republican plan in the Senate to extend the > same "flexitime" rules enjoyed by federal employees to private-sector > employees the day it was introduced. Sometimes I think that if Bush > supported implementation of the Federal Employee's Pay Comparability > Act (FEPCA - which would produce roughly a 20% raise for Feds) that > they would still find a way to oppose it, just because it was Bush > doing the proposing...
I posted a URL to an article about it sometime last week. I just checked that URL, and you can't get to it anymore without paid access to that site's archives. Quoting the article in the Austin American Statesman that inspired me to look for a similar article that I was *hoping* would be more permanent than I knew it would be: http://www.austin360.com/auto_docs/epaper/editions/friday/news_5.html (URL will be good until Friday, April 4) Overtime pay would be mandatory for low-wage workers FROM STAFF & WIRE REPORTS Friday, March 28, 2003 WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is proposing to overhaul federal regulations about overtime pay, redefining which employees are exempt from mandatory time-and-a-half pay after a 40-hour workweek. The changes to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act would add an estimated 1.3 million low-wage workers to those automatically eligible for extra pay if they work more than 40 hours a week, but also could remove hundreds of thousands of higher-paid workers from eligibility. The revisions, which will undergo a 90-day public review process, left intact existing overtime provisions for unionized employees and blue-collar workers, such as laborers and truck drivers. But they raised a salary threshold for the first time since 1975 -- effectively ensuring automatic overtime pay for employees who earn less than $22,100 a year. The changes do not require congressional approval. Jobs most affected would be assistant managers of stores, restaurants and bars, said Tammy McCutchen, administrator of the Labor Department's wage and hour division. Those workers would get overtime pay despite their management status as long as they earn less than $22,100 a year. White-collar professionals would take a hit in their paychecks. Generally, workers would be exempt from overtime in the new rules if they manage more than two employees and have the authority to hire and fire, or if they have an advanced degree or similar training and work in a specialized field, or work in the operations, finance and auditing areas of a company. The Labor Department says those requirements would exempt about 644,000 professional employees earning between $22,100 and $65,000 who now get overtime pay. That figure doesn't include another proposed exemption, for workers making $65,000 or more annually and meeting only part of the jobs duties criteria. Rob Ghio, an Arlington labor lawyer, said the current regulations are "a dinosaur that is 50-plus years behind the times." "They were designed for a manufacturing economy," he said. "They never even envisioned most of the job categories we have now." Consequently, he said, lawyers and judges have had to stretch and twist the regulations to fit jobs, such as in high technology. The result has been "this huge fuzzy area" involving how to categorize jobs. The overtime revisions follow a spate of lawsuits in recent years. In 2001, workers filed 79 federal collective-action lawsuits seeking overtime pay, surpassing for the first time class-action job discrimination suits against employers, according to the American Bar Association. Although employers could face $334 million to $895 million in direct payroll costs for those changes and overall costs of $870 million to $1.57 billion, officials say increased productivity and fewer lawsuits could amount to savings of $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion. Ghio said the new regulations "would pretty much blow up" the massive case law that has resulted from the years of lawsuits. "They're not completely binding on the courts, but they would have a pretty persuasive authority," he said. Union leaders applauded the expanded exemptions for low-wage workers but predicted that the additional white-collar workers exempted from overtime would far exceed the 640,000 estimated by the Labor Department. "It's an absolute disaster for white-collar workers who deserve protection under these regulations," said Nick Clark, senior assistant general counsel with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. "It's going to gut protections for many workers in the military, airlines, energy, financial securities and health care industries." Under current regulations, about 70 million workers qualify for overtime because of automatic provisions or because their jobs are not considered exempt executive, administrative or professional ones. Traditionally, workers who are considered managers, high-level administrators or highly skilled professionals have been exempted from overtime coverage. To determine whether an administrative employee is exempt from overtime, the Labor Department's proposal drops the longtime test of whether the worker customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment. Instead, the test becomes whether the worker holds a "position of responsibility," defined as performing work of substantial importance or performing work requiring a high level of skill or training. Like the existing test, the proposed test for administrative workers also would weigh whether their primary duty is to perform office or nonmanual work directly related to the management or general business operations of their employer. Under the old rules, executive employees were exempt if they met the test of using discretionary powers and did not devote more than 20 percent of their time -- or 40 percent in retail and service establishments -- to activities not closely related to exempt work. Under the new proposals, to determine whether an executive employee is exempt, three criteria generally must be met: whether the worker's primary duty is the management of the enterprise or a department or subdivision, whether that worker regularly directs the work of two or more other employees, and whether that employee has the authority to hire or fire or recommend hiring and firing other employees. However, if a nonmanual worker earns more than $65,000 a year, then only one of the criteria must be met, making it easier for employers to exempt higher-paid nonmanual workers. For professional employees, the proposed test is whether the worker's primary duty requires advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction. Under the existing rules, that instruction generally meant college or graduate school, but the proposed rules state the instruction also could include military duty, technical schools or work experience. So yes, it is going to be bad for a bunch of folks in the middle class. But it may be an improvement for some of the lowest wage-earners, which was the *real* point I was trying to make earlier. Julia _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
