New BUSH Overtime TakeBack Law

Hellllllo Nurse, BSN, RN · Aug 23, 2004

Can you imagine nurses working until they are 68 or 70?

Has anyone ever noticed that you rarely see a nurse in her sixties? Most have been taken out by back injuries, or have left the field due to extreme burnout and physical injuries before they reach their sixties.

Anything that benefits corporations but hurts workers is supported by republicans.

Sheri257 · Aug 23, 2004

New York Times article published this morning:

August 23, 2004

Controversial Overtime Rules Take Effect

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

The Bush administration's new overtime rules go into effect today, but the Kerry campaign has already begun attacking the overhauled regulations, saying they will hurt millions of American workers.

Urging President Bush to scrap the rules, the Kerry campaign and organized labor say the regulations will exempt up to six million additional workers from receiving overtime pay by redefining which workers qualify for time-and-a-half pay when they work more than 40 hours. But the administration asserts that no more than 107,000 workers will lose their eligibility, while 1.3 million workers will gain the right to overtime.

In essence, the hundreds of pages of new rules redefine the criteria for which administrative, professional and managerial workers qualify for overtime, among them nurses, chefs, pharmacists, funeral directors, claims adjusters and restaurant managers.

Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, devoted his political party's weekly radio address on Saturday to assailing the new rules, making clear that the Democrats view them as an issue to exploit when many Americans are worried about the economy and stagnating wages.

"Why would anyone want to take overtime pay away from as many as six million Americans at a time when they need that money the most?" Mr. Edwards said. "And why would anyone support this new rule which could mean a pay cut for millions of Americans who have already seen their real wages drop again this year?"

That follows attacks by Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, who said last month, "The new overtime regulations represent a shameful assault on the paychecks of hard-working Americans at a time when they are already putting in more hours, paying more for everyday costs and saving less than ever before."

To turn up the volume on the issue, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. says it will hold a news conference today and will distribute several million fliers saying Mr. Bush has given its corporate friends a gift that will cut the paychecks of millions of Americans.

The administration asserts that the new regulations are needed to replace vague, outmoded rules that have spurred many lawsuits as employers and employees tussle over which workers are exempt and which are not. The administration argues that the overtime rules are clearer, will be easier to enforce and will reduce expensive litigation that hurts business and the economy.

"We view this as a step in the right direction for bringing clarity and certainty to this area of the law so there can be greater compliance," said Alfred Robinson, director of the Labor Department's wage and hour division. "And that's good for employers and employees. I'd rather focus on that than the spin and the politics."

Critics of the new rules say they are another example of the Bush administration's taking regulatory steps that please businesses, which have lobbied for years to revamp the overtime regulations.

The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group, has issued a report, which many Democrats have relied on, concluding that the rules will exempt about six million workers from overtime coverage. Among those, the institute said, are 1.4 million low-level salaried supervisors, 130,000 chefs and sous-chefs and 900,000 workers with graduate or college degrees who will now be considered professional employees.

The administration has accused the institute and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. of engaging in a partisan campaign of misinformation on the issue.

Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who has failed in repeated attempts to win passage of a bill to roll back the rules, said he would introduce new legislation to try again.

"This strikes right at the heart of a fundamental labor right," Mr. Harkin said. "These vague regulations will hurt rather than help Americans with their overtime pay, while the administration's public posture is all smiles and happy talk."

Michael Eastman, director of labor law policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce, said companies were not seizing on the new rules to try to deny overtime pay to many workers. He praised the administration's efforts, saying the regulations sorely needed to be overhauled.

"It's a very easy issue to demagogue and to frighten people with claims that the worst will happen," Mr. Eastman said. "It's taken a lot of courage for this administration to take this kind of unwarranted criticism from labor unions and other opponents.''

Overtime, which is governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, is a complicated area of law. Senior managers do not qualify for overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours, but the more difficult questions involve whether low-level, salaried supervisors are to be viewed as managers who do not qualify for overtime or as workers who do.

The new rules set forth criteria, like what responsibilities supervisors have and whether they have the power to hire and fire, to determine who is eligible.

The rules largely exempt workers earning more than $100,000 from overtime pay, although those with union contracts calling for overtime will continue to be eligible.

Three former Labor Department officials under President Bill Clinton and the first President Bush concluded in a report that the regulations would hurt American workers. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. financed their study, but the three authors, led by John Fraser, former director of the wage and hour division, insisted that they were independent.

Mr. Fraser called the rules "a very big deal." Their report said that but for a provision involving very low-paid supervisors, every change the Labor Department made had expanded the reach and scope of rules that exempted workers from overtime coverage.

In a rebuttal, the Labor Department has said the studies concluding that six million more workers would be exempt were based on faulty assumptions and partisan thinking.

:clown:

oramar · Aug 23, 2004

Just heard them say something on local news that in Pa the regulation changes will not effect workers because Pa laws are more stringent. I would like to hear more about that because I was channel surfing when I heard it and did not catch the beginning of the story.

Sheri257 · Aug 23, 2004

Just heard them say something on local news that in Pa the regulation changes will not effect workers because Pa laws are more stringent. I would like to hear more about that because I was channel surfing when I heard it and did not catch the beginning of the story.

Well, this is the third thread where I've posted this link (sorry for the repetition), but this should help answer your question.

http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P05_4053.asp

If you live in a state with stronger overtime laws, then this regulation shouldn't affect you. If you live in a state with weaker or no overtime laws, then this regulation could affect you.

Click on your state to find out about your particular situation. It does look like you might be ok in Pa.

:clown:

directcare4me · Aug 23, 2004

Have to admit that I haven't read for myself the actual new law. Have been reading and listening to various opinions about it. I don't know if my overtime pay will be affected or not; nothing has been said at work yet about it. (Big surprise...) I guess my question at the moment is, if my employer decides to stop paying overtime for all us "supervisory" peons, can they then also force us to work extra hours? I'm talking about the mandatory "call" days we have to sign up for, which is in essence, mandatory overtime because we are so short that we always get called in. Can an employer force you to work extra and not pay overtime?

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Aug 23, 2004

new overtime rules in the federal fair labor standards act take effect nationwide on monday, aug. 23, 2004. pennsylvania employers will need to follow both the new federal overtime rules and the overtime requirements of pennsylvania's minimum wage act. pennsylvania employers should follow the rule that provides the greater benefit to the employee where there are differences between the two laws.

an employee is entitled to at least minimum wage and overtime pay at time and a half for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. however, the federal fair labor standards act (flsa) and pennsylvania's minimum wage act do not require overtime pay for "any employee engaged in a bona-fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity" who is paid on a salaried basis instead of an hourly wage. (29 u.s.c. 213a(1), 43 p.s. 333.105a(5)).

...pennsylvania employers must be aware that the federal or pennsylvania overtime provision that provides for the greater benefit to the employee is the standard that will be enforced. an employer must pay overtime if the new federal rules or pennsylvania law requires overtime payment....

http://www.dli.state.pa.us/landi/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=214567

memphispanda, RN · Aug 23, 2004

The "old" law didn't guarantee OT for people who worked over 40 hours/week, only to those who were paid hourly and worked over 40 hours/week, and it also required that salaried employess make at least minimum wage for their hours worked.

People need to take a breather and then go read the Dept of Labor site where the true information about the changes can be found. There won't be many people affected by the changes. Sure, they could make all RNs salaried and remove OT pay, but that was ALWAYS an option and it didn't happen under the new regulations, why would it happen now?

alatta58 · Aug 23, 2004

The "old" law didn't guarantee OT for people who worked over 40 hours/week, only to those who were paid hourly and worked over 40 hours/week, and it also required that salaried employess make at least minimum wage for their hours worked.
People need to take a breather and then go read the Dept of Labor site where the true information about the changes can be found. There won't be many people affected by the changes. Sure, they could make all RNs salaried and remove OT pay, but that was ALWAYS an option and it didn't happen under the new regulations, why would it happen now?

---Hi-if there are not ulterior motives behind the new OT Law-why is written in such a confusion manner?? It was purposedly written this way leave loopholes in the denial ot OT for management! Did you ever see Republicans draft a law favorable to workers?? Tell me of one please. And 1 year from now-lets see what happens after the confusion settles. I hope I am wrong, but with this :rolleyes:

crowd, who knows.......Mike

Todd SPN · Aug 23, 2004

People need to take a breather and then go read the Dept of Labor site where the true information about the changes can be found. There won't be many people affected by the changes. Sure, they could make all RNs salaried and remove OT pay, but that was ALWAYS an option and it didn't happen under the new regulations, why would it happen now?

If it was only that easy. I have read three articles on the subject and no one, not even the current administration is sure what is going to happen. There are groups of lawyers just waiting to go to court over a document that is ambiguous. However, what does seem clear and was written about in a Money article is that RNs are considered "learned" professionals requiring frequent discretion and judgment putting them in the professional catagory. LPNs are "skilled tradespeople" and are owed time-and-a-half. If any of these "learned" professional RNs vote for Bush after this, I don't want them caring for me in a hospital setting.

tonicareer · Aug 23, 2004

My question is will it affect the job market? Create more jobs or create more unemployment. I can see things from both angles on job loss or job creation. Only time will tell.

BeachNurse · Aug 23, 2004

This is just my opinion, but personally I do not want to work overtime and I would assume that most people don't enjoy working overtime. I would think that places who rely heavily on FT nurses working over time on a regular basis would become forced to simply hire more PT or FT nurses to work and pay them at the regular rate..equals more jobs in my mind. Again, I have not heard from anyone that this is going to happen!