Nurses outraged by plan to strip health professionals of overtime pay

Milehighnurse · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by arkierns
These new rules will actually help 1.7 million workers attain overtime pay and strengthen the rules giving o.t. pay to 10 million workers. It will help more lower paid employees.
This bill will not affect you unless you are in an administrative position with hiring/firing capabilities or that you personally can affect the finances of the company you work for. This bill also does not affect companies that are represented by a union. It will give people the choice of taking o.t. or comp time. There will not be a mandatory comp time. [/b]

Oh my this is so far from reality. The proposed changes WILL affect a lot more than 1.7 million people. Please reference the following:

Milehighnurse · Jul 14, 2003

I posted the above hyperlink on another BB but apparently it's not working. If you want to see info on all the bills, go to the AFL-CIO's web page and look for the "Overtime Pay" section.

-jt · Jul 14, 2003

its working

http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/underattack.cfm#bush

arkierns · Jul 19, 2003

Reality? Is the AFL-CIO the only place you get your information from? Look at the link that was posted to see if there might be some bias there ...attack.cfm#bush. I will be the first to say President Bush has done several things that were bad for the country but this isn't one of them. And I didn't say it would only affect 1.7 million people, I said it would help 1.7 million people attain o.t. pay who weren't eligible before. Have you read the rules and regs about o.t.? They are mammoth in proportion, confusing and needlessly ponderous. Like all other government regulations you could say. These regulations need reformation and anyone saying differently has another agenda.

OC_An Khe · Jul 20, 2003

The AFL-CIO site is not the site that I got my obtain information from. Yes these regulation are in need of updating. No one argues with the proposed change that would expand lower income salaried people from obtaining OT. In fact if that were the only change no one would be posting here. It's the redefinition of who can be elegible to receive OT that has people upset. This is not a completely Union non Union fight. If these requlations pass those that have OT covered in their contracts will continue to receive OT. THose that don't have contracts, read non union, may lose their ability to get OT at ther employers discretion. Don't know many employers who wouldn't want to cut costs be continuing to require OT (They can legally do that in almost all states and professions) but at a 50% reduction in Labor costs. Do you know of any?

This will probably come up for a vote in the Senate ths week. If you don't want your employer to have the abilty to reduce your ability to work OT and get fairly compensated for it then you need to contact your Senators now. Of course if you want this change you should also contact your Senators also.

Milehighnurse · Jul 21, 2003

Originally posted by arkierns
Reality? Is the AFL-CIO the only place you get your information from? Look at the link that was posted to see if there might be some bias there ...attack.cfm#bush. I will be the first to say President Bush has done several things that were bad for the country but this isn't one of them. And I didn't say it would only affect 1.7 million people, I said it would help 1.7 million people attain o.t. pay who weren't eligible before. Have you read the rules and regs about o.t.? They are mammoth in proportion, confusing and needlessly ponderous. Like all other government regulations you could say. These regulations need reformation and anyone saying differently has another agenda.

I would recommend that you re-read what the DOL and GWB are trying to do; pick your own source, it does not make one bit of difference to me where you get your information- try the DOL's own website, it's all right there in black and white. The source that I referenced above simply breaks it down so that one is not having to review 39 pages of the DOL's rhetoric plus all the other changes that the Bush adminsitration is trying to push through. If you wish to hang onto the thought that this will "help 1.7 million people" more power to you, but I would caution you on such restrictive thinking.

KarenAR · Jul 21, 2003

(1) What is wrong with this country? Why do we believe in working ourselves literally to death for the sake of a company's bottom line? Why is it that all other industrialized nations seem to have a better grasp on "quality of life" than we do? Why is it that in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have no FREE time because we are CHAINED to our employers, and we are too FEARFUL to stand up and say how absurd the U.S.'s mentality is when it comes to work-life issues????

(2) Someone made mention of never hearing of other professions that don't get paid overtime. There are PLENTY of professions that don't get paid overtime. I used to be in one of them (magazine editing) and YES, you DO get overworked WITHOUT the pay. You are expected to stay at work until the job is done regardless of how much you are being paid. And goodness knows nursing is never "done."

(3) Bush is a moron.

geekgolightly, BSN, RN · Jul 22, 2003

Originally posted by PsykoRN
I would recommend that you re-read what the DOL and GWB are trying to do; pick your own source, it does not make one bit of difference to me where you get your information- try the DOL's own website, it's all right there in black and white. The source that I referenced above simply breaks it down so that one is not having to review 39 pages of the DOL's rhetoric plus all the other changes that the Bush adminsitration is trying to push through. If you wish to hang onto the thought that this will "help 1.7 million people" more power to you, but I would caution you on such restrictive thinking.

Can you deny that these statements are also true?

* Millions of salaried workers making between $22,101 and $65,000 who now are eligible to receive overtime pay could be reclassified as executives or administrative or professional employees--and would no longer qualify for overtime pay.

* Relatively low-salary earners who have supervisory responsibilities or management-related responsibilities would be penalized, as would workers with advanced education or specialized training. Some of the jobs affected are police, firefighters, nurses, retail managers, insurance claims adjusters and medical therapists.

* Employees not covered by the new rules also could be hurt: By reclassifying many of their workers as exempt from overtime pay, employers most likely would assign overtime only to them and eliminate overtime for other workers. Police and firefighters are among those potentially affected.

* Anyone making $65,000 or more a year likely would lose overtime pay, effectively eliminating many middle-income wage earners' much-needed extra pay.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor's own estimates, the Bush administration's proposed rule changes could mean between 2.1 million and 3.3 million workers would face unpredictable work schedules because of an increased demand for extra hours for which employers would not have to pay time-and-a-half.

And what about these bills? What does this say to you?

H.R. 1119 in the House and S. 317 in the Senate would allow employers to offer workers comp time off in place of the current time-and-a-half overtime pay. H.R. 1119 passed the House Education and the Workforce Committee April 9 with support from Republicans and opposition from Democrats. House Republican leaders initially planned to bring H.R. 1119 to the House floor for a vote around Mother's Day, May 11. But after an outcry from union activists and family and women's groups, the vote was postponed and now has been scheduled for June 5.

geekgolightly, BSN, RN · Jul 22, 2003

HR1119 states that not only would any employer be free from legal obligation from payment of overtime as long as they gave "comp" time, that they would be able to pay their "comp" time at the employers discretion up to one year after the earning of comp time occurred.

What does this say to you?

fergus51 · Jul 22, 2003

That anyone who thinks this would be good for us is on crack.

Milehighnurse · Jul 22, 2003

Originally posted by geekgolightly
HR1119 states that not only would any employer be free from legal obligation from payment of overtime as long as they gave "comp" time, that they would be able to pay their "comp" time at the employers discretion up to one year after the earning of comp time occurred. What does this say to you?

This says that I am NOT in favor of H.R. 1119 or S 317 nor am I buying into the line that this will "help 1.7 million people" as another poster seems to believe. If S. 317 passes the Senate it will mean a victory OF corporate America FOR corporate America. This whole mess started because the DOL felt that there were too many lawsuits by people seeking damages for unpaid overtime. The Republicans, who are all for corporate America, have suported this bill since it's onset under the guise of "Family Flexibility Act" which is what H.R. 1119 is all about. H.R.1119 is intended to help corporate America rip off middle class America every chance it can. If corporate America gets it's way, the "1.7 million people" who would qualify for O.T. will get screwed as well as it will allow the employer to reclassify people into one of 3 categories, and use the 20% rule (if you do any of the 3 categories type work for 20% of your work day, you are a classified person) if they have too, to get away with not paying O.T. to the folks making minimum wage.

If one thinks that this "revamping" of the existing DOL rules and regulations is going to help anyone but corporate America, they will be in for a very rude awakening.

Milehighnurse · Jul 22, 2003

The other thing that I wonder about is, did the DOL or the GOP think about the economic impact that this will have nationally and eventually globally? Middle class America IS the backbone of this country and if corporate America is allowed to take away our ability to improve economically, there is going to be severe economic fall out. People don't spend money when threatened. Look what happened after 9/11. People were scared and stayed at home, retail suffered and small businesses went under. This was the result of middle class America not spending for roughly a week. How soon the GOP forgets.