New BUSH Overtime TakeBack Law

Nurses Activism

Published

HI- from Miami--I read where another writer stated there is no difference between Bush or Kerry concerning this new OT law(actually it is not new it has been a work in progress publicly for about a year. First let me say-Bush said he had to redo it because the old OT law was confusing-I never see what was confusing about the old law-plain and simple-if you worked in excess of 40 hrs. you received OT. This new OT law is a payback to big$$$ contributors to the Bush/Cheney Election in 2000. Nothing more, Nothing less. This TakeBack was hatched by the REPUBLICAN president,congress and senate. They control both houses so the democratic oppostion could push this law back-they tried-Senators- Gebhardt,Kennedy,Kerry,Daschle-but sadly they are in the minority! I am 58 years old so I have seen a lot in my varied working career-I will tell you-starting from the genesis of Social Security and the GI Bill of rights for Veterans, Overtime(created by Pres.F.D.Roosevelt-laws in 1937)-Medicare and Medicaid-created by Pres. L.B.Johnson-1965-democrat. HeadStart for the young Children. The Family Friendly Leave Act-1995-created by Pres. Bill Clinton --where workers can take time off to care for a sick family member--all these laws benefiting us as workers were bitterly opposed by REPUBLICANS and this is fact-Don't beleive me??-check it out for validty in the Federal Register(final record of laws enacted and who did it) and see whose President's Signature is on the Final Legislation.John Kerry stated publicly, for the record, that he will roll this piece of cruel and unfair OverTime Law with the stroke of a pen immediately if elected. It is within his Power, as President! It is sad that only now most nurses are becoming aware of the law-as a year ago-nurses could have mounted a national campaign to pressure their congressmen/women and senators to vote this travesty down. RN's in the VA system will take the hit due to federal laws-the rules say LPN's will not be hit-BUT-I think they will because, speaking from experience, I was a team leader at the VA with two nrsg. assts. under me to supervise and in this case-they could now exclude me from OT. The langauge of this law is extremely vague-and was written this way on PURPOSE-to give management a lot of leeway in denying OT-always a contigency clause for denial.I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised-I hope I am wrong on this one.Unlike the old and clearcut law-OT FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40-NO CONFUSION THERE! Nurses-educate yourself on the issues this 2004 election because this Election outcome will have Far-Reaching ramifications on your working career and Retirement Options. Bush has toyed around with the idea of raising the age at which you can retire and start drawing Social Security-to 68-70 years of age. I don't know about you-I don't want to wait to this age to retire-instead of a gold watch at retirement-they will hand you a pine-box! Democrats are not perfect-BUT compared to their history of passing at least some laws that I mentioned previously that benefit the working middle class, they are heroes in comparison. VOTE DEMOCRAT--VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS 2004 !! (ps-as viet-nam era vet-I can tell you I received 5 medals for my service-4 years active duty in the US Coast Guard-though not of the stature of John Kerry's for sure) Due to the vetting and chain of command involved in granting purple hearts,bronze and silver star medals-NO ONE could get all these medals unless they really earned and deserved them-the circumstances are reviewed up the chain of command-as a check to weed out non-meritorius claims and this is how it must be-Kerry got those Medals because he earned them-Plain and Simple-he may have other faults but this is not one of them! That group "Not-so Swift boat Vets is disengenous and should be ashamed of themselves! John Kerry had connections politically at that time and could have got out of vietnam for sure. Instead he volunteered for this dangerous duty with the extremely high possibility of getting shot and killed-I cannot imagine anyone putting themselves in Harm's Way just for Political Gain. Contrast Kerry's service to George(no show) Bush who is unable to account for his Guard Duty in 1971-72-now that is a point of discussion and deserves the process of discovery)To be honest- I served my country in this era(1965-69) and when I returned home -I had different thoughts about vietnam also-and was it WORTH it? I do not think so-55000 americans killed and vietnam went communist anyway a shortime later-so what did all those americans die for?? I hope Iraq does not evolve into the same situation but as it looks now, who knows...meanwhile Osama Bin Laden continues his plans for us....God Bless the USA from MiamiMike,Nurse:coollook:

Back to the original topic. Workers who are paid hourly receive OT based on law. This change involves who can be exempt and who isn't. Exempt means you are not required to be covered by the time and one half requirement. It doesn't mean that an employer can't pay you time and one half if you are exempt it just that he is not obligated to. RNs have always been exempt, most employwers chose to pay RNs by hourly rate because it was simpler and easier for 24/7, part time and PRN coverage. If an employer wants to make all RN salaried they can but to do it is at their own risk as the market demands hourly compensation.

To those who bemoan the lack of work ethic miss the following point.The taking away of OT, if done, is just a reduction in wages for the same amount of work. I don't beleive the employment market as a whole will allow this time become widespread.

I didn't miss the point. There is an appalling lack of work ethic in many areas of the country.

And my point all along is that all of this has been, particularly with respect to nursing, that compensation, with or without OT (or salaries or insurance or whatever), is market-driven. Take away the OT or any other part of your compensation that you choose. Someone right down the street will be glad to pay it.

Did I ever, in any of these posts, say that nurses don't deserve OT? NO!!! They do. I'm simply pointing out that in many cases, employers never were required to pay it, but do because market forces make them pay.

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.

Please -- who says we'll live that long anyway -- the way I see we'll succumb to a stroke from all the stress! :rolleyes:

Your point being??

My point being is it seemed to me the author's rhetoric was crafted by the Dems. I could provide something similar from the other side, but I will not. A thread should have been started about why everyone should vote for Kerry/Edwards. The real point I'd like to make is that if nurses would all band together, being the largest group of licensed healthcare providers, say in a union, they could control their market and destiny. They would not have to worry about OT and other aspects dealing with locus of control. But, with all of the "profession" being unable to decide upon an educational entry level into nursing, how can we expect nursing to make any headway anywhere else? I've seen it from three levels, diploma, BSN, and MSN. By some of the ADN programs pandering to the local hospitals for funding and fawning over the check writers, it's disgraceful. Nursing always wants someone else to do something for them and not take control for themselves.

Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.

I don't really find the work ethic here all that "appalling." Unlike a lot of other countries, it's part of our culture and necessary to hold a decent family income for BOTH adults in the household (if there are 2, that is) to work- and a lot of these wage earners work OT at that. Even more may work OT if they are single parents. Tons of other cultures only have 1 wage earner in the family, and are more apt to work long hours, because the entire family unit requires it. They also have a parent at home who is more available to help with homework, and bring up the children. I don't think better grades, etc. have anything to do with work ethic as much as family structure.

Sorry to side-track again...just wanted to address that point.

Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.

I have three RN's in my home care agency intake office over 65 :D

1 works FT- age 67

2 are retired + over age 70: one is single, works 2 days a week as bought a new house 1 yr ago, can't live on just pension and MC.

Second RN worked 2 days week, off due to knee replacement---hopes to return in Oct 04-- doesn't need the money but wants to keep mind sharp.

So yes, there are some great workers available who enjoy a different type of nursing (and can process work quicker than some of the younger staff members.)

NONE would work OT without OT pay.

Americans work more hours per year than any other industrialized nation in the world. We also average 2 weeks vacation per year, where most European countries average 4-6 weeks per year. France has a legislated standard 35-hour workweek.

Comparatively poor work ethic?? I think the statistics prove otherwise.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/08/30/ilo.study/

+ Add a Comment