Overtime Bill Has Been Defeated!!!!

Published

WASHINGTON (Sept. 10) - The Senate voted Wednesday to halt the administration's effort to rewrite decades-old rules on overtime pay, risking a veto showdown with President Bush and heeding labor's claims that the changes would harm millions of workers at a time of economic uncertainty.

The 54-45 vote marked a rare defeat for business interests in the GOP-controlled Congress and left the fate of the emerging Labor Department regulations unclear. The House backed the new rules this summer, and congressional negotiators will have to resolve the issue.

``The Bush administration proposal is not only anti-worker and anti-family, it is bad economic policy,'' said Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, who led the assault on the regulations. ``It will take money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans and will not create one new job.''

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, in a statement, defended the effort as a bid to ``strengthen overtime protections for workers'' by extending overtime eligibility to 1.3 million low earners who now lack it. ``The regulatory process should move forward to benefit workers,'' she said.

Democratic opponents said their plan would not interfere with parts of the rules extending overtime protection. They took aim at sections that would strip other workers of eligibility they have long enjoyed. The precise number was a matter of dispute - an estimated 800,000 by administration allies, and as high as 8 million by Harkin's estimate.

The regulations became the focus of heavy lobbying in which the AFL-CIO joined the battle against business organizations. In turn, that made the showdown a command performance of sorts for the Senate's four Democratic presidential contenders, all of whom broke off campaigning to vote.

Six Republicans split with the administration on the vote, including three - Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska - who are on the ballot in 2004.

The vote came as the Senate labored to complete work on a $137.6 billion spending bill for health, education and labor programs for the fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1.

While the administration has a generally favorable view of the measure, it issued a statement saying the president's top advisers would recommend a veto if the overtime rules were blocked in the bill that reaches Bush's desk.

Democrats succeeded on one other attempt during the day to change the bill. The Senate voted 51-44 to reverse Education Department rules that would cut off Pell Grant eligibility for some lower-income students and reduce it for others.

In a time-tested congressional ritual used by both parties, Democrats spent much of the day advocating funding increases for a variety of politically popular programs, eager to put Republicans senators on record in opposition.

Thus, an effort to add $300 million in low-income heating assistance fell on a vote of 49-46, 11 short of the 60 needed. As drafted, the measure includes $2 billion for the program.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney hailed the overtime vote, saying that current protections ``help ensure that workers will mot be forced to work excessive hours, and that they will receive fair pay.

''

The head of the National Retail Federation, Tracy Mullin, said that the existing regulations ``are vague, confusing and totally outdated. It is extremely difficult for an employer to determine whether a worker should receiver overtime and the result has been an explosion of litigation from disputed decisions.''

Republican aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, also said that business concern over lawsuits from overtime disputes were a factor in the push for new regulations.

Congress has not been kind to organized labor in recent years. Legislation in 2001 junked Clinton-era standards designed to curtail repetitive stress injuries in the workplace and labor objected to the worker protection provisions in last year's bill creating the Homeland Security Department.

Federal law generally grants workers overtime pay equal to the rate of time-and-a-half for labor in excess of 40 hours a week. The proposed regulations rewrite technical provisions, some dating to 1949, to define which ``white collar'' workers would be exempted.

One, for example, says that ``creative professional employees'' who perform work ``requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor'' will be exempt from overtime. The current standard requires them to ``consistently exercise discretion and judgment'' to be denied overtime coverage.

Workers who devote more than one-fifth of their time to activities unrelated to their main job are eligible for overtime coverage under current regulations, a provision that would be dropped.

The proposed rules would not apply to workers covered by union contracts. But labor officials said the proposed changes could prompt businesses to attempt to weaken overtime protections in future contract negotiations.

The proposed rules would make overtime available to an estimated 1.3 million low-income Americans now denied it, by raising the annual pay below which overtime must be paid to $22,100. That figure is currently $8,060, where it was set in 1975.

Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.

Surprise, surprise......:rolleyes:

Doesn't this bill still have to be defeated by congressional vote before it is final?

Originally posted by jemb

Doesn't this bill still have to be defeated by congressional vote before it is final?

Yes it does, but it got defeated in the senate. Read on.

Overtime Battle Moves Back to House

Sept. 12--The fight to protect working families' paychecks from President George W. Bush's drive to take away overtime pay protections from 8 million workers is back in the U.S. House of Representatives following the Senate's Sept. 10 vote to block Bush's move.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 54-45 to add an amendment by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 2660) that would ban the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing the Bush-backed proposal to gut overtime protections guaranteed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Senate passed the entire bill later that day.

In the most recent action, the House-passed version of the bill does not include a similar amendment to block the overtime rule changes. However, before the conference to meld the two versions into a final product begins, it is likely worker-friendly lawmakers will offer what is called a "motion to instruct" that would require House members who are part of the conference delegation to accept the Senate's overtime provision. In July, the House narrowly defeated (213-210) an amendment to block the overtime changes.

The Senate had been expected to vote on the amendment Sept. 9. But Republican leaders maneuvered to delay the vote to a time when several Democratic senators who are campaigning for the presidency would be out of town and unable to vote. However, Harkin and the amendment's supporters vowed to block action on the appropriations bill until the Senate voted on the overtime amendment.

"The Bush Administration...has even threatened to veto the Labor-HHS appropriations bill if it includes the amendment passed by the Senate. We hope President Bush will rethink his opposition to this critical measure protecting overtime guarantees for American workers and their families," says AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney.

The six Republican senators who voted for the amendment are Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens from Alaska, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania.

Sen. Zell Miller from Georgia was the lone defecting Democrat. (Find out how your senators voted on the amendment to ban the Bush administration's Labor Department from stripping overtime pay protections.)

Spokespersons for President Bush have vowed that Bush will veto the appropriations bill if it includes the Harkin amendment. If he does veto the bill, it will take a two-thirds majority of both houses to override the veto.

A recent survey shows how far out of step Bush's efforts to gut overtime pay are with the public.

Three in four Americans oppose the Bush administration's proposal to eliminate several million employees' right to overtime pay, and opposition is overwhelming regardless of political affiliation, race, income or geographic region, according to a new national survey conducted by the independent polling firm Peter D. Hart Research Associates. The survey was conducted among 862 adults from Aug. 26-31, 2003, and was commissioned by the AFL-CIO.

By 17 to one, the public believes that federal laws governing overtime should be changed to cover more employees (52 percent) rather than fewer employees (three percent), while 38 percent support current coverage.

"Employers are hiring fewer workers here in the U.S. and working them longer--and now the Bush administration is trying to make it cheaper for them to work employees even longer with its proposed changes to overtime rules," AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said during a Labor Day press conference Aug. 28.

Although the Bush administration claims changes to the overtime rules would affect only 644,000 workers, the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found the number of workers who will lose overtime pay is closer to 8 million.

"The DOL recognizes that this conversion from hourly to salaried will occur, but it woefully underestimates how significant the change in the workforce will likely be," according to the EPI report. Those who could lose overtime pay involve a wide range of workers, including nurses, firefighters, retail clerks and engineering technicians.

8 Million Workers Could Lose Overtime Pay

Under, the Bush proposal, workers who lose their overtime rights also could face unpredictable work schedules and reduced pay because of an increased demand for extra hours--time for which employers would not have to compensate workers, according to EPI.

Workers making more than $22,100 a year could be denied overtime pay under the proposed changes if they are reclassified as professional, administrative or executive employees exempt from federal overtime rules.

After the Labor Department announced its plan to take away overtime pay in March, it received more than 80,000 comments by the close of the public comment period June 30--and acknowledges most are against the proposal.

During the August congressional recess, activists from local unions, central labor councils and state federations distributed worksite fliers about the overtime attack, encouraged workers to contact their lawmakers and made lobbying visits to congressional district offices. That mobilization will intensify when the Senate resumes work.

so now it goes back to the House..... and I just got a letter from my republican Congressman telling me how its a wonderful bill as it is & how wrong we all are. He said we are misinformed by "myths" and the bill will give people "more options" in being paid. He said nothing about the millions of us who will no longer be eligible to be paid for OT.

The House of Representatives hasnt voted on it yet, but they had the opportunity to change the bill so that, as they expanded ot to workers who were ineligible before, those of us who now get ot pay would not lose it --- but they voted NOT to do that. How nice. Its good that they want more people to be able to be paid for OT but what is the reason for refusing to protect those who already have it? Why couldnt they agree to the changes that would let them give ot to those other workers without taking it from those who already have it? How is this beneficial for the working people? He didnt answer that either. And now they get to vote on it.

People just keep voting for him cause hes young, handsome, and charming. Amazing. I sent his letter to the Government Affairs dept of my state nurses assoc so they can give him a reality check too.

Amazing how some think this is a superb idea. I had written to both of my senators and was amazed at the differences in opinions. One, Sen. Wayne Allard ®, Colo, thought is was just wonderful and was supportive-guess who I am not voting for next round. The other one caught me totally by surprise- Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell ®, Colo, one of the ones that broke from party lines and voted to defeat this bill in the Senate. In the letter he sent me he stated that he was concerned over the numbers that would be affected and would need to look into this some more before he decided which way to vote. Guess the info spoke for itself. When this was in the house before, thankfully my congressman did vote against this bill, or for the amendment, however it was worded and I will be writing to him to encourage the same.

Speaking of voting, ever wonder what would happen if THE people were allowed to do the voting on this one? Kinda makes ya wonder why we're not allowed too.

Wait a second. When the bill was in the House before, it wasnt up for a vote. The only thing they were voting on was an amendement designed to remove the part of the bill that takes away overtime from those who already are eligible for it. They were voting only to re-write the bill to allow overtime pay eligibility to be expanded to other workers WITHOUT TAKING IT AWAY FROM THE REST OF US. If your Congressman voted no on that, there is no reason to thank him.

We all need to make our congressperson accountable for their actions on this Bill. Nurses will ultimately be affected by this bill if it is passed in the house.

Originally posted by -jt

Wait a second. When the bill was in the House before, it wasnt up for a vote. The only thing they were voting on was an amendement designed to remove the part of the bill that takes ....

Like I said in my orginal post, and my apologies that I didn't remember bill/amendment- he did vote FOR the amendment so I have plently to thank him for. I can see where my post was confusing and I hope that it is clearer now.

Originally posted by chase

We all need to make our congressperson accountable for their actions on this Bill. Nurses will ultimately be affected by this bill if it is passed in the house.

Chase,

Bless your heart, but we all have to remember that this will affect many other professions and not just nursing. What would be superb is if nurses and the FD, PD and the others that it will affect, banded together and sent a very clear message to Congress that we DO NOT want our O.T taken away by the government. My hubby drives semi's for a world renown delivery company and this will affect him as well. So we are fighting for so many professions as well, not just ours.

Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!! Now I've got that song, "I'm just a bill, on Capitol Hill..." rolling through my brain.

Specializes in LTC, Post OP.

I thought if congress did not agree president bush HE would veto it!!, I think i read that on AOL.

Since Congress voted to keep the overtime, Bush could veto them & get rid of it anyway. Now we have to pressure Bush to pay attention to Congress & leave this alone.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 3, 2003

http://www.nursingworld.org/rnrealnews

ANA Applauds House Vote to Reject Overtime Changes

Washington, DC -- ANA applauds yesterday's vote by the U.S. House of Representatives in support of a non-binding motion instructing House-Senate conferees to block a proposed Department of Labor (DOL) change to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), that would have revised overtime protections. The vote was 221 to 203 and reflected a switch in position for seven Republicans who had supported the revisions in a July roll call vote.

ANA and its constituent members have been outspoken opponents of the proposed revisions, citing concerns about the impact on nurses as well as their patients. ANA believes that under the new rules, employers would increase the dangerous practice of forced overtime for nurses since they would not be required to compensate them at time- and-a-half. In addition, such changes would further erode nurses' working conditions, exacerbating an already growing shortage of nurses.

Yesterday's victory followed a similar, favorable vote in the U.S. Senate on September 10. Although the House vote is non-binding, it does provide instruction to the conference committee which will be meeting to finalize the bill. Despite consensus from the House and Senate on this issue, President Bush has announced that he would veto the bill, the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill, if it includes an amendment to bar implementation of the proposed FLSA revisions.

"We applaud the House and the Senate for their actions and thank Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue," said ANA President Barbara A. Blakeney, MS, APRN,BC, ANP. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced the Senate amendment to block the proposed FLSA changes.

"We urge President Bush to respect the will of the Congress and the concerns of the American people on this issue," Blakeney said. "In particular, the ANA urges President Bush to understand how such changes will impact nurses, ultimately increasing the shortage of nurses and negatively affecting patient care."

Specifically, under revisions proposed by DOL last spring, employees who devote more than 20 percent of their work per week to non-exempt duties could be classified as exempt from overtime protections and the job requirements of administrative and professional employees would be changed in a manner that would expand the number of professional workers, such as RNs, who are exempt.

ANA submitted comments opposing the revisions, noting that registered nurses are licensed professionals who share a responsibility for the outcomes of nursing care, which means ALL nurses could be classified as "administrative employees" and, therefore, exempted from overtime pay.

ANA also expressed concerns about the redefinition of who is a "learned" professional. Learned professionals are presently exempt if they exercise discretion and independent judgment and perform office or non-manual work which requires knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science. The proposed regulation eliminates the discretion and judgment facet of this test and recognizes knowledge acquired by alternative means, such as a combination of intellectual instruction and work experience.

This new definition will add many health care workers, including registered nurses, to the learned professional exempt category. The ANA is concerned that this will not only result in many registered nurses losing their overtime protections, but will also encourage health care institutions to use mandatory overtime as a staffing strategy.

# # #

It aint over till its over.

+ Join the Discussion