White House Wins Fight on OT Rule Changes (The End of "Overtime Pay")

news.yahoo.com/ ^ | 11/21/2003 | ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

[CMClay]

White House Wins Fight on OT Rule Changes

WASHINGTON - Foes of the Bush administration's proposed rules changing which workers would qualify for overtime pay abandoned their fight Friday in the face of unrelenting pressure from the White House and the House.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chief Republican opponent of the new rules, agreed to drop a provision killing the regulations from a massive spending bill, lawmakers, congressional aides and lobbyists said.

Critics of the new rules said they could lead to 8 million Americans losing eligibility for overtime pay, largely white-collar workers earning more than $65,000 a year. Administration officials say more than 644,000 such employees would lose the time-and-a-half pay now required when they work more than 40 hours in a week.

The dispute was the biggest hurdle to completion of a huge, overdue bill financing dozens of federal agencies that Congress' leaders want to complete before lawmakers leave town for the year.

With the overtime fight resolved, it was possible that the spending bill — exceeding $280 billion, one-eighth of the entire federal budget — could be approved by the House this weekend and by the Senate early next week.

The end of the overtime battle spelled a legislative and political victory for President Bush (news - web sites), whose aides had repeatedly threatened a veto for any legislation attempting to kill the proposed regulations.

The monthslong battle pitted big business and its GOP allies against organized labor and congressional Democrats.

"Congress really believed the administration would provoke a funding crisis to retain its ability to cut overtime," said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO's legislative director. "We're not going to let this rest."

Specter, a moderate Republican from a state where organized labor has considerable clout, faces a difficult re-election fight next year, including a primary challenge from a conservative.

The Bush administration and business leaders say the new rules are a badly needed modernization of overtime rules that in many cases are vague and decades old.

"The business community lobbied hard on this issue, but in the end it was the simple argument, that this rulemaking should go forward because the regulations haven't been updated in 40 years, which won the day," said Randy Johnson, U.S. Chamber of Commerce (news - web sites) vice president for labor policy.

Specter and his aides could not immediately be reached for comment. Earlier in the day, he and his supporters said they would continue their fight even if their provision was dropped from the spending bill.

Specter had also acknowledged that he was feeling boxed in by threats from congressional leaders to delete the language blocking the rules from the spending bill. That would force him to decide whether to oppose the overall spending measure — a vote that in effect would be a vote to shut down numerous federal agencies over the issue.

"Does anybody have a choice" but to vote for the spending bill, he said.

The Senate voted in September to block the regulations. The House had backed them this past summer, but reversed its stance last month in a nonbinding vote.

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, the lead Democratic sponsor of the provision blocking the overtime rules and an ally of Specter, blamed his colleague's decision to abandon the fight on Bush administration pressure.

"Just in time for the holidays, the White House has delivered another gift for big business, along with a pay cut for millions of working families," Harkin said in a written statement.

It was unclear what, if anything, Specter received in return for his decision.

[Arkinsaw]

Why are the Democrats worried about people who make $65,000 per year? They are all "the wealthy".

[Admin Moderator]

Please include the original title when posting.
Thanks.

[Sockdologer]

That's what I noticed too.

[okie01]

Critics of the new rules said they could lead to 8 million Americans losing eligibility for overtime pay, largely white-collar workers earning more than $65,000 a year. Administration officials say more than 644,000 such employees would lose the time-and-a-half pay now required when they work more than 40 hours in a week.

Who are these 644,000 people? And why are they earning overtime?

[concerned about politics]

Why are the Democrats worried about people who make $65,000 per year? They are all "the wealthy".

Screw the workers. Overtime pay is TAXED! The Democrats feel you're taking their vote buying money away from them!

[stands2reason]

Who are these 644,000 people? And why are they earning overtime?

Obviously not important to the story from a leftist view.

[stands2reason]

Do you have a comment other than the fake---and FALSE---title?

[xzins]

I assume they're earning overtime pay because that's the contract they have with their employer.

But you couldn't tell it from this article.

Why in the world didn't they report on what the old rules were and what the new rules will be? I'd like to at least see if I agree with the change.

[o_zarkman44]

My fear is eventually this will trickle down to everyone losing overtime. More work, less pay. But the twist here. Taxes on OT usually wipe out a large chunk of any windfall. Can't believe the government let go of the revenue.

[concerned about politics]

Can't believe the government Democrats let go of the revenue.

[flying Elvis]

I always hated overtime because I ended up making less an hour. Gimme the time off and I'll make money doing something else.

[MissAmericanPie]

The scent of conservative compassion wafting through the holiday air?

[mlo]

If these are the same rule changes I've read about, the story is misleading. They aren't about getting rid of overtime pay. They are about allowing employers and employees the option of choosing more vacation time instead of extra pay.

[Azzurri]

Are these government employees or what? This article is so confusing, I've been working "overtime" (40+ hrs) for the past 2 years as a contract (hourly) employee for a large corporation and never made time-and-a-half. Why is the government involved in this issue?

[carlson]

isnt overtime just for hourly workers and not for salaried workers? 64 grand a year dont sound hourly to me.

[Poohbah]

It works out to $32 an hour (assuming a 2,000-hour man-year)

[GOP_Proud]

< Who are these 644,000 people? And why are they earning overtime? >


Me. I'm a white collar worker (engineering) payed hourly. Anything over 40/week is time and a half. OT is not mandatory in my office and all you have to do is a few calculaions to figure out when taxes cut into it too much and just make that your max OT that you will work in a week. I rejoice in it. I don't want "comp" time. I've already got plenty of PTO(Personal Time Off-vac, sick, holidays, etc).

Of course, I don't mean that I work OT constantly, but it's pretty standard to put in a few hours a month. Sometimes a client calls and suddenly the job is a rush so it's crunch time for a few days.

[meenie]

I assume this bill covers the white house occupant and staff.

[Las Vegas Dave]

Dittos for me, BUT I am working 25 hrs/week OT, 13 hour workdays. I can work more if I choose, but I look forward to the weekend to recharge my batteries.