AP Exclusive: Labor Dept. offers employers tips to avoid overtime pay

SFGate ^ | Monday, January 5, 2004 | LEIGH STROPE

[ETERNAL WARMING]

The Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible under new rules expected to be finalized early this year.

The department's advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Essentially, employees would be working more hours for the same pay.

And boy will that make the US productivity numbers look great.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
50	Wyoming	20.00	1	20.00	26	0.77	30.00	1

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[kcvl]

Without the EMPLOYER, the EMPLOYEE wouldn't have a job to begin with. The EMPLOYER decides what the EMPLOYEE is worth, not the other way around. If the EMPLOYEE doesn't like it, he/she doesn't have to work for said, EMPLOYER. It's not that hard to understand.

If the EMPLOYEE is worth more, I would suggest that MANY EMPLOYERS will be more than happy to pay EMPLOYEE the requested amount.

I'm sure the UNION BOSSES are making less than almost all of the EMPLOYEES. /sarcasm

[kingu]

I'm curious as to if the Fed regs on overtime trump the state regulations, or if they're just new baselines.

As for the Labor department publishing options, hardly a shocker there. But even if it were, all they are doing is publishing what would be published by third parties anyway. At least this gets everything out in the open and Congress can always amend the rules that they find offensive.

[kcvl]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PROPOSES CHANGES IN OVERTIME REGULATIONS

The United States Department of Labor has published proposed regulations that would change many of the current regulations governing the payment of overtime. One proposed change would raise the salary threshold below which workers would automatically qualify for overtime. Currently, employees who earn $155 a week or more can qualify as a "white collar" employee and are excluded from receiving overtime pay. The proposed Department of Labor regulation would raise this minimum salary to $425 a week or $22,100 a year such that any worker earning less than $22,100 a year automatically would be entitled to overtime pay. This $270 increase in minimum salary is said to be the largest since the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938. The Department has stated, "The impact of this revision will be to increase the wages of 1.3 million lower-income workers and reduce the number of low-wage salaried workers currently being denied overtime pay." The Department is also seeking to revise some of the job descriptions that appear in the old Fair Labor Standards Act regulations in order to account for many of the changes in the workplace over the past 50 years.

The "short test" for overtime determination relying on an employee’s primary duty as the determining factor of an employee’s exempt status will be retained under the proposed rule. The current short test salary applies to employees who earn $250 a week or more. The proposal eliminates the ‘long test’ rule "restricting exempt employees from devoting more than 20% of time in a workweek performing nonexempt duties." Several other changes have been proposed with respect to the duties of executive, administrative, professional, computer or outside sales employees and the requirements for exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The proposed rule retains the "salary basis" rule, which prohibits deductions from exempt salary for partial-day absences. Additionally, the proposal would change the current rule, which provides that only hourly workers’ wages are subject to deductions for full day absences taken for disciplinary reasons. Under the new rule, The Department would allow deductions from the salary of exempt employees for such absences.

The Department’s actions are an effort to eliminate much of the confusion and antiquated language that many have associated with the current regulations in light of the constantly changing workforce. While direct payroll costs for making these changes are a possible result, officials are hoping that these new regulations will make it easier for employers and employees to understand their obligations with respect to overtime payments.

The Department of Labor invites comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which has been published in the Federal Register. See Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees; Proposed Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 15559 (proposed March 31, 2003).



http://www.bccb.com/Publications/Files/USDepartmentOfLaborProposesChangesToOvertimeRegulations.aspx


March 27, 2003
U.S. Department of Labor Proposal Will Secure Overtime for 1.3 Million More Low-Wage Worker
Department Seeks to Modernize 50-Year-Old Wage Regulations


http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/

[ExSES]

I'm curious as to if the Fed regs on overtime trump the state regulations, or if they're just new baselines.

The federal rules DO NOT prohibit state/county/local wage requirements which provide a higher level of protection to workers. Some states have ALWAYS imposed a higher level of wage protection than that imposed by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

[Fledermaus]

Pure crap and mostly lies.

The IRS has strict rules on who can be declared "exempt" from overtime laws. They are usually ignored for higher paid "white collar workers" who are paid salary regardless of the rules. Not blue collar, hourly workers.

These are typical lies printed in the press that distort or ignore the facts. It's like the lies about arsenic in the water, Halliburton, "imminent threat", yellow cake from Niger, cut in combat pay, cuts in veteran benefits, etc.

[Fledermaus]

Salary levels are not the main criteria in determining "exempt" workers. It requires supervisory status and a minimum of 3 workers under the position answering to the supervisor on salary.

This criteria, of course, is constantly ignored for many positions like secretaries. But they usually get decent pay anyway if they are "admin assistants"! lol

We used to argue about these rules back in the early 1980's and were constantly changing who could and could not be considered salary.

Personally, I don't think the government has any business telling us how much we HAVE to be paid. Either you take the job or not. But, of course, liberal left-wing socialist don't see it that way.

I saw commie loving Margaret Carlson on "Capital Gang" last Saturday whining about smoking bans in NY restaurants and bars and she said, "but those people need those jobs". Like they can't find others?

What crap.