AP: Bush Administration to Revise OT Plan

WASHINGTON (AP) - Retreating under pressure, the Bush administration intends to revise a proposed overtime regulation to preserve eligibility for most white-collar workers making up to $100,000 a year as well as for police, firefighters and other first responders, Republican officials said Monday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said revisions also would guarantee overtime for lower-wage workers making less than $23,660 a year, up from the $22,100 initially proposed.

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao is expected to preview the new proposals Tuesday, the sources said. Department spokeswoman Pamela Groover said she was unaware of any plans to issue a regulation.

Chao issued a proposed regulation in March 2003, but it drew sustained criticism from organized labor, Democrats in Congress and some Republicans.

The Senate voted last year to stop the administration from issuing the regulation, but that provision was later dropped under White House pressure. Even so, Democrats signaled a fresh attempt this year - in the run-up to the November elections - at a time when jobs and pocketbook issues are a key issue in the campaign for the White House. The rules do not require congressional approval to take effect.

Republican officials said that under the revisions, up to 107,000 workers could lose their overtime protection, but 6.7 million workers would be guaranteed overtime.

By contrast, under Chao's initial proposal, the Labor Department said 644,000 white-collar workers could have lost protection, and 1.3 million gained it.

Democrats challenged her initial estimates of who could potentially lose overtime eligibility, citing their own prediction of up to 8 million.

The regulations will not apply to workers covered by labor contracts, although union officials said they feared their existence would strengthen the hand of companies in future bargaining.

``The fact that President Bush is slashing overtime pay for even a single worker is outrageous,'' AFL-CIO spokeswoman Lane Windham said of the revisions.

Apart from the controversy surrounding overtime eligibility, the regulations were designed to meet the concerns of employers who argued that the half-century-old rules failed to address the modern workplace and opened the door to a welter of lawsuits on behalf of workers.

One of the principal goals of the new regulations is to remove much or all of the uncertainty, thereby freeing businesses from the threat of legal action.

A spokesman said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, would invite Chao to testify on the issue next week.

Even before the regulation was released, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., criticized it. ``No amount of White House rhetoric will stop employers from applying this shameful anti-worker rule just as Republicans planned it - to boost business profits by employees to work longer hours for lower pay, instead of hiring more employees to do the work,'' he said.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who has led a Senate effort to block provisions in the rule taking away overtime pay, said he was skeptical about the changes.

``The Bush administration is not trustworthy on this issue, and I am beyond skeptical about these so-called revisions,'' Harkin said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has lobbied for an overhaul that would provide litigation relief to employers, wasn't ready to judge the plan.

``It all comes back to our initial goal, to cut down on lawsuits,'' said Michael Eastman, labor law policy director. ``It's hard to answer that question until I see the fine print.''

Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the proposed revisions would make it explicit that police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and other ``first responders'' would be eligible for overtime. Administration allies had said that was clear from the initial proposal, but critics disputed them.

Licensed practical nurses and registered nurses also would be eligible, these officials said.

The plan also makes clear that military veterans would not lose overtime pay. The initial plan would have let employers count military training toward classifying workers as professionals who are exempt from overtime pay. Democrats and labor unions had criticized that provision as trying to take away premium pay from military veterans.

The provision relating to white collar workers marked a clearer retreat. Under the initial proposal, white collar workers making $65,000 and above would have been at risk for losing their eligibility. Under the revisions, those making $100,000 would generally retain their eligibility.

Under current regulations, low-wage earners making less than $8060 must receive overtime pay. Chao proposed raising that to $22,100 last, year. The revised regulation will place it at $23,660, officials said.

I would like to see something along the lines of

up to 40 hrs regular pay,
41 to 50 hrs either 125% or equal time plus 25% off employer decides,
above 50 hrs 150% time off or 150% pay employee decides.

don't understand what business the government has in regulating overtime??

I was hoping this was about OT in football.

Personally, I think sudden death should die a sudden death. I would vote for the NCAA system.

In a serious vein:

The list of items that the Fed has encroached upon which are not defined in the Constitution is a long one, very long.

Boy, the title really fooled me.

From the title I thought Bush was refining some Old Testament plan for Iraq. Something along the lines of "... biblical proportions ... " ;-)

Gov't has been regulating overtime pay for years (at least 50, maybe more). And the regulations are almost that far out of date.
It would be nice if this admin could remove all regulations on OT, but it's never possible to eliminate gov't regs. Anything they can do to update the regs is a positive step, but it looks like they won't be able to do much.

I don't understand what business the government has in regulating overtime?? What gives? Where is the Cosntitutional authority? Is this now a full-blown marxist state? I must be missing something. Somebody tell me I'm overreacting.

You feel like reducing required overtime pay is Marxist? Try asking your question from another point of view. What business did the government have in mandating that businesses pay overtime after 40 hours in the first place? What makes government feel like they have the right to impose a minimum wage on private business owners? And so on. There is nothing wrong with removing some of the regulations. Removing some of the government required overtime pay isn't Marxist, it's quite the opposite.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.