Bush Rule Change Could End Some Overtime

Newsday.com ^ | 2/1/03 | Leigh Strope - AP

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON -- A Bush administration overhaul of decades-old labor regulations could force many Americans to work longer hours without overtime pay.

The administration argues that the pillars of American labor law, which established the 40-hour work week, a minimum wage and overtime pay, are antiquated.

The changes, Labor Department officials say, would make more lower-income workers eligible for overtime.

But labor unions fear changes would severely restrict who is legally required to be paid for overtime work.

[ChemistCat]

These rules are so horribly abused. There isn't a grocery store around here except for Sam's Club that doesn't force employees to work off the clock.

[ProudGOP]

These rules are so horribly abused.

That may be, but this issue looks like it is easy to Demagogue.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Bullcrap! I have seen people in unions so horribly abuse the overtime rules that it isn't even funny. They will goof off for the entire day until OT starts reasoning that they weren't getting paid enough to work for straight time.

[ChemistCat]

You know, you're right. Both sides abuse the concept of overtime and steal from one another. Maybe it evens out.

But I wish you would speak politely. Would you have said that to your mom if you disagreed with something she said? Or your wife? Maybe you safely assume that anyone who says something you disagree with can't possibly be a lady entitled to decent treatment?

[wayoverontheright]

I process loans, and you wouldn't believe how many people are working two jobs, one 40 hr a week job and another part time job of 10 to 25 hours. This tells me two things, first that time and a half for overtime is causing the employer to refuse to pay overtime because of the increased expense, and secondly, those working two jobs are in effect saying that they would be willing to work more hours for one employer if the employer weren't discouraged from doing so.

I think time and a half for over 40 is harmful to the employees. There are so many people out there working more than 40 who are not being forced to do so by anyone.

[speekinout]

you wouldn't believe how many people are working two jobs, one 40 hr a week job and another part time job of 10 to 25 hours.

I've seen people doing this, too. It seems awful to have them spend time commuting from one job to the next and trying to mesh working schedules.
And the worst part is that the 40 hr. job is often not at min. wage, but the 10-25 hr. job is.
It would make much more sense to allow them to negotiate with their employers for a working schedule that suits them both. But I don't think this new proposal goes all the way there.

[wayoverontheright]

And the worst part is that the 40 hr. job is often not at min. wage, but the 10-25 hr. job is.

Exactly, and this provides businesses with a large supply of labor WILLING TO WORK WITHOUT BENEFITS. For this reason repealing the overtime laws would go a long way to forcing more businesses to provide health insurance. The newly reconstituted labor supply would demand it.

[Teacher317]

Exactly, and this provides businesses with a large supply of labor WILLING TO WORK WITHOUT BENEFITS. For this reason repealing the overtime laws would go a long way to forcing more businesses to provide health insurance. The newly reconstituted labor supply would demand it.

You open by recognizing the large number of people willing to work without benefits...
then you end by saying that the labor supply would suddenly demand benefits...
all while using that good old Marxist phrase "forcing _____ to provide _____".

Well, guess what... forcing business to provide health benefits to even more employess will simply cause them to decrease the number of employees, and require greeater productivity from those who remain... all without any pay increase (since the company is paying more for the new benefits that were just forced upon them). Any deviation from this pattern leads to higher prices... that's called inflation-during-an-economic-downturn, which was known as stagflation (and Carter's wonderful "misery index") back in the 70's.

Yep, pure genius, that "forcing _____ to provide _______" logic. It always works for the better.

[wayoverontheright]

No, no I'm not advocating that government do anything here but get out of the way. Absent the large labor pool of workers willing to work without benefits ( because they already have them with their first job) all workers would DEMAND health coverage from their employer. Businesses that didn't provide it wouldn't be able to compete for labor.

[Nataku X]

Under the salary test, last updated in 1975, workers earning more than $8,060 a year are exempt from overtime if they meet the other criteria as well. The administration wants to raise this amount.

I don't understand. Wouldn't the above mean that more workers would get overtime pay? Why all this complaining?

[Teacher317]

Sorry for the misunderstanding... I like that second one quite a bit more. I disagree that changing the law will automatically make employees demand anything, though.

[speekinout]

repealing the overtime laws would go a long way to forcing more businesses to provide health insurance.

Good point. And ins. would be easier for the companies to provide. They wouldn't have a 10 hr. part-time worker and a 40 hr. full-time worker; they'd have 1 50 hr. worker.

[Jennifer in Florida]

What exactly do they propose changing?