High Income Workers Protest Limits to Overtime Pay

Fox News ^ | Jul 2, 2003 | Major Garrett

[hardhead]

WASHINGTON

[hardhead]

If you are an hourly worker who earns in excess of $65k a year, you are in trouble buster. As Jerry Reed used to sing, 'they got the gold mine; I got the shaft.' We-uns have to even out the distribution of wealth in this country. Take it away from the industrious and give it to the un-industrious. ;o)

[snippy_about_it]

In effect, white-collar workers who earn more than $65,000 a year would be prevented from collecting extra cash for hours worked beyond the 40-hour workweek.

What? This can't be true. There must be more to it. I need to read more about it. How can you deny cash earnings for time worked based on what you make?

[ijcr]

Rich police? William F. Buckley, Jr

There is great moaning in New York City because Mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced his intention to reduce the police department budget by 3 percent. Reducing the police force is generally thought, and understandably so, to be the equivalent of reducing the blood supply: quite simply, something one does not do.


This reaction is especially keen among those who remember the long years in New York City when crime was king. Crime is hardly yesterday's problem, but the reduction of crime is nationwide, for reasons left to sociologists. But it is unrealistic and wrong to fail to acknowledge the role of police, and the tougher penalties for criminals. A thief in jail menaces nobody's property.


But the implied parallel -- more police, less crime -- isn't rigorous. If 1,000 police bring about crime reduction to 1,000 crimes, it does not follow that 2,000 police would mean 500 crimes. That is a paralogism. An attempt to pursue it would have you saying 3,000 police equal 250 crimes, 4,000 equal 125 crimes, 5,000 equal 62.5 crimes. You run out of criminals and police academies, and, incidentally, out of money.


I stare at a report undertaken by the Stamford Advocate in Stamford, Conn., which lists the 100 highest-paid city servants. One learns that the mayor of Stamford, Daniel Malloy, comes in at No. 83. His pay is $107,000 (I will round out the last three digits). For whatever reason, he took home a little more than his base pay, grossing $110,000. Without digging out mayors' salaries in other cities of equivalent size and resources, one's reaction is: That's about what to expect.


The city employee at the bottom of the list of the top 100 is a "police officer." But mark this. His salary was $59,000, but he took home $107,000. Roughly speaking, twice his salary.


Move, now, to the top-earning city servant. He is the superintendent of schools. His salary was $251,000; his gross, $244,000. It isn't explained why he lost $7,000. Maybe an illiterate student was found and laid at his door.


But now it becomes interesting. The second-highest-paid worker is described simply, "Police captain." His salary was $85,000. But wait. He grossed $207,000. That's overtime or supplementary pay of $122,000. That means the police captain earned in extra pay a sum greater than the base pay of the mayor of Stamford.


So it goes. The No. 3 earner is "Police sergeant" -- sergeant, not admiral, or general. Base pay is $65,000; take-home pay, $169,000. Two and a half times base pay.


The Advocate's headline: "Police Are/Prominent/On City's/Pay Chart." Subhead: "21 of 25 Highest-paid/Workers Are Officers."


The writer parses the pay of Capt. Richard Conklin, who is head of the department's narcotics and organized crime unit. Capt. Conklin made $85,000 in base pay, $44,000 in overtime, $76,000 in extra-duty pay, and $1,420 in overtime paid by the Board of Education.


The reader tends to ask, What is the difference between "overtime" and "extra duty"? Can someone do both at the same time? If not, and if compensation is even, and $85,000 was right for 40 hours per week, $44,000 would suggest an additional 20 hours. And $76,000 yet an additional 37 hours. That would be a work week of 97 hours per week. Assuming he did not work on Sundays, that would have him working 16 hours every day, six days a week, which makes life tough on the family, to say nothing of Capt. Conklin.


The mayor was defensive about all of this when questioned by the reporter. He said that some of the "extra-duty" work is paid for by "non-city" sources. Thus, the police officer who does "extra work" for the Stamford Mall is paid by the mall. The mayor adds that it is cheaper to pay overtime to existing staff than to hire brand-new police officers to do the work.


All of that has not closed off criticism. Board of Finance member Joseph Tarzia said police salaries were "outrageous."


All of this, on the New York City scene, will be intensively examined in the quarrels and palaver over Mayor Bloomberg's proposed cuts. The Stamford preview will cause a burdened citizenry to ask not only the obvious question -- Have payrolls got out of hand? -- but derivative questions. Are the police overburdened? How much of their time is consumed smelling out 18-year-olds smoking marijuana?


And at the other end of the scale, every policeman on the Stamford list is, by the rhetoric of the Democrats who rail against the Bush tax cuts, including Mayor Malloy, "rich." Your local police officer in Stamford -- by the ranking of critics looking for the rich and starting in at $100,000 -- is rich.

[lelio]

Doesn't this just apply to hourly workers?

[Ed_in_NJ]

It's called "government out of control" - and it's happening on Dubya's watch!

[riri]

bkmk

[hardhead]

If I read correctly, all a company or the guvmint has to do is re-name a person as a 'manager' and they can work them as long as they want?

[Still Thinking]

All the hoopla about this change is a little overblown. Everyone keeps saying that people will be "prevented" from collecting overtime. I seriously doubt that that is what the law says. I'm sure the government is not going to try to prevent companies from paying their staffs hourly if that is the customary procedure in their industry. It probably says that these workers are now allowed to be salaried if that is what they and their employer agree upon. So if your company insists on paying you for working only 40 hours, only work 40 hours. That's what I did when I worked for tight-fisted companies.

[y2k_free_radical]

THIS DOG WON'T HUNT AND THIS WILL HURT GWB BIG TIME

[virgil]

There seems to be conflicting reports as to what this change will mean. That makes me nervous. I read in more than one article where people in health care, like LPNs, technicians, and dental hygenists will also be denied overtime. Those people don't make that much money. I think the real objective is to pave the way for making more jobs for immigrants.

[snippy_about_it]

That's why I said I needed to read more.

[templar]

I think the real objective is to pave the way for making more jobs for immigrants.

Well, we gotta do something with 'em.

[sarasmom]

This is an interesting debate.
In my work experience, managers are generally salaried and typically work a minimum of 60 hours a week.
Often because in order to get the job done, and keep costs down, they wont authorise overtime to full-time hourly workers, or hire enough people to do the job, unless they hire part time workers,who do not qualify for benefits.
Corporations heavy into non-physical labor types love salaried employees.The more the merrier.Ever chasing that elusive bonus.The fools!
Now at the other end of the scale, comes the skilled hourly employee.The "work for a living-not living for work" people.
OT runs the gamut of never allowed, to becoming so onerous and required so often,it is obvious there is a staffing problem.
Much cheaper to add a title in lieu of money, and hope it lasts long enough.
I do know most legislative attempts to tinker with the employer/employee relationship appears to have fostered an us vs them mentallity.Often both parties feel the other is taking advantage of them, so they start to feel justified in gaming the system.
Hypothetical situation(smirk)
Hourly worker has an upcoming need to take off six weeks for medical reasons, but cant afford to miss a paycheck.
3 weeks pay are covered by sick leave and vacation.how to get the 120 extra hours?
There are several projects that have been put off by the employer,waiting for "slow times", because they are not critical enough to require overtime pay.
It is not "legal" for the employee to negotiate in good faith to work "overtime" at straight pay, and defer compensation to the time of a mutually agreed upon choice, that benefits both parties, and harms none.
It is not legal to carry over comp-time,to a time of the employees choice.
Both sides are hamstrung by labor laws that were originally designed to "protect" the employee.
It turns out that very few people are "protected".
Unethical employers continue to abuse employees,they now import illegals.
Unethical employees abuse employers.Slowing production in order to get overtime, and/or game overtime to accomplish low priority tasks at time and a half pay.
Perhaps if ethics was a part of primary education, but then again,many people think ethics is religion, and that has been banned in the public sector!
LOL!

[q_an_a]

I'm trying to figure out how the Chief of Police is considered an hourly wage employee. How is the night supervisor of inspections not a manager? Someone tell me how the shift workers haven't figured out how to add overtime? We played that game 30 years ago. that is the beauty of shift work. But that is what kids do to make enough money not what government employees should be doing. Someone has lost control of the purse.

[freedumb2003]

>>If I read correctly, all a company or the guvmint has to do is re-name a person as a 'manager' and they can work them as long as they want?<<

Boo friggin hoo! I have been in various management positions, both govt and private sector and have NEVER been offered OT. OT for managers looks to be a unique creation of socialist governments (NY, Fed).

Usually, the step to management MEANS O.T. ends.

These po' wittle babies can't compete in the open employment market? Coddled mommas boys (and girls), every one!

[riri]

THIS DOG WON'T HUNT AND THIS WILL HURT GWB BIG TIME

Yep, I think maybe. If I were a strategist for the Demo's I could do some serious PR damage with this.

It doesn't matter what it really says, what matters is what you can spin to sound like it says.

[upchuck]

Related story: http://www.msnbc.com/news/931238.asp?0cv=CB10

[bgierhart]

it is true, go to the department of labor's web site. This is not what i expected from Bush

[Snuffington]

I have been in various management positions, both govt and private sector and have NEVER been offered OT. OT for managers looks to be a unique creation of socialist governments (NY, Fed).

Head on over into IT consulting. You'd be surprised what you find. People frequently opt for hourly rather than salaried because the job protection previously implied by the salaried positions has proved non-existent. So people now prefer to get paid extra for their 70 hour weeks rather than get paid for 40 and feel warm and fuzzy that their company won't lay them off if they're not billing this week.