Congress rebuffs Bush, gives labor rare victories

The San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | September 13, 2003 | Leigh Strope - ASSOCIATED PRESS

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

WASHINGTON – Some congressional Republicans skittish about the political fallout from an economy hemorrhaging jobs turned back administration proposals to rein in overtime pay, shift government work to the private sector and allow pension changes that cut benefits for older employees.

The defections in the GOP-controlled Congress gave organized labor rare victories last week on pocketbook issues.

"Given the state of the economy, people are very anxious about these issues, and some they consider very basic, like overtime pay," said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO's legislative director. "I think Republicans are sensing these are issues you don't trifle with."

Business groups say the issues, particularly overtime pay, are easy to demagogue. Labor ran an extensive lobbying campaign against the proposed overtime pay changes during the summer congressional vacation.

"I think labor worked overtime during the recess to get this done," said Pat Cleary, senior vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, which supports the administration's proposal to revise overtime pay regulations. "If the vote had been before the recess, I don't think they would have won."

The votes against the regulations on overtime pay, government outsourcing and retirement plans are not the final word because the House and Senate must resolve differences in the bills from the two chambers. Still, the votes represent a growing uneasiness about the job market and the economy's potential impact on next year's election.

Few lawmakers want to be seen now as trying to take money or jobs from Americans.

Since President Bush took office, the economy has lost more than 3 million jobs, and the unemployment rate – 6.1 percent in August – has climbed more than 2 percentage points.

Despite signs of a strengthened economy, layoffs continue and companies are not hiring.

"It is not possible for you to talk about jobs too much," Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, wrote GOP House members.

"I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to communicate that job creation is our top priority," said Pryce, the GOP's fourth-ranking House member.

Her memo told Republicans they face a "difficult communications environment," given public worries about the economy and postwar Iraq, as well as the presence of nine Democratic presidential contenders consistently attacking Bush.

Democrats see a political opening on Bush's handling of the economy. That was a key argument in the Senate overtime debate last week.

"We have now some of the worst economic conditions that we have seen in years in this country," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.

"Levels of unemployment continue to climb, so much so that many workers have simply given up looking for work. Why are we telling those who have work at this time that they should get less for what they do? Why are we telling these folks they have to take a pay cut?"

The administration said its proposal to update the decades-old rules would cut overtime pay for only 644,000 well-compensated workers, while making eligible or raising the pay of more than a million low-income workers. A study by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, says 8 million workers would lose their overtime eligibility.

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao declined an interview request about the proposal and the Senate vote. A spokesman, Ed Frank, said Chao had nothing to say beyond her statement last week that the department was reviewing public comment.

Six Republicans split with the administration on the vote, including three – Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – who are on the ballot in 2004. The other three were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Ted Stevens of Alaska.

Campbell said he voted with Democrats because he did not want to deny overtime pay to hardworking people who relied on it.

The senator said that in talking with workers, he was told "they really rely on their overtime now not only to just buy the nice things they want for their families, but in some cases to actually make the payment on the house or to buy the insurance policy they need for the kids."

In the House, a vote to block the rules narrowly failed. Congressional negotiators will have to resolve the issue while facing a veto threat by Bush.

Also last week, 26 House Republicans joined with Democrats on a vote to block regulations that would speed up competition for government jobs. Bush wants to open 850,000 federal jobs to the private sector. The Senate has not yet taken up the measure.

Further, 65 House Republicans crossed over to approve an amendment that would prevent the Treasury Department from issuing final regulations on cash balance pension plans.

Companies have converted their traditional pension plans to cash balance plans, which often cut expected benefits for older workers nearing retirement. Treasury's proposal last year said cash balance plans would not be subject to age discrimination rules.

[aynrandfreak]

This makes me angry

[John Beresford Tipton]

"administration proposals to rein in overtime pay,... and allow pension changes that cut benefits for older employees"

George, I know, and you surely prove each day, that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but can you please repeat, possibly using cue cards, and a microphone/earpiece:

"Two terms good,
One term bad"?

[oceanview]

those cash balance pension deals are a total ripoff, the $$$s saved are instantly placed into the executive compensation basket, or the funds used to setup merger and acquisitions with the investment bankers and lawyers feeding at the trough, while retirees go without. It also forces older people to stay on the job longer, reducing opportunity for their jobs to be taken by younger workers when they retire.

[tahiti]

Amendment V:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

A federal law, mandating overtime pay is unconstitutional without a corresponding tax on all citizens to compensate private property owners for the loss of their private property for public use.

I have said it once, I will say it again.

The only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the speed deeper into socialism/communism with a corresponding loss of property and liberty.

[oceanview]

well if that were true, then any workplace law that cost the employer money would be unconstitutional.

[Willie Green]

A federal law, mandating overtime pay is unconstitutional without a corresponding tax on all citizens to compensate private property owners for the loss of their private property for public use.

Overtime pay is confiscation of private property for public use???

You must be ingesting some kind of illicit hallucinogen.

[Lord_Baltar]

Does Bush actually read these things his Administration is throwing out there?

If he thinks a move to get rid of Overtime pay is a good idea, I'd sure like to hear the Bots explain that one away.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"I'd sure like to hear the Bots explain that one away."

I'm sure they will be here shortly,
just as soon as they can drink enough Bush Kool Aid.

Though even they must feel that it is taking more and more Kool Aid lately.

[Once-Ler]

Why should any Bushbot have to defend the failure of Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska - Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Ted Stevens of Alaska.

Plus this is not the final vote. Let's just see what the conference comes back with.

My understanding is that this overtime pay applies mainly to union and government workers and I will be very happy to pay less taxes for government workers, and overpriced government contracted union workers. I will also be happy to see less union dues going to 'rat candidates. This fact that this is a good bill is bolstered by the AFL/CIO and RINO opposition.

The Kool-aid is fine, in fact, it is Cherry.

[Nov3]

A federal law, mandating overtime pay is unconstitutional without a corresponding tax on all citizens to compensate private property owners for the loss of their private property for public use.

What are you smoking? Some good tahitian dope?

[John Beresford Tipton]

"My understanding is that this overtime pay applies mainly to "union and government workers"

"union and government workers" are covered by collective bargaining agreements which spell out the overtime rate to be paid. Therefore this bill has no effect on their overtime.

However, because it will effect those workers who are *NOT* union members it will become a potent union organizing tool, increasing union membership and the dues collected and put into political campaigns for Democratic candidates.

Enjoy your Kool Aid

[meyer]

I expected it, and I'm not upset - the plan was percieved as a pay cut by many people and for good reason. Giving up time-and-a-half overtime for "voluntary" straight-time compensation isn't a 1:1 deal. Now, one may not agree with overtime compensation in general (I don't get OT anymore), but if your employer "asked" you to work 50 hours this week and take 10 off next week instead of taking the time-and-a-half for the 10 hours this week, would you take it?

[PackerBoy]

I am not in favor of the sweeping changes this law brings, but it would allow some additional people to qualify for overtime who did not before, and it allows for some fleibility that current laws do not. On balance, many working families would probably lose out on overtime that is currently being paid. Then again, this new law might help save some jobs from leaving the country by reducing labor costs.

[PackerBoy]

You make a very good point. Many employees would prefer compensatory time (future time off) to pvertime pay, and employers would save labor costs. Now THAT is a win-win situation that few would argue against.

[meyer]

You make a very good point. Many employees would prefer compensatory time (future time off) to pvertime pay, and employers would save labor costs. Now THAT is a win-win situation that few would argue against.

There's two things wrong with the proposal in its present form - one, compensation time was to be paid at a 1:1 rate while OT was to be paid at 1.5:1 rate. So, it would be in a company's best interest to prefer employees that would work for the cheaper comp time, while many employees would prefer the extra money.

The other problem is that it changes the requirements of being "management" to someone who leads a smaller crew. I beleive that the number is 3. This would make most working foremen management and would put them in the envious position of not being compensated for their efforts.

[Mini-14]

those cash balance pension deals are a total ripoff, the $$$s saved are instantly placed into the executive compensation basket, or the funds used to setup merger and acquisitions with the investment bankers and lawyers feeding at the trough, while retirees go without. It also forces older people to stay on the job longer, reducing opportunity for their jobs to be taken by younger workers when they retire.

I received the benefit of a cash balance plan at a company that I joined a year and a half ago. This is in addition to a 401K plan. I hardly consider the cash balance plan a ripoff. In fact, I consider it a BENEFIT. Let me repeat it again, my cash balance plan is a BENEFIT

[oceanview]

for people with traditional part A company pensions, who have many years on the job, the cash balance destroys their retirement hopes. for those folks, its a ripoff. they should be allowed to retire under the old rules. for new employees who have no accumulated years of service under the old plan, the company can do whatever it wants. in reality, part A pensions will soon be a thing of the past in the US, so it really doesn't matter.

[Once-Ler]

From U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Division of Labor Force Statistics

---

In 2002, 13.2 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, down
from 13.4 percent (as revised) in 2001, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of persons belonging to a
union fell by 280,000 over the year to 16.1 million in 2002. The union mem-
bership rate has steadily declined from a high of 20.1 percent in 1983, the
first year for which comparable union data are available.

---

So you think cuts in union overtime pay are gonna ignite worker rage? Right. If I'm drinking Kool-Aid you're drunk out of your mind.

[DLfromthedesert]

What do you have against flexibility? This change would not MANDATE comp time, just ALLOW it. Some people would welcome the extra time to spend with their families.