Argh

[Winchester]

I'm a Catholic. I'm a union member. I typically vote republican.
[url="http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/underattack.cfm"]Getting rid of OT[/url]
But then some idiotic policy like this comes down the pipe. I sacrifice a lot for my job. I already, by agreement, work 6.7 hours a week for straight time. It could be overtime, but HFD agreed to work it straight as a compromise.

I'll probably vote for Bush, but only because of abortion. This knocked him off my Christmas ard list

[Sojourner]

I wrote about this last year for one of the papers I write for ... it's been in the works for a while. It's supposed to go into effect in August, I believe.

It's a slap in the face for lots of folks like yourself, Winchester.

I don't think Bush ever made it onto my Christmas card list. Although he tried.

[Azriel]

I'm with you both on this. This just stinks.

[PedroX]

We all know where I stand on this. I just don't understand how anything but greed is behind this.

peace...

[Quietfire]

I just signed the letter and added a few scathing words of my own.


Peace.

[qfnol31]

:irate:

Sorry guys, if this goes into effect, then I would have to work more hours, and I work a lot already.

[Oik]

What is the reasoning behind this? Is Bush planning to raise minimum wage $10 an hour?

[Quietfire]

I know this is gonna sound stupid but,
since my job has already tripled my work load in the past 4 months I told my boss I would be willing to take a pay cut if they would stop beating me up.
My widdle body cant take this much longer.
I dont work Sundays because its a mandatory overtime pay day.

They told me 2 weeks ago they were gonna cut back on my work load but I am still waiting (patiently) for that to happen.

I have never had a problem with my back, since I spent a great deal of time taking care of myself by weight training (stopped that cause I was bulking up too much) and excersize,
but the past 6 weeks my back is bothering me and it's really wearing me out.(cause I'm not used to back pain)

I am curious what this new bill will mean exactly if it is passed.

Peace.

[conservativecatholic]

Winchester: I appreciate your vote for George Bush. The unborn need him to lead this country! May God Bless!

[ironmonk]

double post

Edited July 11, 2004 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Jul 11 2004, 10:42 AM'] I'm a Catholic. I'm a union member. I typically vote republican.
[url="http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/underattack.cfm"]Getting rid of OT[/url]
But then some idiotic policy like this comes down the pipe. I sacrifice a lot for my job. I already, by agreement, work 6.7 hours a week for straight time. It could be overtime, but HFD agreed to work it straight as a compromise.

I'll probably vote for Bush, but only because of abortion. This knocked him off my Christmas ard list [/quote]
Get both sides of the story....

[url="http://www.georgebush.com/Economy/Read.aspx?ID=2459"]http://www.georgebush.com/Economy/Read.aspx?ID=2459[/url]


Overtime Pay

Kerry's Claim: 8 million workers will lose overtime pay.

The Truth: 6.7 million workers earning less than $23,660 will have their overtime protections guaranteed. For workers in the middle, the final rule is more protective, or at least as protective, of their overtime rights than the old rule.

The “8 million” number comes from a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank whose board includes the heads of several major labor unions and which the New York Times cites as being left leaning. It is not a serious, scientific study and includes numerous technical flaws. The study’s author even admitted that the figure is inflated since it includes 1.5 million part-time workers who aren’t currently eligible for overtime hours (Source: “The Facts and Fallacy Surrounding the Department of Labor’s Proposed White Collar Regulations”, Department of Labor, 2003 & House Education And The Workforce Committee, “Fact Sheet: Proposed DOL Regulations Protect And Ensure That Low-Income Workers Receive Overtime Pay,” 7/21/03; “Would Bush Eliminate Overtime Pay for 8 Million?”, FactCheck.org, 4/5/2004).

Kerry's Claim: "Blue collar" workers will lose overtime pay.

The Truth: The final regulation clearly states that "blue collar" workers are entitled to overtime pay. (Section 541.3(a))


------------------------------

I don't think anyone should loose their OT... I make it week to week on my OT.

I will be digging deeper into his proposal and writing him... I suggest everyone do the same.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[url="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=151"]http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=151[/url]


[b]Would Bush Eliminate Overtime Pay for 8 Million?[/b]
[b]A TV ad from an anti-Bush group says so. But it's based on a study that actually says something different.[/b]



Summary



The latest TV ad from the Moveon.org Voter Fund says "George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers," referring to new overtime rules that the Department of Labor has proposed. The 8-million figure (hotly denied by the Bush administration, of course) comes from a study by the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute.

The ad misquotes the study, however. What the study actually says is that an estimated 8 million would lose the legal right to premium overtime rates should they work more than 40 hours per week. It does not say they would actually lose pay as the ad says. In fact, the 8-million figure is inflated by many part-time workers who never get overtime work, or overtime pay, even though they now have the right to it.


Analysis



The Moveon.org ad shows a worker in a hardhat punching a time clock as he leaves an empty factory at night, then drives home to a stack of bills and a sleeping family.

Moveon.org Ad

"Worker"

Announcer: Times are tough. So you work overtime to make ends meet. Then you find out George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers. Two million jobs lost. Jobs going overseas. And now, no overtime pay.

When it comes to choosing between corporate values and family values, face it, George Bush is not on our side.

"You work overtime to make ends meet," the announcer says, "Then you find out that George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers. . . . No overtime pay."

This is offered as evidence for the ad's main message -- that Bush sides with "corporate values" over "family values" and "is not on our side."

8 Million? Who Says?

The Bush administration flatly denies that its overtime proposal would affect anywhere near 8 million. In fact, the Department of Labor estimated last year when it first proposed the new rules that there would be 1.3 million low-paid workers who would gain the legal right to overtime, outnumbering what it estimated were 644,000 higher-paid, white-collar workers who would lose coverage.

That's still the administration position. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said at a Senate subcommittee hearing on Jan. 20, 2004:

Chao: Let me be clear. The department's overtime proposal for white-collar workers will not eliminate overtime protection for 8 million workers as alleged. . . . We believe that 1.3 million workers will gain overtime, they'll be guaranteed overtime, and less than about 644,000 may potentially face the prospect (of losing the legal right to overtime.)

The 8-million figure comes from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank whose board of directors includes the heads of several major labor unions. EPI has devoted an entire web page to defending its calculations.

Some Gain, Some Lose

Even EPI concedes that many low-income workers would be gaining the right to overtime pay. Under the proposed rules any employee making less than $425 per week would be eligible for overtime benefits, up from the present level of $155, a figure that hasn't been changed since 1975. In its study , published in June 2003, EPI said that change "is sorely needed."

Later, EPI estimated that fewer than 737,000 workers would gain coverage, not the 1.4 million estimated by the Department of Labor. A business-backed group, the Employment Policy Foundation, estimates that 3.4 million would gain.

Most of EPI's criticism (and that of Democrats in Congress) focused on who would lose overtime coverage. The proposal would change the rules for determining when white-collar workers can be classified by their employers as exempt from overtime pay for extra hours. The proposed rule changes are extensive, covering executive employees who can hire and fire others, administrative employees in a "position of responsibility", so-called "Learned Professional Employees" who have "knowledge of an advanced type," creative professionals, outside sales workers and certain computer workers such as systems analysts or software engineers. (None of these groups look very much like the blue-collar factory hand in the Moveon.org ad, by the way.)

EPI said the administration's 644,000 figure was way off because it counted only those employees who were actually received overtime pay, and left out a larger group of workers who would have been legally entitled to overtime pay but didn't work the extra hours to earn it. "DOL only counts the loss of current overtime pay, not the loss of the right to receive overtime pay," wrote EPI's Ross Eisenbrey.

That's the distinction the Moveon.org ad misses. Even EPI isn't predicting 8 million will lose pay -- only a legal right to pay. And as EPI study author Jared Bernstein confirmed to FactCheck.org, the 8 million figure includes part-time workers who don't get overtime pay now because they never work overtime hours. That alone inflates the number by 1.5 million.

Who's Right?

Which is closer to the truth, EPI's 8-million figure or the Labor Department's 644,000? In fact there are no solid figures on how many workers qualify for overtime now, so all estimates involve more than the usual amount of educated guesswork. But the Moveon.org ad has no basis at all for suggesting that 8 million could actually lose pay -- not even EPI's figures support that.

The ad might truthfully have said, "George Bush wants to change overtime rules for millions of workers and some of them might lose pay." That would soften the ad's impact, but it would have the virtue of being factually correct.


Sources



Press Release "U.S. Department of Labor Proposal Will Secure Overtime for 1.3 Million More Low-Wage Workers: Department Seeks to Modernize 50-Year-Old Wage Regulations" US Department of Labor, Employment Security Administration 27 March 2003.

Testimony of Elaine Chao, US Secretary of Labor, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Senate Appropriations Committee 20 Jan. 2004.

Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein,“Eliminating the right to overtime pay : Department of Labor proposal means lower pay, longer hours for millions of workers” Economic Policy Institute 26 June 2003.

Ross Eisenbrey "The Truth Behind the Administration's Numbers on Overtime Pay" Economic Policy Institute December 2003.

"Policy Backgrounder: 3.4 million gain overtime rights under proposed FSLA rule" Employment Policy Foundation 9 Sept 2003.

"The Facts Behind the EPI White-Collar Numbers," Employment Policy Foundation 9 Sept 2003.

[Archbishop 10-K]

Oh, for a second, I thought you were saying that Bush was going to ban the Old Testament (OT.)


............ yeah. Okay, I'm going now.

[Winchester]

hmm.

I say make all positions eligible for OT. Too many people I know are moved into "management" positions to allow for salary (read: more work uncompensated)

I should have put that labor exagerrates, too.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Jul 11 2004, 09:47 PM'] hmm.

I say make all positions eligible for OT. Too many people I know are moved into "management" positions to allow for salary (read: more work uncompensated)

I should have put that labor exagerrates, too. [/quote]
Something to note, even if you agree to not getting paid OT, your employer still has to pay it by law. (I thought somewhere you stated that you were a firefighter, it may be different for you because of down time, not sure though. Also, I thought a union would be up on the laws?)

I work for an HR company. Even though some employers have paid people straight time for OT hours, the employee wrote the DOL, and the employer had to pay all the OT difference for the last two or three years that he had the guy working.

Of course, if you do that, you will make the company mad at you, so report it anonymously or keep track of every hour and hit them with it when you find another job.

It is wrong for an employer to take advantage of the workers. Documentation is king when dealing with any HR case... even if it's just a hand written journal of the happenings and date, time of the happenings, it holds a lot of weight.


God Bless,
ironmonk