bush's 'plan' to cut over-time pay - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-19-2004, 01:58 PM   #1
An Angel In Devil's Shoes
ABEL's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,844
Local Time: 03:48 PM
bush's 'plan' to cut over-time pay


On March 31, 2003, President Bush's Department of Labor proposed regulatory changes that will make more than eight million white-collar employees ineligible for overtime pay -- time and a half pay for every hour worked more than 40 hours in a week.


ABEL is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 02:05 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 01:48 PM
reason #235602460429750472529562346234 why Bush makes me homicidal

ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 03:35 PM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
BVS's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,230
Local Time: 04:48 PM
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
reason #235602460429750472529562346234 why Bush makes me homicidal
I don't know about homicidal, but Canada is looking better and better.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 07:42 PM   #4
agentmissa's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Where ever the music takes me.
Posts: 1,797
Local Time: 02:48 PM
He's not part of this reality.
agentmissa is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 08:28 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 05:48 PM
Strange how much Bushwacking is on a forum that's supposed to be about U2.
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 08:29 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
deep's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 01:48 PM
Free Your Mind

This is an off-topic forum. Discuss politics, spirituality, religion, world events
deep is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 09:19 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:48 PM
Employers who pay overtime will end up having fewer employees who are eligible for overtime - whether by change in regulation or by reductions in workforce. We not like the competative nature of the work environment. With an expanding employment eligible work force, we would be foolish to think that we can earn ever increasing amounts of money for the same level of work.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 10:35 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 02:48 PM
This was mentioned by Bush in his last State of the Union.

I'm surprised people here weren't upset about this a lot earlier.
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 09:45 AM   #9
you are what you is
Salome's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,045
Local Time: 11:48 PM
say that I would work an extra 6 hours per week
in a month time I would have worked 3 days extra

if 6 people in our office who work at the same level as I do would not be allowed to work overtime and they'd hire someone else instead this might be a cheaper option (probably be just as expensive because of secondary conditions, but still)

thing is
there aren't 6 other people in our office on my level
so this would only work for larger corporations

when you then take into consideration that a lot of overtime is being done by people who work on a higher level and therefore are hard to replace I think it should be studied whether this plan will indeed have positive effects
or whether it just sounds good
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 07:59 PM   #10
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:48 PM

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.


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


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.


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.

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 01:00 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 02:48 PM

I think another detail is missing:

Under the administration's proposed rules, workers making as much as $22,100 a year would automatically qualify for overtime pay if they were not already collecting it. The current cap is $8,060 annually. Most workers getting $65,000 or more, on the other hand, would no longer qualify because employers could treat them as managers or other employees who are ineligible for overtime pay.
My father makes over $65K, but he's nowhere near a managerial position. He's a numbercrunching engineer, and he likes being the grunt worker instead of a manager. Yet, my father's also a workaholic who needs his overtime to make ends meet for our family situation. Usually, he puts in 40+ hours; at one time, 60-80 hours. And if he's not pulling overtime; he's tutoring high school kids on math and physics. I swear, my father wouldn't know what to do on his free time if it didn't involve mathematics and physics.
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 09:38 PM   #12
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,684
Local Time: 04:48 PM
oh wow. i just barely fall into the eligble status. but if i get another raise (we're talking like a 30 cent raise here), i'll be ineligible. swell.
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 07:04 PM   #13
bonoman's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 02:48 PM
I'm not sure what this "overtime pay" means. Are you trying to tell me that people are restricted from working overtime by the government? If that is the fact then the issue of it being 8 million people losing out or 1 shouldnt change the fact that that is discrimination and is falsley hurting hard working people. Anyone and everyone should be entitled to OT, if it is available. The gov't dshould make that decision!

bonoman is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com