Routerman18250
IS-IT--Management
I think this article may be of interest to the members here. This issue has been a bone of contention for me personally for a long time. It appears that our government is caving into American business again to the detriment of the work force due to some companies losing lawsuits in the courts regarding O/T. Don't get me wrong, I am all for big business but at the same time I expect to be adequately and fairly compensated for my efforts. It gets old carrying a pager 24X7X365 and taking time away from my family. If this new reg is passed it will only get worse.
WASHINGTON (AP) - About 640,000 white-collar workers could lose<br>overtime
pay, while more than a million low-income employees could begin to earn
it under a White House proposal to overhaul decades-old labor laws.The changes being suggested Thursday by the Labor Department revamp a
section of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act that defines blue-collar
and white-collar wo
rkers and determines who must be paid a time-and-a-half hourly
rate for working more than 40 hours a week. About 110 million
workers are covered by the complex regulations,<br>which have not been
updated in 28 years. The Bush administration also is pursuing
other revisions to workplace regulations and programs, including the
Family Medical Leave Act,<br>job training programs and unemployment
insurance. The overtime proposal is<br>subject to a 90-day public comment
period. Final regulations, which would<br>not require congressional action,
probably would not take effect until late<br>this year or early in
2004. "Our proposal has attempted to simplify and update,
to make those rules easier to apply and easier to enforce," Tammy
McCutchen, administrator<br>of the Labor Department's wage and hour
division, told The Associated Press<br>late Wednesday. The current
regulations are 31,000 words, she said. The proposed replacement: 13,000 words."Easy, clear rules mean employees will
understand when they're entitled to overtime, employers will know what
their obligations are and the Department of Labor will be able to more
vigorously enforce the law,"McCutchen said.Business groups long
have complained that the complicated rules,which contain outdated job
descriptions and salary levels, require overtime pay for already
well-compensated and highly skilled professionals.A surge in
overtime pay lawsuits aimed at employers also is a<br>concern. Workers filed
79 federal collective-action lawsuits seeking<br>overtime pay in 2001,
surpassing for the first time class-action job discrimination suits
against employers, according to the American Bar Association.Workers now are exempt from overtime pay if they earn more than $155 a
week, or $8,060 a year, and meet other convoluted, confusing job
criteria,<br>such as devoting at least 80 percent of their time to "exercising<br>discretion" and other "intellectual" tasks that
cannot be "standardized in... a given period of time."The
proposal would raise the salary cap to $425 a week, or $22,100 a year,
and any worker earning less automatically would be required to
receive overtime pay.Jobs most affected by the changes
likely would be assistant managers of stores, restaurants and bars,McCutchen said. They would get overtime pay despite their management
status as long as they earn less than $22,100 a year The proposal
also clarifies and simplifies definitions of administrative, executive
and professional employees that should be exempt<br>from overtime pay.
Generally, workers would be exempt under the proposal if they manage more
than two employees and have the authority to hire and fire,or they have
an advanced degree and work in a specialized field, or they work in the
operations, finance and auditing areas of a company. With the proposed changes, employers could face $334
million to $895<br>million in direct payroll costs for the 1.3 million
low-wage workers<br>estimated to become eligible for overtime pay. Overall,
businesses could face costs of $870 million to $1.57 billion to implement
new requirements.But McCutchen said the benefits of increased
productivity and fewer lawsuits could mean savings of $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion.Union officials have said they would oppose any
changes that would cause longer work weeks, because required overtime pay
is the only brake stopping many employers from demanding excessive work
hours."We're concerned that these rules could weaken the tradition of the 40-hour work week," said Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO, which hadn't seen the proposal Wednesday night.Employees who work under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by unions would not be affected by new regulations. Also, companies still can choose to pay overtime to exempt
workers.
WASHINGTON (AP) - About 640,000 white-collar workers could lose<br>overtime
pay, while more than a million low-income employees could begin to earn
it under a White House proposal to overhaul decades-old labor laws.The changes being suggested Thursday by the Labor Department revamp a
section of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act that defines blue-collar
and white-collar wo
rkers and determines who must be paid a time-and-a-half hourly
rate for working more than 40 hours a week. About 110 million
workers are covered by the complex regulations,<br>which have not been
updated in 28 years. The Bush administration also is pursuing
other revisions to workplace regulations and programs, including the
Family Medical Leave Act,<br>job training programs and unemployment
insurance. The overtime proposal is<br>subject to a 90-day public comment
period. Final regulations, which would<br>not require congressional action,
probably would not take effect until late<br>this year or early in
2004. "Our proposal has attempted to simplify and update,
to make those rules easier to apply and easier to enforce," Tammy
McCutchen, administrator<br>of the Labor Department's wage and hour
division, told The Associated Press<br>late Wednesday. The current
regulations are 31,000 words, she said. The proposed replacement: 13,000 words."Easy, clear rules mean employees will
understand when they're entitled to overtime, employers will know what
their obligations are and the Department of Labor will be able to more
vigorously enforce the law,"McCutchen said.Business groups long
have complained that the complicated rules,which contain outdated job
descriptions and salary levels, require overtime pay for already
well-compensated and highly skilled professionals.A surge in
overtime pay lawsuits aimed at employers also is a<br>concern. Workers filed
79 federal collective-action lawsuits seeking<br>overtime pay in 2001,
surpassing for the first time class-action job discrimination suits
against employers, according to the American Bar Association.Workers now are exempt from overtime pay if they earn more than $155 a
week, or $8,060 a year, and meet other convoluted, confusing job
criteria,<br>such as devoting at least 80 percent of their time to "exercising<br>discretion" and other "intellectual" tasks that
cannot be "standardized in... a given period of time."The
proposal would raise the salary cap to $425 a week, or $22,100 a year,
and any worker earning less automatically would be required to
receive overtime pay.Jobs most affected by the changes
likely would be assistant managers of stores, restaurants and bars,McCutchen said. They would get overtime pay despite their management
status as long as they earn less than $22,100 a year The proposal
also clarifies and simplifies definitions of administrative, executive
and professional employees that should be exempt<br>from overtime pay.
Generally, workers would be exempt under the proposal if they manage more
than two employees and have the authority to hire and fire,or they have
an advanced degree and work in a specialized field, or they work in the
operations, finance and auditing areas of a company. With the proposed changes, employers could face $334
million to $895<br>million in direct payroll costs for the 1.3 million
low-wage workers<br>estimated to become eligible for overtime pay. Overall,
businesses could face costs of $870 million to $1.57 billion to implement
new requirements.But McCutchen said the benefits of increased
productivity and fewer lawsuits could mean savings of $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion.Union officials have said they would oppose any
changes that would cause longer work weeks, because required overtime pay
is the only brake stopping many employers from demanding excessive work
hours."We're concerned that these rules could weaken the tradition of the 40-hour work week," said Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO, which hadn't seen the proposal Wednesday night.Employees who work under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by unions would not be affected by new regulations. Also, companies still can choose to pay overtime to exempt
workers.