posted 11-29-2003 09:45 AM                       

quote:

---

Unless, of course, you're salary. Then you're screwed sideways.

---

posted 12-02-2003 09:23 AM                       

quote:

---

Issue Takes On New Importance For Election Year
Overtime Pay Takes Center Stage in Congress
by Jonathan Yarowsky
NATO Washington Counsel

In a recent column, we discussed the increasing attention given to the issue of “overtime” pay in the American workplace. At the time of that earlier column, legislation (H.R. 1119) was pending before the House Education and Workforce Committee that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 to permit private sector employers to offer their employees the option of receiving overtime pay in the form of paid compensatory time in lieu of cash wages. Supporters of this legislation contend that in the changing workplace environment, flexibility is necessary to provide working parents with the option of receiving comp time in lieu of cash compensation in order to spend more time at home.

As also indicated at that time, we were monitoring the legislation closely because FLSA, in addition to providing that eligible employees who work over 40 hours will be compensated at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, also includes exemptions to such a 40-hour workweek – including a specific reference to motion picture theatres. Thus, any legislation that implicates the underlying provisions of the 1938 Act must be tracked very carefully.

As of this writing, H.R. 1119 has not received a vote on the House floor. However, the legislative action on the issue of overtime has now shifted to a policy debate about the Department of Labor’s plan to change the definition of who is eligible for overtime pay. The changes in definitions are embodied in regulations proposed by the Department of Labor on March 31. There is sharp disagreement about how many people would be affected. Currently, workers earning $8,000 or less are statutorily guaranteed overtime pay. The new regulations would raise the cutoff to $22,100. Supporters of the new regulations contend that this change would allow 1.3 million low-wage workers (earning between $8,000 and $22,000) to be eligible for overtime. At the same time, the regulations would disqualify certain workers now receiving overtime if they “hold a position of responsibility” while performing non-manual work. Opponents counter with the argument that the new standard is overbroad and vague and that, ironically, overtime would be denied to thousands of white collar workers currently receiving it.

On July 10, the House of Representatives debated an amendment offered by congressmen David Obey (D-Wis.) and George Miller (D-Calif.) that would prohibit the secretary of labor from promulgating any regulation that has the effect of exempting from FLSA overtime compensation requirements any employee currently eligible for overtime pay. The amendment which was offered to the Labor Department-Health and Human Services Department appropriations bill (Labor/HHS).

Following the August recess, the Senate took up Labor/HHS. At that time, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) offered a similar amendment to block the implementation of the new Department of Labor rules. Six Republicans joined with 48 Democrats in opposing the proposed changes to overtime eligibility, and the Harkin amendment was approved.

But the matter is hardly resolved, as the larger Labor/HHS bill moves to a House-Senate conference where the conferees must resolve many critical issues covering programs from student loans to medical research to Medicare.

It is now abundantly clear in Washington that the seemingly innocuous, non-partisan issue of “overtime” has finally migrated up the political radar screen to set the stage for an “election year” debate.

---