Chao: Working Overtime to Screw Workers

The first time Labor Secretary Elaine Chao tried to overhaul the country's Fair Labor Standards Act, there was a bit of squawking (1.5 million e-mails, letters, faxes and made phone calls to the White House, the Department of Labor and Congress...and not all of them from me either). So---her boss being up for re-election this year---she rolled up her sleeves, put in some long hours, and took another stab at it. And now, in the fine tradition of the Bush II administration, it's much, much better...at least in Orwellian terms.

“Today, workers win. The department’s new rules guarantee and strengthen overtime rights for more American workers than ever before,” said Secretary Chao.

But how did the workers win, exactly? Let's look closer, shall we?

Under the new rules, Chao said up to 107,000 high-paid, white-collar workers could lose their overtime protection. But 6.7 million workers, many of whom may already earn overtime, would be guaranteed eligibility without ambiguity or questions.

So, the workers who are "winning" are not actually getting anything more than a clarification of their eligibility. I guess that's a win if your boss was trying to screw you out of overtime pay, but what about those 107,000 workers losing their overtime protection? How did they win? But, before you answer that, wait...there's more

Democrats challenged her initial estimates of who could potentially lose eligibility, citing their own analysis of up to 8 million workers. (emphasis mine)

So let's ask that question again. How did the workers win? If Chao's new plans only protect the overtime pay of 6.7 million workers, but up to 8 million workers could lose their protection, that's potentially 1.3 million workers who have clearly lost. If the Democrats' numbers are right, her statement about strengthening "overtime rights for more American workers than ever before" is clearly misleading. Like that would be a surprise here though:

[A] leading Democratic critic said the Bush administration "simply is not trustworthy" on the issue.

"It's possible that the administration has had an election-year conversion on overtime but I hope you'll pardon me if I remain skeptical," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who led the opposition to an earlier version of proposed regulations issued a year ago.

More than that, however, the obvious problem with Chao's "winning" formula was stated succinctly by the AFL-CIO:

"The fact that President Bush is slashing overtime pay for even a single worker is outrageous," AFL-CIO spokeswoman Lane Windham said.

So what Bush is calling a "win" for workers is actually just a clarification of what should have been happening all along. But, of course, his buddies in Business can't be left empty handed if favors are being passed out, so he helps them slash overtime pay at the same time. And don't even get me started on the Labor Deparment's attempts to help educate employers on how to "avoid paying the extra money, including cutting those workers' hourly wages and adding the overtime to equal the original salary, or raising salaries to the new threshold, making them ineligible."

Bush's legacy: Business over workers, again and again and again and again and again...

Comments

[Anarch]

put in some long hours...

Hee... I can't resist:

Sept 11th Could Not Have Been Prevented Without Accruing A Lot Of Overtime

[Slartibartfast]

Before getting all hysterical about this, Edward, I recommend you read this analysis.

First, the unions ought not to be concerned at all, because the policy change affect only salaried workers. Don't immediately draw the conclusion that because a lot of people are bitching about it, that their bitching is justified.

[Slartibartfast]

I do have to say that this is the first time I've seen you crusading for The Rich (Under the new rules, Chao said up to 107,000 high-paid, white-collar workers could lose their overtime protection.), though. Commendably Fair and Balanced of you.

[Edward]

Before getting all hysterical about this, Edward, I recommend you read this analysis.

Well, yeah...that was clear as mud.

Things are bit more interdependent than advocates of this new regulation (who essentially from my point of view will approve of anything such nonsense so long as it has a pro-Business stamp on it) are willing to recognize, Slarti.

Your boy notes: The new rules don't affect "working families" (i.e., blue-collar workers in Democratspeke).

But it does affect nurses reportedly. They don't count among "working families"? Do you know single-parent mothers who works as nurses? Personally, I'd rather have the ones taking care of my loved ones in hospitals well paid.

Oh, and your boy hit a particularly obnoxious high note with this:

(I keep emphasizing time-and-a-half because that phrase wasn't used once during the 2 hour show).

Implying that advocates of preserving overtime were somehow trying to pull a fast one over on the poor unsuspecting business community...poor businessmen...poor employers...why, when you take minimum wage and add half of it again, it's practically more than the cabin boy on their yacht makes.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Eddie, floor nurses don't get paid overtime (the ones who take care of you) as compared to nurses who are in admin.

It will be interesting to see the parameters.

[Slartibartfast]

Not all overtime pay is time and a half, Edward. Some people actually get paid straight time for OT.

Your lawinfo source is unbelievable. There's nothing about the new rules that would would deny overtime pay to white-collar workers who earn more than $100,000 annually and perform some professional, administrative or executive duties.

And if you know nurses making more than $100k a year, they're lucky indeed.

[Slartibartfast]

Not would would. Just would.

You can read what others say about it, Edward. Or you can just read it and decide for yourself. What you're going to find, though, is that there's no mandate for any business to pay its employees any less.

[Gary Farber]

I will now do my trick of pissing both sides off by saying that I have no interest in checking the links either side have given here, because when I see one source quoted as referring to "Democratspeke," I know they are biased and speaking contempteously, and therefore why should I listen to a word they say?

And when I see Edward referring to "their yacht," I expect him next to speak of their top hat, monocle, and mustache-twirling.

Let's all get those knees jerking at each other, shall we? Let it be like the Rockettes!

Is there some reason Mr. Wonder Dog keeps referring to Edward as "Eddie"? Are they good friends, and on terms of intimacy? Or is this a derogatory diminutive, in which case I'd suggest that it's a violation of the Posting Rules.

[Edward]

Sorry, Slart, I was too busy being classist and snarky there...what does your last comment mean?

Your lawinfo source is unbelievable. There's nothing about the new rules that would would deny overtime pay to white-collar workers who earn more than $100,000 annually and perform some professional, administrative or executive duties.

You put it in italics, suggesting it's a quote, but I'm not following your point in relation to my comment. Sorry for slowing down the tempo, but could you restate?

Timmy, ...for regulations that were supposed to clarify things...this stuff is sure hard to follow. Nurses and the Part 541 Exemptions Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

The FLSA requires that most employees in the United States be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hour worked and overtime pay at time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. However, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) also exempts certain computer employees. To qualify for exemption, employees must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, no problem.

I was quoting from your cite:

The revisions, made after the Labor Department received more than 75,000 comments, would deny overtime pay to white-collar workers who earn more than $100,000 annually and perform some professional, administrative or executive duties, the department said. The initial plan put the salary ceiling at $65,000 annually.

The new laws deny no pay to anyone. They might change the overtime protection that some might enjoy, but they certainly don't prohibit businesses from continuing to compensate employees the way they are now, as long as said compensation exceeds the DOL minimum standards.

The way I see it, much of the changes are rescoping who gets time-and-a-half. I made time-and-a-half as a professional once upon a time, but as a salaried professional, I'm never guaranteed overtime pay even under the old rules.

[Edward]

What you're going to find, though, is that there's no mandate for any business to pay its employees any less.

Who needs a mandate...Bush's labor department is giving free tutorials on how to pay them less...

This is just more of the same "faith-based" regulation that Bush offers but no one in Bussiness actually bothers to take him up on ...from the same cauldron of regulation voodoo the "Clear Skies Initiative" came from ("You can trust business, really you can.")

The idea that employers (especially in this jobs market) are not going to take each and every advantage they can is fantasyland wishful thinking...and as my aunt used to say, wish in one hand and $%^& in the other and see what you've got at the end of it all.

[Slartibartfast]

Who needs a mandate...Bush's labor department is giving free tutorials on how to pay them less...

I've heard about this; can you show me?

[Edward]

I'd say anyone who calls himself "Timmy the Wonder Dog" is beyond charges of anti-posting rules insult via diminuitive, Gary.

But Senor Wonder Dog and I have been dueling for ages now (or so it seems), so I take no offense.

Good point about the jerk knees, however, I did admit to classist rhetoric on this one.

[carpeicthus]

One of my old jobs would qualify for this "clarification." The salary worked out to $9 an hour. Yup, we're only talking about the rich here.

"Clarify" this sort of loophole, and I'd expect the average salary of jobs that qualify to plummet, as countless companies do some creative restructuring.

[Slartibartfast]

I think you're wrong, carpe. The lower limit for any of these changes is $455 a week. Nine bucks an hour falls below that level, obviously.

[carpeicthus]

At least under the first article linked to. Guess it's time to quit this job and read through the entire new report for competing claims.

Or not. It pays much better. Have fun.

[Edward]

I've heard about this; can you show me?

Details here

Nuts and bolts of it:

The Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible under new rules expected to be finalized early this year....

Among the options for employers: cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible.

The department says it is merely listing well-known choices available to employers, even under current law.

I find it a direct violation of their mission statement to instruct employers how to pay their employees as little as they can.

And, to add insult to injury, their lame-ass excuse for this?

We're not saying anybody should do any of this," said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank.

Harkin's right on this one: the Bush administration "simply is not trustworthy" on the issue.

[Slartibartfast]

Edward, I agree that this is both in poor taste, and if they have a mission statement at all, this ought to be in direct violation of it. The statement that any business would be aware of these tactics is true, though.

That said, another whopping hint they failed to drop is that employers could just drop wages to the minimum. That'd save them a gob of money. Shhhhh...

[Edward]

if they have a mission statement at all

Department of Labor Mission Statement

The Department of Labor fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measurements. In carrying out this mission, the Department administers a variety of Federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthful working conditions; a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay; freedom from employment discrimination; unemployment insurance; and other income support.

Now, how can you both instruct employers on how to avoid paying overtime and still work to guarantee they pay overtime?

That said, another whopping hint they failed to drop is that employers could just drop wages to the minimum. That'd save them a gob of money. Shhhhh...

Good God, Slarti. Don't give em any ideas!

Or at least wait until the manage to cut the minimum wage by 80% first.

[Gary Farber]

"I'd say anyone who calls himself 'Timmy the Wonder Dog' is beyond charges of anti-posting rules insult via diminuitive, Gary."

If you're not offended, fine. But I'm not clear on the logic.

[META-POSTING RULES VIOLATION BEGINS] You mean that if I post as "Gary The Shithead," I can regularly respond to people with "Fuck you, asshole"? [META-POSTING RULES VIOLATION ENDS]

Committing a violation against one's self frees one to do the same to others? Moe? (Where is Moe these days? He seems to be dropping his posting level down to close to Katherine's, which disappoints me greatly.)

[Edward]

Gary, to answer your question, no I'm not offended, for reasons that pre-date this blog. Diminutives can be insulting or they can be endearing. "Asshole" and "Shithead" are not in that same category.

I use "Slarti" all the time. Mostly out of laziness, I'll admit, but I think it depends on the intent. I know "Timmy" means no offense.

I too miss Katherine...it will be good to have another liberal voice writing here.

[Slartibartfast]

I use "Slarti" all the time.

Hey! You're not supposed to tell!

[Edward]

oops.

Btw, Is "Slartibartfast" an actual family name or just Adam's interplanetary fjord designer? I've never run across it outside your blog or the series.

[Slartibartfast]

The latter, Edward. I didn't want to be all that Google-able.

[Slartibartfast]

Closing your italics, Jesurgislac.

[Jesurgislac]

Edward, it's Douglas Adams, not Douglas Adam's.

Cannot resist my favorite quote:

"Who ... who are you?" stammered Arthur.

The man looked away. Again a kind of sadness seemed to cross his face.

"My name is not important," he said.

ebooks!

.....

He looked at the old man, his face illuminated by the dull glow of tiny lights on the instrument panel.

"Excuse me," he said to him, "what is your name by the way?"

"My name?" said the old man, and the same distant sadness came into his face again. He paused. "My name," he said, "... is Slartibartfast."

Arthur practically choked.

"I beg your pardon?" he spluttered.

"Slartibartfast," repeated the old man quietly.

"Slartibartfast?"

The old man looked at him gravely.

"I said it wasn't important," he said.

[Edward]

Edward, it's Douglas Adams, not Douglas Adam's.

See what happens when you get all literarily pendantic, Jes? The HTML Gods smite you from above...

:P

[Jesurgislac]

Emergency italic end inserted.

Sorry.

A more ontopic quote:

"The computers were index linked to the Galactic stock market prices you see, so that we'd all be revived when everybody else had rebuilt the economy enough to afford our rather expensive services."

Arthur, a regular Guardian reader, was deeply shocked at this.

"That's a pretty unpleasant way to behave isn't it?"

"Is it?" asked the old man mildly. "I'm sorry, I'm a bit out of touch."

[Jesurgislac]

Bugger. Sorry, I've come over all British all of a sudden.

(inserting multiple end-italic quotes)

[Jesurgislac]

You know, given that I've been snobbishly insisting Odysseus use HTML, this is really embarrassing... (And the annoying thing is, it looks fine in preview.)

[Edward]

This should do the trick...I hope

[Jesurgislac]

See what happens when you get all literarily pendantic, Jes? The HTML Gods smite you from above...

That's pedantic, not pendantic, Edward.

*ducks*

[Edward]

Most unfortunate habitual misspelling of mine, I'll admit.

[Slartibartfast]

I thought maybe Edward was somehow wearing Jesurgislac as a sort of necklace, for a bit. Well, not really.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, that's precisely why I chose the name.

[James Casey]

Bugger. Sorry, I've come over all British all of a sudden.

Happens to me all the time.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: I thought maybe Edward was somehow wearing Jesurgislac as a sort of necklace

I thought the HTML Gods were smiting me pendantically: that is, with a very large pendant.

Better than with a very large pedant, I suppose.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, that was fun.