New overtime laws....

this could go in "business" too.....

Published on August 23, 2004 By KarmaGirl In Current Events

I'm not sure if many people have been paying attention, but I have since I work with a lot of HR legal stuff.

The feds have taken another step to confuse employers and employees and open the doors to plenty of new work force lawsuits.

There is a new overtime law that begins today. Businesses have 120 days to comply. I have been reading a bunch of articles about the law, and I'm still not sure I understand all of it, and it appears that I am not alone.

Basically, under the new law (well, it's actually a majorly revised law), anyone making less than $23,660 a year is now eligible for overtime pay whenever they work more than 40 hours in a week, regardless of their job classification. Employees earning between $23,660 and $100,000 who previously received overtime pay might become ineligible for overtime pay if they are classified as professionals, administrators or executives. I have also seen this classified as "anyone who is in the position of authority" or anyone who "can make decisions" which makes the law that much more confusing. Most "contract" employees are also exempt from this law, as is a business owner that owns a majority of the company.

However, a major concern are the "learned professional" jobs, such as nurses, who will now be working as long of hours (or longer) and not getting overtime pay unless the hospital provides it. They were previously given overtime protection.

I have seen the same estimates on many site about this:
"The Labor Department says as many as 107,000 workers could lose overtime eligibility under its new rules, but about 1.3 million will gain it. The Economic Policy Institute, says 6 million will lose, and only a few will get new rights to premium pay for working more than 40 hours a week." I have also seen a more conservative look at it that said that about 600,000 workers could lose overtime but 1.2 million will gain it. (Which is only a net gain of 600,000 people who may already be getting it).

Sounds like a lot of confusion and employer expense for little benefit. I would also not be shocked if people who know *have* to be paid overtime start seeing that they don't get raises for a few years to even it out. It just seems like another band-aid on our current employment issues.

Comments (Page 1)

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 23, 2004

Thanks for giving me some of the information, pared down. I find it nuts to wade through.

By the way, to those who stated that WalMart could use this to avoid overtime by naming their employees "team leaders" or some such thing, WalMart workers don't usually make over $23,600 per year (that's $11.80 an hour, for those keeping score at home).

But that doesn't change the fact that this truly is nuts. When I worked as manager of group homes, I worked 65-70 hours a week or more, but was paid well for it. One year, I worked 350 days out of the year and made $42,000. If this law had been in effect, I would have made my base salary of $24,000.

joetheblow

on Aug 23, 2004

yes Karma Girl, I don't think this will work. Anybody getting paid less than 22,000 a year usually is in a dead end job. Not that employers do this on purpose but what happens is that the employees have almost no chance to earn more unless they are working overtime. They are more likly than not give them any raised and think to themselves that we allow them to do overtime so they can get more money. Its works for some, but reality is that working overtime take allot out of you. Work productivity might not increase any with overtime and so both employee and employer loose.

As for emplyees earning above 22,000 , that put them in a situation of workig harder for the same money. A person with a degree can be called a professional... even if its a libral arts degree. This means that if I go back into Architecture or I get into the field of technology, I won't get paid for extra hours because I can be classified as a professional. Its bad enough that I might have to sue my employers for my cwork conditions, now they don't want to pay me because I have a professional degree???

Nurses already have it bad. 60 hour work weeks is insane, but its good money if you survive. I am not sure how they will be classified. I read that city workers are not part of this, but what happenes when the contract expires?

joetheblow

on Aug 23, 2004

I just don't know, the law probably needed fixing in the first place but the republicans and the democrates are to busy fighting each other and trying to gain points with the public that nothing gets done.

KarmaGirl

on Aug 23, 2004

After looking into it from it's roots, it was a good idea gone wrong. It looks like it started out as part of the President's crusade to help the common person. It started out as merely raising the amount per year that could be earned and still receive overtime. But, by the end, they ended up taking away eligibility.

kingbee

on Aug 23, 2004

to those who stated that WalMart could use this to avoid overtime by naming their employees "team leaders" or some such thing, WalMart workers don't usually make over $23,600 per year (that's $11.80 an hour, for those keeping score at home

*raises hand* i should have found a less pernurious employer as a 'for instance'. walmarts is already facing class action litigation for alleged violations of the previous wage/hour regulations.

Texas Wahine

on Aug 23, 2004

I can speak from experience when I say that many people with "jobs" as opposed to "careers" may be eligible for overtime but are severely (sp?) chastized for going over their 40/wk.

At one point almost two years ago I was working as "manager/photographer" for a portrait studio. I was also attending college and caring for my children (and husband) at that time. I worked my ass off at that job. I guess that's beside the point . . . anyways, my normal work week was 36 hours because that was the store hours. It was very difficult not to go over 40 hours . . . very difficult.

My self-absorbed-alcoholic-workaholic boss pushed me hard (with infuriating and patronizing daily phone calls placed from inside his beer bottle) to accomodate more customers than time and studio space actually allowed (for example, on a Sunday, a 4 hour day, I might have 17 scheduled photo shoots, about 10 walk-ins, and around 15 people coming in to purchase photos . . . and I ran the studio alone) even if it meant opening early and staying late. However, I had be careful because if I happened to go over 40 I'd get my ass chewed off. It was understood that going over my 40 WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

It is my impression that this is common for many low hourly wage jobs.

Of course, many professionals , such as educators, work almost immeasurable overtime but are paid a flat salary. Great teachers who put effort and enthusiasm into their classes and who stay late and arrive early are generally paid the same as crappy teachers (with similar education, certification, and tenure) who slide in as the bell rings, give the class some reading assignments and worksheets, and then duck out well before 4 pm.

And with all my mindless (and likely irrelevant) rambling, what I am trying to say is . . . work sucks and I have no competent thoughts regarding the benefit, detriment, or legality of the new overtime pay legislation.

Wow . . . maybe MichaelProteus is right . . . maybe I do just want to hear myself talk.

Draginol

on Aug 23, 2004

This is a good example of what happens when people who don't know anythign about the real world or business start writing laws that affect the real world or business.

KarmaGirl

on Aug 24, 2004

It was understood that going over my 40 WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

That happen a lot at grocery stores and fast food places, too. They won't let people work even 40 hours because then they have to pay benefits. So, these people don't get overtime anyway, so this law basically just screwed the middle class.

I think that people like the nurses and nurse aids will suffer the most. One of my Aunts by marriage is a nurse. She has to work all sorts of crazy shifts and a lot of 10-12 hour days. But, she also feels that that extra time is worth it because she makes a little extra in exchange for the crazy work life. But, now she won't get that since she works at a government (VA) hospital. It's just not right.

Abe Cubbage

on Aug 24, 2004

I was looking for some info on this and came across this Link. Yes, I noticed the source, just passing it on.

Without a doubt

on Aug 25, 2004

Clearly, the whole thing was a law designed to fatten the bottom line of corporations. I'm not sure how a president trying to "help the common person" ends up with legislation that achieves the exact opposite.

That's what happens when you elect a president who can't think...

KarmaGirl

on Aug 25, 2004

Actually, it wasn't the President that did that. He was trying to help the lower middle class. Learn how laws are actually passed and you will see that not everything happens as the president wishes. Hmmm...democrats changing a good law started by the president to a bad one right before the election...naw...that would never happen.

KarmaGirl

on Aug 25, 2004

Have a problem there Jay Walker?

Texas Wahine

on Aug 25, 2004

Wow Jay Walker . . . you talk a lot, but are you really saying anything?

!!!

KarmaGirl

on Aug 25, 2004

Reply #17 By: Texas Wahine - 8/25/2004 7:08:04 PM
Wow Jay Walker . . . you talk a lot, but are you really saying anything? !!!

No, no...not really... (You have to say that in a "Cat in the hat" type way)

Jay Walker

on Aug 25, 2004

oops, sorry, i wus having some trouble with my computer - then I tried to delete it ... well, the story goes on and on ...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!