Philip Knode
July 3rd 03, 04:27 PM
Don't do it,do not agree to days off instead of overtime its taking money
out of your pocket and putting it in higher managers salary.Yes it nice to
have a day off but you can't spend that money you are owed.I have work for
the last 7 years as a so called manager for a set salary and no overtime a
regret it ever since.Phil
Lee" > wrote in message
news:cWV2ZXJ5.6b2524384537273225e45a095e3106a5@105 7230642.cotse.net...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54472-2003Jun30.html
>
> washingtonpost.com
> Overtime Pay Proposal Stirs Storm of Debate
>
>
> By Kirstin Downey
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, July 1, 2003; Page A11
>
>
> The Labor Department has been flooded with more than 75,000 letters
debating
> the merits of proposed overtime regulation changes that could affect more
> than 1 million Americans, the most mail the agency has received on any
> wage-and-hour topic in at least a decade.
>
> The department and business groups say the changes are an essential
updating
> of outmoded labor rules to better reflect the modern workplace with its
> plethora of white-collar professional positions. Labor union officials say
> the changes would undermine the 40-hour workweek and strip overtime pay
from
> many workers who have grown to depend upon it.
>
> The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 guarantees many non-managerial
workers
> time and a half for each hour they work beyond a basic 40-hour workweek,
but
> it is complex to interpret, and many jobs fall into the gray area of
whether
> the worker is truly a manager, and thus ineligible for overtime.
>
> The proposed changes would add about 1.3 million low-wage workers to the
> group automatically eligible for overtime pay, but it could cause other
> workers -- 644,000 to 8 million workers, depending on who does the
count --
> to be viewed as managerial employees, opening them up to longer work hours
> and losing the right to overtime pay.
>
> At the Labor Department yesterday, more than 100 workers gathered to
oppose
> the rule changes, carrying posters that said, "Bush, Why Cut My Pay?" and
> "Our Grandparents Died for the 40-hour Workweek." Several workers
addressed
> the group about the ways they thought the changes would reduce their pay.
>
> Bob Adams, 44, a bakery manager from Minneapolis, said he earns a salary
of
> $40,000 a year, but makes an additional $3,500 a year in overtime pay,
which
> is the money he uses for "baseball games, concerts, anything that makes my
> life more than simply going to work and back."
>
> "It's the difference between just making ends meet and having a life," he
> said, adding that he feared he would lose the overtime and simply be asked
> to work longer hours, which would, in turn, displace co-workers.
>
> More than 100 Democratic legislators have signed onto a letter written by
> Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) urging Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao to
> rescind the rule change, which they said would affect a broad range of
> workers, from paramedics to paralegals, secretaries, grocery clerks and
> delivery route drivers.
>
> Meanwhile, also yesterday, at a news conference, representatives of the
> National Retail Federation, the National Council of Chain Restaurants and
> the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the changes are badly needed to clarify
> rules that have grown outdated and are overly cumbersome.
>
> They said they are being battered by class-action lawsuits by
supervisorial
> employees, such as assistant managers, who say they should be eligible for
> overtime pay. They said the rule changes would more clearly spell out who
> should get overtime pay.
>
> "The proposal is not as dramatic as some people are making it out to be,"
> said Robert J. Green, vice president of federal relations for the National
> Restaurant Association.
>
> Last week, the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-affiliated group,
reported
> its estimates showed that as many as 8 million workers could lose access
to
> overtime pay under the rule changes. Labor Department officials quickly
> criticized the report as wildly off the mark, and a business-backed
> economist group, the Economics Policy Foundation, said only 1.15 million
> workers could be adversely affected by the change.
>
> The workers' rally yesterday began with a dust-up over the event's
setting.
> The AFL-CIO had rented a room at the Labor Department for a rally and news
> conference. The union said it was informed Thursday by department
officials
> that it could not use the space. Union officials charged that they were
> evicted because they were criticizing the Labor Department.
>
> Department officials said it was an "unfortunate" mix-up, and noted that
the
> form the union submitted in requesting the space did not specify the
nature
> of the event.
>
> "It was a scheduling conflict," said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank.
> "We didn't even know what they wanted to do."
>
> He said the department needed the space to provide emergency terrorism
> preparedness training to its incoming class of departmental interns, who
are
> just arriving in Washington.
>
>
>
>
> © 2003 The Washington Post Company
>
out of your pocket and putting it in higher managers salary.Yes it nice to
have a day off but you can't spend that money you are owed.I have work for
the last 7 years as a so called manager for a set salary and no overtime a
regret it ever since.Phil
Lee" > wrote in message
news:cWV2ZXJ5.6b2524384537273225e45a095e3106a5@105 7230642.cotse.net...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54472-2003Jun30.html
>
> washingtonpost.com
> Overtime Pay Proposal Stirs Storm of Debate
>
>
> By Kirstin Downey
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, July 1, 2003; Page A11
>
>
> The Labor Department has been flooded with more than 75,000 letters
debating
> the merits of proposed overtime regulation changes that could affect more
> than 1 million Americans, the most mail the agency has received on any
> wage-and-hour topic in at least a decade.
>
> The department and business groups say the changes are an essential
updating
> of outmoded labor rules to better reflect the modern workplace with its
> plethora of white-collar professional positions. Labor union officials say
> the changes would undermine the 40-hour workweek and strip overtime pay
from
> many workers who have grown to depend upon it.
>
> The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 guarantees many non-managerial
workers
> time and a half for each hour they work beyond a basic 40-hour workweek,
but
> it is complex to interpret, and many jobs fall into the gray area of
whether
> the worker is truly a manager, and thus ineligible for overtime.
>
> The proposed changes would add about 1.3 million low-wage workers to the
> group automatically eligible for overtime pay, but it could cause other
> workers -- 644,000 to 8 million workers, depending on who does the
count --
> to be viewed as managerial employees, opening them up to longer work hours
> and losing the right to overtime pay.
>
> At the Labor Department yesterday, more than 100 workers gathered to
oppose
> the rule changes, carrying posters that said, "Bush, Why Cut My Pay?" and
> "Our Grandparents Died for the 40-hour Workweek." Several workers
addressed
> the group about the ways they thought the changes would reduce their pay.
>
> Bob Adams, 44, a bakery manager from Minneapolis, said he earns a salary
of
> $40,000 a year, but makes an additional $3,500 a year in overtime pay,
which
> is the money he uses for "baseball games, concerts, anything that makes my
> life more than simply going to work and back."
>
> "It's the difference between just making ends meet and having a life," he
> said, adding that he feared he would lose the overtime and simply be asked
> to work longer hours, which would, in turn, displace co-workers.
>
> More than 100 Democratic legislators have signed onto a letter written by
> Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) urging Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao to
> rescind the rule change, which they said would affect a broad range of
> workers, from paramedics to paralegals, secretaries, grocery clerks and
> delivery route drivers.
>
> Meanwhile, also yesterday, at a news conference, representatives of the
> National Retail Federation, the National Council of Chain Restaurants and
> the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the changes are badly needed to clarify
> rules that have grown outdated and are overly cumbersome.
>
> They said they are being battered by class-action lawsuits by
supervisorial
> employees, such as assistant managers, who say they should be eligible for
> overtime pay. They said the rule changes would more clearly spell out who
> should get overtime pay.
>
> "The proposal is not as dramatic as some people are making it out to be,"
> said Robert J. Green, vice president of federal relations for the National
> Restaurant Association.
>
> Last week, the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-affiliated group,
reported
> its estimates showed that as many as 8 million workers could lose access
to
> overtime pay under the rule changes. Labor Department officials quickly
> criticized the report as wildly off the mark, and a business-backed
> economist group, the Economics Policy Foundation, said only 1.15 million
> workers could be adversely affected by the change.
>
> The workers' rally yesterday began with a dust-up over the event's
setting.
> The AFL-CIO had rented a room at the Labor Department for a rally and news
> conference. The union said it was informed Thursday by department
officials
> that it could not use the space. Union officials charged that they were
> evicted because they were criticizing the Labor Department.
>
> Department officials said it was an "unfortunate" mix-up, and noted that
the
> form the union submitted in requesting the space did not specify the
nature
> of the event.
>
> "It was a scheduling conflict," said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank.
> "We didn't even know what they wanted to do."
>
> He said the department needed the space to provide emergency terrorism
> preparedness training to its incoming class of departmental interns, who
are
> just arriving in Washington.
>
>
>
>
> © 2003 The Washington Post Company
>