Senate Approves Amendment Limiting Portions Of Dol's

[Sparx]

By a vote of 52-47, the Senate approves an amendment
proposed by Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) that would block portions
of the Labor Department's controversial overtime pay rule
from going into effect. Harkin's amendment, which was
offered on an unrelated export tax bill (S. 1637), would
prohibit giving any force or effect to any portions of DOL's
final rule that would cause any worker who currently is
eligible for overtime to lose that eligibility.

Immediately before approving Harkin's amendment, the Senate
votes 99-0 in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Gregg
(R-N.H.) that would preserve the current regulatory status
with regard to overtime for 55 occupations or job
classifications that Democrats have said are at risk as a
result of DOL's overtime rule. Gregg says he believes his
amendment is "redundant" in terms of how DOL's final rule
treats these workers. He says he offered it "to make
everybody comfortable with the regulation as issued."

The Labor Department's changes to the Fair Labor Standards
Act regulations revise the salary and duties tests used to
determine who is entitled to overtime under the law. They
are due to take effect Aug. 23.

 

[SamSpade]

BTW- if you don't write these pieces yourself, you're required to give credit according to Fair Use of copyrighted material.

 

[Sparx]

Originally posted by SamSpade
BTW- if you don't write these pieces yourself, you're required to give credit according to Fair Use of copyrighted material.

It's not copyrighted material

 

[SamSpade]

To the best of my knowledge, copyright law says that written material are inherently copyrighted at creation; but that in order to *sue*, you must register it.

You may be interested in this thread :

http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23818

 

[FromTexas]

Wow! Thanks for helping out Sparx!

Gregg says he believes his
amendment is "redundant" in terms of how DOL's final rule
treats these workers. He says he offered it "to make
everybody comfortable with the regulation as issued."

 

[Sparx]

Originally posted by FromTexas
Wow! Thanks for helping out Sparx!

What's your point?

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by Sparx
What's your point?

You have no reading comprehension?

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Sparx
It's not copyrighted material

If you pulled it from somewhere else, technically it's copyrighted material. The only time we really get ticky about it is when it's a column or story from a commercial news source.

 

[Ken King]

Sparx, have you read the final rule yourself and if so, what exactly are your concerns?

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by Ken King
Sparx, have you read the final rule yourself and if so, what exactly are your concerns?

You mean people are supposed to actually read how something actually works instead of fall into the partisan politics? Like the Patriot Act?

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by FromTexas
You mean people are supposed to actually read how something actually works instead of fall into the partisan politics? Like the Patriot Act?

That's the way I do it. I like to see for myself instead of waiting to be told what I should believe, think, or do.

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by Ken King
That's the way I do it. I like to see for myself instead of waiting to be told what I should believe, think, or do.

I'm still waiting for when Sparx will realize the amendment by the second guy is doing nothing that the DoL rules don't do. The guy even admits it. Its just a feel good rule.

 

[Sparx]

Originally posted by FromTexas
I'm still waiting for when Sparx will realize the amendment by the second guy is doing nothing that the DoL rules don't do. The guy even admits it. Its just a feel good rule.

There is nothing to realize there. It was a matter of a republican offering an ammendment to say the same thing the rules say to attempt to sway the vote in bush's and chow's direction by getting everyone to admit the limited protections for limited groups of workers are there so they would vote down Harkin's amendment directly following. What is so hard to see about that?

IT'S POLITICS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

 

[Ken King]

Sparx, you still haven't laid out the specifics of your concerns. From what I see it updates the rules and removes many employees from the groups that had previously been excepted under the old FLSA.

 

[Sparx]

Originally posted by Ken King
Sparx, you still haven't laid out the specifics of your concerns. From what I see it updates the rules and removes many employees from the groups that had previously been excepted under the old FLSA.

And eliminates overtime for anyone who wasn't. Mostly white collar employees. Granted the NEW RULES which were kept secret until they were released in the Federal Register does protect many profesions that had a problem but it still exempts many from overtime.

Also, When Chow was asked, what about those who have collective bargaining agreements through their unions that only reffer to the law, do they still have protection? She could not or would not answer the question.
CSPAN Sat. morning.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Sparx
Chow

Pekingese.

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by Sparx
There is nothing to realize there. It was a matter of a republican offering an ammendment to say the same thing the rules say to attempt to sway the vote in bush's and chow's direction by getting everyone to admit the limited protections for limited groups of workers are there so they would vote down Harkin's amendment directly following. What is so hard to see about that?

IT'S POLITICS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

that would preserve the current regulatory status
with regard to overtime for 55 occupations or job
classifications that Democrats have said are at risk as a
result of DOL's overtime rule.

It named the jobs and occupations Democrats claim are at risk, but at the same time, it is using the DoLs rules. Which is it? Does it or does not the DoL rules already protect the 55 occupations and jobs that the Democrats listed?

As for collective bargaining agreements, it is their own fault for not being specific in their contracts. Period. Should have used those dues for better lawyers. However, as stated before, the new rules are not really effecting anyone. Keep the blinders on, Sparx. They look good on you.

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by Sparx
And eliminates overtime for anyone who wasn't. Mostly white collar employees.

Where? How? Use the rules and show us.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Sparx
And eliminates overtime for anyone who wasn't. Mostly white collar employees. Granted the NEW RULES which were kept secret until they were released in the Federal Register does protect many profesions that had a problem but it still exempts many from overtime.

Also, When Chow was asked, what about those who have collective bargaining agreements through their unions that only reffer to the law, do they still have protection? She could not or would not answer the question.
CSPAN Sat. morning.

Well it is clear to me that you didn't read the final rule as they covered that in there. I even replied to your previous post in the other thread on this specific topic. Guess you didn't bother to read that either. Do me a favor and read the final rule so at least you know what you are talking about. As related to the CBA, what is contained in them is the ruling guidance.

Oh and one more thing, the Secretary's name is Chao.

 

[Sparx]

Originally posted by Ken King
Well it is clear to me that you didn't read the final rule as they covered that in there. I even replied to your previous post in the other thread on this specific topic. Guess you didn't bother to read that either. Do me a favor and read the final rule so at least you know what you are talking about. As related to the CBA, what is contained in them is the ruling guidance.

Oh and one more thing, the Secretary's name is Chao.

First, I know how to spell her name correctly I just don't choose to.
Second, I have the final rule on my desk but I'm sorry I have real work to do and don't have time to debate with everyone all day.