Bush overtime plan: A slap in the in the face to Americans Veterans

[Warron]

My understanding of this whole issue of veteran overtime is that companies will be able to use experience from enlisted military time to classify a worker as a professional even though they have no professional degree. And this classification somehow fits into the determination of whether the worker is eligible for overtime.

All I can say about this is that my two years of military schooling along with the remainder of my enlistment got me a whole 3 college credits. If no college in the country will grant me a professional degree based on this experience, I have some significant problems with an arbitrary determination to the contrary by some company.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by Warron
My understanding of this whole issue of veteran overtime is that companies will be able to use experience from enlisted military time to classify a worker as a professional even though they have no professional degree. And this classification somehow fits into the determination of whether the worker is eligible for overtime.

All I can say about this is that my two years of military schooling along with the remainder of my enlistment got me a whole 3 college credits. If no college in the country will grant me a professional degree based on this experience, I have some significant problems with an arbitrary determination to the contrary by some company.

They are not talking about you then. If you had gotten a ton of training in metelergy, NDI, calibration, that DID in fact equate to a technical degree and a wage in excess of $65,000 a year it would be talking about you.

Many get training in technical fields and go on to take a few "college core" classes and get a degree. Many get the same training and do not go take english and sociology and still get a great wage. Degree doesn't make a "professional" just ask those with a B.A in French Lit.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by Pete
They are not talking about you then. If you had gotten a ton of training in metelergy, NDI, calibration, that DID in fact equate to a technical degree and a wage in excess of $65,000 a year it would be talking about you.

True dat.

My military background/training is actually valued much higher than a degree, because up until recently, there weren't any degrees to be found in what I did/do.

 

[Christy]

Back to the topic at hand. I don't see what the big deal of this is anyway? :shrug: Just the same old scare tactics used by the Dems day in and day out. :shrug:

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by Pete
They are not talking about you then. If you had gotten a ton of training in metelergy, NDI, calibration, that DID in fact equate to a technical degree and a wage in excess of $65,000 a year it would be talking about you.

I am not aware of many military training schools of longer length or technical depth then the navy nuclear propulsion plant operator training. I don't know of many people who started at over $65,000 a year with that training, but I know several people who could have easily made that much after a few years working as a reactor operator in a civilian plant. Navy nukes where high in demand by nuclear plants when I got out, although I decided to get far away from the nuclear world.

It's also my understanding that the no overtime determination can be used all the way down to $22,101 a year for anyone classified as a professional.

 

[Kizzy]

Originally posted by Christy
Back to the topic at hand. I don't see what the big deal of this is anyway? :shrug: Just the same old scare tactics used by the Dems day in and day out. :shrug:

I haven't completely made up my mind on the subject. I agree that the rules need to be updated, because yes, they are outdated. Pete implied that this action may increase jobs in the workforce, and one would hope that he is correct, but I tend to lean towards the opinion that an employer would be more inclined to work his pre-existing workforce than pay a "new" employee benefits.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by migtig
I am a veteran who is employed and works more than 40 hours per week and never receive overtime pay. So can I blame Clinton?

Actually no, you would have to blame Franklin D. Roosevelt he was the President who was in office (2nd term) when the FLSA was enacted. The wording about who is exempt and non-exempt is the same as the day it was signed. He is a Democrat though.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Okay, I think I get it now. Bush wants to eliminate federally mandated overtime pay guarantees - as in companies aren't required to pay overtime. Some of the people who may have their overtime taken away are former military personnel. Therefore the Democrats have decided to spin this as Bush taking money from veterans.

Is that about right?

ZACTLY, except he doesn't want to take away all guarantees. The guarantees are still in effect for unskilled hourly wage earneres. The only ones who are effected are the ones who have appraoched the "professional" status and do not need the protection because their wages are FAR from substandard or easily replacable.

They are claiming that wage earners as low as $21K a year. I suppose that this may be true under the strictest interpretation if you are "supervisory". However there are worst cases in every scenario that the fringe loves to hoist up as the "norm".

 

[Pete]

Stool,

Did you rail this hard against Clinton when he radically changed welfare and booted out all those career welfare recipients? Poor unfortunate souls who wouldn't even put in 40 let alone get overtime.


Fear monger, Democrat operende'

I think they should be called Scaredycrats.

 

[Ken King]

I say, join the club. Been exempt for many years, just like millions upon millions of others. Check this and see who is already exempt, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/213.html

I’m glad they are at least paying me regular wages now, up until very recently I made less per hour working overtime then when working a regular hour.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Sparx
Overtime Pay Under Attack

On Sept. 10, the Senate approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 2660) to ban the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing the Bush-backed proposal to gut overtime protections guaranteed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The House-passed version of the bill does not include a similar amendment to block the overtime rule changes. On Oct. 2, the U.S. House approved a "motion to instruct" House members of the conference committee merging the Senate and House version of H.R. 2660 to go along with the provision in the Senate bill that guarantees workers against the loss of their overtime protection. Bush has threatened to veto the bill if it includes the overtime amendment.

You know what's really cool here? HR 2660 hasn’t passed as an act, never left the joint committee. The Consolidated Appropriation Act was passed as HR 2673 and is before the President as Public Law 108-199, this has Labor in it. While I have only perused the material I haven’t found any such reference, but I am sure it’s buried deep. Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/State, District of Columbia, Foreign Operations, Labor/HHS/Education, Transportation/Treasury, & VA/HUD have all been rapped into this one.

Was this another homework question or has class begun yet?

 

[Makavide]

From the Post

Some companies are interpreting language in new national overtime pay rules as possibly allowing them to exempt workers who have received military training.

Under federal law, workers who are "learned professionals" are presumed to have control of their own time and are exempt from receiving overtime pay. Historically, that category included workers such as doctors, lawyers, scientists, theologians and others with advanced degrees.

In proposing changes in the rules last spring, the Labor Department said in the Federal Register that "the exemption is also available to employees in such professions who have substantially the same knowledge as the degreed employees, but who have attained such knowledge through a combination of work experience, training in the armed forces, attending a technical school, attending a community college or other intellectual instruction."

Peter Gaytan, principal deputy director for veterans' affairs and rehabilitation at the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans service organization, said Labor Department officials have assured his group that the new rules would not hurt veterans

So, there is a posibility that some veterens will lose the chance to recieve overtime because they may become "exempt" workers. This does not mean that they will be forced to work ovetime for free, they just get to spend more time at home (or a second job) instead of volunteering to work overtime for what time and a half.

 

[Sparx]

Did you ever think that if so many people are getting overtime that if they stopped paying OT and hired some of the unemployed your party is always wanking about to work those hours instead more people would have jobs?

Or do you advocate just overpaying those who are getting it now and let the rest suffer. Party of the common man my ass.


Someone else answered the question and they were right. No employer is going to put more people to work and pay the benefits for them if they can work their existing employees as many hours as they wish with no overtime compensation. Overtime compensation doesn't mean time and a half or double time either. It means no compensation for that time worked past 40 hrs.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Sparx
Someone else answered the question and they were right. No employer is going to put more people to work and pay the benefits for them if they can work their existing employees as many hours as they wish with no overtime compensation. Overtime compensation doesn't mean time and a half or double time either. It means no compensation for that time worked past 40 hrs.

Show me where this is allowable or even proposed? My understanding of the "exemption" is that those determined to be exempt from the provisions of the FLSA for the overtime "premium" pay still receive their regular rate of pay or compensatory time off in lieu of pay for any hours worked that exceed their basic workweek. I think you are confusing exempt with salaried.

 

[Sparx]

You may be right, I'll check into that possibility...

 

[Sparx]

It gets worse though, the Bush controled DOL is actively teaching employers how to deny overtime compensation to workers..

The Bush Labor Department regularly touts the potential expansion of guaranteed overtime protections to more low-income workers as the chief virtue of its proposed overtime rule changes that also take overtime pay rights away from up to eight million workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That the Administration nevertheless has gone out of its way to broadcast overtime pay avoidance strategies for employers underscores—as management law firm Proskauer Rose noted to its clients—that overall, the proposed changes benefit employers. The few workers who might potentially benefit from the Department of Labor’s proposed regulations would actually lose the extra income if employers pursue the strategies DOL outlined.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by Sparx
Someone else answered the question and they were right. No employer is going to put more people to work and pay the benefits for them if they can work their existing employees as many hours as they wish with no overtime compensation. Overtime compensation doesn't mean time and a half or double time either. It means no compensation for that time worked past 40 hrs.

That is ludicrous. You actually think that if you work 45 hours you would get paid only for 40? You have to be kidding me? Your handlers have really hosed you down with extra strength gullible spray. What they are proposing is that if you are an hourly employee and worked 45 you would get paid for the extra 5 hours at the same hourly rate as the first 40 and not time and a half. Read the law !! It would be illegal to not pay some one for hours worked. What they are proposing is that the extra 5 hours would not be Premium overtime pay if you are a “professional” and not on a salary system. There are times when I work an extra hour or two a week but I am salary so I don't get compensated, big woop I do pretty well and it is my job, I like the paychecks and I like havng it.

As far as an employer not hiring the extra people because of benefits I disagree. You see, the people who are "supposed to be protected" rarely get benefits anyway. Unskilled/hourly employees, read the law. Are you so pitiful that you require "Protection" from a big bad employer?

If you actually believe what you are saying I may have to just stop responding because your hatred of Bush has caused your brain to rot and thus there is no point in arguing with en empty headed goober.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by Sparx
It gets worse though, the Bush controled DOL is actively teaching employers how to deny overtime compensation to workers..

The Bush Labor Department regularly touts the potential expansion of guaranteed overtime protections to more low-income workers as the chief virtue of its proposed overtime rule changes that also take overtime pay rights away from up to eight million workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That the Administration nevertheless has gone out of its way to broadcast overtime pay avoidance strategies for employers underscores—as management law firm Proskauer Rose noted to its clients—that overall, the proposed changes benefit employers. The few workers who might potentially benefit from the Department of Labor’s proposed regulations would actually lose the extra income if employers pursue the strategies DOL outlined.

This is like me saying "The big bad H& R block is teaching you how to cheat on taxes !!! It is the DOL's job to assist businesses in interpreting the laws. QUESTION: Do you think Walmart goes to the DOL and say's "How do I get around paying OT?" NO !! Walmart has their own lawyers who make their policy in accordance with the law. So if big business has lawyers who make policies who is it the DOL is assisting? SMALL BUSINESS, that is who. Small businesses who do not have a bank of lwayers on the roll who can interpret the FLSA and the hundreds of other employment laws on the books. The DOL is assisting small business, who by the way will be the main benefactors of these changes, interpret the law, that is their job.

 

[Vince]

Originally posted by Ehesef
Well I'm not buying it. WTF do you need Overtime pay for if you make over $65,000 a year. Thats triple what I make and I'm doing ok considering my age....

So what you're saying is because I'm a veteran, with over 20 years of service, and make over approx. 65K a year, that I don't deserve to get paid for the overtime I work.

WHAT A CROCK OF SH!T!!

 

[Sparx]

That is ludicrous. You actually think that if you work 45 hours you would get paid only for 40? You have to be kidding me? Your handlers have really hosed you down with extra strength gullible spray. What they are proposing is that if you are an hourly employee and worked 45 you would get paid for the extra 5 hours at the same hourly rate as the first 40 and not time and a half. Read the law !! It would be illegal to not pay some one for hours worked. What they are proposing is that the extra 5 hours would not be Premium overtime pay if you are a “professional” and not on a salary system. There are times when I work an extra hour or two a week but I am salary so I don't get compensated, big woop I do pretty well and it is my job, I like the paychecks and I like havng it.

Did you miss my last post where I said I would check on that portion? The difference between salaried and exempt.

Changing the law is what this is all about.