New Overtime Rules
 

First, let me point out that some of the Presidents we still admire had a sharp focus on labor policy. Some administrations (none in recent history unfortunately) have featured Presidents in lock-step with their Labor Secretary. By contrast, the current focus and power structure is a bit frightening. Besides Cheney, the main players on the world stage are the President (and yes, I still use that term loosely) and his "WAR SECRETARY." Okay, I digress.

Yesterday, some new wage rules were implemented. I don't even know who the Labor Secretary is, but I'd guess he or she comes from industry. At any rate, who do you think are the direct beneficiaries of the new rules? Sure, I know, the conservative geniuses here will assume (incorrectly) that we all understand and agree that whatever "business" find pleasing will lead to jobs and health benefits and peace and love and a decadent utopia for all citizens. But in the meantime, the initial beneficiaries are businesses.

Anybody confused as to the agenda of this, or any other, Republican administration? And whether someone can support this Party of Industry depends on whether you are in one of two groups:

1) A member of Industry, directly benefitting from this corporate welfare or,
2) To stupid to understand what everyone, including Bush The First, knows, which is that supply-side economics is voodoo economics. It does not work.

So, unless you are in one of these two groups, you're disappinted at the way your fellow citizens are being treated by our "president."

Right?

hahaha. . super, I just love the way you frame people . . .even before they speak.

I just couldn't tell how good or bad this is from the media (BLAST!) coverage of it.

BTW, Super, I am for less rules. Either the individule or their union (if that's what they've got) should be negotiating the terms of their trade (time for money).

WTF is with our federal government dictating brackets of when OT starts, and for whom? How many of our tax dollars went to study this gem?

Before we start blasting or defending the policy, what exactly are the changes that were made? Or is that not important?

Moses, it's a "who is nolonger in the bracket of extra pay for OT" game.

BFD, if you ask me. it's a petty thing. If people don't like their compensation, they find ways out, or find ways to stick it to their employer.

My understanding is that it's a clarification of who is entitled to OT. Some will gain, some will lose. Don't know the details.

Superman,

Here you go again, assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is too stupid, "geniuses," etc. You did it in the other thread, also.

Has it occurred to you yet that YOU aren't the smartest person on the board? And that those who might disagree with you might do so for sound reasons, which have nothing to do with their level of intelligence relative to you?

Stop acting like a troll, man. We have plenty of other guys here for that.

And by the way, if you want to take a position WRT labor regulations, why don't you actually READ them and then post your analysis, and then give a half-dozen reasons why you think they are bad policy, and we can debate that. That's what smart people do, anyway.

Moses:

After a quick and admittedly inclmplete review, it would seem that the laws regarding OT are possibly more ill defined than before. And, even the Labor Bureau cannot agree upon a nu,ber as to how many will be affected.

If I can develop some hard answers (not likely) I will post them.

A personal observation: Like most "improvements" to federal law, this seems to raise more questions than answers.

Sorry, John. I don't mean to belittle folks, except in a good-hearted way. I've always enjoyed a bit of good-natured ribbing and still do so, but folks used to know me. Now, the Pelican community is larger and there are downright nasty people here, so it's different. Again, I'm not really serious in my remarks about other folks' intelligence levels, regardless of how far below mine they might be. Perhaps I should stop with the sarcasm and exaggerations. Naw.......

Bod hit the nail on the head. I worked in my state's Wage & Hour unit at its labor department, and my former colleagues are as confused as anyone about the new rules. But part of my point is that the direction of the rules, and their intended beneficiaries, is a no-brainer (no joke). I'm not sure but what this president's very first executive action, 3.5 years ago, was to declare an "executive order" banning the negotiation of project labor agreements on projects with federal funding. So, what Island wants, the ability of workers to bargain wages, benefits and working conditions, is not something this president is ever ever going to support. In fact, the massaging of labor laws is primarily a method of avoiding labor matters that have sprung from the sources, the grass roots, the workers. Trust me when I tell you that in the absence of labor laws, there would be a WHOLE LOT of unionism in this country.

The current rules, impact the question of which workers are "exempt" from the minimum wage standards in federal law. That is, professional (truly professional like lawyers, for example) executive, etc., are not entitled to overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per week. But calling a worker "exempt" or "professional" does not mean they are exempt. They must fit into certain guidelines. Nebulous, qualitiative guidelines. Dubya's agenda is to push the line in one direction or another. Guess which direction.


There is a war on workers right now, and the General leading the charge is President Bush.

And again, my point is not to evaluate the current rules. It seems that's difficult even for the pros. My point is to ask whether government, and laws and rules, exist to protect those non-citizens we call "corporations," or do they exist to protect folks we call "citizens" and "workers."

And yes, unfortunately I do anticipate the standard responses and want to speed things up. Unless you're a corporation or a business, or unless you buy into the fully-disproven economic lie called "supply-side economics," you're going to oppose these rules, and this administration's agenda.

the experts dont even know what the changes are going to affect! now how scary is that? how often do you see a major policy changed as an experiment? i read the topic over again, and it is not even clear to me. dazed and confused;
cliff

Anyone have a link to these new rules? Are they codified? Are they more restrictive than current State OT laws? Are they retroactive?

The corporations for whom the rules are intended to benefit, understand them quite clearly. They should - they all but wrote them.

Hey hey hey. Easy now. I re-read my opening post and I'm still not sure why it seems to have been interpreted as offensive. Hey, I'll back off. Didn't mean to offend the idiots here. Oops, that sounds a touch condenscending, so I'll substitute a synonym. I didn't mean to offend the conservatives. Indeed, feedback I have gotten regularly for the past four years here at this site suggests to me that I seem sensitive, even accommodating. Ah well. Again, I truly hope no one is offended by my obviously superior intellectual and analytical capabilities.

....and the horse you rode in on.

yeah, its going to be interesting to see how this all pans out. From what I've read in the past few days nobody is really sure who will be affected. Craziness as far as Im concerned.

Whats interesting is that the GOP has a fairly strong following in the labor world, by the workforce itself, not the organizers. If this bill does anything negative to those peoples working conditions, especially the overtime by which many of them survive on, the GOP may alienate an incredibly important segment of their voting base. Laborers are quick to proclaim how the Russians are going invade the midwest and the Mexicans could overthrow the government (believe me, I know a few) and tend to vote GOP all the way. Those are only percieved fears. If this policy even looks at these people in a way that seems offensive I think there could be a huge swing in the polls.

Hey, I did some reading around the various crappy media outlets and it's all the same story - there's new laws but noboy really states what these new laws are.

From what I can tell from the reports it shouldn't affect CA much since CA's guidlines have always been tougher than the Federal guidlines. Common consensus is that as usual the companies that work in multiple states then they are going to see the most complications.

Extremely good points that are often overlooked in the immgration issue nad labor issues.

"Ah, heck - they just want a better life" which I concede is true and honest and good but in their search for their better life more and more average natural born citizens are suffering. Isn't that bad too? Or is that we just have to wait for the world to become and equal place and everyone gets the third world wages and the middle class is made up of those working at walmart making minimum wage, collecting welfare and using medcare to cover their medical needs.

So who wins? The citizens here fighting for the life that they already own or the immigrants who want to send the money they make back to their home country where they have left their families? I have no problems with legal immgration but I think illegal immgration is just that illegal and should be punished as such. At the same time - the bad attitude of the American worker is a problem in and of itself. Are we entitled to higher wages and better benefits if we work like crap? Heck no; a lot of these rules that are put in place to keep workers in their jobs go too far in making it too hard for an employer to rid themselves of bad employees.