No more OT pay

[Boozer]

I recently heard that Bush is going to sign off on a bill for congress to vote on.
Apparently this bill is going to allow employers to pay straight time to it's employees who work OT. So no more OT pay.
I can see it now. My employer is going to give us mandatory 60 hour work weeks and pay us straight pay.
How is this suppose to help the economy? The economy's back bone is consumer spending. If people are not making their OT pay then a LOT of people wont be able to survive anymore. I know there are a LOT of people out there who only make 18-19 dollars an hour but are still able to make an honest living based on the fact that they are working 60-70 hours a week. They lose their OT and they lose everything, house, cars, you name it. I just don't see how this is suppose to help.

[JustMVG]

It's a shame if that bill goes thru, what about employers charging you more and more for your health benfits and each year the benefits get to be less and less, and your co-pay keeps going up and up , and prescriptions don't get me started on those.....

[mike37]

i dont think the bill will take your OT
just chang the way its calculated
you may loos a littel
but if you work over 40 in a week you will still get OT
just my .o2

[LaveyJet]

I think it depends on how your job is "classified" Currently, If you're a manager, professional or sales no OT, just straight time. The Bill changes some classifications, not sure of which ones will be changed.

[Boozer]

secondchance:
I think it depends on how your job is "classified" Currently, If you're a manager, professional or sales no OT, just straight time. The Bill changes some classifications, not sure of which ones will be changed. Well what are you talking about has to do with pay structure. A person who is sales and works on straight commission gets commission only so no OT. A person who is in management is paid on a salary basis will get the same rate of pay every week regardless of how many or how few hours that they work.
I am a sales person and I get paid commission but I also get paid a pretty sizable hourly rate. Right now I work about 4-5 hours OT a week. Company wont give me more OT because they don't want to pay me that much. According to a union rep that I just spoke with after this bill passes the company can actually give "mandatory" overtime. Up to 20 hours a week and will not be required to pay me for the Over Time that I work. Total and Complete BS. I can tell you right now that if they do that I will quit my job on the spot. The job markets tough right now but that will be just the push I need to say **** the man and start my own business venture.

[MagicMtnDan]

Boozer:
but that will be just the push I need to say **** the man and start my own business venture. There's nothing wrong with being entrepreneurial and starting your own business.
FYI - Here's a report from CBS News on this issue:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/national/printable546316.shtml
Changes In Overtime Pay Proposed
WASHINGTON, March 27, 2003
New government definitions of white- and blue-collar workers proposed Thursday would drastically change the types of jobs entitled to overtime pay, making eligible millions of low-income employees but cutting thousands of professionals.
Nearly 22 million workers could be affected by the Labor Department's plan, which would be first overhaul of the nation's overtime rules in more than 50 years.
About 1.3 million lower-wage workers now exempt from overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week would be required to receive it or a salary hike. But at least 644,000 well-paid, professional employees, such as some engineers, pharmacists and insurance claims adjusters, would lose theirs in the proposal, which was submitted Thursday for a 90-day public comment period.
Millions of other workers would gain and lose under the new regulations, though their status isn't clear. Industries most affected by the changes would be construction, retail, health care, business services and personal services.
Overtime pay is just one area of the nation's labor laws that the Bush administration is tackling at the urging of business groups. The Family Medical Leave Act, job training programs and unemployment insurance also could be overhauled.
Employers have been pushing for changes in overtime pay regulations because of mounting lawsuits. Workers filed 79 federal collective-action lawsuits seeking overtime pay in 2001, surpassing for the first time class-action job discrimination suits against employers, according to the American Bar Association.
Businesses and labor unions agree that the current regulations of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act and last updated in 1948, are confusing and antiquated. But they disagree about how to update standards that determine what jobs must receive an hourly wage of time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week.
Almost 110 million workers are covered by the law, or about 80 percent of the work force.
Union officials say the Bush administration proposal will allow employers to easily reclassify workers as managers by giving them light responsibilities to avoid paying overtime.
“They're making the test much less onerous for the employer,” said Nick Clark, a lawyer for the United Food and Commercial Workers.
Department officials say their proposal renews the focus on low-wage earners, which the law was intended to protect.
Business groups long have complained that the convoluted rules require overtime pay for already well-compensated and highly skilled professionals while ignoring those at the bottom.
Current law exempts workers from overtime pay if they earn more than $155 a week, or $8,060 a year. Those salary tests haven't been updated in 28 years.
Workers also must meet a series of other confusing job criteria, such as devoting at least 80 percent of their time to “exercising discretion” and other “intellectual” tasks that cannot be “standardized in ... a given period of time.” Many job descriptions no longer exist, such as key punch operators, straw bosses, leg men and gang leaders.
The revisions are “moderate and measured,” said Tammy McCutchen, administrator of the Labor Department's wage and hour division.
“Easy, clear rules mean employees will understand when they're entitled to overtime, employers will know what their obligations are and the Department of Labor will be able to more vigorously enforce the law,” she said.
Union officials have said they would oppose any changes that would cause longer work weeks, because required overtime pay is the only brake stopping many employers from demanding excessive work hours.
"We're concerned that these rules could weaken the tradition of the 40-hour work week," said Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO, which hadn't seen the proposal Wednesday night.
Under the proposal, any worker earning less than $22,100 a year automatically would be entitled to overtime pay, regardless of whether they are paid hourly or earn an annual salary.
Jobs most affected would be assistant managers of stores, restaurants and bars, McCutchen said. Those workers would get overtime pay despite their management status as long as they earn less than $22,100 a year. Companies also could decide to boost salaries above the cap to avoid paying overtime.
Employers could face $334 million to $895 million in direct payroll costs for those changes and overall costs of $870 million to $1.57 billion. Officials say increased productivity and fewer lawsuits could amount to savings of $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion.
White-collar professionals would take a hit in their paychecks. Generally, workers would be exempt in the new rules if they manage more than two employees and have the authority to hire and fire, or if they have an advanced degree or similar training and work in a specialized field, or work in the operations, finance and auditing areas of a company.
Officials say those requirements would exempt about 644,000 professional employees earning between $22,100 and $65,000 who now get overtime pay. That figure doesn't include another proposed exemption, for workers making $65,000 or more annually and meeting only part of the jobs duties criteria.
Employees who work under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by unions would not be affected.
Before issuing the final regulations, labor officials also intend to clarify the overtime status of many other specific jobs often at the center of legal disputes, such as journalists and reporters, funeral directors and loan officers.

[CA Stu]

MandMVG:
It's a shame if that bill goes thru, what about employers charging you more and more for your health benfits and each year the benefits get to be less and less, and your co-pay keeps going up and up , and prescriptions don't get me started on those..... It's not your employer, pal, it's the insurance company.
I am self employed, and for bare ass minimum coverage for me, mama, and 3 kiddies (all under 8 yrs old), I am getting hosed for $566 a month (as of Aug 1st '03).
Seems like every time I turn around my health insurance goes up $50 / month. :mad:
I think that the government is to blame, for letting malpractice lawsuits result in multi million dollar verdicts (Joe Average deseves 20 million for a botched elective surgery (he chose to do it)), for letting the drug companies advertise on TV (how f*ckin stupid is that? ( I'm depressed? sign me up for Zoloft/Prozac/Xanax at $250/month)) , and for letting drug manufacturers charge whatever they can get for a drug they own the patent for (that'll be $250/month to control your diabetes, Mr. Smith, or you can just p*ss off and die).
The whole healthcare industry in the USA sucks right now, don't blame your employer.
Someone owns your company, and they're trying to make a living.
If you don't like the place and think you'r ebeing screwed, grab your nuts and quit, instead of whining about it.
Good luck
CA stu

[JustMVG]

That someone who owns the company is Coca -Cola, the managers at our place will do anything to make their bonus, we are a Union and Company shop, my wife is Union and i am Company, the company "gives" us X amount every year for our health benefits, they pay up to so much and you pay for the rest. I took the bare minimum for my wife and myself, plus AD +d insurance and Life ins. too, i still end up with a weekly deduction of 75.00 bucks for that, my wife's union ins. rates were upped to 7.50 a week to cover me and our 3 girls, funny thing is if you opt out of any one type of coverage you pay for it anyway. Why? Because our mgt. chose the abolute bare minimum coverage to beef up the bonus for them selves, we end up paying for the balance, we (company) have not gotten a raise in 2 yrs. so this hurts , sure we were put into the bonus pool , but the criteria that we have to meet to get the bonus are a joke, designed so that we could never get the 7% of our yearly salary as a bonus, they told us straight out that it was near impossible for any of us to get that kind of bonus, maybe 3.5% max, hey that really gets me in go work hard mood!! Ye Freakin Ha, the union has a contract and they negotiate the raises, and get theirs every year no matter what. sorry for the rant and yes i am looking elsewhere, and while i understand the nature of business, these folks make a TON of money on sugar water,spread the wealth is all i ask. I too will probably be hit by the no OT rule. Thanks Mike VG

[HighRoller]

Yup,the unions will ALWAYS get theirs,even if you get screwed.Anybody can figure out that unions aren't interested in you any further than making sure you pay your dues so they get paid.As far as Coca-Cola,I've had dealings with them and was very unhappy with their treatment of me so I do not haul anything for them anymore.If everyone who had a complaint,employees included,walked away from them they would only have 2 choices.Fix the problem,or go broke.I can guarantee you they won't go broke.As far as sharing the wealth,that's always nice for an employer to do so but look around next time you go to work.They own hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment and property and billions of dollars of inventory so if they decide to keep a bigger share of the wealth than an employee it certainly is their right.It's NOT the way I would do it but I'm not in their shoes.Like I said before,obviously they don't have a problem finding employees so it can't be that bad.

[JustMVG]

Coke has this oh so happy persona, but believe me being on the inside and how they treat the employees is sad. Yes they own millions if not billions of dollars worth of equipment and property, trust me they have deductions for all of that stuff , it's an artform over there,i haven't even mentioned the clout issue they have with city and county government. We were denied a building permit to improve some land for a project due to an endangered species, many years went by and suddenly with out warning the land had been transformed into more trailer parking and staging area. The same endangered species The New Delhi Sand Loving Fly, has stalled many projects out here where i live, some bigger than a Coca Cola manufacturing plant.I guess the prospect of more tax revenue was worth more than a Fly. I don't mind the union getting theirs those folks work hard there, but you'd think the company would want to keep the company folks happy too.
[ July 10, 2003, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: MandMVG ]

[THOR]

You always have choices in life. If you dont want to work for a union and get benefits and pay dues, then dont. Simple.

[JetBoatRich]

THOR:
You always have choices in life. If you don't want to work for a union and get benefits and pay dues, then don't. Simple. :D :D
That is what i always tell people, if you don't like it here then find another job. A little more diplomatic of course.
eek! eek!

[THOR]

JetBoatRich:
THOR:
You always have choices in life. If you don't want to work for a union and get benefits and pay dues, then don't. Simple. :D :D
That is what i always tell people, if you don't like it here then find another job. A little more diplomatic of course.
eek! eek! I hope it is not taken as me being mean, because I wasn't. I was simply stating that you dont need to be unhappy at your job. I am looking now because I am unhappy.

[JustMVG]

Ever hear of the "golden handcuffs"?
It means the money is the only thing keeping you there. Union or non thats what keeps most people working where they are unhappy.
MVG

[Essex502]

Another simple fact...you are only worth what you can get when you walk out the door of your current employer. If somebody will pay you more then you're worth it, if not ....

[FIREMAN]

I work a 56 hour work week. Fire Dept. hopefully won't be included in that bill. Plus I work about 5 overtime shifts a month, thats 120 hrs a month of OT I am used to. Thats alot of cash. Shit I hope this bill gets left behind.

[JustMVG]

Essex i agree with you, but what if you are stuck due to the unique nature of your job , in my case a mixer for a beverage company, not alot of call for that sort of thing in the general labor market, most folks in my job tend to stay there because the pay is great and all of the "other" beverage makers have all the mixers they need. There are other jobs that i can do and will as soon as i can find one that will pay me about what i am currently making or more of course. The resume is out there, i am just waiting for some results, until then i rant get it off my chest and move on, i appreciate everyones take on these matters, it's good to see other points of view.
See ya MVG

[Havasu_Dreamin]

First off, this is just changing reclassifications so it may not even affect each and every person. Second, all employers are required to be held to the more stringent rules in terms of pay to employees. What this means, at least for those of you in CA, is that the federal governemnt can do whatever the hell it wants to do with the federalOT laws, the CA OT laws are more stringent and as such every employer in CA must follow the more stringent CA laws. So, since CA still pays OT for hours in excess of 8 per day and 40 per week there will be no change. That is unless your job classification changes. My own personal opinion is that people should not live a life where they are counting on OT money to make it. OT can be cut at any time by an employer. And don't even get me started on unions. :mad:

[CA Stu]

MandMVG:
That someone who owns the company is Coca -Cola, SNIPCoca Cola is a publicly owned company, right?
They're getting squeezed for very dime they're worth from every angle. Stockholders, Unions, management, suppliers, employees, etc. etc.
Sorry to hear of your stiruation, man, but looking in from the outside, seems like a recipe for an overworked and underpaid workforce.
If it makes you feel any better, I worked 6 days a week from Jan 1984 to mid-1993 or so. Monday was my day off. :D
CA Stu

[HighRoller]

in my case a mixer for a beverage company MVG,sounds like you got the basic training for a bartending job!Maybe you should spend more time out at the river making drinks for people!! :D

[JustMVG]

Yeah a bartender who Makes 20,000 gallon drinks, the reality for my wife and i is that we have always lived within our means, ot to us is a luxury, we have never bought anything and depended on the O T to pay for it, most of our O T is in the bank, now that can't be said for many of my co workers who live on it , or they just would rather be at work than home w the wife and kids. like i said i am just venting, and the boards here allowed me to do just that, i may dislike what the company does and how it does it, but i still show up do my thing and go home, make the best of the day and enjoy what time i get off.
Trust me a 20,000 gallon blender at the sand bar might be a recipe for disaster, but hey if you guys are looking for a mixer i'll send you the resume :D Mikey