| ||
| ||
| ||
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Voices: Changes to overtime pay debated
(CNN) -- "Voices," a regular feature of CNN.com, compiles comments on major news issues. Workers' guaranteed right to overtime pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week could change under a Bush administration proposal. The comment period ended this week on proposed changes to the Labor Department's guidelines governing overtime pay. Supporters of the proposed changes contend they are needed because the old rules were confusing and were designed for a manufacturing-centered economy, not for the modern, high-tech, service-oriented economy. The new plan would boost the annual pay limit for those guaranteed overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act from $8,060 to $22,100. That change would make an additional 1.3 million workers eligible for overtime. But critics say 8 million workers could lose overtime pay if employers chose to reclassify their positions to "administrative," "professional" or "executive," classifications that are exempt from guaranteed time-and-a-half pay. Those affected could include hundreds of thousands of dental hygienists, cooks, licensed practical nurses and bookkeepers, critics say. The new rules would broaden the definition of "executives" to include any workers who occasionally supervise other workers, even if they spend most of their time doing manual labor. The following are excerpts from interviews, statements and letters related to the pay proposal. California Rep. George MillerMiller is the senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Fair Labor Standards Act. He organized a letter to the U.S. labor secretary opposing the proposed changes. Below is an excerpt from the news release that accompanied the letter. "These regulations represent the worst assault yet by President Bush on middle class working families. His agenda against them is long and mean, but this one takes the cake. To deliberately change a few words in the law to steal overtime pay from hardworking Americans sets a new low for an Administration that has already showed its total disregard for the economic needs of most American families." Ed Frank, Labor Department spokesmanIn a column appearing on the Minneapolis Star Tribune Web site, Frank responded to a study from the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, that stated that 8 million Americans would lose overtime pay under the Bush proposal. "This EPI report is not a serious scientific study. It is nothing more than a misleading political comment full of mischaracterizations, unsupported assumptions and general ignorance of the current law, thus casting serious doubt on their claims." Ronald Bird, Employment Policy FoundationBird is the chief economist at the Employment Policy Foundation, a public policy research foundation based in Washington. CNN anchor Renay San Miguel interviewed him this week. "The duties of managers and professionals are much more diverse and flexible than they were 60 years ago. And that reality needs to be reflected in how the rules define the way in which you determine who should properly be classified as hourly and who should be classified as a salaried employee. This is not about taking pay away from anybody. This is not about a stealth attack on American workers. This is about taking a regulation that is so complicated because it's archaic and out of step that it costs employers up to $2 billion a year just to go through the administrative red tape and motions of figuring out who's covered and who's not." Judy Conti, Employment Justice CenterThe Employment Justice Center in Washington, D.C., enforces the rights of low-income workers in the area. CNN anchor Kyra Phillips interviewed Conti this week. "What's going to happen is that low- wage workers are going to get promotions and titles and be given somewhat hollow and meaningless responsibilities that are going to result in a pay cut for them. ... Low-wage workers are going to lose the overtime that they desperately need in order to make ends meet during a recession."
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
