Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Can you say the Bush Presidency has been bad for America? I knew you could. The mans policy’s (well not really his, since he is incapable of an original thought) are so obviously skewed towards big business as to be an insult to the intelligence of, and slap in the face to working Americans.

I do not honestly think that he, or any Republican, have the best interest of our country at heart. Whatever Big Business and the neo-conservatives want they get in the form of policies that make little since for the majority, and do little to advance the cause if American society and civilization.

The words, facial expressions and hand gesture, the Accidental President used in yesterday’s speech spoken volumes of his utter contempt of the average American. The condescension in his tone, and the arrogance on his face were palatable, and quite frankly shocking. How anyone in their right mind, who claims to love America and what she is supposed to stand for, can continue to support this man and his asinine administration is utterly beyond my comprehension.

Labor standards written in the time of the eight hour day and forty hour week don’t work all that well in the era of flex-time. Workers and employers who prefer four ten-hour days in a week should be able to schedule work that way without having to pay an overtime penalty.

It’s also not clear whether the proposed change is to reduce the overtime rate from time-and-a-half to straight time, or to reduce it to zero. In California, anybody who earns more than $40/hr or so doesn’t get time-and-a-half anyway.

So why does this need to be federal law instead of state law, anyhow?

“Labor standards written in the time of the eight hour day and forty hour week don’t work all that well in the era of flex-time. Workers and employers who prefer four ten-hour days in a week should be able to schedule work that way without having to pay an overtime penalty.”

I’d agree with that. When researching this article I was surprised to find that a number of states restrict employees to 8 hour days. As you pointed out, with flex time, the concept fo an 8 hour day is out of date. What is not out of date is the idea of a 40 hour work week. I can not personally remember the last time I worked only 40 hours. Usually I’m working over 50 hours every week.

As for the proposed change, you are right… it isn’t clear. Greg Palast wrote about it last week and suggested that companies will reclassify newly exempt workers as ‘management’. You’d think that would mean that they would get a raise, but according to Palast (and, yes I know he’s not the *best* source for this type of stuff) the Labor Department is promoting a way to do this that would result in “virtually no (or only a minimal) increase in labor costs.”

You do correctly point out that this issue should be decided at the State level. The Bush administration is obviously making changes at the Washington level as a favor to big business - who stands to reap the rewards of this change.

Richard—

Labor standards written in the time of the eight hour day and forty hour week don’t work all that well in the era of flex-time. Workers and employers who prefer four ten-hour days in a week should be able to schedule work that way without having to pay an overtime penalty.

Your statement overlooks one salient fact: hourly workers by-and-large do not work flex hours. Those workers (mostly white collar) that do are already exempt from the overtime pay rules. Flex-time hours are now pretty universal and really are not germane to this argument. Four ten hour days works out to 40 hours a week, hence no over-time considerations.

The original labor standards were written to protect factory workers, those who were exploited on a regular basis by corporate America, for them the rules still work.

So why does this need to be federal law instead of state law, anyhow?

Because as in the case of civil rights, the states failed in their duty to protect American workers (including children) from big business, thus the federal government, evoking the commerce clause stepped in.

Four ten hour days works out to 40 hours a week, hence no over-time considerations.

I suggest you read-up on labor law, which typically mandates the 8-hour day as well as the 40-hour week. Whether “most” hourlies work flex hours or not, enough do that these rigid standards are an impediment to progress.

Richard, You need to re-read the EEOC regulations on overtime. The 5th largest insurance company in the U.S. has had its work force split between 5 day and 4 day work weeks for many, many years. I fought the company on the overtime issue, and went to the EEOC, where it was established that a 9.5 hour work day (1/2 hour lunch not paid) on a 4 day work week at straight time violated no EEOC regulations or laws.

My claim was based on unpaid time over 40 hours, which the company settled before legal action was filed. To this day, that company maintains strict supervision over the prevention of unpaid overtime, even if volunteered.

The reason I and collegues filed the action with the company was because some of us had equally important committments outside the company, like raising children, and the company had an unwritten policy of promoting mostly those whose performance measures were enhanced by unpaid voluntary overtime. This meant that mothers and moonlighters and others with other committments in the evenings, like volunteer organizations, local theater, etc., could not fairly compete for raises and promotions.

Promotions and raises can be based on productivity per hour worked, in which case all workers are compared on an even playing field, or, they can be based on productivity for the week with a total disregard for number of hours put in. This latter results in assessing worker productivity on an unfair basis, which discriminates against those who are unable or unwilling to work overtime voluntarily and without pay of anykind.

Bush is clearly attempting to enhance the ability of his corporate constituents to exploit the work force, even to the extent of creating incentives to work without pay at all - if you want to hope to get a raise or a promotion sometime in the future.

It is ONLY the overtime regulations and laws that allow workers to prevent such exploitation of unpaid work, through EEOC complaints.

This author conviently left this line out of his post:

“The White House says less than 1 million employees would lose eligibility for overtime pay.

The changes have a positive side: They would guarantee overtime pay for those most in need — people who earn less than $425 a week.”

So… more people would gain overtime protection than lose overtime protection. Still… Bush is evil, right?

On the White house side we have:

“The White House says less than 1 million employees would lose eligibility for overtime pay.”

On the other we have Gannett News Service:

“The move could have a major impact on up to 8 million employees who work jobs such as police sergeants, assistant restaurant managers, supervisory firefighters and licensed practical nurses.”

On the White House side we have:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

and these twenty-six words:

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.”

and these twenty words:

“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

I really don’t see how you can base an argument off of anything that the White House has to say. The Bush White House has shown its contempt for the truth. So when they say that 1 million workers will lose overtime benefits and a respected news service says that number is more likely to be 8 million, I’m going to believe the news service.

The British government stands by its claim that Saddam sought additional uranium from Africa to supplement the yellow cake he already had. I know this because I read it from respectable news sources.