Who should be exempt from overtime protection?

[zoidberg]

The new proposed labor regulations are generating an appropriate firestorm - after all, it seems obvious that police and firemen should get overtime protection. But it is accepted by about everyone that the current regulations are outdated and vaguely worded, causing much confusion and many lawsuits. So who should receive overtime pay and who shouldn't? Clearly some jobs - such as high paying salaried sales and managerial positions - should be outside the scope of overtime protection. Where should the Department of Labor draw the line?

[sandnsea]

1. Exempt CEO's, that's it

There should be some sort of protection for anybody who has to pick up a paycheck. I don't care how much somebody's salary is, they shouldn't have to sacrifice their personal life in order to get it. China has mandatory vacations, that's how backwards the U.S. is.

[zoidberg]

2. So Alex Rodriguez should only have to work 40 hours a week?!

"Sorry, can't come into batting practice this morning, the federal government says I can't."

[sandnsea]

4. Talk about a wild leap into left field

Go there by yourself, I'll stay in the real world with real workers and real problems.

[zoidberg]

5. My answer was no more ridiculous than yours

There are plenty of people who willingly and happily take jobs knowing they are going to have to work more than 40 hours a week. To give everybody overtime protection would distort labor markets beyond recognition.

[sandnsea]

10. There's no reason everybody can't have *some sort* of protection

That's what I said. I didn't say 40 hour work week. And no it wouldn't hurt the labor market, it might actually provide more people with jobs. I've been watching the labor market disintegrate for about 30 years and no matter how much more the corporations get, it's never enough. By all rights those people should have money flying out the windows with the way they've cut workers' pay and benefits. You feel sorry for the poor corporations, I quit that shit a VERY long time ago.

[DrGonzoLives]

12. Eh?

So, there are *some* jobs where it's OK to work people more than 40 hours a week? What a crock of shit! I have a radical idea - instead of paying overtime, HIRE MORE PEOPLE.

[zoidberg]

13. Of course there are jobs where it is OK to work people more than 40 hours!

Lawyers and managers making more than a certain amount shouldn't ever get overtime. If they want 40 hour work weeks, they can go work somewhere else. These aren't exactly the vulnerable in society you are trying to protect here.

[lastliberalintexas]

17. Truly

Go read the FLSA before you make these posts. Lawyers, accountants, doctors, architects, etc. ARE ALREADY EXEMPT from the OT requirements in the FLSA. They are considered professional employees, work with a great deal of discretion and independence, and are NOT entitled to OT.

The FLSA does not need to be revised to make that a reality.

It is ironic that you have a Texas flag as your avatar. Texas workers have so little protection already. Why would you want to revise a federal law that provides the most basic protections to our workers?

[zoidberg]

20. I was replying to post 12

He said it was a 'crock of shit' that some people have to work more than 40 hours a week. I correctly replied that some workers should be exempt from OT. The fact that they currently are exempt has nothing to do with that exchange.

I want the law revised to make it easier to understand and to give people making under $20,000 automatic protection. Making the regulations more clear doesn't automatically mean less protections.

[MojoKrunch]

11. Don't most professional athletes get paid by the game?

That being the case, how many hours do any of them actually "work" a week?

15? 20?

Mojo

[cleofus1]

3. overtime

exempt salaried employees and ceo's...everyone on an hourly wage should get it.


www.650keni.com/ortega.html

[Robb]

7. Fabulous.

If we do that, can we also write a little more stringent laws about making sure that salaried employees only have to work 40 hours a week?!?

More laws!! This reminds me of my father's "tirade of the bad carpenter":

"More glue! More nails! Cut it again!!"

[Bunny]

6. Actually, from dealing with this firsthand,

I think the rules are pretty clear about who gets OT and who doesn't. At least it seems that way to me. My agency has a pretty good labor attorney who has done a good job of differentiating between who is hourly and who is salary.

BTW - I think the OT laws should be left alone. They may be old, but they are fine just the way they are. I have no problem with people making premium pay after working a full week. And comp time cannot compare to premium pay.

Salaried people (that's me!) know what they're getting in to when they take on the job, so I don't think they should get OT.

[zoidberg]

8. Couple problems with the current rules...

Under existing rules only workers earning less than $8,060 a year automatically qualify for overtime. That would be raised to $22,100 a year. This is a needed change to reflect what people actually make. Your company might be good at handling overtime pay, but there are more lawsuits involving overtime than involving Affirmative Action. I think a bipartisan updating of the regulations would be helpful now.

[Bunny]

9. you're right about the lawsuits re: OT

I'm amazed that so many companies still try to get around the laws. And have employees working "off the clock" (ex: Wally World). Unbelievable. I'd forgotten about the $8060 thing, too. Thanks for the reminder. It should be changed and $22,100 seems reasonable.

I get so frustrated by these multi-billion dollar companies who don't provide their employees with any real benefits, then want to screw them out of OT as well. How much money do these companies need? Greed, sheer greed.

[lastliberalintexas]

16. Wrong

The fact that you are salaried, in and of itself, does NOT mean that your are exempt under the FLSA. Sorry, that is just a misconception that employers love, and it is one of my many pet peeves.

For example, a secretary who is compensated on a salaried basis is more than likely still entitled to OT or premium compensation. You must look at the duties actually performed by the employee, not merely the method of compensation.

[zoidberg]

18. So it seems like the regulations are somewhat complex

You say a secretary is more than likely entitled to OT, but I've known several who worked for the government (only making around $30K) who were not entitled to overtime. Given the confusion on this board alone among people not as expert as you, I'd say that the laws need to be revised.

[lastliberalintexas]

22. Nope

Governmental agencies are usually exempted from legislation such as the FLSA. Nothing confusing about that.

I am not saying that the FLSA could not be improved. But from your posts, I have gathered that you think that the repub revisions are a good idea, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[zoidberg]

23. How did you get that impression?

The agency where I worked payed overtime to many employees, comp time to some and none to others. So I don't think they were exempt. She (the secretary who I worked with) often complained about the overtime regulations because they could be read in a way to deny her overtime.

My opening post said that the proposed changes are creating an appropriate firestorm. My point is that the current regulations are outdated and vague.

[lastliberalintexas]

24. I apologize if that was not what you intended

But you did ask where the DOL should draw the line, at least implying that you wanted the Shrub administration to proceed with revisions. Maybe if you had said that you wanted revisions to be done in the future under a Dem administration so that workers' interests could be the basis for the revisions, I would have read your post differently. :shrug:

And again, the FLSA provisions are not vague. If your co-worker was "merely" a secretary and not an administrative employee, then she was entitled to OT or premium comp. Very black and white there. The fact that the employer took advantage of her does not mean that there is a problem with the actual law, but instead indicates that there is a problem with the enforcement of that law.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Secretary you worked with...Chao?

[lastliberalintexas]

36. Ouch!

:o

[Bunny]

21. yeah, I'm aware of the secretary thing.

I should have been more clear. We have four secretaries who are salaried but would qualify for OT. You have to have administrative or supervisory duties to be exempt from OT.

[lastliberalintexas]

14. You don't understand how the FLSA works

As an employment lawyer, let me please explain to you that the FLSA is neither complex nor convoluted. It is quite clear as to which employees are entitled to OT or premium compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. If anything, the FLSA needs to be revised to provide MORE protection to employees, not less. The only way in which the FLSA is "outdated" is that it does not account for the lengths to which corporations today will go to evade the OT provisions.

So you know as well, the FLSA does not only cover OT. It also lists the minimum wage and age requirements, equal pay provisions, etc. If you allow the repubs to start revising the FLSA, you better be prepared for changes in a number of things that provide workers with the little protection they have.

Additionally, the proposed changes to the FLSA enforcement regs do not only apply to police and firefighters. They would definitely also apply to nurses and other healthcare workers (because they are considered first responders as well). Also, as written, the proposed changes are broad enough to allow an employer great discretion in determining OT compensation, such that in reality, most employees would now be exempt.

BTW- the lawsuits are there because the employers are VIOLATING THE LAW. If they weren't, they wouldn't get sued.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. LOL Now there's a way to stop the lawsuit epidemic

EMPLOYER reform!

[Terwilliger]

15. 70K per year

anything over that, you should just have to deal with the workload.

Of course, even over that figure, there should be protections against abuses of corporations, who by nature wish their workers to be operational 24/7.

[theriverburns]

19. Anyone who votes Republican...

Anyone who votes Republican should lose overtime protection. They should also not receive Social security or unemployment benefits. It should be Republican's kid's and Republican kids alone who get drafted to fight in oil wars. They should not be allowed to go to public schools ann have to pay a toll to drive on our roads, bridges or ports. The companies they work for should get no government contracts or patent protecion and be foreced to do business in Peso's.

[barbaraann]

37. I like that plan.

But of course what rightwingers want is to pay no taxes and receive all the benefits.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Anyone who is payed a salary rather than hourly is already

in more cases than not exempt from overtime.( as LLIT said there are exceptions) The problem is business violates the guidelines of what should be salaried versus hourly. For example, a salaried person also gets full pay as long as they show up for work no matter the hours they work but employers often dock them if they missed time but a Wal Mart manager is salaried but Wal Mart feels free to not hire adequate help thereby resulting in the manager performing the duties of an hourly worker but not getting overtime due to their salaried description.

Therfore, the current laws work better for business than they do for labor as labor ends up being reclassfied as management even though they have management responsibilities but not the authority nor the rewards typically earmarked for management positions.

Finally, why are you here?

[zoidberg]

27. Why am I here?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your question. Do you always ask new posters to justify their existences?

I enjoy political discussions and some of the posters here are very knowledgable. I consider myself more of a moderate than a 'progressive', but I've been told by some people that my viewpoints are still welcomed. Is that not the case?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. The tone of your post was quite anti-labor

hardly a Democratic nor a progressive hallmark. I frankly don't even see what is moderate about giving employers more room to abuse the wage disparity in America even if the trade off is raising the bar a bit. It will still negatively affect more positions than it will help.

[zoidberg]

30. How was my post anti-labor?

There is controversy over who should be protected by overtime and who shouldn't be protected by overtime. I asked where the line should be drawn. How people construe that to be anti-labor is beyond me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. Here's how. To argue that the current regulations are outdated

and vague and then trust a current Republican controlled house, senate and very anti-labor, anti-union president to modify it as though its time has come now is pure subterfuge. If a change is necessary, I'll hold out until the tables have turned and a FAIR modification is possible.

Reclassifying learned professionals for example would cut many from OT benefits. The current proposition would harm far more than it would help.

The changes actually give employers the opportunity to demand more overtime for less compensation...net result...less jobs, less pay.

[starroute]

34. Exempt employees are squeezed both ways

The point you made deserves to be emphasized: "The problem is business violates the guidelines of what should be salaried versus hourly. For example, a salaried person also gets full pay as long as they show up for work no matter the hours they work but employers often dock them if they missed time."

What this means is that, in theory, if you are an exempt employee, you can't be made to punch a timeclock -- or to have your hours tracked in any equivalent way. You may stay late one day and leave early the next, and as long as you are doing an adequate job, no one has the right to call you on it.

But the actual practice is very different. For example, at the place I used to work, exempt employees were required to use sick or personal time if they missed as little as 10 minutes of the work day. But they never received credit for working late, and if they contracted to do extra work after hours, they were paid only at their hourly rate. (And employees who should never have been considered exempt, because they had neither specialized education nor personal discretion in the job, were treated the same way.)

The system is already being abused in favor of the employers, and if it needs "clarification," that is only because employers persistently muddy it.

[Trajan]

28. Isnt this ....

the precise argument of the right for trying to alter the overtime rules ?? ....

"But it is accepted by about everyone that the current regulations are outdated and vaguely worded, .." .. ?????

Ok: .... STRENGTHEN overtime for workers ..... make sure MORE wage earners get them ..... DONT change them in ways that HURT common citizens, which is precisely what the GOP is attempting, as usual ...

Your arguments about baseball players and such sound true enough, but they are under a SALARY CONTRACT .... they dont receive 'overtime', except for post season enticements built into their contracts ....

Hey ? .... ISNT that a TEXAS Flag ? .....

tsk tsk .....

[SoCalDem]

31. If you come home dirty

If you did not "enjoy" your day at work
If you carry your lunch because you cannot afford to buy lunch
If you have to "watch what you say" at work
If someone else tells you when you can go to the bathroom
If you carry heavy stuff,work outside when it's cold/hot
If you are "asked" to work longer and you are dead tired
If you have to justify every moment of your day to someone


you probably deserve overtime..:(

[retread]

32. I don't trust chimpy or any of the repigs to act in the best

interest of working people. Ask again when we elect a Democrat.