It’s not often, but occasionally a political issue will offer distinct options between helping American families and helping business interests. In the early 1990s, for example, Democrats championed the Family and Medical Leave Act to help families by allowing a worker to tend to a sick relative or care for a child for a limited time without fear of losing their job.
You may recall, business interests lobbied heavily against the bill. President Bush (the first one) vetoed it twice before Clinton signed it into law in 1993.
The recent fight on overtime rules is another one of these examples. Americans who work beyond their 40-hour workweek depend on overtime compensation to help pay bills and provide for their families. Businesses prefer to get as much out of their employees as possible for as little cost as possible and want overtime regulations changed so they’ll have to pay workers less.
Take a wild guess as to which side is represented by which political party.
As Carpetbagger regular Chief Osceola reminded me this morning, Bush and House Republicans have waged an aggressive but quiet campaign to overhaul labor laws governing who qualifies for overtime compensation. The Bush/GOP plan, if adopted, could make more than eight million American workers, in so-called “positions of responsibility,” ineligible for overtime pay.
Who would this effect? People in a variety of positions across the socio-economic spectrum. As the AFL-CIO explained:
* Millions of salaried workers making between $22,101 and $65,000 who now are eligible to receive overtime pay could be reclassified as executives or administrative or professional employees — and would no longer qualify for overtime pay.
* Relatively low-salary earners who have supervisory responsibilities or management-related responsibilities would be penalized, as would workers with advanced education or specialized training. Some of the jobs affected are police, firefighters, nurses, retail managers, insurance claims adjusters and medical therapists.
* Employees not covered by the new rules also could be hurt: By reclassifying many of their workers as exempt from overtime pay, employers most likely would assign overtime only to them and eliminate overtime for other workers. Police and firefighters are among those potentially affected.
* Anyone making $65,000 or more a year likely would lose overtime pay, effectively eliminating many middle-income wage earners’ much-needed extra pay.
Chief Osceola wisely noted the irony: this scheme was being pushed in Washington by well-paid politicians who plan to take off the entire month of August.
Under the version passed by the House (by a slim 213-210 margin), the Bush administration, through the Department of Labor, could impose the new overtime rules as early as the end of this year.
Why does the GOP believe this is a worthwhile effort? As they see it, existing overtime regulations are “confusing” and need revisions. As Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) said on the House floor that it is time to “update complex, and I do mean the word complex, and outdated, and I do mean the word outdated, wage and hour regulation.”
The point isn’t whether the regulations are out of date; most agree that they are. The point is that they can be rewritten and made less complicated without making it harder for Americans who work overtime to get paid for it. The Republicans are doing the bidding of corporate lobbyists who are far more concerned about the bottom line than “complex” regulations.
So what happens next? It all comes down to the Senate, where Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), among others, has pledged to block the administration’s plan.
If the political heat is on, however, maybe Bush will cave. The Washington Post reported today that as many as 80,000 letters have been sent to the Dept of Labor to complain about the administration’s plan. One can only hope that’s just the first batch.