Save Our Overtime Pay!
The Bush administration has made overturning the 40-hour workweek a top priority. AFSCME and our allies were able to keep legislation from going to a vote in June, but a showdown looms.
By Susan Ellen Holleran
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
Mary Alvar and her family depend on the money her husband, Timothy, earns through overtime. He is a carpenter who works primarily in outdoor construction. That's seasonal employment here where winter temperatures are often below zero. Timothy takes all the overtime he can get when work is available. The extra earnings help pay the bills throughout the winter.
That's why Mary, a child support officer and member of Local 66 (Council 96), is especially concerned about the Bush administration-backed legislation that would replace overtime pay with compensatory time off. "You can't bank comp time. Comp time doesn't pay the bills," she says. "We have two children in college. What we need is money. I have to budget for everything — car insurance, utilities, everything. Times in the winter are very lean."
The bill, which unions energetically lobbied to keep off the House floor, is H.R. 1119 — the Family Time Flexibility Act. It's the perfect example of a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing — a major corporate initiative to rob workers of overtime pay and increase flexibility for business' benefit.
Workers and their unions struggled for decades to win the eight-hour day and the 40-hour workweek. In recent years, as corporations have increased their political clout, they have whittled away at such hard-earned protections. And many misinformed U.S. workers, striving to balance work and family responsibilities, see initiatives like H.R. 1119 as a good step.
Corporations are trying to sell their plan to the public with a slanted public relations program. One woman interviewed on a radio news show explained that her baby needs surgery. If she works enough overtime, she can use her comp time to care for him as he recovers. What she doesn't say — and may not know — is that H.R. 1119 does not give her the right to use paid time when she wants it, but only at her employer's convenience.
Equally unfair is the fact workers would be paid nothing for overtime work. If you put in 48 hours on the job, you would be paid for 40; you wouldn't even get straight time for the extra hours. It's a loan to your employer, repayable in comp time — rather than money — at some future date. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "there is nothing in the proposed bill but rhetoric and slick marketing. ... It doesn't create employee rights. It takes them away."
FROM ALL SIDES. When the Bush administration took power, one of its first priorities was to derail workplace ergonomic standards that had been developed through years of comprehensive research. That effort succeeded. Now the attack is on overtime.
In addition to congressional efforts like H.R. 1119 and a number of Senate bills, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed to broaden job descriptions ("duties tests") that determine which workers qualify for overtime pay — and to implement a new, so-called high-income salary test. Salaried workers earning between $22,101 and $65,000 who can now earn overtime pay could be reclassified as executives or administrative or professional staff, making them ineligible for the premium. Some of the jobs affected: police and firefighters, nurses and medical therapists, retail managers and insurance claims adjusters. By the DOL's own calculations, these changes would disqualify between 2.1 million and 3.3 million workers who currently receive overtime pay.
This proposal would have a dramatic, adverse effect on earnings for those who would lose eligibility and probably increase their workloads. Employers would save money by shifting extra work from staff members who receive the pay premium to those who don't — along with more mandatory overtime. In July, the House of Representatives voted down efforts to protect workers from those threats. The flood of letters and e-mail messages — some 80,000, overwhelmingly against the changes — has slowed DOL action. But the Bush administration has not given up.
The battle to keep overtime pay is one we cannot afford to lose.
Some Facts About H.R. 1119
If enacted, the legislation will:
Reduce family income by taking away overtime pay.
Lead to longer work hours for many employees because it will be cheaper for the employer. In addition, reducing the employers' overtime costs lessens the incentive to hire more workers.
Produce unpredictable schedules by encouraging employers to call for mandatory overtime.
Leave more workers vulnerable. H.R. 1119 provides no remedy for workers who want to use leave at specific times and cannot do so.
What Can You Do?
Read the AFSCME CyberActivist Alert on overtime and write, phone, or e-mail your U.S. senators. Let them know that working people need overtime protections.
Download a flyer about overtime to share with your colleagues.
Stay informed. Check out the AFL-CIO's Web site for updates and details on congressional and DOL attacks on the Fair Labor Standards Act. Click on "Take Action" to join your voice to those of other union members across the country.
