# Can someone please explain this to me? (Overtime elimination) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 14, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500 "2003-07-14T22:37:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dragongirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b38774/32.png) [@dragongirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dragongirl)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/1 "2003-07-14T22:37:45Z")
I’ve been trying to understand what this will mean to my family. I tried reading about it [here](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/breifingpapers_flsa_jun03) . I guess I’m just not that bright. I feel like my head’s going to explode. Could someone please explain this to me so I can understand ? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/2 "2003-07-14T22:46:51Z")
The page has been moved. Can you give us the gist? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Doubt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/df705f/32.png) [@Peter\_Doubt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Doubt)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/3 "2003-07-14T23:04:25Z")
I’m researching this myself since one of my chicken little coworkers mentioned something about it yesterday. Your link doesn’t work for me, but is [this](http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/workforce/comptime/summary.htm) what you’re talking about? [Pro](http://hutchison.senate.gov/speec158.htm) [Con](http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/2003/05/31/news/5982726.htm) I’m looking for some text on the bill itself to see exactly what is optional for the employee. So far in the search it looks like businesses are for, employee advocates are against. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Doubt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/df705f/32.png) [@Peter\_Doubt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Doubt)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/4 "2003-07-14T23:09:14Z")
Looks like similar bills have been introduced over the past few years. This years versions are S.317 and HR.1119 ---
**Author:** ![Maria](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/34f0e0/32.png) [@Maria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maria)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/5 "2003-07-14T23:15:24Z")
The basics are that the Republicans want to look like they are helping people get paid overtime, but actually they are removing so many people from being eligible that it is far in favor of slavedriving companies. This is how most bills under Bush are designed. A good thing in the title that is far outweighed by the negative loopholes buried inside. Very cynical. If you look at the history of minimum wage, overtime pay, and almost all such fair work rule, the worker has lost over half of the protections gained when they were first instituted. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Doubt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/df705f/32.png) [@Peter\_Doubt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Doubt)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/6 "2003-07-14T23:23:07Z")
[It’s a done deal apparently.](http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/opa/OPA2003051.htm) [Best synopsis I’ve found so far](http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0503/04law.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/7 "2003-07-15T01:11:14Z")
> [@](#): > > …they are removing so many people from being eligible that it is far in favor of slavedriving companies. Who are the removing from being eligible? The Charlotte newspaper article and Senator Hutchison’s remarks paint different pictures. From the newspaper: > [@](#): > > These bills would permit employers, with employee sign off, to sidestep the decades-old requirement to pay time-and-a-half for overtime work, by replacing cash with a promise of future time off. Senator Hutchison: > [@](#): > > For those employees required to work overtime, they will always have the option of receiving overtime pay at the standard time-and-a-half rate. As to whether flexible schedules are better or worse than rigid ones, that can only be a matter of opinion, on which people will undoubtably vary. While flex time appeals to me, I doubt there’s a way to “prove” that one or the other is better for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/8 "2003-07-15T02:31:24Z")
Nothing in what **Sender** linked as his/her “best synopsis so far” sets off any alarm bells, but I still don’t know what the rules are for exempt employees. An article on NPR yesterday only mentioned that exempt employees had been at a minimum salary of $8K and that would now become $22K. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/9 "2003-07-15T03:27:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ringo \* > \*\* > As to whether flexible schedules are better or worse than rigid ones, that can only be a matter of opinion, on which people will undoubtably vary. \*\* It seems to me that any flexibility for workers is bad for workers. Because employers are in a position that allows them to coerce workers into excersizing flexibility in a way that favors the employer and is detrimental to the worker. If employees are given a choice between time and a half and comp time, many employers will quietly let it be known that choosing time and a half is not a good choice for folks who want to keep their jobs. > [@](#): > > This is how most bills under Bush are designed. A good thing in the title that is far outweighed by the negative loopholes buried inside. Sadly, the same thing can be said about many bills coming from either side of the fence. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/10 "2003-07-15T05:03:52Z")
> [@](#): > > It seems to me that any flexibility for workers is bad for workers. Because employers are in a position that allows them to coerce workers into excersizing flexibility in a way that favors the employer and is detrimental to the worker. How so? Are you saying that any flexibility for (I’m assuming you mean hourly) workers is bad for said workers? Hmmm…, yes, that appears to be exactly what you’re saying. If the employer remains liable for time-and-a-half pay or flex time, how does that favor the employer or become detrimental to the worker? ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/11 "2003-07-15T05:12:59Z")
And remember that accrued payroll remains on the debit side of the balance sheet. ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/12 "2003-07-15T06:59:12Z")
there was a great debait on this a while ago. the thing was, if i remember correctly, that comp time could be delayed for a year. it was at the employer’s discretion when you would get the time. since the comp time could be delayed for a year it was like getting a year’s lone on the fee for the labor. ---
**Author:** ![kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f9ae1b/32.png) [@kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirk)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/13 "2003-07-15T11:11:14Z")
You are all missing the bigger picture. Many employees are being redefined as professionals and will no longer be eligable for any type of overtime compensation. ---
**Author:** ![dragongirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b38774/32.png) [@dragongirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dragongirl)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/14 "2003-07-15T12:01:21Z")
What I’m trying to figure out is how are they going to be redefined ? In plain english. ---
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/15 "2003-07-15T14:06:58Z")
“Many employees are being redefined as professionals and will no longer be eligable for any type of overtime compensation.” How so? I think that’s how it should be for some people. Our local fire chief in this city of 15,500 made $170,000 in 2002 because of overtime. I think they are a salaried position so they can’t get overtime, but they won’t let us see employee records so we can’t figure out why he made so much when his basic salary is supposed to be about $110,000 a year & he only has to put in 2 days a week at the office, plus 2 alternate days. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/16 "2003-07-15T14:37:35Z")
The incorrectly-typed link in the OP is NOT to the Working Families Flexibility Act, which has nothing to do with exemption rules. It’s [THIS](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_flsa_jun03), a proposed rule-change from the U.S. Department of Labor. The change increases the pay level under which non-exempt status is automatic (i.e., the right to receive overtime pay), and institutes a pay level _above_ which all workers are exempt, regardless of duties. In addition, the rule redefines “administrative,” “professional,” and “executive”: they eliminate the requirement for consistent use of discretion and independent judgment; that employees devote the greatest part of their work time to exempt administrative duties; they substitute an employee’s high skill or level of training for a requirement that the employee’s work be managerial and of substantial importance to the employer’s business operations. Exactly how this affects a particular employee depends on the job involved, as well as the intent of the employer. Handy, your fire chief is so irrelevant to this discussion that I don’t know where to begin. ---
**Author:** ![daniel801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@daniel801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/daniel801)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/17 "2003-07-15T14:37:55Z")
**Maria** , perhaps you should read the note about political responses in GQ. Simulation: Mr. Supervisor, can I work an extra day this week, but instead of paying me overtime could I instead take off for my daughter’s college visit? That would be fine with me, but it’s ILLEGAL. **Maria** , you do a disservice to the terrible scourge of slavery when you casually toss it off for partisan purposes, especially when discussing a law that requires employee signoff to be effective. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/18 "2003-07-15T14:46:19Z")
Whenever an employer has the “option” to screw employees, for many businesses, that “option” becomes mandatory. Want to KEEP your job? Then you had better “consent” to “flextime”. Want to KEEP your job? Then you had better NEVER use that “flextime”. Complain? You get fired for actually preferring overtime pay? The burden is upon YOU to prove that it was not for good cause. You probably can’t afford as good a mouthpiece as the slimeball corporation. You will probably lose. Academia is infamous for its “optional” flextime in lieu of overtime (even when no such arrangement can technically exist). Oddly enough, when one wants to take the time off, things are just too hectic and overloaded for it to be permitted. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/19 "2003-07-15T15:10:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maria \* > \*\*The basics are that the Republicans want to look like they are helping people get paid overtime, but actually they are removing so many people from being eligible that it is far in favor of slavedriving companies. > > This is how most bills under Bush are designed. A good thing in the title that is far outweighed by the negative loopholes buried inside. > > Very cynical. > > If you look at the history of minimum wage, overtime pay, and almost all such fair work rule, the worker has lost over half of the protections gained when they were first instituted. \*\* ## This is politics - keep it out of GQ. But since you started: Last time I checked, congress had a fair number of dems and republicans. If the dems are getting duped, get new dems. -end of polictics. I don’t know if anything is being propped up to help employers, other than then benefit of offering options to employees. The fuzzy area is exactly how it breaks for exempt employees. ---
**Author:** ![dragongirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b38774/32.png) [@dragongirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dragongirl)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500/20 "2003-07-15T15:34:08Z")
I don’t know why that didn’t show up, but this is what I was looking at. > **[Eliminating the right to overtime pay: Department of Labor proposal means...](https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_flsa_jun03/)** > > For a summary of EPI’s recent work on overtime issues, click here. Executive summary On March 31, 2003, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed regulatory changes, which if adopted, could make more than eight million white-collar employees... Thanks. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-this-to-me-overtime-elimination/188500.md?page=2)