Just so you all know, this is a question my mother wanted me to ask.
She was listening to the radio here in Detroit, and the radio show was taking callers that were voting for Bush and voters voting for Gore, then asking them why they were voting each way(fairly standard radio show stuff).
Anyway, a guy called in and said that he entirely agrees with Bush’s principles and thinks he’d be the better President, but he’s voting for Gore because of this. He got word that if Bush is President, there will be action to remove “Time-And-A-Half” pay for hourly workers who work over 40 hours.
Her question is two-fold.
Is that true?
It doesn’t seem likely that its flat out true, so her other question is this.
How could anyone convince a guy like him that it is true? Where do they get their information and how do they twist it?
I grudgingly mention that it was the guys Union who told him this. I know they are wayyyy partisan, so I figured it might help you see why it throws a little doubt.
By the way, this isn’t a debate about who is better to be President; it’s only about facts.
It’s sort of true. There have been various proposals to recalculate how overtime is determined. I can’t recall the specifics of Bush’s proposal right now, but here’s one scenario, which I think comes close.
Right now, overtime is calculated on the basis of anything over 40 hours in a 7-day week. Under the new proposal, it would be calculated on the basis of anything over 160 hours in a 30-day time period.
Proponents argue that many unions (firefighters for an example often work 24 hours on and 48 hours off) agree to work non-traditional shifts and this type of system allows scheduling flexibility.
Opponents argue that an employer could run a line on 7-day, 12-hour shifts for two weeks, and then knock everyone off for the other two weeks and not have to pay overtime.
My handy calculator says that it takes 6 people working 8-hour days to work 240 hours in a month, while it only takes 4 people working 12-hour days to work the same number of hours, so that kind of scheduling flexibility would definitely impact jobs like manufacturing.
Come to think of it, the 8-hour day was originally enacted during the Depression to boost employment numbers.
A friend of mine told me he’s for big business and if eliminating time and a half is necessary to be elected he will do it. Thats how it got eliminated the first time.
Yes, he is for big business. That’s one of the reasons many of us are behind him. But, he is not threatening to eliminate time and a half. I have heard mention of changes to how it’s calculated(kunilou pretty much summed that up), but in all of his speeches, and in all of the materials I’ve sent out and received from his campaign, I’ve never seen any mention of elimination. There’s another thread around here somewhere that discusses a somewhat similar situation where the Gore campaign is accusing Bush of keeping the minimum wage in Texas at $3.25, or some other rediculous number. None of it’s true.
I heard there was a debate in congress a while ago about whether to allow employees who work overtime to choose between time and a half and earning an hour of vacation time for each overtime hour. IIRC the GOP was for it and the Dems and labor unions were against it since you can’t collect dues on vacation time. This may or may not be what was refered to.
Union dues had nothing to do with it. The issue was awarding vacation time at the same time you were requiring employees to work nights and weekends. It was perceived as a promise that the employers would find a way around (you didn’t take your vacation during the prescribed time period, so you lose it), as opposed to premium pay.
BTW, since I am categorized as an “exempt employee” I have no particular dog in this hunt. I’m not union-bashing or boss-bashing. I just want to make sure that everyone understands the issues and forms an opinion accordingly.
worked in correction center for 14 years. for most of those years, we weren’t covered by a union. they “repaid” me for overtime in “comp time off” (pretty much GW’s plan).
It doesn’t cut it. For folks who work shift work and at places requiring 24 hour coverage (where if some one doesn’t show up you HAVE to stay), the ONLY thing keeping you semi sane is “well, at least I"m making extra bucks for this”.
There were times I’d work more than 24 hours in a row (snow storms), and taking an extra 2 days off didn’t cut it, thank you.
Union dues (at least mine) were a set amount, not based on my income.
Employers’ FICA taxes, however ARE based on income, so, naturally, it’s much to the advantage of the employer to avoid situations for paying overtime.
Uhhh, FYI, especially in that this subject originated from Michigan, it wouldn’t really matter much to the Unions what happens to overtime calculations. That’s what unions are for.
This is how Ford pays overtime:
o anything over 8 hours : 1.5x
o Saturday: 1.5x
o Sunday: 2x
o Holiday: 2x + 8 hours 1x (sometimes called 3x, but only for the first 8 hours)
Also, being an exempt employee, the company doesn’t have to pay me overtime, but because of the UAW, Ford reasons that it has to treat its salaried personnel somewhat equitably.
This is also how it worked at GM when I was there.