Jobs, Taxes & Benefits

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Jobs, Taxes & Benefits Archives page.

Amending Overtime: Senate Tries to Influence New Labor Rules

On May 5, 2004, the Senate approved an amendment that challenges new overtime rules, a move that frustrated both the Bush administration and the Department of Labor.

The amendment

The narrowly-approved amendment, introduced by Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), is quite simple: it guarantees overtime rights to all workers who currently have them.

Though not so simple to the Department of Labor and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who argues that the amendment confuses new overtime rules that are scheduled to take effect in August 2004.

The ultimate fate of the amendment is uncertain, since it is attached to corporate tax legislation that has been stalled for months in both houses of Congress. Further, President Bush has threatened to veto any measure that interferes with Chao’s work.

The battleground

The workplace has clearly changed in the last half-century, and every administration for the last 20 years has wanted to modernize the overtime rules laid out in the Fair Labor Standards Act. But the issue is a minefield for legislators because updating overtime could mean that groups of workers who currently have the right to overtime could lose that right.

The Department of Labor estimates that the new rules will take away eligibility for about 100,000 workers who currently have overtime rights. Proponents of the new rules argue that most of these workers make over $100,000, but opponents say not so - they claim that the new rules threaten the rights of at least 4 million workers, most of them middle-income.

Then, and now

Currently, only workers who make under $8,060 per year are guaranteed overtime pay. The new rules raise that threshold to $23,660. No one is arguing against this provision in the new rules. Clearly, inflation has caused salaries to rise, so failure to update the rules threatens low-income workers.

The new rules would make eligible for overtime pay 6.7 million new workers, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) told The New York Times. Democrats want to support these workers, but not at the expense of those who may lose overtime. Democrats point out that many families, including middle-class families, rely on overtime to make ends meet. They fear that abruptly taking away overtime pay from families that count on it could have devastating results. These families are likely to vote and senators in states where these families live are sensitive to this.

The Vote

At 52-47, the vote was nearly partisan, but a handful of Republican Senators voted with Democrats to approve the measure. Republicans Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island all feel that the new overtime rules, which are scheduled, could harm workers. (John Kerry was the one Senator who did not vote; he is on the campaign trail. Specter and Murlowski are running for reelection. Campbell is retiring from the Senate. )

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao says the crusade against the new regulations is based on misinformation. Chao claims the new rules "strengthen and clarify" current overtime guidelines that are 50 years old, confusing, and the cause of thousands of lawsuits. Not many argue that the new rules need updating, but just how to update them is a matter of contention.

Who is telling the truth?

Both sides say that they are protecting workers. The Bush administration, Elaine Chao, the Department of Labor, and most Republicans say that the new rules are essential to securing workers’ rights. They argue that since the current rules are outdated and confusing, workers don’t know their rights and employers don’t comply with the regulations. Updating and clarifying these rules is fair to workers and employers, Chao said.

Opponents argue that the new rules are just as confusing. Democrats claim ambiguous wording may threaten the overtime pay of nursery school teachers, nurses, chefs, computer network administrators, and financial service employees who earn $23,660 to $100,000 a year.

Although the Department of Labor insists that first responders such as police, emergency medical personnel, and firefighters are protected, the National Association of Police Organizations determined that some of its members are threatened.

The threat to workers is quiet or loud, depending on who is talking. Republicans and Democrats are referring to the same information, but interpret it in different ways. Republicans claim the new rules protect workers, Democrats say they threaten them. Think tanks that have reviewed the new rules, such as the Employee Policy Institute, have been revealed as partisan. A May 3, 2004 editorial in the LA Times calls for a delay in the implementation of the new overtime regulations until a non-partisan review of the rules can be completed and released to the public.

To discuss this topic with other WomenMatter readers, log on to one of our online forums. Let your representatives know what you think before the new regulations go into effect. If Jobs, Taxes, and Benefits are important Life Issues for you, sign up for an e alert. And don’t forget to register to vote, because your voice matters.

Article Posted on: 5/12/2004

click here to go to next section

return to top