|
|
Post by outgirl on Mar 29, 2004 4:52:22 GMT -5
Does anyone know the details of the new overtime laws recently past. Nobody seems to be talking about it even though this seems to directly effect the incomes of middle class Americans. I'm a nurse working during a severe nursing shortage. Overtime makes up close to one third of my income. It's the difference between a comfortable life and the struggle to make ends meet for many. I've read that the three professions that will be the most affected by this will be healthcare, the fire depts. and the police depts. This really pisses me off. It seem congress is always voting in their own pay increases. How dare they vote to take away our opportunity to better our situations. I would like the names of every politician that voted for this. They should all get the boot right up their greedy ass. The other side of the story is how patient care will be affected. I don't intent to work sixty hour work weeks without compensation.
|
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Mar 29, 2004 23:21:08 GMT -5
Does anyone know the details of the new overtime laws recently past. Nobody seems to be talking about it even though this seems to directly effect the incomes of middle class Americans. I'm a nurse working during a severe nursing shortage. Overtime makes up close to one third of my income. I assume you're talking about the rules governing who's a "professional" and who's not (and, thus, not subject to government OT rules). Those changes never went into effect -- still tied up in congress. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Mar 30, 2004 0:05:05 GMT -5
I assume you're talking about the rules governing who's a "professional" and who's not (and, thus, not subject to government OT rules). Those changes never went into effect -- still tied up in congress. I really know very little about this. Can you fill me in?? - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Mar 30, 2004 2:04:58 GMT -5
I assume you're talking about the rules governing who's a "professional" and who's not (and, thus, not subject to government OT rules). Those changes never went into effect -- still tied up in congress. I was under the impression that it had passed. I'm glad to hear that it hasn't, at least yet. From what I understand, all types of positions will be classified as professional under this policy and those making between $20,000-$60,000 annually will be most affected. |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Mar 30, 2004 2:34:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Mar 30, 2004 20:29:57 GMT -5
I really know very little about this. Can you fill me in?? - Rick It's pretty much what Outgirl's link referenced. Apparently there are some pretty draconian laws in place controlling work arrangements, even voluntary ones. I've never been personally affected being in a field (IT) that is considered "professional", and always working jobs where I really was paid more for what I know, rather than how many hours I spent on site. But, the short of it is there are some proposals to relax the definition of "professional" thus giving employers (and, employees for that matter) more latitude in defining which positions are salaried, and which are hourly (and, thus, by extension, subject to a 40-hour work week restriction.) Also, they want to put rules in place permitting some hourly full-time employees to 'bank' OT hours in exchange for comp time, which is not allowed under current law. As of now, the Senate is not putting it through, although I think the House agreed to it. I know people who are hourly on both sides of this one. One of the suggestions I see most frequently made to HR where I work is that someone doesn't understand why the company won't let them work 50 hours one week, and take 10 hours off the next week as comp time. HR has to explain to them that it's not them, but the government which won't allow such compensatory arrangements. On the other hand, if someone took a job expecting overtime I can see how they'd be pissed if that were exchanged for comp time. I do think the "formal training" req should be trashed altogether. The status should apply to the job, not the person. If I'm doing the same thing, with the same responsibilty as a non-degreed person next to me, both of us should be classified the same. Under current law, that's technically not usually the case, which is why some jobs have a 'requirement' for a degree, no matter what it is in. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Mar 30, 2004 23:38:41 GMT -5
Outgirl and Penguin -
Thanks for the info on this. I can't help but wonder why the government is involved in this in the first place. I think employment ought to be more contract-oriented, so you can secure your right to overtime pay, without falling prey to special-interest political playmaking. I think my employment is important enough to me to not leave it to the whims of politicians. I'd rather set the terms of my employment to paper, bound by legal contract, not hair-helmeted DC highwaymen.
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Mar 31, 2004 8:36:27 GMT -5
I think the issue that many are having with this is that: 1. many of us live off of our overtime pay 2. Americans were slaves to their jobs at one time, working merely at the whims of their employers for nominal pay. The labor movemet ended that. Outgirl and Penguin - Thanks for the info on this. I can't help but wonder why the government is involved in this in the first place. I think employment ought to be more contract-oriented, so you can secure your right to overtime pay, without falling prey to special-interest political playmaking. I think my employment is important enough to me to not leave it to the whims of politicians. I'd rather set the terms of my employment to paper, bound by legal contract, not hair-helmeted DC highwaymen. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Mar 31, 2004 22:47:28 GMT -5
Outgirl and Penguin - Thanks for the info on this. I can't help but wonder why the government is involved in this in the first place. I think employment ought to be more contract-oriented, so you can secure your right to overtime pay, without falling prey to special-interest political playmaking. - Rick It's important to note that nothing about any of the proposals will prohibit overtime pay arrangements. In fact, many folks who could be labled 'exempt salaried' now (based on their job and level of training) do have employment contracts which call for hourly pay. Personally, I'd hate working by the hour, but to each his own, or so it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Apr 1, 2004 10:52:25 GMT -5
It's important to note that nothing about any of the proposals will prohibit overtime pay arrangements. In fact, many folks who could be labled 'exempt salaried' now (based on their job and level of training) do have employment contracts which call for hourly pay. Personally, I'd hate working by the hour, but to each his own, or so it should be. Maybe I'm not understanding this then because from the earlier stuff that I was reading I thought that if you fell into the so called management category (which has been rewritten to include anyone capable of indendant decision making-nurses) then you would only be able to make up to $65,000 a yr with overtime. After that it would be straight pay. Nurses are paid hourly and it works for us. Because of the shortage we have all kinds of incentives to work. On call pay ($2.25 hr) bonus pay ($16.00 hr) and travel pay ($20.00) on top of time and a half. Our base pay sucks for what is expected of us. It is only because of these overtime incentives that we can make a decent earning. I will be fucked if this turns out to be true. I hope you are right penquin. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Apr 1, 2004 13:20:17 GMT -5
Maybe I'm not understanding this then because from the earlier stuff that I was reading I thought that if you fell into the so called management category (which has been rewritten to include anyone capable of indendant decision making-nurses) then you would only be able to make up to $65,000 a yr with overtime. After that it would be straight pay. Nurses are paid hourly and it works for us. Because of the shortage we have all kinds of incentives to work. On call pay ($2.25 hr) bonus pay ($16.00 hr) and travel pay ($20.00) on top of time and a half. Our base pay sucks for what is expected of us. It is only because of these overtime incentives that we can make a decent earning. I will be fucked if this turns out to be true. I hope you are right penquin. With the shortage of nurses and other health professionals, I doubt you have anything to worry about. They are not going to take away the incentives that make you take on extra work, because what will they do when you guys all start working just 40 hours? - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Apr 2, 2004 2:04:39 GMT -5
With the shortage of nurses and other health professionals, I doubt you have anything to worry about. They are not going to take away the incentives that make you take on extra work, because what will they do when you guys all start working just 40 hours? - Rick The problem is that in a state of emergency, we are required to work. What if congress declared a state of emergency due to the severe shortage. I'm grasping here I know. But I am concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Apr 2, 2004 11:54:11 GMT -5
The problem is that in a state of emergency, we are required to work. What if congress declared a state of emergency due to the severe shortage. I'm grasping here I know. But I am concerned. I don't think they'll do that. No matter what Congress does, business will do what it takes to get and keep employees. In your situation, you definitely have the advantage over management because they need good nurses more than you need to work at that hospital. - Rick |
|
