| Home | Contact Us | Payroll News |
Eight million could lose overtime
pay
New labor rules would cost workers money, study argues
Up
to 8 million U.S. workers could lose their right to overtime pay
if Bush administration rules are put in place, according to a
new study released Thursday. The new proposed rules would
dramatically change who qualifies as a salaried worker, and
which hourly wage earners are able to collect overtime.
The report, by the Economic Policy Institute, highlights dozens of
professions that would be impacted by the new rules and argues that
hundreds of thousands of workers could be moved from hourly wages to a
fixed salary. It would also expand the types of work responsibilities
that can be barred from overtime, and would cap a right to overtime for
almost anyone earning more than $65,000 a year.
The study’s numbers sharply
contrast Labor Department estimates that 1.3 million low-wage workers
would qualify for overtime under the new rules, while 640,000
professional workers would lose their potential for overtime.
Some 2.5 million salary earners and
5.5 million hourly employees would lose their overtime, according to the
estimates by the group, which is affiliated with labor unions. Some of
the most impacted job types would include: mid-level supervisors such as
restaurant managers or safety inspectors; professionals such as
dietitians, social workers and writers; and technical specialists, such
as dental hygienists, drafters or computer programmers. The report’s
authors argue the new rules would lead to longer hours for most
employees with minimal cost to companies.
“That will have a big impact on
their personal family budgets and also on their hours of work,” said
EPI vice president and policy director Ross Eisenbray. “It’ll be
more profit, but it won’t end up in worker paychecks.”
The proposed regulatory changes,
which amount to an overhaul of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
were first released last March by the Labor Department. A public comment
period ends Monday, though no public hearings were scheduled. They could
be implemented as soon as this fall and the administration wants them in
place by next year. If so, it would be the first major overhaul of the
overtime rules in nearly 30 years.
Among those changes would be to
raise the baseline salary under which all employees qualify for
overtime. Right now, standards still employ a figure from 1975: Anyone
earning less than $155 per week automatically qualifies. The new rules
would raise that to $425 per week, or about $22,000 a year.
NEW CATEGORIES
According to the study, the changes’ real impact would be in how
workers are defined:
Some employees are currently exempt because they hold advanced degrees
or did postgraduate study. But most white-collar workers with any
education beyond high school would be placed in a category of “learned
professional” and would likely be exempt — unable to earn overtime.
Many “learned” professions would now allow on-the-job experience to
replace academic training: chefs or practical nurses might be exempted
from overtime because academic study is largely vocational in nature.
The Labor Department argues that would simply give credit for
“equivalent knowledge and skills” gained outside academic programs.
Workers would no longer be required to exercise decision-making and
judgment in order to be considered a professional, or to mostly do
“production” work in order to gain overtime rights. Instead, an
employee considered to be in a “position of responsibility” could be
made exempt.
Overtime exemptions for “executive” employees would be expanded to
many lower-level supervisors who manage just a handful of employees,
such as fire sergeants or retail sales supervisors. Even if employees
who mostly perform routine, non-exempt tasks can still be made exempt.
In one example the study cites, someone who stocks shelves could be
considered an exempt employee if they also spend some time handling
customer complaints.
IMPACT ON PAYROLLS
The Bush administration and
business groups argue the changes are necessary to reflect a growing
service sector in the economy, and to spur economic growth and hiring
practices. Among the arguments is that by paying less overtime to more
highly skilled workers, employers would have more money in their payroll
to hire new employees and reduce the unemployment rolls.
Many businesses also
support the Labor Department’s argument that the new rules will
simplify how workers are segmented based on the type of work they do.
Some business owners, for example, would like to see an end to the
“production dichotomy” — the split between workers who
“produce” and those who supervise. Those divisions, they argue, are
representative of the labor act’s 1939 origins in an industrial
economy and don’t reflect modern times
That makes sense if you think of
an assembly line. It doesn’t make much sense if you think of a service
economy,” said Michael Eastman, director of labor law policy for the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce . “How do you take regulations written in the
1940s and try to apply it to your webmaster?
Organized labor, meantime, has been
on a vocal campaign against the new rules, arguing they would not only
hurt workers but would actually discourage hiring. The AFL-CIO, for
example, believes the new rules — by increasing the number of salaried
workers — would allow employers to shift more work onto salaried
employees, extending their work hours without any cost to the company.
“Just because people may sit down
all day instead of stand up doesn’t mean they should be expected to
work 80 hours a week without overtime pay,” said AFL-CIO spokeswoman
Kathy Roeder.
ROLES BLURRING
In fact, the original purpose of
the FLSA rules were to guarantee certain worker rights, both in
establishing a minimum wage and in preserving a 40-hour work week —
discouraging companies from overworking employees by imposing, in
essence, a financial penalty. But if anything, Americans’ work week
has kept lengthening, with U.S. workers now far outpacing their
counterparts in the developed world.
And by one view, the new
economy dictates that companies place more responsibility on their
workers. One sign of that is what Charles Tharp, professor of human
resource management at Rutgers University, calls a “a very jobless
recovery”: firms increasing their productivity without growing
payrolls at all. A single worker now has far more flexibility and
personal responsibility — both of which can translate into longer
hours, more work and some confusions about what a worker’s role should
be.
“With more team-based
organizational structures, with people managing themselves ... some of
the old definitions around exempt and non-exempt have become rather
blurry,” said Tharp. “It’s been a bit of a mess.”
Many companies agree the current
rules have made for a bit of a morass, and while they see the new
definitions as helping to clear up some vague definitions, though they
would like to push the Labor Department for even more clarity, which is
an issue for them in stemming labor lawsuits.
Both sides, actually, are hoping
for clarity through the rules, and both are glad to give workers credit
for their skill sets. But the report’s authors worry that the credit
being given for workers’ experience and increased autonomy will
translate into a smaller paycheck.
“They’re trying to say that
really there’s not a difference anymore between a professional
engineer and the person that engineer supervises,” Eisenbrey said.
“It’s true they do have a lot of skill and that’s a good thing.
But it’s not a reason to deny them pay when they work overtime.