Don't do it,do not agree to days off instead of overtime its taking money
out of your pocket and putting it in higher managers salary.Yes it nice to
have a day off but you can't spend that money you are owed.I have work for
the last 7 years as a so called manager for a set salary and no overtime a
regret it ever since.Phil



Lee" wrote in message
news:cWV2ZXJ5.6b2524384537273225e45a095e3106a5@105 7230642.cotse.net...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jun30.html

washingtonpost.com
Overtime Pay Proposal Stirs Storm of Debate


By Kirstin Downey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 1, 2003; Page A11


The Labor Department has been flooded with more than 75,000 letters
debating
the merits of proposed overtime regulation changes that could affect more
than 1 million Americans, the most mail the agency has received on any
wage-and-hour topic in at least a decade.

The department and business groups say the changes are an essential
updating
of outmoded labor rules to better reflect the modern workplace with its
plethora of white-collar professional positions. Labor union officials say
the changes would undermine the 40-hour workweek and strip overtime pay
from
many workers who have grown to depend upon it.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 guarantees many non-managerial
workers
time and a half for each hour they work beyond a basic 40-hour workweek,
but
it is complex to interpret, and many jobs fall into the gray area of
whether
the worker is truly a manager, and thus ineligible for overtime.

The proposed changes would add about 1.3 million low-wage workers to the
group automatically eligible for overtime pay, but it could cause other
workers -- 644,000 to 8 million workers, depending on who does the
count --
to be viewed as managerial employees, opening them up to longer work hours
and losing the right to overtime pay.

At the Labor Department yesterday, more than 100 workers gathered to
oppose
the rule changes, carrying posters that said, "Bush, Why Cut My Pay?" and
"Our Grandparents Died for the 40-hour Workweek." Several workers
addressed
the group about the ways they thought the changes would reduce their pay.

Bob Adams, 44, a bakery manager from Minneapolis, said he earns a salary
of
$40,000 a year, but makes an additional $3,500 a year in overtime pay,
which
is the money he uses for "baseball games, concerts, anything that makes my
life more than simply going to work and back."

"It's the difference between just making ends meet and having a life," he
said, adding that he feared he would lose the overtime and simply be asked
to work longer hours, which would, in turn, displace co-workers.

More than 100 Democratic legislators have signed onto a letter written by
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) urging Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao to
rescind the rule change, which they said would affect a broad range of
workers, from paramedics to paralegals, secretaries, grocery clerks and
delivery route drivers.

Meanwhile, also yesterday, at a news conference, representatives of the
National Retail Federation, the National Council of Chain Restaurants and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the changes are badly needed to clarify
rules that have grown outdated and are overly cumbersome.

They said they are being battered by class-action lawsuits by
supervisorial
employees, such as assistant managers, who say they should be eligible for
overtime pay. They said the rule changes would more clearly spell out who
should get overtime pay.

"The proposal is not as dramatic as some people are making it out to be,"
said Robert J. Green, vice president of federal relations for the National
Restaurant Association.

Last week, the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-affiliated group,
reported
its estimates showed that as many as 8 million workers could lose access
to
overtime pay under the rule changes. Labor Department officials quickly
criticized the report as wildly off the mark, and a business-backed
economist group, the Economics Policy Foundation, said only 1.15 million
workers could be adversely affected by the change.

The workers' rally yesterday began with a dust-up over the event's
setting.
The AFL-CIO had rented a room at the Labor Department for a rally and news
conference. The union said it was informed Thursday by department
officials
that it could not use the space. Union officials charged that they were
evicted because they were criticizing the Labor Department.

Department officials said it was an "unfortunate" mix-up, and noted that
the
form the union submitted in requesting the space did not specify the
nature
of the event.

"It was a scheduling conflict," said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank.
"We didn't even know what they wanted to do."

He said the department needed the space to provide emergency terrorism
preparedness training to its incoming class of departmental interns, who
are
just arriving in Washington.




© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Overtime pay is a JOKE in too many cases. I have witnessed government
workers working SLOW all week just so they can work overtime and get
more money. I say STOP OVERTIME PAY. PERIOD. If a person can't get
a days worth of work done in a day, they need to find another job. If
there is more work to be done, then more employees need to be hired,
NOT pay those already working HIGHER wages to work overtime. Those
working overtime have less time to relax; therefore, they produce less
during the week. Those supporting overtime are ONLY doing so because
they want to bilk their employer out of all the money they can.

CRYBABIES!

(Gary) wrote in message . com...
Overtime pay is a JOKE in too many cases. I have witnessed government
workers working SLOW all week just so they can work overtime and get
more money. I say STOP OVERTIME PAY. PERIOD. If a person can't get
a days worth of work done in a day, they need to find another job. If
there is more work to be done, then more employees need to be hired,
NOT pay those already working HIGHER wages to work overtime. Those
working overtime have less time to relax; therefore, they produce less
during the week. Those supporting overtime are ONLY doing so because
they want to bilk their employer out of all the money they can.

CRYBABIES!


RIIGHT. Like it works this why. I am salaried, and expected to put in
at least 10% overtime, lest it affects my performance rating and could
jeapordize my chance of remaining in my job.

Time to relax? Try being on a project where you have to put in 12+
hours a day over a long period of time. And you get no money for
this. And if you work more effectively, it adversely affects your
performance rating. Or, how about this neato: Due to the nature of
the work, a quarter of your year is spent on the bench interally due
to projects not being ready. Then you have to put in the long hours
to make up for the hours. And then throw in this wonderful vacation
time that counts against your making hours target. The longer you
work for the company, the more vacation time you get, thus the more
hours you have to make up.

Some people. Do you even have a clue? Did you ever hear the concept
of getting paid for the hours you put in?

- Richard Hutnik