No-t

[E229Lt]

No more overtime???????

How many here are affected by this wonderful idea from the Right?????

<<<
The fight over changes to federal labor laws was marked by wildly opposing estimates of how many people might lose overtime under the new measures.

The Department of Labor says as many as 644,000 Americans could lose overtime pay; a union-supported think tank released a study arguing 8 million people would lose overtime.

The changes, designed to update and reclassify decades-old job categories, do not affect workers covered by union-negotiated contracts.

The Bush administration says the changes will actually give overtime to as many as 1.3 million people for the first time, by making more low-wage earners eligible.

Democrats do not object to that part of the proposal, but oppose the rules changes taking overtime away from some types of white-collar work.

Six of 10 New York Republicans in the House voted with the Democrats.

"Many people, at least in my part of New York state, depend on overtime," said Rep. Jack Quinn, a Republican from Buffalo. "I don't mind looking at rules that are old, we should always review them, but I think they moved the brackets around way too much."

Quinn said he was frustrated by the "thunderstorm of statistics" on both sides of the issue that did little to clarify the actual results.

"You don't know what to believe," he said, adding he was not prepared to "take a chance" on stripping his constituents of overtime pay.

Rep. Peter King of Long Island, who also voted against the changes, said the administration's move "is handing an issue to the Democrats."

"Economically it's unfair and it makes no sense," said King. "We're really hurting young working men and women who want to vote Republican."

The other Republicans who voted against the changes were Reps. John Sweeney of Clifton Park, John McHugh of Pierrepont Manor, Sherwood Boehlert of New Hartford, and Sue Kelly of Katonah.

Two other Republicans, Amo Houghton of Corning and Vito Fossella of Staten Island, did not vote.

Reps. Thomas Reynolds of East Amherst and James Walsh of Onondaga both voted for the administration's changes. Both have positions of influence in the national GOP.

Walsh spokesman Dan Gage said the outmoded job classifications required updating, and the provision "will increase the number of employees nationwide eligible to receive overtime pay."

Rep. Louise Slaughter, a Democrat from Fairport, predicted the changes will be "devastating."

"There's just so many people counting on the overtime money they get," she said.

All but one New York Democrat in the House voted against the new rules. Rep. Major Owens of Brooklyn did not vote.

Senate Democrats may still attempt to block the rules, but the regulations will take effect unless a law is enacted preventing it. >>>>

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Posted by E229 LT...

The changes, designed to update and reclassify decades-old job categories, do not affect workers covered by union-negotiated contracts.

Thank God! The mutts would have a field day with this...it would be like the old days in the firehouse... one day off a month....

[CJMinick390]

Doesn't affect me. I get paid the same for 40 hours or 60 hours a week.

[PuffyNPFD]

If I work more than I am supposed especially if I am forced to work then I sure as hell want to be compensated well for it!!!!!

[E40FDNYL35]

IAFF Works to Protect Overtime Pay

July 11, 2003 – The day after a showdown on Capitol Hill, the IAFF continues its fight to assure that fire fighters are not adversely affected by proposed changes to overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The issue of proposed overtime changes is in the national spotlight now that the House of Representatives has defeated a proposal to prohibit the Department of Labor from changing overtime eligibility rules. The vote, while disappointing, did not affect the IAFF’s efforts to guarantee that fire fighters and paramedics continue to be eligible for overtime pay and comp time.

Under the proposed regulations, many occupations that are now eligible for overtime pay will be redesignated as professional or managerial, and therefore lose their right to time-and-a-half pay. The regulations could also be interpreted in such a way to prevent fire fighters and paramedics from receiving overtime pay.

The IAFF filed formal comments with the Labor Department and has held a series of meetings with Labor Department officials to address the concerns of emergency responders. IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger also wrote a letter to the Labor Department raising fire fighter concerns. As a result, an Assistant Secretary of Labor wrote a letter to the IAFF that articulated why fire fighters would be unaffected by the new rules.

The letter has not completely satisfied the IAFF’s concerns, however, because of the possibility that city managers and city attorneys could misinterpret the Labor Department’s intent. As a result, the IAFF is continuing to work with Labor Department officials to have clarifying language added to the regulations.

Responding to opposition from other labor unions to the proposed changes, Reps. Dave Obey (D-Wisc.) and George Miller (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to the funding bill for the Labor Department. The Obey-Miller amendment, which would have prevented the Labor Department from instituting the regulations, was defeated on a 210-213 vote.

Fourteen Republicans joined all but three Democrats voting in favor of the amendment. For a brief period, it seemed that the amendment might prevail, as a majority of the House had voted for it as time expired. But the House Republican leadership exercised its rights to extend the time for voting and convinced a few vulnerable members to switch their vote before banging down the final gavel.

Backers of overtime pay are likely to take another attempt to pass this amendment when the Senate takes up the Labor Department Appropriation. The outlook for such a plan remains unclear, and is complicated by a veto threat from President Bush. In a formal communication to Congress, the White House indicated that it would reject the Labor Department spending bill if the overtime language were attached.

Meanwhile the IAFF is continuing to work with Labor Department officials to protect the overtime pay of fire fighters and paramedics. The Labor Department is currently reviewing the thousands of comments it received on the proposed regulation, and is expected to issue the final regulation late this year or early in 2004.

[CollegeBuff]

The changes, designed to update and reclassify decades-old job categories, do not affect workers covered by union-negotiated contracts.

I'm missing something- if union-negotiated contracts are not affected by the new regulations, what is the IAFF worried about? I'm not saying they are wrong to be concerned and its not a criticism, but to me it just doesn't seem like there's much room for misinterpretation given the above statement.

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Originally posted by CollegeBuff


I'm missing something- if union-negotiated contracts are not affected by the new regulations, what is the IAFF worried about? I'm not saying they are wrong to be concerned and its not a criticism, but to me it just doesn't seem like there's much room for misinterpretation given the above statement.

Give the mutts an inch, and they will take ten miles.....

[engine23ccvfd]

I'm missing something- if union-negotiated contracts are not affected by the new regulations, what is the IAFF worried about? I'm not saying they are wrong to be concerned and its not a criticism, but to me it just doesn't seem like there's much room for misinterpretation given the above statement.

Your contract will eventually run out!!! How many of you are currently working with an expired contract and for how many years have you been doing so?