Search News
For the Media
For media inquiries, call CWA Communications at 202-434-1168 or email comms@cwa-union.org. To read about CWA Members, Leadership or Industries, visit our About page.
GOP Threats Derail Overtime Amendment but Not Unions' Resolve
The fight to save workers' overtime pay is far from over, in spite of strong-arm tactics by the White House and congressional leaders that led key Republican moderates in late November to abandon support for a Democratic amendment protecting the 40-hour workweek.
The Harkin amendment, backed by majorities in both the House and Senate, would protect overtime pay against the Bush administration's assault on the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.
Under the Labor Department's revisions to the rules, at least 8 million workers in a cross section of occupations are at risk of being labeled "exempt" employees, thereby losing their right to either go home after 40 hours in a work week or be paid time and a half.
The amendment barring the department from stripping workers of their eligibility for overtime pay was intended to be attached to a federal spending bill, which was still pending as the CWA News went to press.
However, Republican supporters meeting in joint House-Senate conference sessions ultimately gave in to threats by House leaders to cut nearly $5 billion from social, health care and education programs if the overtime language was included. Further, the White House has threatened to veto any spending bill that included the amendment, a move that could lead to a federal government shutdown.
"It shows just how blatant this administration has become in its lack of respect and concern for American workers," CWA President Morton Bahr said. "President Bush was so determined to destroy these long-standing protections and hand corporate America yet another multibillion-dollar gift that he was willing to let people believe he'd shut down the government if they didn't fall in line."
But Bahr said the campaign to save overtime pay continues, with pressure mounting on lawmakers to reverse their decision. Legislation with the same intent as the amendment, but not tied to the spending bill, has been introduced in both the House and Senate. And experts say legal action against the Labor Department is likely for overstepping its legal authority in eroding the FLSA.
"This issue is going to be very much alive during the 2004 presidential election campaign," Bahr said. "The Bush administration initially schemed to push these draconian changes through as stealthily as possible and then publicly thumbed its nose at the will of Congress and the American people. We won't let voters forget it."
The public is squarely against the DOL's proposed changes, according to AFL-CIO polling. Three out of four, regardless of party affiliation, say they wouldn't be likely to re-elect a candidate who votes to roll back decades-old overtime protections.
To make that point to lawmakers, CWA ran a full-page ad in the Nov. 20 edition of Roll Call, one of two newspapers that serve Capitol Hill. "Want a job with longer hours and less pay?" it asked. "Neither do American workers."
The ad noted the survey results and took issue with the Labor Department's false statements about the number of people who would be hurt by the changes. While the DOL continues to claim that just 644,000 workers stand to lose overtime pay, the Economic Policy Institute says the number is upwards of 8 million.
The ad also took issue with Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's repeated claims that the changes would help "vulnerable" low-wage managers by making them newly eligible for overtime. The ad directed people to the Federal Register, where the Labor Department tells employers that they can cut the managers' base salaries to compensate for overtime, thereby costing businesses nothing.
Exactly when the Labor Department plans to institute the changes - barring legislative or legal action to stop them - isn't clear. But labor leaders said they will make sure American workers know what's happening and why.
"The White House was willing to provoke a fiscal crisis to get its way," said William Samuel, AFL-CIO legislative director. "We will make sure that the American people know the length that this administration went to cut overtime for 8 million Americans."
Overtime Proposal at a Glance:
The Harkin amendment, backed by majorities in both the House and Senate, would protect overtime pay against the Bush administration's assault on the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.
Under the Labor Department's revisions to the rules, at least 8 million workers in a cross section of occupations are at risk of being labeled "exempt" employees, thereby losing their right to either go home after 40 hours in a work week or be paid time and a half.
The amendment barring the department from stripping workers of their eligibility for overtime pay was intended to be attached to a federal spending bill, which was still pending as the CWA News went to press.
However, Republican supporters meeting in joint House-Senate conference sessions ultimately gave in to threats by House leaders to cut nearly $5 billion from social, health care and education programs if the overtime language was included. Further, the White House has threatened to veto any spending bill that included the amendment, a move that could lead to a federal government shutdown.
"It shows just how blatant this administration has become in its lack of respect and concern for American workers," CWA President Morton Bahr said. "President Bush was so determined to destroy these long-standing protections and hand corporate America yet another multibillion-dollar gift that he was willing to let people believe he'd shut down the government if they didn't fall in line."
But Bahr said the campaign to save overtime pay continues, with pressure mounting on lawmakers to reverse their decision. Legislation with the same intent as the amendment, but not tied to the spending bill, has been introduced in both the House and Senate. And experts say legal action against the Labor Department is likely for overstepping its legal authority in eroding the FLSA.
"This issue is going to be very much alive during the 2004 presidential election campaign," Bahr said. "The Bush administration initially schemed to push these draconian changes through as stealthily as possible and then publicly thumbed its nose at the will of Congress and the American people. We won't let voters forget it."
The public is squarely against the DOL's proposed changes, according to AFL-CIO polling. Three out of four, regardless of party affiliation, say they wouldn't be likely to re-elect a candidate who votes to roll back decades-old overtime protections.
To make that point to lawmakers, CWA ran a full-page ad in the Nov. 20 edition of Roll Call, one of two newspapers that serve Capitol Hill. "Want a job with longer hours and less pay?" it asked. "Neither do American workers."
The ad noted the survey results and took issue with the Labor Department's false statements about the number of people who would be hurt by the changes. While the DOL continues to claim that just 644,000 workers stand to lose overtime pay, the Economic Policy Institute says the number is upwards of 8 million.
The ad also took issue with Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's repeated claims that the changes would help "vulnerable" low-wage managers by making them newly eligible for overtime. The ad directed people to the Federal Register, where the Labor Department tells employers that they can cut the managers' base salaries to compensate for overtime, thereby costing businesses nothing.
Exactly when the Labor Department plans to institute the changes - barring legislative or legal action to stop them - isn't clear. But labor leaders said they will make sure American workers know what's happening and why.
"The White House was willing to provoke a fiscal crisis to get its way," said William Samuel, AFL-CIO legislative director. "We will make sure that the American people know the length that this administration went to cut overtime for 8 million Americans."
Overtime Proposal at a Glance:
- Millions of workers making over $22,100 a year are at risk. Targeted workers include police, firefighters, paramedics, nurses, skilled technicians, media workers, most office workers, dental hygienists, medical technicians, lab workers, and many sales people.
- Employers will be able to reclassify many workers as "professionals" or "administrators," making them exempt from overtime protection. Anyone with a "position of responsibility," a "high level" of skills or training - including military training, community college and on-the-job training - is at risk, as well as people who even occasionally supervise two or more workers.
- Virtually all workers in any field making more than $65,000 a year would no longer qualify for overtime pay.
- Workers who rarely put in overtime now because employers don't want to pay it are also affected. Once exempt, they can be required to put in longer hours for free.