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.
In My Opinion: DOL's Scheme: Longer Hours for Less Pay
You've seen the bumper sticker, maybe it's even on your car: "Unions - The Folks Who Brought You the Weekend." This fall you may be putting another one beside it - "The Bush Administration - The Folks Who Took it Away."
Many predicted that a Bush presidential victory coupled with Republican control of the Congress would lead to assaults on workers' rights and benefits. But even so, the Department of Labor's sneak attack on the 40-hour workweek is stunning in its audacity and magnitude.
Flying below the media's radar screen so far, the DOL is rewriting the rules for overtime pay eligibility under the 65-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), one of organized labor's most significant legislative achievements.
The DOL is reworking the rules in a way that stands the FLSA on its head, denying overtime to millions of workers, potentially including some CWA members (see Attack on Overtime). Unless Congress steps in, at least 8 million workers would lose overtime pay later this year according to the Economic Policy Institute - a figure that could be more like 20 million, some experts estimate.
Workers would find that overnight they have become overtime-exempt "administrative," "professional," or "executive" employees in DOL's eyes, or excluded from overtime in other ways.
The rules changes not only would rob workers of the time-and-a-half and double time premiums many count on, but it would encourage employers to work them longer hours at straight time - or at no extra pay if they're salaried. It's the most family-unfriendly policy imaginable.
Office workers, store clerks, fast food cooks and others with minimal supervision of co-workers could be classified as administrators, losing overtime pay. The proposed vague language actually says anyone doing work of "substantial importance" - in the employer's opinion - could be exempt.
Virtually everyone earning $65,000 a year in compensation including bonuses and even – yes, overtime - automatically would be exempt. This means a worker theoretically could earn overtime for part of the year until reaching $65,000 and then lose it the rest of the year.
Some workers might be flattered to find they suddenly have become "learned professionals" - at least until they realize their employers are just trying to cheat them out of their overtime pay. The current FLSA definition of learned professional generally applies to people with advanced scientific or specialized degrees. New DOL rules would broaden it so that people with no college but some technical training or merely on-the-job experience could be considered exempt from overtime. This would apply to many military veterans.
Journalists, photographers, graphic artists and many broadcast workers are specifically targeted as overtime-exempt under a new definition of "creative professional." Overall, the DOL rules focus on the information, technical and service sectors, which represent most of today's job growth.
Initially, the biggest impact would be on non-union workers who have no contracts spelling out overtime rights. However, some CWA members and other unionists could be immediately harmed where their collective bargaining provisions are limited to federal and state overtime standards.
But there's no doubt weakening of the FLSA rules will broadly impact future collective bargaining. Right now in Verizon negotiations the company is attacking our overtime provisions and even trying to take away forced overtime caps that were a top issue in the 2000 strike. The administration's weakening of overtime standards would only provoke more such contract assaults.
What's particularly outrageous is that the administration is over-stepping its authority, changing policy established by Congress - actually reversing that policy to hand its corporate political supporters a bonanza while condemning millions of workers to lower pay and sweatshop-like hours.
The intent of Congress in passing the FLSA in 1938 wasn't to boost workers' paychecks - it was to penalize employers who worked people more than 40 hours a week, which the law considered "an oppressive labor condition." The overtime penalty was meant to promote 40 hours as the workweek norm, and a second goal was to create jobs by spreading out the work among more employees.
In other words, the FLSA's clear intent is to make it more costly for employers when they force workers to work over 40 hours. The Bush administration's policy is the opposite - to help employers duck the overtime penalties, thus promoting more abusive conditions as well as curbing job growth.
Halting this attack on millions of families will require action by Congress. It will be an uphill battle with people like House Republican Leader Tom DeLay in charge of the agenda. But if we can expose the magnitude of the potential human hardship and the gross unfairness of the DOL's scheme, there is the chance of building bipartisan support for our effort.
CWA will be leading this fight and putting out information to members on our website and electronic activist network about how you can play a role.
I still receive occasional letters from CWA members asking why we are involved in politics and what our election efforts have to do with their jobs and working conditions. Pointing to the administration's attempt to make us work longer and harder for less pay is the best answer I could ever give.
Many predicted that a Bush presidential victory coupled with Republican control of the Congress would lead to assaults on workers' rights and benefits. But even so, the Department of Labor's sneak attack on the 40-hour workweek is stunning in its audacity and magnitude.
Flying below the media's radar screen so far, the DOL is rewriting the rules for overtime pay eligibility under the 65-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), one of organized labor's most significant legislative achievements.
The DOL is reworking the rules in a way that stands the FLSA on its head, denying overtime to millions of workers, potentially including some CWA members (see Attack on Overtime). Unless Congress steps in, at least 8 million workers would lose overtime pay later this year according to the Economic Policy Institute - a figure that could be more like 20 million, some experts estimate.
Workers would find that overnight they have become overtime-exempt "administrative," "professional," or "executive" employees in DOL's eyes, or excluded from overtime in other ways.
The rules changes not only would rob workers of the time-and-a-half and double time premiums many count on, but it would encourage employers to work them longer hours at straight time - or at no extra pay if they're salaried. It's the most family-unfriendly policy imaginable.
Office workers, store clerks, fast food cooks and others with minimal supervision of co-workers could be classified as administrators, losing overtime pay. The proposed vague language actually says anyone doing work of "substantial importance" - in the employer's opinion - could be exempt.
Virtually everyone earning $65,000 a year in compensation including bonuses and even – yes, overtime - automatically would be exempt. This means a worker theoretically could earn overtime for part of the year until reaching $65,000 and then lose it the rest of the year.
Some workers might be flattered to find they suddenly have become "learned professionals" - at least until they realize their employers are just trying to cheat them out of their overtime pay. The current FLSA definition of learned professional generally applies to people with advanced scientific or specialized degrees. New DOL rules would broaden it so that people with no college but some technical training or merely on-the-job experience could be considered exempt from overtime. This would apply to many military veterans.
Journalists, photographers, graphic artists and many broadcast workers are specifically targeted as overtime-exempt under a new definition of "creative professional." Overall, the DOL rules focus on the information, technical and service sectors, which represent most of today's job growth.
Initially, the biggest impact would be on non-union workers who have no contracts spelling out overtime rights. However, some CWA members and other unionists could be immediately harmed where their collective bargaining provisions are limited to federal and state overtime standards.
But there's no doubt weakening of the FLSA rules will broadly impact future collective bargaining. Right now in Verizon negotiations the company is attacking our overtime provisions and even trying to take away forced overtime caps that were a top issue in the 2000 strike. The administration's weakening of overtime standards would only provoke more such contract assaults.
What's particularly outrageous is that the administration is over-stepping its authority, changing policy established by Congress - actually reversing that policy to hand its corporate political supporters a bonanza while condemning millions of workers to lower pay and sweatshop-like hours.
The intent of Congress in passing the FLSA in 1938 wasn't to boost workers' paychecks - it was to penalize employers who worked people more than 40 hours a week, which the law considered "an oppressive labor condition." The overtime penalty was meant to promote 40 hours as the workweek norm, and a second goal was to create jobs by spreading out the work among more employees.
In other words, the FLSA's clear intent is to make it more costly for employers when they force workers to work over 40 hours. The Bush administration's policy is the opposite - to help employers duck the overtime penalties, thus promoting more abusive conditions as well as curbing job growth.
Halting this attack on millions of families will require action by Congress. It will be an uphill battle with people like House Republican Leader Tom DeLay in charge of the agenda. But if we can expose the magnitude of the potential human hardship and the gross unfairness of the DOL's scheme, there is the chance of building bipartisan support for our effort.
CWA will be leading this fight and putting out information to members on our website and electronic activist network about how you can play a role.
I still receive occasional letters from CWA members asking why we are involved in politics and what our election efforts have to do with their jobs and working conditions. Pointing to the administration's attempt to make us work longer and harder for less pay is the best answer I could ever give.