Prez Bush Taking Away RN's Overtime Pay

  1. what is the latest that you all have heard regarding the government and president bush taking away overtime pay starting august 23rd. this is the latest article i could find on the internet. there was an article in last sunday's dallas morning news regarding this. as a full time rn in texas, who works 48 hours every week to supplement my poor income, i stand to lose somewhere in the range of $8000 off of my salary. i'm personally not too happy about this. a lot of my co-workers are trying to contact others about this. please send feedback as i know i will follow this closely.

    july 14--within the next two weeks--and possibly as early as this week--the senate is expected to vote on a measure to protect overtime rights that the house narrowly defeated july 10. the 213-210 house vote killed an amendment authored by reps. david obey (d-wis.) and george miller (d-calif.) that would have blocked changes proposed by the bush administration to take away overtime pay rights for millions of american workers. the amendment was attached to the fiscal year 2004 labor and health and human services and education appropriations bill (h.r. 2660), which president george w. bush on july 9 threatened to veto if it included the obey-miller amendment. while the amendment would stop the department of labor from issuing any regulation that takes away overtime rights, the department could still freely broaden overtime protection for more workers, plus clarify the rules in way that does not take away overtime from those who now have it. the amendment is modeled on h.r. 2665, authored by reps. peter king (r-n[color=#008080].y[color=#008080].) and miller, for which house members are still organizing support. many democrats and republicans have expressed outrage over the administration's attempt to deny workers overtime pay to help support their families. under the bush proposal, workers, including police officers, nurses, store supervisors and many other workers, would face unpredictable work schedules and reduced pay because of an increased demand for extra hours for which employers would not have to compensate workers, according to an economic policy institute report released june 26. workers making more than $22,100 a year could be denied overtime pay under the proposed changes if they are reclassified as professional, administrative or executive employees exempt from federal overtime rules. critics argued the proposed rules threaten overtime pay for as many as 8 million workers, including many white-collar workers and veterans now eligible for extra wages. "seems to me that they're more willing to pay tariffs to europe than they are overtime to american workers," said sen. tom harkin, the iowa democrat pushing to block some of the administration's changes. last year, six republicans broke with the administration and joined democrats to make sure no workers lose their extra pay.
    •  
  2. 26 Comments

  3. by   Euskadi1946
    Quote from stlcardsrock
    what is the latest that you all have heard regarding the government and president bush taking away overtime pay starting august 23rd. this is the latest article i could find on the internet. there was an article in last sunday's dallas morning news regarding this. as a full time rn in texas, who works 48 hours every week to supplement my poor income, i stand to lose somewhere in the range of $8000 off of my salary. i'm personally not too happy about this. a lot of my co-workers are trying to contact others about this. please send feedback as i know i will follow this closely.

    july 14--within the next two weeks--and possibly as early as this week--the senate is expected to vote on a measure to protect overtime rights that the house narrowly defeated july 10. the 213-210 house vote killed an amendment authored by reps. david obey (d-wis.) and george miller (d-calif.) that would have blocked changes proposed by the bush administration to take away overtime pay rights for millions of american workers. the amendment was attached to the fiscal year 2004 labor and health and human services and education appropriations bill (h.r. 2660), which president george w. bush on july 9 threatened to veto if it included the obey-miller amendment. while the amendment would stop the department of labor from issuing any regulation that takes away overtime rights, the department could still freely broaden overtime protection for more workers, plus clarify the rules in way that does not take away overtime from those who now have it. the amendment is modeled on h.r. 2665, authored by reps. peter king (r-n[color=#008080].y[color=#008080].) and miller, for which house members are still organizing support. many democrats and republicans have expressed outrage over the administration's attempt to deny workers overtime pay to help support their families. under the bush proposal, workers, including police officers, nurses, store supervisors and many other workers, would face unpredictable work schedules and reduced pay because of an increased demand for extra hours for which employers would not have to compensate workers, according to an economic policy institute report released june 26. workers making more than $22,100 a year could be denied overtime pay under the proposed changes if they are reclassified as professional, administrative or executive employees exempt from federal overtime rules. critics argued the proposed rules threaten overtime pay for as many as 8 million workers, including many white-collar workers and veterans now eligible for extra wages. "seems to me that they're more willing to pay tariffs to europe than they are overtime to american workers," said sen. tom harkin, the iowa democrat pushing to block some of the administration's changes. last year, six republicans broke with the administration and joined democrats to make sure no workers lose their extra pay.
    i hope the nurses and others who voted for bush are happy, happy and more happy with this latest development.
  4. by   Euskadi1946
    :uhoh21: :uhoh21: :uhoh21:
    Quote from stlcardsrock
    what is the latest that you all have heard regarding the government and president bush taking away overtime pay starting august 23rd. this is the latest article i could find on the internet. there was an article in last sunday's dallas morning news regarding this. as a full time rn in texas, who works 48 hours every week to supplement my poor income, i stand to lose somewhere in the range of $8000 off of my salary. i'm personally not too happy about this. a lot of my co-workers are trying to contact others about this. please send feedback as i know i will follow this closely.

    july 14--within the next two weeks--and possibly as early as this week--the senate is expected to vote on a measure to protect overtime rights that the house narrowly defeated july 10. the 213-210 house vote killed an amendment authored by reps. david obey (d-wis.) and george miller (d-calif.) that would have blocked changes proposed by the bush administration to take away overtime pay rights for millions of american workers. the amendment was attached to the fiscal year 2004 labor and health and human services and education appropriations bill (h.r. 2660), which president george w. bush on july 9 threatened to veto if it included the obey-miller amendment. while the amendment would stop the department of labor from issuing any regulation that takes away overtime rights, the department could still freely broaden overtime protection for more workers, plus clarify the rules in way that does not take away overtime from those who now have it. the amendment is modeled on h.r. 2665, authored by reps. peter king (r-n[color=#008080].y[color=#008080].) and miller, for which house members are still organizing support. many democrats and republicans have expressed outrage over the administration's attempt to deny workers overtime pay to help support their families. under the bush proposal, workers, including police officers, nurses, store supervisors and many other workers, would face unpredictable work schedules and reduced pay because of an increased demand for extra hours for which employers would not have to compensate workers, according to an economic policy institute report released june 26. workers making more than $22,100 a year could be denied overtime pay under the proposed changes if they are reclassified as professional, administrative or executive employees exempt from federal overtime rules. critics argued the proposed rules threaten overtime pay for as many as 8 million workers, including many white-collar workers and veterans now eligible for extra wages. "seems to me that they're more willing to pay tariffs to europe than they are overtime to american workers," said sen. tom harkin, the iowa democrat pushing to block some of the administration's changes. last year, six republicans broke with the administration and joined democrats to make sure no workers lose their extra pay.
  5. by   RN4NICU
    Thankfully, Prez Bush's power is rather limited in this regard. Hospitals have never HAD to give overtime to RNs, as we fell under the definition of professionals under the old law, but hospitals really and truly know that they cannot take away overtime. No one will be willing to work it. They can attempt to mandate it and see how many applicants still come through the doors (I think you will be able to hear the crickets for the dead silence in the personnel offices). Also, though I realize this doesn't apply in TX, any union contracts supersede the new legislation. I will leave it at that before I lose control of my fingers on the keys and spin this thread into a national union pitch...
  6. by   All_Smiles_RN
    If I'm reading this right, this overtime protection clause was a rider on another bill. And apparently this bill FAILED in the House of Reps, not by a Bush veto. I noticed the date of this "article" is July 14th. Today is only July 6th. Apparently this is old news you're just stirring up to draw some anti-Bush sentiments.
    ...Jennifer...

    P.S. If you really wanted to support this "new" bill in the Senate, where is that bill number? Does it even exist? A bill of this magnitude would surely be BIG news with our anti-Bush liberal media. They'd be all over this story if it were true.
    Last edit by All_Smiles_RN on Jul 6, '04
  7. by   Jailhouse RN
    Pre. Bush did nothing to hurt nurses. If you believe that crap you really need help.
  8. by   CSLee3
    Yes, that bill failed. It would not have affected many staff nurses if it passed anyway. It was for administrative (exempt type) employees who made over 100k a year. IT DID NOT include staff nurses. Quit blaming the Bush administration for all of societies woes. I noticed the ANA didn't wage a war, where were they?
  9. by   Stlcardsrock
    First off I don't have anti-Bush sentiments. I don't appreciate any insinuations. I am only reading things posted from reputable websites. Yes, this started actually March of 2003 when the original bill was drafted. Most of the quotes are from last July. The next quote is from an article on MSNBC dated in Januray.
    "The American Nurses Association, which represents one group of workers said to be significantly impacted by the rules, also took issue Tuesday with the learned professional exemption, which they believe could do away with the pay they currently receive for the mandatory overtime many of them currently work. "For nurses, it will mean longer hours with less pay and likely mandated hours," Patty Hefner, a registered nurse in Pennsylvania, told lawmakers."

    This is not about Rep vs Dem. This is about my life and my family and my income.

    The following link is from a website dated THIS MAY!!!
    http://harkin.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=221327

    The reason for my coming out of lurking mode on this board is to see whether anyone else is concerned by this and the fact that the deadline of August 23rd is fast approaching.


    Quote from jenniferhelene
    If I'm reading this right, this overtime protection clause was a rider on another bill. And apparently this bill FAILED in the House of Reps, not by a Bush veto. I noticed the date of this "article" is July 14th. Today is only July 6th. Apparently this is old news you're just stirring up to draw some anti-Bush sentiments.
    ...Jennifer...

    P.S. If you really wanted to support this "new" bill in the Senate, where is that bill number? Does it even exist? A bill of this magnitude would surely be BIG news with our anti-Bush liberal media. They'd be all over this story if it were true.
  10. by   wjf00
    Quote from Jailhouse RN
    Pre. Bush did nothing to hurt nurses. If you believe that crap you really need help.

    I guess by your response, you think no nurses live in New York City. I think the "crap" is coming from the Whitehouse. I am well and need no more of Dubbya's help.




    (CBS/AP) The Environmental Protection Agency's internal watchdog says White House officials pressured the agency to prematurely assure the public that the air was safe to breathe a week after the World Trade Center collapse.

    "Competing considerations, such as national security concerns and the desire to reopen Wall Street, also played a role in EPA's air quality statements," the report said.

    The New York Times, which reported on the inspector general's findings before they were made public, points out that officials from the EPA and from the White House criticized the report, saying investigators misunderstood the complexity of the situation after the terror attack.

    The agency's initial statements in the days following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were not supported by proper air quality monitoring data and analysis, EPA's inspector general, Nikki L. Tinsley, says in a 155-page report released late Thursday.

    An email sent just one day after the attacks, from then-EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher's chief of staff to senior EPA officials, said "all statements to the media should be cleared" first by the National Security Council, the report says.

    Approval from the NSC, which is chaired by President Bush and serves as his main forum for discussing national security and foreign policy matters with his senior aides and Cabinet, was arranged through an official with the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the report said.

    That council, which coordinates federal environmental efforts, in turn "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones," the inspector general found.

    For example, the report found, EPA was convinced to omit from its early public statements guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and tips on potential health effects from airborne dust containing asbestos, lead, glass fibers and concrete.

    James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a telephone interview Friday that EPA did "an incredible job" with the World Trade Center cleanup.

    "The White House was involved in making sure that we were getting the most accurate information that was real, on a wide range of activities. That included the NSC-this was major terrorist incident," he said.

    The White House directed EPA to add and delete information, Connaughton said, based on whether it should be released through press statements, information on the Web or other means.

    "In the back and forth during that very intense period of time, we were making decisions about where the information should be released, what the best way to communicate the information was, so that people could respond responsibly and so that people had a good relative sense of potential risk," he said.

    The EPA inspector general recommends EPA adopt new procedures so its public statements on health risks and environmental quality are supported by data and analysis. Other recommendations include developing better indoor air cleanups and ways of handling asbestos in large-scale disasters.

    There is no evidence that airborne asbestos in the World Trade Center area posed a long-term health risk, but no study of the effects on the general public has actually been completed. A Mount Sinai study of rescue and recovery workers found that 78 percent had suffered lung ailments.

    The report notes that the agency's official position was that the levels of asbestos in outdoor air were safe for healthy adults, but that it lacked evidence about the potential health effects of indoor air and the risks of other contaminants or the effects on more vulnerable New Yorkers, including children and the elderly.

    The report notes that the agency's news releases did not mention these caveats and that "for the general public, EPA's overriding message was that there was no significant threat to human health."

    The report says an associate administrator considered adding to a news release information on the risks of exposure to fine dust particles for the more vulnerable segments of the population.

    But an official from the Council on Environmental Quality "discouraged her from doing so," the report says, arguing that information about health effects should not be in EPA news releases.

    The report compares two news releases with their draft versions and concludes, "Every change that was suggested by the CEQ contact was made."

    The Times' account of the report says that the title for the original version of one news release was, "EPA Initiating Emergency Response Activities, Testing Terrorized Sites For Environmental Hazards."

    In the final version, the second clause was changed to read, "Reassures Public About Environmental Hazards."

    In the same release, a section that said, "Even at low levels, EPA considers asbestos hazardous in this situation" was deleted and replaced with a section that read, in part, "Short-term, low-level exposure of the type that might have been produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is unlikely to cause significant health effects."

    ©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
  11. by   Jolie
    The current issue of the Nursing Spectrum (Chicago edition) states that the revised OT rules and regs that were recently approved will not affect RNs. Those who currently are eligible for OT will remain eligible.
  12. by   Hellllllo Nurse
    Quote from jenniferhelene
    I noticed the date of this "article" is July 14th. Today is only July 6th.
    I noticed the date, too. Maybe this is an article from last year?


    Quote from jenniferhelene
    P.S. If you really wanted to support this "new" bill in the Senate, where is that bill number? Does it even exist? A bill of this magnitude would surely be BIG news with our anti-Bush liberal media. They'd be all over this story if it were true.

    It is a FACT that Bush has been trying to take away the overtime pay of millions of Americans, including RNs.
    There are many threads about it on allnurses.

    Bush and his cronies were very effective at keeping their devious plans out of the media.

    Last I read, despite Bush's efforts, the bill to take away overtime was defeated. The bill the OP posted about is a bill written by dems aimed at blocking Bush's bill.
  13. by   Hellllllo Nurse
    Senate to Bush: 'Don't Mess with Overtime'


    http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy...nderForPrint=1



    Sept. 10--In a major setback to President George W. Bush's proposal to take overtime pay protections away from more than 8 million workers, the U.S. Senate today voted 54-45 to block the raid on workers' paychecks.



    The vote, which drew the support of six Republican senators, was on an amendment by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) that prevents the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing a Bush-backed proposal to gut overtime protections guaranteed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Harkin amendment was attached to the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 2660).



    The Senate had been expected to vote on the amendment Sept. 9. But Republican leaders maneuvered to delay the vote to a time when several Democratic senators who are campaigning for the presidency would be out of town and unable to vote. However, Harkin and the amendment's supporters vowed to block action on the appropriations bill until the Senate voted on the overtime amendment.

    "The Harkin amendment is the right measure for America's workers because it stops the Bush administration from taking away workers' right to overtime pay," says AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney.

    "The Bush Administration...has even threatened to veto the Labor-HHS appropriations bill if it includes the amendment passed by the Senate. We hope President Bush will rethink his opposition to this critical measure protecting overtime guarantees for American workers and their families."

    The six Republican senators who voted for the amendment are Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens from Alaska, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania.



    Sen. Zell Miller from Georgia was the lone defecting Democrat. (Find out how your senators voted on the amendment to ban the Bush administration's Labor Department from stripping overtime pay protections.)



    The Sept. 10 vote is an important battle but not the final victory in the fight to turn back Bush's raid on workers' paychecks. When the Senate finishes work on the appropriations bill, it will go to a House-Senate conference committee which will meld it with a House-passed version. In July, the House narrowly defeated (213-210) an amendment to block the overtime changes.



    Spokespersons for President Bush have vowed that Bush will veto the appropriations bill if it includes the Harkin amendment. If he does veto the bill, it will take a two-thirds majority of both houses to override the veto.



    A recent survey shows how far out of step Bush's efforts to gut overtime pay are with the public.



    Three in four Americans oppose the Bush administration's proposal to eliminate several million employees' right to overtime pay, and opposition is overwhelming regardless of political affiliation, race, income or geographic region, according to a new national survey conducted by the independent polling firm Peter D. Hart Research Associates. The survey was conducted among 862 adults from Aug. 26-31, 2003, and was commissioned by the AFL-CIO.
    By 17 to one, the public believes that federal laws governing overtime should be changed to cover more employees (52 percent) rather than fewer employees (three percent), while 38 percent support current coverage.

    "Employers are hiring fewer workers here in the U.S. and working them longer--and now the Bush administration is trying to make it cheaper for them to work employees even longer with its proposed changes to overtime rules," AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said during a Labor Day press conference Aug. 28.



    Although the Bush administration claims changes to the overtime rules would affect only 644,000 workers, the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found the number of workers who will lose overtime pay is closer to 8 million.


    "The DOL recognizes that this conversion from hourly to salaried will occur, but it woefully underestimates how significant the change in the workforce will likely be," according to the EPI report. Those who could lose overtime pay involve a wide range of workers, including nurses, firefighters, retail clerks and engineering technicians.



    8 Million Workers Could Lose Overtime Pay

    Under, the Bush proposal, workers who lose their overtime rights also could face unpredictable work schedules and reduced pay because of an increased demand for extra hours--time for which employers would not have to compensate workers, according to EPI.



    Workers making more than $22,100 a year could be denied overtime pay under the proposed changes if they are reclassified as professional, administrative or executive employees exempt from federal overtime rules.

    After the Labor Department announced its plan to take away overtime pay in March, it received more than 80,000 comments by the close of the public comment period June 30--and acknowledges most are against the proposal.

    During the August congressional recess, activists from local unions, central labor councils and state federations distributed worksite fliers about the overtime attack, encouraged workers to contact their lawmakers and made lobbying visits to congressional district offices. That mobilization will intensify when the Senate resumes work.


    Here are some links to more articles on Bush wanting to take away our right to overtime pay:

    http://www.sbctc.org/default.asp?id=...type=hotissues


    "George W. Bush is on track to be the first President since Herbert Hoover to finish his term with fewer Americans employed than when he took office. More jobs have been lost under Bush than the last 11 Presidents combined!"
    http://www.sbctc.org/default.asp?id=...type=hotissues


    The bill was held up for months because of several objections by members of the House and Senate, one of the most significant being the Administration's pending regulations that change the rules governing overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
    Democrats in Congress had tried to block the new regulations. The omnibus bill was their last chance, but the Republican-led Congress defeated efforts to stop the plan.
    "Today the President won a major victory over the interests of hard working employees throughout America - he will now be able to take away their overtime pay," said Miller.

    http://edworkforce.house.gov/democra.../rel12204.html



    "The Republican-led chamber, on a 54-45 vote, approved a Democratic amendment that would derail a proposed expansion of overtime exemptions for white-collar workers under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.


    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0910-10.htm
    Last edit by Hellllllo Nurse on Jul 6, '04
  14. by   MsBruiser
    Registered nurses who are paid on an hourly basis should receive overtime pay. However, registered nurses who are registered by the appropriate State examining board generally meet the duties requirements for the learned professional exemption, and if paid on a salary basis of at least $455 per week, may be classified as exempt.

    Licensed practical nurses and other similar health care employees, however, generally do not qualify as exempt learned professionals, regardless of work experience and training, because possession of a specialized advanced academic degree is not a standard prerequisite for entry into such occupations, and are entitled to overtime pay.



    Be afraid, be very afraid.

close