Again, the administration is running to the rescue of big business, who has discovered yet another means of diverting money from the workers' pockets to theirs.

You are correct in that the right to overtime is the issue--a right that will be lost. Work over 40 hours would be paid at straight time, or with compensatory time off at the discretion of the employer (the employer decides when it will be taken).

Some people will lose jobs since, in the case of companies like Home Depot, they currently have a "40 hour limit" policy on full time workers to keep costs down. With that constraint removed, then such companies would need fewer part-time workers.

Those who have said that their pay would be cut are people who typically work over 40 hours on a regular basis, and actually do include firemen and policemen (on stakeout, for example). Overnight, they would find themselves working more than 40 hours in a week for straight time.

The class of workers being targeted are less likely to garner as much sympathy from the rank-and-file lower levels, since most people don't care much if their supervisors' pay is cut. I believe that reining in of the lower levels would come along in due course, and that is the plan.

The administration could not have asked for a better shill than Elaine Chao, whose rags-to-riches story goes light on the fact that her father is a longtime friend of Jiang Zemin and somehow went into the shipping business right after graduating from college in the United States. I challenge your readers to find more than skeletal information about her background and the ties to China that she and her husband have long enjoyed.

Whose Secretary of Labor is she, anyway?

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so manay others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and had grown to be in strong favor for the distribution of all wealth in America. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and more welfare programs. In the middle of her heart-felt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far left professors at ther school, he stopped her and asked her point blank how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain...that she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary?" She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "All she has is barely a 2.0 GPA, and all she takes are easy classes, and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emptionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a point (1.0) off your GPA and give it to Mary who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine. I did without, and Mary has done little or nothing. She played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Fun story about Elaine Chao: she likes to tout the story about how she came to this country as the child of immigrants, speaking little English, who went on to graduate from Harvard, etc.

She omits the small detail that her immigrant father also owned a fleet of ships in Taiwan and was a multi-millionaire.

But this is just nitpicking by FactCheck; thae fact is overtime pay has traditionally and historically meant a premium pay scale for hours worked in excess of 40 hours (or for certain tasks).

The fact remains this a rollback of worker's rights and pay.

I agree with JadeGold. Nothing should ever be changed. It is just so wrong. New data, new facts, new environment, new challenges, screw them. Nothing should change. Also, ad hominem attacks should always carry more weight that data and logic. That is soooo 18th century.
All of us reactionaries (especiall JadeGold) agree that nothing whatsoever should ever be changed. We like it the way it is, thank you very much.

Mr/Ms McKie: Of course things should change. Persih the thought they shouldn't.

But they should change for the better. That's why we did away with things like child labor laws and segregation and the notion women should be paid less than men for equal work.

Better--that's the key word here.

Perhaps you could make an argument (although I doubt it) that rolling back worker wages WRT overtime is a good, or necessary, thing.

Ah, Jade, my favorite arse from the TT's gun control board. A quick google of your handle turns up posts all over the 'net. I'm guessing that, as much time as you have on your hands, you must be a government employee.

In any event, this is surely the tip of the iceberg for the coming litany of Kerry distortions. Personally, I'd like to see everyone who works over 40 hours a week get overtime pay or at least compensatory time. No doubt my personal bias comes into play here, considering I don't recall the last time I worked less than 50 hours a week and am not entitled to any overtime as an exempt employee. That doesn't mean I'm willing to support a mis-information campaign to get extra pay.

"The ad misquotes the study, however. What the study actually says is that an estimated 8 million would lose the *legal right* to premium overtime rates should they work more than 40 hours per week."

Sounds Clintonian. Sure you guys didn't by Clinton's -- What is the meaning of *is* is?

Of course things should change "for the better." Unfortunately, anything you attempt has unforeseen consequences. And "better" depends on who is defining it. Rather than define what "better" is, in a manner that we can agree on, why not just let MoveOn.org bash a particular change by distorting the report? So much easier. Also, why not take a few shots as Sec. Chao while we're at it. We all know how those privileged bastards take advantage of the less-privileged. (Well, except folks like John Kerry, and Teddy Kennedy, and Jon Corzine, because even though they're wealthy and privileged {well, Kerry married his wealth, but . . .} they talk like lefties. They don't actually seem to do anything that would jeopardize their privilege, but surely nothing they do could possibly hurt the less-privileged, right?)

Some of us grew up poor, and have worked many sides of the job, worker, boss, owner, manager, etc. Overtime should be based on appropriate standards, and the standards will eventually need to change.

So, JadeGold, what changes would *you* propose to overtime, and what effect would you expect them to have? (Any unintended consequences lurking out there?)

Mr/Ms McKie: The anecdote about Ms. Chao is true. She frequently regales audiences with her 'rags to riches' story--neglecting to mention it was really a 'riches to riches' story. If Ted Kennedy tried to pretend that he had a 'pulled myself up by my own bootstraps' bio--I'm certain the writers for Letterman, Leno, etc. could retire.

As for Corzine, he does have a pretty good story. He began life as a farmboy in IL, worked his way through college, started out smalltime and wound up as a major player on Wall Street.

WRT 'overtime' laws--first, it's a bad idea in the current jobs climate. Employers who have to pay extra for overtime have an incentive to hire more workers rather than pay more. Take away overtime, and you take away that incentive to hire.

Second, it really hurts low income workers, many of whom counted on working overtime to make ends meet. The Bush overtime rules permit employers to exclude workers making over $22K from receiving premium overtime rates.

Third, there's fanatastic opportunity for abuse. As an employer, under the new rules, I could enact a 'payroll adjustment' which would allow me to convert hourly-salaried employees to an annual salary. Under the new rules, I could then require my workers to work more hours for the same pay.

Did you bother reading the story, "JadeGold"?

Low-income, blue-collar workers aren't the ones who will be removed from the non-exempt category. In fact, more of them will be added. Go read the FactCheck article, instead of reading off the Kerry Campaign Babbling Points you got in your email.

As to your "fantastic opportunity for abuse", there are already companies that do this. I left one of them; now I'm one of the white-collar workers who gets overtime, even though (*gasp!*) there's no legal requirement that I do.

"Mr. Crawford:" The fact is the new overtime rules don't mention "blue collar workers." They make their delineation solely based on salary. As I correctly noted, the new rules will allow employers to exclude any worker--blue collar, white collar, etc--from receiving premium overtime rates if they make over $22K.

Another neat facet to this story is how the WH is spinning it.

They claim that 1.3M low income workers, currently ineligible for overtime compensation, will now be eligible. But they omit the fact that as many as 8M workers will lose out on overtime.

Here's the really sick part: Ms. Chao's DoL wants to "help" businesses get around this benefit for low-income workers by "suggesting" ways to avoid paying overtime to these newly-eligible employees.

For example, DoL is letting employers know that they can cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, that way, they won't have to worry about paying these folks overtime. There are additional suggestions made available as well. IOW, this appointed WH is touting the wonderful and newly expanded opportunity for overtime pay for these 1.3M low income workers, effectively persuading employers to circumvent this opportunity.

As DoL spokesman Ed Frank said: ""We're not saying anybody should do any of this."

It's amazing in a sick way. Bush creates a rule change which excludes many millions of workers from getting overtime. Bush then touts it as being a good way for a relative few low income workers to get overtime--at the same time, he's telling employers how to exploit loopholes to avoid paying the low income workers.

Ah. The Battle Of Who Mights.

One side emphasises Who Might lose their overtime benefits.

Other side emphasises Who Might gain.

I think the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of this is the $155 up to $425 figure. Instead of LEGALLY having to pay overtime if you make less than $156 now you LEGALLY have to pay if your employee makes up to $455.

Giving back a little on the other end to business doesn't seem like such a bad deal. It certainly doesn't PREVENT a decent employer from giving overtime anyway.

I believe that this "redefining" of workers is the camel's nose under the tent, and that overtime for lower income workers is likely to be dealt with later.

For me, it is conceivable that this is part of a cynical strategy to prod American workers into line with foreign, largely Chinese, labor.

I think that big business has found its poster girl.

Of course, JadeGold, you're avoiding my point. I.e. rather than discussing what changes, if any, you believe should be introduced to overtime pay, else you fall victim to my first charge of resisiting change in the face of its necessity/usefulness, you restrict yourself to mischaracterizing what I said. I did not say the anecdote was not true, I pointed out that you were using a form of ad hominem to take the place of logic. You still are.

WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE??

I'm betting I still don't get an answer.

As for "rags to riches" I am a "rags to adquecy" story, and I still don't buy your pseudo-argument. I also don't care about Joe Corzine's story, I simply point out that he is currently privileged. I didn't even point out that, although he got his Senate in a similar fashion to Ted Kennedy, he *earned* his privilege in some since. Does this make him right and Chao wrong? If so, the proof is left to the student, not that I expect to see you attempt to make it.

Finally, although I am equipped, by nature, for all sorts of abuse, I would prefer not to be convicted prior to a proper trial. Perhaps you should change your nom de blog to TheRedQueen. ("First the verdict, then the trial!)

Boy, it's been a loooooong day, and I really should use preview. Preview is my friend.

I do know how to spell adequacy, and I do know the difference between sense and since. Trust me. (Hey, it worked for Jimmy Carter.)

JorgX: I'm a bit confused as to your concerns about wealthy people in elected office; I'm sure if you check, you'll see most of the folks in Congress (and administration) are quite wealthy. Let's face the fact that George W. Bush would very likely be a bankrupt alcoholic somewhere were it not for his family privilege.

Real campaign finance reform would go a long way toward alleviating this problem.

On to what I would do. It's pretty simple: I'd keep the current FLSA definitions in place (WRT the duties test) and raise the minimum salary threshold (index to inflation) and eliminate the highly compensated employee exemption.