Overtime, one more time
If you think it's tedious reading about the same subject over and over and over every day on this blog, just imagine how tedious it will be working all those extra hours for no additional pay. The Senate is debating the issue right now; Sen. Robert Byrd is talking about (among other things) what it was like before the current rules on overtime went into effect in 1938. He was "a produce boy," back in 1930, and he had to work "as many hours as it took to keep the job," with nary a prospect of additional pay.
Here's the provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that requires overtime pay for many (but not all) workers:
"No employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, and who in such workweek is brought within the purview of this subsection by the amendments made to this chapter by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966,
(A) for a workweek longer than forty-four hours during the first year from the effective date of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966,
(B) for a workweek longer than forty-two hours during the second year from such date, or
(C) for a workweek longer than forty hours after the expiration of the second year from such date,
unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed."
If you don't care whether 8 million American workers, possibly yourself, will lose the right to overtime pay, then you don't need to contact your senator. But if you do care, then please do. Today.
posted by Janet Dagley Dagley @12:37 PM
|
5.9.03 |
|