Issue Takes On New Importance For Election
Year
Overtime Pay Takes Center Stage in Congress
by Jonathan Yarowsky
NATO Washington Counsel
In a recent column, we discussed the increasing
attention given to the issue of “overtime” pay
in the American workplace. At the time of that earlier
column, legislation (H.R. 1119) was pending before the
House Education and Workforce Committee that would amend
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 to permit private
sector employers to offer their employees the option of
receiving overtime pay in the form of paid compensatory
time in lieu of cash wages. Supporters of this legislation
contend that in the changing workplace environment, flexibility
is necessary to provide working parents with the option
of receiving comp time in lieu of cash compensation in
order to spend more time at home.
As also indicated at that time, we were
monitoring the legislation closely because FLSA, in addition
to providing
that eligible employees who work over 40 hours will be
compensated at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay, also includes exemptions to such a 40-hour
workweek – including a specific reference to motion
picture theatres. Thus, any legislation that implicates
the underlying provisions of the 1938 Act must be tracked
very carefully.
As of this writing, H.R. 1119 has not received
a vote on the House floor. However, the legislative action
on the
issue of overtime has now shifted to a policy debate about
the Department of Labor’s plan to change the definition
of who is eligible for overtime pay. The changes in definitions
are embodied in regulations proposed by the Department
of Labor on March 31. There is sharp disagreement about
how many people would be affected. Currently, workers earning
$8,000 or less are statutorily guaranteed overtime pay.
The new regulations would raise the cutoff to $22,100.
Supporters of the new regulations contend that this change
would allow 1.3 million low-wage workers (earning between
$8,000 and $22,000) to be eligible for overtime. At the
same time, the regulations would disqualify certain workers
now receiving overtime if they “hold a position of
responsibility” while performing non-manual work.
Opponents counter with the argument that the new standard
is overbroad and vague and that, ironically, overtime would
be denied to thousands of white collar workers currently
receiving it.
On July 10, the House of Representatives
debated an amendment offered by congressmen David Obey
(D-Wis.) and George Miller
(D-Calif.) that would prohibit the secretary of labor from
promulgating any regulation that has the effect of exempting
from FLSA overtime compensation requirements any employee
currently eligible for overtime pay. The amendment which
was offered to the Labor Department-Health and Human Services
Department appropriations bill (Labor/HHS).
Following the August recess, the Senate
took up Labor/HHS. At that time, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
offered a similar
amendment to block the implementation of the new Department
of Labor rules. Six Republicans joined with 48 Democrats
in opposing the proposed changes to overtime eligibility,
and the Harkin amendment was approved.
But the matter is hardly resolved, as the
larger Labor/HHS bill moves to a House-Senate conference
where the conferees
must resolve many critical issues covering programs from
student loans to medical research to Medicare.
It is now abundantly clear in Washington
that the seemingly innocuous, non-partisan issue of “overtime” has
finally migrated up the political radar screen to set the
stage for an “election year” debate. 
