Would Bush Eliminate Overtime Pay for 8 Million?

[lazydaze]

Or just half liars?

A TV ad from an anti-Bush group says so. But it's based on a study that actually says something different.

EPI concedes that many low-income workers would be gaining the right to overtime pay. Under the proposed rules any employee making less than $425 per week would be eligible for overtime benefits, up from the present level of $155, a figure that hasn't been changed since 1975.  In its study , published in June 2003, EPI said that change "is sorely needed."

Later, EPI estimated  that fewer than 737,000 workers would gain coverage, not the 1.4 million estimated by the Department of Labor. A business-backed group, the Employment Policy Foundation, estimates  that 3.4 million would gain.

[SLUBLUE]

i couldn't get the website in question to work.

sure it isn't a low budget, out of a garage, partisan hackery?

[lazydaze]

Originally posted by SLUBLUE@Mar 24 2004, 11:33 AM
i couldn't get the website in question to work.

sure it isn't a low budget, out of a garage, partisan hackery?

I'm sure to you it is.

[nick2]

Bush has 3 million workers LESS to screw now than he did in 2001!

[Trigfunctions]

Again - a matter of semantics:

George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers,"

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.

Does "8 million lose the right to overtime pay" = "eliminate overtime pay for 8 Million workers"?

Probably does if you're one of the 8 Million.

[Interesting note: lazydaze has now learned about Factcheck.org. Hopefully, he will read the articles - especially those slamming the Bush team - instead of picking out headlines about Kerry. I can dream, can't I?]

[DaLode]

The unions have never understood that the whole concept of 'overtime' reduces jobs available. But, why worry about people who are out of work when you have a union job eh?

[FAR52]

Originally posted by Trigfunctions@Mar 24 2004, 12:49 PM
Again - a matter of semantics:

George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million workers,"

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.

Does "8 million lose the right to overtime pay" = "eliminate overtime pay for 8 Million workers"?

Probably does if you're one of the 8 Million.

[Interesting note: lazydaze has now learned about Factcheck.org. Hopefully, he will read the articles - especially those slamming the Bush team - instead of picking out headlines about Kerry. I can dream, can't I?]

I seem to recall receiving some criticism from someone on this board for making a semantical type argument. Trig: do you recall who that might have been?

[Trigfunctions]

Yes Far, but your only argument was

"blatant lie" = "truth"

Bush and Cheny said Kerry didn't want to use the word War.

Kerry used and continues to use the word War.

Thus, they are lying.

[lazydaze]

Perhaps the President should have said Kerry voted 350 times for "higher taxes than Republicans prefer."

so this is just a difference in terminology?

[Trigfunctions]

Originally posted by lazydaze@Mar 24 2004, 01:05 PM

Perhaps the President should have said Kerry voted 350 times for "higher taxes than Republicans prefer."

so this is just a difference in terminology?

You obviously didn't read the article.

[FAR52]

Originally posted by Trigfunctions@Mar 24 2004, 12:56 PM
Yes Far, but your only argument was

"blatant lie" = "truth"

Bush and Cheny said Kerry didn't want to use the word War.

Kerry used and continues to use the word War.

Thus, they are lying.

You amuse me Trig.

[Iowa_Card]

Originally posted by DaLode@Mar 24 2004, 12:50 PM
The unions have never understood that the whole concept of 'overtime' reduces jobs available. But, why worry about people who are out of work when you have a union job eh?

What's to prevent the businesses to abuse workers by requiring them to work more without the penalty of taking those workers away from their families?

[lazydaze]

don't work there.

[dredbyrd]

Originally posted by DaLode@Mar 24 2004, 12:50 PM
The unions have never understood that the whole concept of 'overtime' reduces jobs available. But, why worry about people who are out of work when you have a union job eh?

The workers aren't the ones who safeguard permanent unemployment for the captains of wall street.

[nick2]

The unions have never understood that the whole concept of 'overtime' reduces jobs available. But, why worry about people who are out of work when you have a union job eh?

Quite the opposite: Business owners use overtime as an effctive tool to avoid-- or at least delay-- hiring more workers. The economy of this apparant: New workers require training, benefit packages, etc.