 |
| |
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY
by Greg Palast
Friday, August 29, 2003
In celebration of the working person's holiday, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has announced the Bush Administration's plan to end the 60-year-old law which requires employers to pay time-and-a-half for overtime.
I'm sure you already knew that -- if you happened to have run across page 15,576 of the Federal Register.
According to the Register, where the Bush Administration likes to place it's little gifts to major campaign donors, 2.7 million workers will lose their overtime pay -- for a "benefit" of $1.53 billion. I put "benefit" in quotes because, in the official cost-benefit analysis issued by Bush's Labor Department, the amount employers will now be able to slice out of workers' pockets is tallied on the plus side of the rules change.
Nevertheless, workers getting their pay snipped shouldn't complain, because they will all be receiving promotions. These employees will be re-classified as managers exempt from the law. The change is promoted by the National Council of Chain Restaurants. You've met these 'managers' - they're the ones in the beanies and aprons whose management decisions are, "Hold the lettuce on that."
My favorite of Chao's little amendments would re-classify as "exempt professionals" anyone who learned their skill in the military. In other words, thousands of veterans will now lose overtime pay. I just can't understand why Bush didn't announce that one when he landed on the aircraft carrier.
CHOICE NUMBER FOUR: BREAK THE LAW
Now I should say that, according to Chao's press office, the changes will actually extend overtime benefits to 1.3 million burger flippin' managers. How does that square with the billion dollar "benefit" to business owners? Simple: The Chao hounds at the Labor Department suggest that employers CUT WAGES so that, with the new "overtime" pay, the employes won't actually take home a dime more.
I can hear the moaners and bleeding hearts saying, this sounds like the Labor Department is telling Big Business how to evade the law. Yep, that's what the Department is doing. Right there on page 15,576 of the Federal Register it says,
"Affected employers would have four choices concerning potential payroll costs:
(4) converting salaried employees' basis of pay to an hourly rate that result in virtually no changes to the total compensation paid those workers."
And in case some employer is dense as a president and doesn't get the hint, Madame Chao repeats, "
The fourth choice above results in virtually no (or only a minimal) increase in labor costs."
For decades, the courts have thrown the book at cheapskate bosses who chisel workers out of legal overtime by cutting base pay this way
but now they'll have a new defense: Bush made me do it.
But then, there won't be any cases against employers, because Chao is the labor cop that is supposed to stop paycheck theft. She's well qualified for the job. Her resume reads, "Married to Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky." I called her press office to ask if she qualifies for overtime, but they'd left the office early.
And good news for our sporting President. Word from the White House is he'll be golfing on the Labor Day weekend. Under Chao's rules, he need not worry if he wants to replay that hole. "Exempt professionals" who cannot earn overtime - once defined as doctors, lawyers and those with specialized college degrees - will now include anyone who provides skilled advice
like caddies ("You might try the other end of the club, Mr. President").
THE ACORN FALLS ONLY SO FAR
Finally, on this Labor Day weekend, it's time this nation took a cold look at the issue of hard-core unemploymen. Neo-conservatives have warned us about families that pass on joblessness from generation to generation.
Take, for example, the sad case of the Bush family. When Poppy Bush was president, unemployment hit a generational high of over 9 million Americans. Bill Clinton, through education and hard work, put more than 3 million of those citizens back on the job.
Now Bush Junior, repeating his family pattern of joblessness, has presided over the return of unemployment for 9 million Americans.
This was not unexpected, sociologists warn us. Hard core unemployment, through failed schooling and a don't-care attitude, takes on a nearly genetic character. The acorn falls only so far from the tree. Especially when the nut falls on its head.
Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. View his investigative reports for BBC Television's Newsnight, at www.GregPalast.com
|
This was the primary talking point on a talk radio show I listen to on Sundays at noon in Chicago. I wonder when America is going to wake up and see this president for what he is??? ... a class warrior in the most vicious sense... 
Happy Labor Day Weekend! For what it's worth...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Good thing you got out the word on this to Apolyton--I hadn't known it myself.
That's the biggest problem with the Bush administration--Americans simply being ignorant of how truly underhanded and evil he is. The second biggest problem, of course, would be the neocons out there saying "Bush is a Prophet of God and can do no wrong, hail the Almighty Bush," but the first problem is bigger and worse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
For the unemployed, the weekend is just another couple of days in which your friends may or may not have time to hang out with your out-of-work a55.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
We don't risk being drove into a Great Depression, where IIRC everyone lost out a shitload. We risk more in our freedoms department (Patriot Act, anyone?) and in our asses department (sometime a foreigner is going to kick them badly if we don't stop). Economically, we risk entering a prolonged recession where more of the middle class drops to the lower class while the upper class continues its regular Earth-raping corporate whore act.
(I think.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Published on Friday, August 29, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
Time Bomb Ticks Beneath the Economy
Huge Federal Deficits Could Stall Investment and Send Interest Rates Soaring
by Robert B. Reich
The Congressional Budget Office reported this week that the federal budget is completely out of control. Even if spending doesn't grow as a share of the national economy, the green eyeshades at the budget office forecast $400-billion deficits as far as the eye can see.
The last time the budget was nearly this far out of whack, the country got up in arms. In 1992, Bill Clinton used the runaway budget to beat up the elder George Bush. Once elected, Clinton had to shelve most of his "public investment" agenda to reduce what was then a $29-billion-a-year deficit and calm Wall Street's jitters. In 1995, Newt Gingrich threatened to push through a balanced budget amendment until Clinton agreed to cut spending even more. By this time, there was a consensus in both parties that deficit spending had to be reined in. By 1997, as the economy recovered, the deficit disappeared.
Now we're in worse shape than in 1992, but the deficit doesn't seem to arouse more than a giant yawn. What gives?
Democrats won't lead the charge. That's because they're in a bind. If they criticize Bush on the massive deficits, they have to have a plan for reducing them. But how? If they demand repeal of the Bush tax cuts, Republicans will blast them for wanting to raise taxes. If they call for spending cuts, they will have to come up with some big-ticket items to cut. Yet they don't want to appear soft on national defense, they back a Medicare drug benefit, and they want more spending on education and health care.
Besides, Democrats would rather attack Bush for his dismal record on jobs. They don't want to blur their economic message with a lot of breast-beating about deficits. The public cares more about jobs than deficits any day. And on this score, the Dems have plenty of ammunition more than a million jobs lost since the recession officially ended in November 2001, and jobs are still hemorrhaging.
Bottom line: Democrats will grumble about Bush's "fiscal irresponsibility," but they won't make it a big deal.
Don't expect congressional Republicans to sound the alarm either, especially in the year before an election. They know the runaway budget is largely the Republican president's fault, and party loyalty runs thick. Even the Congressional Budget Office (headed by a former Bush White House staffer) says that if Bush gets everything he wants extensions of his tax cuts, a Medicare drug benefit and money to rebuild Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan the budget deficit goes into the stratosphere.
Anyway, if the runaway budget isn't Bush's fault, then it must be Congress' fault. And who's in charge of Congress? Republicans. That's the inconvenient thing about running all branches of government. You can't blame the other guys.
Republicans also learned an important lesson in the last budget crisis. The best way to fulfill their dream of a tiny government in Washington is to starve it. Make the deficit grow so big that in a few years Democrats will have no choice but to go along with massive spending cuts slashing even sacred cows like Social Security and Medicare. The strategy worked before. The giant deficits that the first Bush ran up made it impossible for Clinton to do much of anything.
If neither party will make a big deal out of the runaway budget deficits, the American public won't much care. Here's another lesson from the '90s: Americans don't like the idea of gigantic budget deficits when they symbolize a government that's out of control. But large deficits in themselves don't bother most people. Who can possibly grasp the meaning of $1.4 trillion (the CBO's 10-year deficit forecast)? The public is worried about jobs, paychecks and terrorism. Budget deficits are abstractions.
Where's Wall Street in all this? In the early '90s, you may remember, bond traders were howling about out-of-control budget deficits because the government's voracious need to borrow was crowding out private investment. Not this time, at least not yet. The economy still is so flaccid that not even $400-billion deficits are putting a crimp in corporate borrowing. Most businesses have no interest in investing until there's enough demand for their products and services to warrant it. In fact, big federal deficits are needed right now to stimulate demand and get the economy back on track.
So what's the problem with Bush's deficits? The crunch will come a few years from now, once the economy is back on track. Then, the projected deficits will create havoc because they will use up scarce capital. The Medicare drug benefit that Bush wants is likely to balloon as boomers retire. Huge military outlays, combined with the billions needed for rebuilding Iraq and ensuring homeland security, will continue because the war against terrorism is likely to go on and on. And if Bush gets his way and makes permanent his temporary tax breaks, the budget gap will only get worse.
This means interest rates will go sky-high. They may already be heading that way. Wall Street is just beginning to feel nervous about the projected deficits. Mortgage rates are moving upward in many parts of the country. It stands to reason. Who wants to lend money at 6% for 15 years when there's a good chance of a capital squeeze in a few years that pushes long-term rates north of 10%?
Higher long-term rates can stall the recovery and hurt Bush's chance of being reelected. In other words, if Bush chokes on the projected red ink, it won't be because of Democrats or Republicans. It will be because Wall Street starts to worry about the future.
Robert B. Reich, a former U.S. secretary of Labor, is a professor at Brandeis.
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
|
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0829-03.htm
Another Great Depression is quite possible mrmitchell. The Economic Policy Institute warned of this very thing during the first Bush tax cuts in 2001 and during the debate over tax cuts in early 2003. America, in addition to government debt, is also swimming in consumer debt. Eventually, it's going to catch up with us unless we get someone in office who cares more about helping America rather than his rich buddies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
I'm pretty freaking depressed all the time. Must be related somehow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
At least half the current national debt, maybe more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
6) If any of those that were responsible for the tax cuts make it back from North Korea alive, put them in the stocks(?) and let people throw tomatoes at them for a buck a pop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
Isn't that the same thing as a robber baron?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
And our corporate owned media isn't about to give this any attention... liberal indeed... 
|
The Federal Register has tons of stuff in it. None of it that I've ever seen (mostly EPA stuff and FERC stuff, with BLM, BIA, USFS, USFWS, USMFS and a little DoL, address state and local regulations that may affect the same subject matter.
Federal labor laws are the minimum standards that apply in the absense of related subject state laws, and that apply in areas where the Federal government is the local jurisdiction as well.
Most states, to get out of being regulated directly by the Feds, have their own labor laws on the same subjects, and state law may be more stringent than Federal, but not less so. Many states have the same standards as the Feds, but simply enact them at the state level to give the state primary enforcement authority over those issues.
It's not clear, without an analysis of all local jurisdiction's (state, territorial, DC and native sovereign nation) overtime laws, how many people, if any will actually be affected. The number listed in the Federal Register is just the maximum number without regard for local jurisdiction laws, based on Dept. of Labor wage and work classification statistics that are themselves suspect, since there is no mandatory reporting requirement on employers.
So nice try, but put some meat between the buns before you worry about how many fries short of a happy meal you are. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
I just want to see the look on some devout vegetarian's face when he reads that after having downed one of those greaseball McNasties.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
So you're saying the federal government should not require businesses to pay a bit more than usual for overtime?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2003 05:51
Shut up or I'll trow you out of a helicopter. 
|