Testimony of Richard L. Trumka Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
On the Department of Labor’s Proposed Overtime Regulations
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the AFL-CIO regarding the Bush Administration’s proposed regulations on overtime eligibility.
The overtime regulations proposed by the Bush Administration in March 2003 would redefine 8 million workers as ineligible for federal overtime protection. In addition, under this proposal, thousands more workers every year would be stripped of their overtime rights. The Bush proposal would effectively gut the 40-hour workweek through administrative regulation, dishonoring the sacrifice of thousands of working men and women who struggled for over a century to enact the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. The Bush proposal would also dishonor the sacrifice of millions of working parents today who work longer hours to provide for their families, and would be a slap in the face to working parents in desperate need of more family time away from work.
Mr. Chairman, this hearing could not be more timely, for today the 40-hour workweek is in jeopardy. A vote scheduled for this afternoon in the Senate could determine the future of overtime protection and the 40-hour workweek in this country.
There are seven points I would like to make about the Bush overtime proposal and today’s vote in the Senate:
First, it bears repeating that the one and only overtime issue before Congress is a very simple one: whether the Bush Administration should be allowed to strip workers of their overtime rights. Contrary to assertions by the Department of Labor (DOL), nobody has proposed stopping the Department from issuing a regulation. No one has proposed stopping DOL from updating, clarifying, or improving the overtime regulations. No one has proposed stopping DOL from making an inflation adjustment that would expand overtime coverage to a small number of lower-income workers. The only thing anyone in Congress has proposed is an amendment to stop the Labor Department from stripping workers of their overtime rights. That is all the Harkin amendment does. The Harkin amendment would allow DOL to issue a regulation accomplishing all the things the Department says it wants to do, so long as it refrains from stripping workers of their overtime rights. DOL should stop hiding behind phony excuses. The indisputable fact is that this Administration is pulling out all the stops to insist on its right to take away workers’ overtime.
Second, the Administration’s detailed descriptions of ways employers can avoid paying anything for overtime work, as reported recently by several news organizations, are very revealing of its true priorities. Providing a primer on how to lower employees’ wages in order to save money on overtime—whether these strategies are actually legal or not—is hardly consistent with the Administration’s professed concern for the overtime earnings of low-income workers.
In fact, these proposed rules were designed for the benefit of employers, not workers. This is not just my opinion, but is also the opinion of the business community. As one prominent management law firm (Proskauer Rose) informed its clients when the proposed regulations first came out, “Thankfully, virtually all of these changes should ultimately be beneficial to employers.”
Third, we believe the Bush Administration has grossly miscalculated the effects of its proposal in ways that make its overtime cuts look smaller. The Administration’s estimates low-ball the number of workers who would lose their overtime eligibility and inflate the number of workers who would gain eligibility. In one sense, of course, the Administration’s misleading estimates are beside the point. Whether the actual number of workers losing overtime is 7 million or 8 million or 20 million, there is no excuse for taking overtime protection away from any worker. And the number of low-income workers who would benefit from the proposed inflation adjustment is irrelevant to the debate in Congress. Again, the Harkin amendment would allow the Administration to extend overtime coverage to any number of workers, whether it be 300,000, 1.3 million, or whatever number of workers would benefit from a more complete adjustment for inflation.
Fourth, while no worker deserves to lose overtime eligibility, it is particularly reprehensible for this Administration to propose stripping overtime rights from veterans who have received technical training in the military. Under the Bush proposal, if an employer determines that the training veterans have received in the military is equivalent to a four-year professional degree, that employer will now be allowed to deny those veterans overtime eligibility and refuse to pay them anything for overtime work. This proposal is offensive. It is an insult to the men and women who risk their lives to serve their country. It also threatens to undermine a key recruiting tool of the armed services—the opportunity for career advancement through military training. In a regulatory proposal brimming with bad ideas, this is certainly one of the worst.
Fifth, the Senate vote this afternoon may be the last chance for Congress to protect the overtime rights of 8 million workers, and more broadly to protect the future of the 40-hour workweek. The Labor Department has announced its plan to issue a final regulation by March 2004. Time is running out. If an overtime guarantee is not included in the omnibus appropriations bill now before the Senate, there may be no way to stop the Administration from stripping overtime rights from more than 8 million workers. It is urgent and imperative that Congress defeat cloture this afternoon to force the Administration to abandon its campaign to restrict overtime eligibility.
Sixth, responsibility for jeopardizing the omnibus spending legislation now before the Senate lies squarely with the Bush Administration. It was the Bush Administration that threatened to veto this legislation if it included the Harkin overtime guarantee. It was the Bush Administration that forced the conference committee to strip out the Harkin overtime guarantee. It was the Bush Administration that refused even to sit down and discuss a compromise with the distinguished chairman of this committee. It was the Bush Administration that flouted strong bipartisan votes in both the House and Senate in favor of protecting workers’ overtime rights. And it was the Bush Administration that recklessly disregarded repeated public warnings that stripping the Harkin overtime guarantee from this bill could jeopardize its final passage.
Seventh, it is within the Administration’s power to resolve this standoff. If the Administration agreed to respect the will of bipartisan pro-overtime majorities in both houses of Congress, the Harkin overtime guarantee could be reattached to an omnibus package. Alternatively, if the Administration withdrew its opposition to protecting overtime, the Harkin overtime guarantee could be enacted separately. Or the Bush Administration could simply withdraw its controversial overtime cuts, make a public commitment not to restrict overtime eligibility in the future, and immediately implement the non-controversial part of its proposal that adjusts overtime salary tests for inflation.
Finally, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the chairman for his vote in favor of the Harkin amendment. I hope we can count on the chairman’s continued support for guaranteeing America’s workers against the loss of their overtime rights.
Thank you, and I would be glad to answer any questions.
