Chicago, Ill.
The 40-hour workweek enshrined in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 stands as one of the great accomplishments of the American labor movement and as a benchmark by which we measure social progress in America and around the world. Yet today the 40-hour workweek is under assault by the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress.
Earlier this year, the Bush Administration attempted to enact “comp time” legislation (H.R. 1119) that would have encouraged longer work hours and more unpredictable work schedules by making overtime less expensive for employers. Now the administration is proposing radical and unprecedented changes to the regulations governing overtime eligibility. As a result, more than eight million workers could lose their overtime protection under the FLSA.
America’s workers are working longer hours than ever before. Undoubtedly, the FLSA works to help workers control their hours: 44 percent of workers without overtime protection work more than 40 hours per week, compared with only 20 percent of workers protected by the FLSA. But a declining percentage of America’s workers are protected by the FLSA, as more and more fall into statutory exceptions for “executive,” “administrative” and “professional” employees. The obvious solution to the growing problem of excessive work hours is to extend the overtime protections of the FLSA to more workers by narrowing the scope of these exceptions.
The Bush Administration is proposing to do exactly the opposite. Regulations proposed by the Department of Labor on March 31, 2003, would broaden the scope of the overtime exceptions dramatically, to include millions of workers whom Congress never intended to deny overtime protection. Workers who could lose their overtime protection include licensed practical nurses, journalists, police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, chefs, secretaries, dental hygienists, bookkeepers, administrative support workers, computer support staff, drafters, surveyors, designers, graphic artists, working supervisors, engineering technicians, planners, assistant and associate architects, health technicians, paralegals and retail workers.
The proposed regulations would turn the FLSA on its head, with exceptions to the 40-hour workweek now threatening to swallow the rule. Congress passed the FLSA to discourage excessive work hours, reward workers who had to put in overtime hours, and encourage employers to share the workload by hiring more workers. Congress intended the 40-hour workweek to apply presumptively to all workers, with only narrow exceptions for, essentially, management and independent professionals. Workers who fell into these exceptions presumably exercised some control over their own workloads and work schedules, and the nature of their jobs precluded the possibility of job expansion through work sharing.
The Bush Administration’s proposed regulations would exclude from the FLSA’s overtime protections not just management and independent professionals, but a potentially large group and range of low-level workers with minimal supervisory duties, minimal administrative duties or certain kinds of specialized training. These workers generally exercise little if any control over their work schedules, and their workloads could be lightened by the hiring of additional workers.
The impact of the Labor Department’s proposed regulations on working families could be dramatic. Workers who depend on overtime wages to pay their bills or put their children through college no longer would receive any compensation for their overtime work. Workers who do not currently work overtime because they are protected by the FLSA could see their work schedules extended without any extra compensation. Workers who do not lose overtime protections nevertheless will see their hours and earnings reduced, as their employers shift hours from them to workers exempt from overtime coverage in order to save money. Union members may be temporarily protected by collective bargaining agreements, but soon will face demands for pay or benefits concessions to bring bargaining table guarantees in line with the new regulatory provisions.
There is no justification for such an assault on the 40-hour workweek. The Bush Administration disingenuously claims the proposed regulations are designed to benefit low-income workers, a purpose the Labor Department claims is consistent with the FLSA’s basic intent. While the proposed regulations would benefit some lower-income workers by raising the minimum salary threshold—the salary level below which workers are automatically entitled to overtime protection. But the Labor Department has adjusted this threshold for inflation numerous times in the past and has never taken advantage of such occasions to make other changes that deny overtime protection to workers with incomes above the salary threshold.
The Bush Administration also claims the proposed regulations are necessary to “clarify” the overtime rules. However, there is no reason why “clarifying” the rules requires disqualifying more workers from overtime protection. The issue is not whether the overtime rules should be clarified, but whether any clarification of the overtime rules should protect fewer or more workers. The answer to this inquiry is plain: Consistent with the purpose and historic construction of the FLSA, clarifications of the overtime rules should expand coverage, not contract it.
Finally, the Bush Administration claims the proposed regulations are necessary to “update” the overtime rules for the 21st century economy. Yet there is nothing about the 21st century economy that requires fewer workers to enjoy the overtime protection of the FLSA. On the contrary, given the lengthening of the average worker’s workweek, the 40-hour workweek is as important now as ever before.
The Bush Administration’s assault on the 40-hour workweek is just one more in a long string of attacks on workers’ basic rights and protections. On behalf of our members and America’s workers overall, the AFL-CIO and its affiliates pledge again to support the bedrock labor standards of the FLSA and to oppose any attempt to disqualify more workers from overtime protection.