politics56.htm

PLEASE BE PATIENT, THIS PAGE MAY TAKE A WHILE TO LOAD

WEB PAGE INDEX
Includes recent updates

October 20, 2003

Dear Mr. Jenkins:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important for me to hear from you. Please accept my apology for the delay in my response.

I appreciate hearing your thoughts regarding the Department of Labor's proposed changes to the overtime regulations concerning "white collar" employees.

As you may know, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 guarantees overtime pay for all employees who work over 40 hours in one week, with a few exceptions, including those employed in certain "white collar" jobs. And, while the Secretary of Labor is required to update, from time to time, the overtime regulations, they have had only slight revision since 1949. In March, the Department proposed the changes, and stakeholders were given 90 days to comment.

Most recently, Senator Harkin offered an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill to prohibit the Department of Labor from issuing a regulation updating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The amendment was agreed to on September 10, by a vote of 54-45. I voted against this amendment for a number of reasons.

First, the Department's proposal would raise the minimum salary level at which workers are guaranteed overtime from $155 to $425 a week, or $22,100 annually. This change would guarantee overtime to 1.3 million low-wage workers who are not currently entitled to overtime.

Second, the Department's proposal seeks to bring clarity to the outdated regulations. The regulations in place right now refer to people who do computer work as "keypunch operators," and include occupations such as "straw bosses" and "legmen." While these occupations were relevant when I was an assembly line worker at Waterloo Register in 1961, it's clear that they no longer apply in today's economy.

According to the Department of Labor, bringing clarity to the regulations will actually strengthen overtime protections for an additional 10.7 million workers. In fact, the country's biggest law enforcement labor union. the National Fraternal Order of Police, said that it the new rules are approved, even more police officers, fire fighters and emergency personnel would be eligible for overtime pay.

Lastly, it's important to keep in mind that the Department of Labor has issued only a proposed regulation. During the 90 day comment period, they received over 80,000 comments that must be read and taken into consideration, which would likely lead to substantive changes to the final rule. I believe it would have been more appropriate for Congress to address the final rule rather than a proposal subject to changes.

Currently, a conference committee is working to reconcile the two versions of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriation bills passed by the House and Senate. Rest assured, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate have the opportunity to further consider this matter.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Hearing from you enables me to do the best job I can as your U.S. Senator.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator

June 3, 2004

Dear Mr. Jenkins,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important for me to hear from you.

I appreciate hearing your thoughts regarding the Department of Labor's final regulations on the Fair Labor Standards Act "white collar" exemptions. I'm glad to have your views, and I apologize for the delay in my reply.

As you may know, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 guarantees overtime pay for all employees who work over 40 hours in one week, with a few exceptions, including those employed in certain "white collar" jobs. And, while the Secretary of Labor is required to update, from time to time, the overtime regulations, they have had only slight revision since 1949. Las March, the Department proposed the changes, and stakeholders were given 90 days to comment.

Under the Department's proposed rule, the minimum salary level at which workers are guaranteed overtime would be raised from $155 to $425 a week, or $22,100 annually. While this change would guarantee overtime to 1.3 million low wage workers who are not currently entitled to overtime, concerns were raised that it was still too low.

In response, the Department's final regulation, released on April 20, requires a minimum salary level of $23,660 or $455 a week. This $300 a week increase over the current minimum will strengthen overtime protection for 6.7 million workers, including 1.3 million low-wage workers who are denied overtime under the old rules.

In addition, the Department's final rule brings clarity to the outdated regulations. The regulations in place right now refer to people who do computer work as "keypunch operators," and include occupations such as "straw bosses" and "legmen." While these occupations were relevant when I was an assembly line worker at Waterloo Register in 1961, it's clear that they no longer apply in today's economy.

During the public comment period, concerns were expressed that the proposed regulation would take away overtime from "blue collar" workers, police, fire fighters, paramedics, first responders, licensed practical nurses, veterans and cooks. As a result, the final regulation makes clear that these occupations maintain their right to overtime pay.

In fact, the Senate unanimously supported an amendment to the JOBS Act (S. 1637), offered by Senator Gregg, that would make clear that the rule would be as protective, or more protective of the overtime rights of 55 occupations or job classifications, including those listed above.

However, on May 4, the Senate considered an amendment to the JOBS Act, offered by Senator Harkin, that would block the Department of Labor's final regulations. While I opposed the amendment, it was agreed to by a vote of 52-47.

Most recently, the House considered a motion on May 12, to support the Senate's action with regard to Senator Harkin's amendment. That motion failed by a vote of 222-205. Should the House pass legislation similar to the JOBS act, a conference committee will be required to resolve any differences between the two versions.

Should you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this matter, you may wish to visit the Department of Labor's website at: www.dol.gov/fairpay .

Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you and urge you to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator