On March 31, 2003 the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed regulations that would deny overtime protection to veterans who have received certain kinds of training in the military. The DOL proposal would reduce the standard of living and quality of life of veterans employed in many scientific, engineering, medical, and technical occupations. The Harkin amendment would stop DOL from issuing any regulation that cuts overtime pay and protection for veterans.
DOL's overtime proposal would deny overtime protection to veterans who have received certain kinds of “training in the armed forces.” Under current overtime eligibility rules, veterans are not denied overtime protection simply because they have received technical training in the armed forces, but under DOL's proposal they could be.
Under current regulations, workers can be denied overtime protection if they fall within the category of “professional employees,” but generally only workers with four-year degree in a professional field can be classified as “professional.”
DOL's proposal would do away with this standard requirement and allow equivalent “training the armed forces” to be routinely substituted for a four-year degree. (Proposed Section 541.301(d).
In other words, veterans who have received training in the military that is equivalent to a specialized four-year degree could be classified as “professional employees” and lose their overtime protection under the DOL proposal.
The employer makes the determination as to whether a veteran's training in the military is “equivalent” to a four-year degree, with virtually no guidance from DOL.
DOL's proposal would deny overtime protection to more and more veteran's overtime. DOL's proposal explicitly anticipates that “[t] he areas in which professional exemptions may be available are expanding. As a result, the number of veterans who fall within the overtime exception for “professional employees” would grow over time, and the number of veterans disqualified from overtime protection would grow also.
DOL's Proposal would deny overtime protection to veterans employed in many engineering, medical, scientific, and technical occupations . The military trains service members for hundreds of occupations, including lab technicians, other health care occupations, information technology, engineers, drafters, designers, planners, air traffic controllers, communications specialists, law enforcement, firefighters, security personnel, and journalists. Veterans employed in these occupations are typically entitled to overtime protection under the current overtime regulations, but could lose overtime protection under the DOL proposal.
DOL's proposal would deny overtime protection to veterans working in public service. Major employers of military veterans include the Department of Defense, the National Air and Space Administration (NASA), state and local law enforcement agencies, and fire and emergency preparedness departments, as well as defense contractors, NASA contractors, communications, security, and transportation firms, and other firms in private industry.
DOL's proposal would cut veterans' pay. Veterans who lose overtime protection under the DOL proposal would no longer be entitled to any additional compensation for the overtime hours they work. Veterans who rely on overtime pay for any significant part of their income would suffer a reduction in their standard of living. Overtime pay accounts for 25% of the income of employees who work overtime – on average $161 per week.
DOL's proposal would reduce the amount of time veterans can spend with family. The overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are extraordinarily effective in limiting excessive work hours. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that workers who lack FLSA protection are more than twice as likely to work overtime, three times as likely to work over 50 hours per week, and three times as likely to work over 60 hours. Veterans who lose their FLSA protection under the DOL proposal would therefore be more likely to work longer hours and have less time away from work to spend with family.
DOL's proposal is a breach of faith with veterans. The armed services have traditionally used the training and experience acquired through military service, and the career opportunities they open up, as incentives for recruitment. The Army, for example, offers new recruits a choice of over 200 occupations, each of which includes training and a listing of the civilian occupations for which training could help them find a job. The DOL proposal would punish veterans with loss of overtime protection precisely because they have received the exact same training that was once used as a recruitment incentive.
DOL's proposal could be discourage military recruitment. If potential recruits expect training in the armed services to deprive them of future overtime protection, they may find such training to be less desirable and may even be less likely to join the military.
The Harkin amendment would protect military veterans against loss of overtime protection. The Harkin amendment, which the Senate passed by a vote of 54-45 on September 10, 2003 and the House passed by the vote of 221-203, would prohibit DOL from issuing any regulation that denies overtime protection to workers who qualify under current rules, including veterans. As a practical matter, the Harkin amendment would force DOL to abandon proposed changes that would deny overtime protection to veterans (or any other workers) before issuing its final regulation.
Back to Top |
