State Repeals Law on Overtime Pay After 8-Hour Day

Scrapping a time-honored protection for millions of California workers, state authorities Friday repealed a requirement for businesses to pay overtime whenever employees put in more than eight hours in a single day.

The Industrial Welfare Commission’s 3-2 vote to scrap the daily overtime requirement, which dates back to 1918, brings California’s rules more in line with those of the federal government and 47 other states.

It means that about 8 million California workers covered by the repeal, more than half of the state’s labor force, can still receive overtime--but only when they are on the job more than 40 hours in a given week.

The repeal, which could take effect as soon as July 1, is being challenged by two organized labor-backed lawsuits and by two bills already alive in the California Legislature. But union leaders and Democrats opposing the repeal said privately they see little chance of blocking the move by the Republican-dominated commission.

The Wilson administration and employer groups pushed for the change, arguing that abandoning daily overtime would usher in more flexibility in the workplace and give working parents more time to care for their children.

But organized labor regards the new regulation as a way to force more hourly workers to stay on the job long hours against their will without providing overtime pay.

“In manufacturing, this policy will bring about mandatory 12-hour shifts,” said John J. McCarthy, one of the two commission members who voted against the change. “There will be no discretion for people to make the decision [to work overtime] for themselves. For women with children, this will result in extreme hardship.”

The change deals a particular blow to part-time workers who count on the extra pay they receive for long days. For instance, a worker who puts in three 10-hour days a week now receives six hours of time-and-a-half overtime pay. With the repeal, that part-timer will receive only regular hourly pay.

Economists on both sides of the issue predict that the change will have no more than a modest financial impact on other workers, but that it will mean that a small number of employees put in longer work weeks.

Gov. Pete Wilson released a statement calling the repeal “a victory for all Californians.”

“Employers will be freed from rigid and inefficient daily work schedules,” he said. “We have also seen the benefits of flexible work schedules in alleviating commuter congestion on highways by staggering commute times.”

Julianne Broyles, a lobbyist for the California Chamber of Commerce, called the decision “family friendly” and predicted that employers will not be “rushing out to put in 12-hour shifts.”

“Employees will still receive overtime after 40 hours of work per week, but will be able to take time away from work for personal or family matters and make up that time on another day without forfeiting pay,” Broyles said. “Employers will be able to accommodate flexible schedules without violating the law. It’s a win-win for everybody.”

But Art Pulaski, head of the California Labor Federation, shot back that working families “have told us and told you they do not want to be forced into mandatory 12-hour days by their employers.” He added that the issue was especially critical for parents who “cannot get child care after 6 p.m.”

Since January, when the commission first moved toward jettisoning California’s overtime protections, the proposed change has been under fire.

Organized labor worked hard to unseat one commission member who voted in favor of cutting away the eight-hour-day rule, only to have Wilson replace her with a new commissioner who voted the same way Friday.

And Assembly Democrats have questioned whether the panel even had the power to make the decision. Such objections were voiced again on Friday during the vote.

“I think the arena to resolve an issue as important as the eight-hour day is the Legislature,” said Commissioner Chuck Center, the other dissenting voter.

Although Center said he was moved during 18 months of testimony by many workers who said they want more flexible work schedules, “this has such a major impact on the workers of the state of California that I cannot support it.”

Friday’s decision will affect hourly workers in some of the state’s biggest industries, including manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade, transportation and restaurants and hotels. Also affected are workers in the broad occupational category covering professional, technical, clerical and mechanical workers.

It does not apply, however, to government employees or exempt managerial or professional workers. In addition, unions have long been allowed to waive daily overtime requirements when they negotiate contracts.

Even before the vote, labor activists protested the anticipated repeal. Union organizers staged a mock “funeral for the eight-hour day” on the steps of the state building where the meeting was held.

Sixty seconds into the raucous session, shouts and hissing caused Commissioner Robyn A. Black to threaten protesters with ejection.

Later, Commissioner Cynthia Neff, appointed by Wilson just three weeks ago, dispassionately summarized the view of the commission: “I am very concerned about the competitiveness of this state,” she said. “And I do not think the voices heard in this room and from organized labor represent workers as a whole.”

Labor activists acknowledge that one of their main reasons for opposing the change is that their ability to waive daily overtime is an important bargaining chip that they use in contract talks to extract other benefits from employers.

For Doug Buffey, a 35-year-old painter from Fremont, overtime means that he can pay his bills and send his children to a private Christian school. Although his union contract currently protects such overtime pay, Buffey fears the impact of Friday’s decision on his future earnings. He says even union employers will be reluctant to pay daily overtime now that the law has been repealed.

Unions have long prized the daily overtime rules. They were adopted nearly 80 years ago, when the state ordered fruit and vegetable canning companies to pay time and a half to women and children for any time beyond eight hours in a given day. The aim was to prevent safety hazards and other problems resulting from overwork.