There’s been a fair amount of hand-wringing about the president’s inability to improve the job market, especially without a cooperative Congress. While the president has little he can do directly, there’s one idea that hasn’t been considered: cracking down on overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

For 40 years, workers and businesses alike preferred a loose enforcement policy on overtime. Many workers who spend far more than 40 hours a week on the job are insulted at being considered an hourly worker, or a non-professional. There was a greater desire for flexible schedules than for time-and-a-half.  The notion of overtime is so quaint that most people have probably forgotten that the laws exist and can be used to protect them against unreasonable demands of management.

The recession reinforced this trend as companies tried to avoid cutting too many people. It can be career suicide to refuse to do the work that 2 or three people used to, just a few years ago.  As corporate profits have improved, though, companies have avoided hiring incremental workers. They can only get away with this because they do not pay overtime.  If they did, it would quickly become unprofitable and the better alternative would be to hire new staff.  

President Obama has the ability to shake up this status quo.  Rigorous enforcement of the FLSA, along with tightening the definitions of who is exempt, would be the right medicine at the right time. Of course, the managers of these companies will complain vigorously; they do not hire in order to preserve their mega-bonuses. But their cries should fall on deaf ears.

Right now, major companies are quite profitable. (The FLSA doesn’t apply to small companies). It’s the best possible time to force managers to remember that we’re better off if more people work 40 hour weeks than if fewer work more. This is a way to transfer income from corporate bank accounts to workers, without a direct government payment. 100 trained labor violation investigators, focused on profitable industries, would result in the hiring of hundred of thousands of incremental employees, and the payment of overtime to potentially millions of others. Except if you’re a Republican, what’s not to like?

How does Brian Dubie beat any of the four main Democratic gubenatorial candidates in a head to head general election? What possible scenario could his handlers be drawing up that would overcome the massive Dem-Prog majority in the state?

I can’t say I have a perfect memory of our elections, but there is no doubt whatsoever that Vermont is 60-65% Dem-Prog. The last “voter anger” election(s) we went through gave Ruth Dwyer about 40% of the vote. Our legislature is massively Dem-Prog. Vermont has not suffered nearly as much in the recession as many states. 240 towns easily passed school budgets. What changes this year?

If I were a Republican, I’d be working hard to undermine the Progressive credentials of the winning candidate in the hopes that some Prog somewhere will get on the ballot. It is the only way they can win.

I can’t get around the disappointment I have with the Legislature’s performance over the last 5 years. Inexplicable compromises are driven by a total lack of priorities. They seem unable to listen to an individual with a problem without passing a law; but local officials who actually have to balance competing interests are ignored. The end-of-term back room deal making is not an emergency, but rather a normal way of doing business with this legislature. Incoherent results are common (2-vote mandate anyone?). Confidence is not enhanced.

Finally, this year, we have “Challenges for Change”, a shell game of stunning proportions. Instead of standing up and making any choices, the “solution” is to hand the choices to Douglas appointees and then complain or block them when they actually make those choices. Oh, yes, I forgot the part about having poor Commissioner Vilaseca put out “recommended” cuts that every school board in the state will laughingly ignore as their costs for special ed, plant and equipment and teacher contracts continue to rise.

This brings me to our candidates. I’ve agreed (1000 Vermonters for Change) to support the Dem nominee…but I’m really going to have to swallow hard to send money to any of the 3 legislators if one of them wins. Why would their performance change if elected to the governor’s office? Would we still see the same pattern of grabbing power at the state level and pointing fingers at local officials? More unfunded regulations? Whom do they foist the responsibility to fix problems off to if they’re actually in charge? Will all local opinion be cast as “special interest” while making last-minute changes to bills that have no committee hearings?

What am I missing? Help me get excited…