EDITORIAL : UNFLEXIBLE DEMOCRATS; ONLY UNION MEMBERS GET PROTECTIONS AND FLEXIBLE JOB SCHEDULES.

IN this day and age of two-income families, just about everybody needs to juggle the hours of their 40-hour work week to meet the complex demands of their lives.

That's why the change in state law a few years ago that removed the requirement for overtime pay after eight hours of work a day was a good thing for most. Instead, employers had to pay overtime after 40 hours a week, and there is no evidence of widespread abuses.

Quite the contrary, flexibility in work schedules has proven beneficial to many working mothers and fathers who need to get their kids to doctors or dentists one day and can work longer the next to make up the time. And it's good for employers who can crunch extra work when they need it and make up the time the same week to employees without increasing costs.

But what's good for workers and employers isn't good enough for California's Democratic leaders.

They don't believe in flex time, because they only believe in people who have paid their dues - union dues, a chunk of which goes back into the pockets of Democratic leaders.

That's why a bill outlawing flex time for everyday Janes and Joes sailed through the Assembly and no doubt will sail through the Senate and right across Gov. Gray Davis' desk.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Wally Knox, D-Los Angeles, would require that workers who work more than eight hours in a day be paid at 1-1/2 times the normal rate. Those who work more than 12 hours a day would get double pay.

Mandatory overtime past eight hours of work a day takes away valuable freedom and flexibility for many workers.

That means college students, for example, who are trying to work their way through school and who want to work long hours a few days each week will no longer have that option.

That means the Los Angeles Community College District, whose board president, Elizabeth Garfield, is the wife of Knox, can kiss all those potential struggling students goodbye because Democrats don't believe in freedom of choice.

So what's the point? It's simple: Attack business, support unionization, get campaign support, win re-election.

It is ironic that labor unions are pushing AB 60, which restricts workers' rights to negotiate flexible hours. Under their collective bargaining exception, unions already have the right to negotiate flexible hours without legal restriction.

By imposing serious constraints on nonunion workers and businesses, the measure will drive up the cost of goods and services, thereby benefiting unions directly by increasing the demand for products they produce.

But hey, toying with your job, freedom and livelihood is just politics practiced by the pros - the union bosses who don't want anyone but them having flexibility and freedom.