963
Post by: Mannahnin
It's titled the Working Families Flexibility Act; it allows employers to replace basic time off and increased pay for overtime with earning your time off by working extra.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/working-families-flexibility-act-passes_n_3231385.html
WASHINGTON -- As part of their efforts to rebrand the GOP as a more caring party, House Republicans passed a hotly debated bill Wednesday that would loosen federal overtime laws, allowing for "comp" time instead of pay for private-sector employees who work more than 40 hours in a week.
Although GOP legislators made a strong public-relations push for the bill as worker-friendly legislation, the measure is not expected to go anywhere in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and the White House said Monday that the president would be advised to veto such legislation on the grounds that it would weaken protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Republican leaders should have expected as much, considering the same measure has been rejected by Democrats at least twice in the past. If nothing else, the legislation has provided House Republicans with the opportunity to voice concern for working mothers struggling to strike a good work-life balance.
The measure passed by a vote of 223-204 along party lines.
"This is about helping working moms and dads, providing the ability to commit time at home," said Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.), who sponsored the bill and pitched it as an update to federal law. "This is something that the public sector has engaged in for many many years. If it's good enough for the federal government, it ought to be good enough for the private sector."
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Depression-era statute that serves as the bedrock of U.S. labor law, hourly workers must be paid time-and-a-half for every hour they work over 40 in a week -- both to reward workers for their extra hours and to discourage employers from pushing workers too hard. The Republican measure would instead give employers and their workers the choice to use earned "comp" time instead of pay, an opportunity already afforded many public-sector employees.
According to Democrats, such an option would be ripe for abuse by employers, and in practice it might not be an option at all for some workers.
By lowering the cost of overtime for employers, labor advocates worry the measure would dilute the primary governor on the 40-hour week and pressure workers into taking comp time rather than pay, even if their choice is ostensibly protected by law. The bill would give workers the option to "cash out" their accrued comp time at a later date if they choose, but Democrats noted that such a situation would amount to an interest-free loan for employers. Labor unions and worker advocacy groups strongly opposed it.
In a sign of the union opposition to the bill, Chris Townsend, political director for the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America union, told HuffPost that such a measure could "liquidate the whole concept of paid leave." Rather than giving workers the standard two weeks of vacation or a handful of sick days, Townsend argued, employers could invite workers to "earn" their time off by working overtime.
"How much time off do you get?" Townsend asked. "Well, as much comp time as you want to earn."
Democrats dubbed it the "More Work, Less Pay Act."
"This really is an insidious bill," said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), who said the comp-time option works for public-sector workers because they tend to be unionized and have protections.
Noting the upcoming holiday on Sunday, Democratic Reps. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) and Grace Meng (N.Y.) inserted statements in the record calling it a "shameful," "deplorable" and "appalling" Mother's Day gift.
John Kline, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that "powerful special interests" -- that is, organized labor -- have stood in the way of the comp time reform. "There are extensive protections in this bill, but we've seen the straw men and heard the accusations," he said.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said in a statement to HuffPost he has "concerns" about the bill and whether it would protect workers "from being pressured into making choices that will actually hurt their families."
"I think this is the wrong approach to the very critical problem of helping workers balance job responsibilities with family and caregiving," said Harkin, adding that he'd rather see the House consider the measure he's put forth in the Senate to mandate paid sick leave.
The White House issued a statement Monday explaining its veto recommendation, essentially calling the bill a wolf in sheep's clothing.
"This legislation undermines the existing right to hard-earned overtime pay, on which many working families rely to make ends meet, while misrepresenting itself as a workplace flexibility measure that gives power to employees over their own schedules," the statement read.
DailyKos has a petition page to write Republican House members and voice disapproval:
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=391
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
So, you work overtime and get Time off? Seems resonable from someone that isnt private sector.
Still dont get how this helps, They will say things like "You cant take you comp now" until your comp expires.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
I don't know exactly what the calculation of this is, but the last time I worked somewhere that had the timebank option rather than payout for OT, it offered the standard OT payout of 1.5x, or a timebank option of 2x, so it was actually a great setup. However, I somehow doubt that under this bill, the choice would be given to employees, rather than employers, and if it is then I somehow doubt that employees who choose the payout would get to keep their jobs in RTW states.
EDIT: which doesn't even begin to touch the likelihood of expiring timebank or "blackout" periods.
121
Post by: Relapse
 hotsauceman1 wrote:So, you work overtime and get Time off? Seems resonable from someone that isnt private sector.
Still dont get how this helps, They will say things like "You cant take you comp now" until your comp expires.
I agree. I envision people being told that it's a really busy time for the business and being asked to reconsider taking the comp time off. If they take it off anyway, they could be given gak detail at work as a punishment or finding themselves on the short list for layoffs. I worked for a construction company that tried this and that's how it played out.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Yup. At jobs I've worked, it's very normal for hardworking employees to have large quantities of banked time off and have a hard time using all of it by the end of the year. It's not uncommon for folks to lose some of it, because of the cap on how much can roll over. If you take away increased overtime pay in favor of comp time, you just exacerbate that issue while taking money out of the pockets of those folks working hard and extra hours.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
We had something similar to this in one of my last jobs and it worked pretty well.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote:We had something similar to this in one of my last jobs and it worked pretty well.
But did the employees have the choice, or was it the employer? Was it a right-to-work state? Did you have any union protection? Did your boss/manager/company typically try to screw over its employees, or were they generally on the level?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 azazel the cat wrote:But did the employees have the choice, or was it the employer? Was it a right-to-work state? Did you have any union protection? Did your boss/manager/company typically try to screw over its employees, or were they generally on the level?
1. There was flexi-time, were you got time off in lieu, and overtime which was paid. Both of which the employees could opt for.
2. Wasn't in the US so it doesn't apply.
3. As ineffective as it was.
4. Of course they did.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Mannahnin wrote:Yup. At jobs I've worked, it's very normal for hardworking employees to have large quantities of banked time off and have a hard time using all of it by the end of the year. It's not uncommon for folks to lose some of it, because of the cap on how much can roll over. If you take away increased overtime pay in favor of comp time, you just exacerbate that issue while taking money out of the pockets of those folks working hard and extra hours.
A lot of the difficulty in this system is also the fact that most employers are going to be unwilling or unable to let more than a couple of employees take their comp time off simutaniously. Then you end up with a situation where animosity between employees can develop if they both want the same day(s) off, eroding worksite moral and cooperation.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Relapse wrote:A lot of the difficulty in this system is also the fact that most employers are going to be unwilling or unable to let more than a couple of employees take their comp time off simutaniously. Then you end up with a situation where animosity between employees can develop if they both want the same day(s) off, eroding worksite moral and cooperation.
When I had it there was still a quota of staff that had to be in work, any disputes about days off were almost always solved amicably (but it was a small department). If its handled right then it should not be a problem, most work places still require certain staff levels when people want to use vacation time.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Relapse wrote:
A lot of the difficulty in this system is also the fact that most employers are going to be unwilling or unable to let more than a couple of employees take their comp time off simutaniously. Then you end up with a situation where animosity between employees can develop if they both want the same day(s) off, eroding worksite moral and cooperation.
That issue is not unique to comp time. Any vacation time or even holidays (for businesses that don't close on holidays) have the issue.
37231
Post by: d-usa
We care about families, so we are passing a law that keeps employees from having to pay overtime pay!
Makes sense.
Part of it is also American culture: you are made to feel like a selfish person if you are taking your earned vacation, I am sure that there will be no pressure towards not taking your comp time leave.
121
Post by: Relapse
 CptJake wrote:Relapse wrote:
A lot of the difficulty in this system is also the fact that most employers are going to be unwilling or unable to let more than a couple of employees take their comp time off simutaniously. Then you end up with a situation where animosity between employees can develop if they both want the same day(s) off, eroding worksite moral and cooperation.
That issue is not unique to comp time. Any vacation time or even holidays (for businesses that don't close on holidays) have the issue.
True, but an unnecessary element for possible contention is entered into the scene, particularly if you're dealing with larger groups of people trying to get their vacation time in before it's lost. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mannahnin wrote:Yup. At jobs I've worked, it's very normal for hardworking employees to have large quantities of banked time off and have a hard time using all of it by the end of the year. It's not uncommon for folks to lose some of it, because of the cap on how much can roll over. If you take away increased overtime pay in favor of comp time, you just exacerbate that issue while taking money out of the pockets of those folks working hard and extra hours.
Where I work, employees with a couple of months comp time would not be uncommon. There's no way everyone would be able to use it all.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Relapse wrote:
Where I work, employees with a couple of months comp time would not be uncommon. There's no way everyone would be able to use it all.
Same thing here. While I try to consitently remind my employeers to keep track of their overtime hours, I got a LOT of them and would never be able to take all of them. Overtime pay is, imo, a good thing, especially for families as it allows you to increase your income for a certain amount of time and thus save for worse days to come. Having it removed will hurt employeers.
4402
Post by: CptJake
The alternative may well be the employer quits allowing overtime... If they can't afford it (paying the excess does not fully cover costs) it goes away. Or they hire another part time guy to cover those hours. End result, overtime pay goes away...
Allowing the employers another solution which still provides some benefit for the employee isn't always a bad thing...
Just another take on the issue.
37231
Post by: d-usa
If people work overtime there are specific labor laws that prevent you from not paying them.
Will there be specific labor laws that force you to let your workers take their comp time to prevent banked comp time from being lost?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
d-usa wrote:If people work overtime there are specific labor laws that prevent you from not paying them.
Will there be specific labor laws that force you to let your workers take their comp time to prevent banked comp time from being lost?
Ha! no.
That's likely part of the purpose behind this. Bankable hours can likely expire; the hard cash payout cannot.
121
Post by: Relapse
CptJake wrote:The alternative may well be the employer quits allowing overtime... If they can't afford it (paying the excess does not fully cover costs) it goes away. Or they hire another part time guy to cover those hours. End result, overtime pay goes away...
Allowing the employers another solution which still provides some benefit for the employee isn't always a bad thing...
Just another take on the issue.
The employer still ends up losing in that event, because they have a revolving door of employees that require training all the while creating scrap and holding up the work, among other things while they are being trained.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Another take:
Paid vacations and paid sick leave are not required by law in the US. It's a voluntary benefit provided by companies.
Could this result in employers not providing paid days off (vacation or sick) and basically going "maybe you can work overtime if you ever want a vacation"?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
CptJake wrote:The alternative may well be the employer quits allowing overtime... If they can't afford it (paying the excess does not fully cover costs) it goes away. Or they hire another part time guy to cover those hours. End result, overtime pay goes away....
Usually, paying overtime is cheaper than adding additional staff, especially in skilled positions.
If I lose access to overtime pay by getting another coworker who can share the load, that's probably of benefit to me. If I need the cash more than I need the free time and ability to take vacation hours I've earned (but have a hard time scheduling due to heavy workload and limited staff coverage), I can go for a second, part-time job. If employers are staffing fully rather than making due with short staff and longer hours, there will be more part time positions available out there.
73070
Post by: Valion
My understanding is that it's the employee's choice with regards to this specific law.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mannahnin wrote:If employers are staffing fully rather than making due with short staff and longer hours, there will be more part time positions available out there.
I wouldn't bet any serious money on that... Or if they really do want to be fully staffed, their human resources department is staffed by idiots. Although, that said, I've known more than a few HR departments staffed mostly by idiots.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Valion wrote:My understanding is that it's the employee's choice with regards to this specific law.
My guess is that it definitely will not be the employee's choice (in practice) in right-to-work states.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I do feel sorry for workers in the US sometimes, given all the reports of lack of the kinds of protections and rights we enjoy over here.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Valion wrote:My understanding is that it's the employee's choice with regards to this specific law.
The employees choice could end up being no choice at all if it is hinted it would be in his best interest of staying with the company he works for to agree to tjose terms.
73070
Post by: Valion
Relapse wrote:The employees choice could end up being no choice at all if it is hinted it would be in his best interest of staying with the company he works for to agree to tjose terms.
Hell, I'm salaried and I've never yet managed to get to use all of my vacation time.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Mannahnin wrote: CptJake wrote:The alternative may well be the employer quits allowing overtime... If they can't afford it (paying the excess does not fully cover costs) it goes away. Or they hire another part time guy to cover those hours. End result, overtime pay goes away....
Usually, paying overtime is cheaper than adding additional staff, especially in skilled positions.
The main advantage is being able to plan ahead. Let's say you got 2 employees and it works out well, but suddenly, you got a spike and need more workload to cover a specific project. Enter overtime; you got 2 people who now work at e.g. 125% capacity, everyone knows what he's doing and is experienced and thus it turns out to be an efficient way of working.
Hiring a 3rd person in response to the spike is impossible as you lack the time to properly find someone new and, most of all, get him to work at full efficiency as he isn't familiar with the routines etc.
Hiring a 3rd person beforehand is extremely expensive and a waste of ressources since 2 people could do the job.
Overtime is very much necessary.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
As long as vacation time/comp time is booked off sufficiently long in advance (say 3 months plus) a company should be unable to prevent you taking it
although they would have the option to 'bribe' you to give it up
or alternatively they should be force to pay for any vacation/comp time an employee looses as they can't roll it over
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:As long as vacation time/comp time is booked off sufficiently long in advance (say 3 months plus) a company should be unable to prevent you taking it
3 monts is a very long time in advance to book things off. The consultants and other clinical staff at the hospital I work at have to book off any time at least 6 weeks in advance as we are supposed to have 6 weeks notice of any clinic cancellations.
6 weeks should be plenty long enough in advance to book off holidays you are owed, entitled to and have earned. Companies and managers who strongarm you through emotional blackmail, or implied loss of job/etc for taking your time off should be reported to the relevant authorities (either their manager, HR or local police, depending on the nature of their activity).
963
Post by: Mannahnin
 Melissia wrote: Mannahnin wrote:If employers are staffing fully rather than making due with short staff and longer hours, there will be more part time positions available out there.
I wouldn't bet any serious money on that...
Or if they really do want to be fully staffed, their human resources department is staffed by idiots.
Although, that said, I've known more than a few HR departments staffed mostly by idiots.
In most companies I've worked for, HR has consistently been the least competent group I've interacted with. The least professional and responsive in terms of communication. I think it's a consequence of taking all those job applications, and the fact that you always need to weed out a bunch of junk applications. HR folks seem to get accustomed to seeing everyone who comes to them as supplicants, to whom any response from the HR is a beneficent boon. 
12313
Post by: Ouze
This seems like an awful idea. I work on a really small team, and we have a hard enough time taking all of our vacation as-is. This seems like a way to de-facto rob people of overtime by converting it from a simple and unassailable right (anything over 40 hours is time and a half) to one which, essentially, managers can approve or disapprove at their convenience. I also have to imagine the bookkeeping for this would be substantially more than what we have now.
I mean, how many jobs are really busy at the end of the year, where sometimes vacation is blacked out but overtime is mandatory? That's almost every retail job. You'd be earning time you couldn't possibly take before losing it at the end of the year; your OT gets converted into nothing.
34390
Post by: whembly
What's the big deal with this? o.O
It would work the same way as if you're a salaried employee instead of being paid by hour.
In fact... if you have a choice to get flex-time and OT pay... to me, that's even BETTER.
As a salary worker, I can only get flex-time if I work over 40 hrs (I don't get OT pay).
Am I missing something?
4402
Post by: CptJake
 whembly wrote:What's the big deal with this? o.O
It would work the same way as if you're a salaried employee instead of being paid by hour.
In fact... if you have a choice to get flex-time and OT pay... to me, that's even BETTER.
As a salary worker, I can only get flex-time if I work over 40 hrs (I don't get OT pay).
Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing the FACT that overtime pay at time and a half is a simple and unassailable right
. I think it wraps up into the bill of rights somewhere.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mannahnin wrote: Melissia wrote: Mannahnin wrote:If employers are staffing fully rather than making due with short staff and longer hours, there will be more part time positions available out there.
I wouldn't bet any serious money on that... Or if they really do want to be fully staffed, their human resources department is staffed by idiots. Although, that said, I've known more than a few HR departments staffed mostly by idiots.
In most companies I've worked for, HR has consistently been the least competent group I've interacted with. The least professional and responsive in terms of communication. I think it's a consequence of taking all those job applications, and the fact that you always need to weed out a bunch of junk applications. HR folks seem to get accustomed to seeing everyone who comes to them as supplicants, to whom any response from the HR is a beneficent boon.
That might very well be right. I remember a manager who kept trying to get a new worker, but HR kept putting the requirements for the job way too high (it was a starter position and they required 2 to 4 years of experience plus a bachelor's degree). He had to basically appeal over their heads to get someone who would be willing to force them to lower the requirements and hire an inexperienced worker, because no one who matched their requirements was willing to work in such a low-level position-- they had waited more than a year to fill the position, being constantly understaffed, before the manager found out why it wasn't being filled.
12313
Post by: Ouze
CptJake wrote:Yes, you are missing the FACT that overtime pay at time and a half is a simple and unassailable right
. I think it wraps up into the bill of rights somewhere.
Hey, look at you, pretending I said something I didn't because that's easier than arguing with what I did say.
/pats head
Don't ever change, you. Your kind of post is what continues to give the OT that special flavor.
If your boss shorted you on your overtime, and when you asked about it, and his response was, " lol, it's not in the bill of rights" would he be legally right, or legally wrong? Are we pretending that the entire US code is a fictitious thing with no legal weight?
34390
Post by: whembly
CptJake wrote: whembly wrote:What's the big deal with this? o.O
It would work the same way as if you're a salaried employee instead of being paid by hour.
In fact... if you have a choice to get flex-time and OT pay... to me, that's even BETTER.
As a salary worker, I can only get flex-time if I work over 40 hrs (I don't get OT pay).
Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing the FACT that overtime pay at time and a half is a simple and unassailable right
. I think it wraps up into the bill of rights somewhere.
Well... it still cost the employer one way or another.
You'd either get OT pay (x1.5 of base pay)... or
You'd get paid time-off (which basically employer pays you as if you're working).
BUT, you'd get a choice.
What's not to like?
Am I being a complete idjit here? Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ouze wrote:This seems like an awful idea. I work on a really small team, and we have a hard enough time taking all of our vacation as-is. This seems like a way to de-facto rob people of overtime by converting it from a simple and unassailable right (anything over 40 hours is time and a half) to one which, essentially, managers can approve or disapprove at their convenience. I also have to imagine the bookkeeping for this would be substantially more than what we have now.
I mean, how many jobs are really busy at the end of the year, where sometimes vacation is blacked out but overtime is mandatory? That's almost every retail job. You'd be earning time you couldn't possibly take before losing it at the end of the year; your OT gets converted into nothing.
I think that would be more of an workplace issue or the nature of the job...
What you described can happen in a "salaried" position as well when using Earned Time Off (taking vacations).
The managers need to ensure that not everyone uses that to the detriment of the business...
4402
Post by: CptJake
Ouze wrote: CptJake wrote:Yes, you are missing the FACT that overtime pay at time and a half is a simple and unassailable right
. I think it wraps up into the bill of rights somewhere.
Hey, look at you, pretending I said something I didn't because that's easier than arguing with what I did say.
/pats head
Don't ever change, you. Your kind of post is what continues to give the OT that special flavor.
If your boss shorted you on your overtime, and when you asked about it, and his response was, " lol, it's not in the bill of rights" would he be legally right, or legally wrong? Are we pretending that the entire US code is a fictitious thing with no legal weight?
Did I quote your actual words? Well yes I did.
Overtime is not a right. Point of fact, many, MANY workers never get overtime. It is guaranteed to some (not all) workers. That 'some' kind of shows it is not a right.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I see. So we're now pretending (I hope) to be ignorant of the fact it's possible to have rights other than what is delineated in the Bill of Rights. This should be very useful for re-instituting slavery, for example.
If you have a job, you have a right not to be sexually harassed on the job despite the fact there is nothing in the first 10 amendments about it. I mean, I hate the fact I'm even descending into what is clearly a troll argument at this point.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Time and a half payment for Overtime is currently your legal right, if you work more than 40hrs in a week and aren't in a salaried position.
A legally-protected benefit doesn't stop being a "right' just because there are some restrictions on it. If that's your definition, then firearm ownership isn't a right either.
4402
Post by: CptJake
The company can restructure to salaried employees. What happens to your 'right' then? You can call it a right, but it is pretty narrow, does not apply to everyone so calling it 'simple and unassailable right' is simply silly because it is clearly not. It is a requirement for some companies to pay some employees an amount when they meet a certain criteria. A whole list of non-salaried employees not entitled to overtime in Washington state for example here: http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/Overtime/Exemptions/default.asp It sure as heck is not a right that applies to everyone, so it would seem it is not 'unassailable'.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Well, it's clearly being assailed right now, anyway.
And as we've established, other rights (like gun ownership, and voting) have restrictions on them too.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Yes, but since those are rights guaranteed to each individual by basis of being a citizen, they are a lot harder to get rid of (and rightfully so). To take away a citizens right to vote usually requires that citizen to be convicted of a felony for example. It is not a right guaranteed to ONLY some who happen to get hired on to certain jobs.
That is all I am saying, Constitutional rights are supposed to be universal to all citizens and apply except in narrowly defined cases. Overtime is just not in that category. In fact, it exists only because employers can force workers to work beyond the standard 40 hours.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
whembly wrote:Well... it still cost the employer one way or another.
You'd either get OT pay (x1.5 of base pay)... or
You'd get paid time-off (which basically employer pays you as if you're working).
BUT, you'd get a choice.
What's not to like?
Am I being a complete idjit here?
"Okay, son, here'd the deal. You're going to have to work 50 hours a week. Now, for those back ten, you have the choice: you can take it as overtime pay, or you can bank those hours for time off later. Now, between you and me, kiddo, I'd recommend you bank that time. I know you might need the extra money, but I don't like paying time-and-a-half, and, this being a Right-to-Work state and all, I might decide that I don't like your haircut or the cut of your jib after all, should you decided to opt for the overtime payout. Now, all the overtime hours you bank have to be taken by the end of the year, or else they expire. So you're gonna hafta co-ordinate with the scheduling manager to see what days are available -but don't even think about taking them during the 4th quarter, because that's a blackout period. Now, I know that sounds like you're getting completely screwed over if you work overtime during the 4th quarter, on account of you not being able to take any time off, but I assure ya it's a lot better to be workin' than it is to not be workin'!"
12313
Post by: Ouze
CptJake wrote:That is all I am saying, Constitutional rights are supposed to be universal to all citizens and apply except in narrowly defined cases. Overtime is just not in that category. In fact, it exists only because employers can force workers to work beyond the standard 40 hours.
You are literally the only person in this thread who equated overtime with a constitutional right.
34390
Post by: whembly
azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote:Well... it still cost the employer one way or another.
You'd either get OT pay (x1.5 of base pay)... or
You'd get paid time-off (which basically employer pays you as if you're working).
BUT, you'd get a choice.
What's not to like?
Am I being a complete idjit here?
"Okay, son, here'd the deal. You're going to have to work 50 hours a week. Now, for those back ten, you have the choice: you can take it as overtime pay, or you can bank those hours for time off later. Now, between you and me, kiddo, I'd recommend you bank that time. I know you might need the extra money, but I don't like paying time-and-a-half, and, this being a Right-to-Work state and all, I might decide that I don't like your haircut or the cut of your jib after all, should you decided to opt for the overtime payout. Now, all the overtime hours you bank have to be taken by the end of the year, or else they expire. So you're gonna hafta co-ordinate with the scheduling manager to see what days are available -but don't even think about taking them during the 4th quarter, because that's a blackout period. Now, I know that sounds like you're getting completely screwed over if you work overtime during the 4th quarter, on account of you not being able to take any time off, but I assure ya it's a lot better to be workin' than it is to not be workin'!"
Okay... two things.
a) That treatment can happen with salaried employee (w/o the extra pay). gak, I've worked in a salaried position where I worked more than 40 hrs, but only got paid the flat 40.
b) It can cost businesses more to only "bank time off" hours than to simply pay time-in-a-half... that's 1 of the major reasons why there's a limit to "earned time off".
*shrugs*
I thing this is fear mongering.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:"Okay, son, here'd the deal. You're going to have to work 50 hours a week. Now, for those back ten, you have the choice: you can take it as overtime pay, or you can bank those hours for time off later. Now, between you and me, kiddo, I'd recommend you bank that time. I know you might need the extra money, but I don't like paying time-and-a-half, and, this being a Right-to-Work state and all, I might decide that I don't like your haircut or the cut of your jib after all, should you decided to opt for the overtime payout. Now, all the overtime hours you bank have to be taken by the end of the year, or else they expire. So you're gonna hafta co-ordinate with the scheduling manager to see what days are available -but don't even think about taking them during the 4th quarter, because that's a blackout period. Now, I know that sounds like you're getting completely screwed over if you work overtime during the 4th quarter, on account of you not being able to take any time off, but I assure ya it's a lot better to be workin' than it is to not be workin'!"
That wouldn't be theoretical and uncertain would it?
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
I have a federal job, so my take on this may be a bit different.
Where I work, we already have the option of earning comptime or overtime when we work over 8 hours in a day. However, overtime is only an option when there is money in the budget for it (which there usually isn't, thanks to the sequester and other budget cuts). Sometimes overtime is available, but these days it's only for people more special than me, and they get to voluntarily choose to work late, but when my extra hours are basically mandated by the operation I'm on, nope, no overtime for me because I'm not special enough (nooo, I'm not bitter...).
The problem with the comptime we earn is that it expires one year after you earn it. Not usually a problem if you don't earn a lot of it, but if you're one of the people who usually earns about 5-8 hours of comptime a week, in addition to your annual leave that is capped at saving 240 hours a year, you tend to have more time off than you can reasonably take, since we're a bit overworked and if you take off for 2-4 weeks, you come back to a huge pile of work that you now have to work extra hours (again) to clear up so you're back in the hole again because most of your work won't be covered by someone else while you're on leave because everybody else already has their own huge piles of work and so on and on.
I may have a rambled a bit there, but in short: comptime is great if you can actually use it, but otherwise, show me the money.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:"Okay, son, here'd the deal. You're going to have to work 50 hours a week. Now, for those back ten, you have the choice: you can take it as overtime pay, or you can bank those hours for time off later. Now, between you and me, kiddo, I'd recommend you bank that time. I know you might need the extra money, but I don't like paying time-and-a-half, and, this being a Right-to-Work state and all, I might decide that I don't like your haircut or the cut of your jib after all, should you decided to opt for the overtime payout. Now, all the overtime hours you bank have to be taken by the end of the year, or else they expire. So you're gonna hafta co-ordinate with the scheduling manager to see what days are available -but don't even think about taking them during the 4th quarter, because that's a blackout period. Now, I know that sounds like you're getting completely screwed over if you work overtime during the 4th quarter, on account of you not being able to take any time off, but I assure ya it's a lot better to be workin' than it is to not be workin'!"
That wouldn't be theoretical and uncertain would it?
No, it's not. The situation I have proposed is a direct result of the proposed bill. The only thing that would make this "uncertain" is whether or not Caesar is in a good mood.
A slippery slope would be if I said "this legislation will open the doors for further legislation to do other things".
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:No, it's not. The situation I have proposed is a direct result of the proposed bill. The only thing that would make this "uncertain" is whether or not Caesar is in a good mood.
A slippery slope would be if I said "this legislation will open the doors for further legislation to do other things".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom
Your argument is that the small step of introducing this bill will leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect - abuse of workers and implied threats of dismissal. I think that fits the definition quite well 
29408
Post by: Melissia
Actually I'm fairly certain that past precedent supports Azazel's situation.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Current conditions support it.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
whembly wrote: azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote:Well... it still cost the employer one way or another.
You'd either get OT pay (x1.5 of base pay)... or
You'd get paid time-off (which basically employer pays you as if you're working).
BUT, you'd get a choice.
What's not to like?
Am I being a complete idjit here?
"Okay, son, here'd the deal. You're going to have to work 50 hours a week. Now, for those back ten, you have the choice: you can take it as overtime pay, or you can bank those hours for time off later. Now, between you and me, kiddo, I'd recommend you bank that time. I know you might need the extra money, but I don't like paying time-and-a-half, and, this being a Right-to-Work state and all, I might decide that I don't like your haircut or the cut of your jib after all, should you decided to opt for the overtime payout. Now, all the overtime hours you bank have to be taken by the end of the year, or else they expire. So you're gonna hafta co-ordinate with the scheduling manager to see what days are available -but don't even think about taking them during the 4th quarter, because that's a blackout period. Now, I know that sounds like you're getting completely screwed over if you work overtime during the 4th quarter, on account of you not being able to take any time off, but I assure ya it's a lot better to be workin' than it is to not be workin'!"
Okay... two things.
a) That treatment can happen with salaried employee (w/o the extra pay). gak, I've worked in a salaried position where I worked more than 40 hrs, but only got paid the flat 40.
Are you honestly stuck in the concrete operational stage? The vast majority of jobs are not salaried positions, and even if that weren't the case, a salary pays you a flat rate if you put in only 10 hours as well.
Whembly wrote:b) It can cost businesses more to only "bank time off" hours than to simply pay time-in-a-half... that's 1 of the major reasons why there's a limit to "earned time off".
*shrugs*
I thing this is fear mongering.
You work 50 hours a week. Instead of you being paid 1.5x for the extra ten hours, you are told you can either bank the hours or you're fired (Right to Work state!). But there's a limit to "earned time off", and you've already hit your cap. So you have to bank the hours, but never take them, then they'll expire. Which means your boss just forced you to work for him for free.
*shrugs*
whembly wrote:Am I being a complete idjit here?
Yes.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Right, I know plenty of places that would gladly do that if it meant they could cut down on employees and thus try to bring good news to their shareholders (despite the fact that they're also cutting down on overall productivity in the process-- shareholders are notoriously stupid like that).
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:No, it's not. The situation I have proposed is a direct result of the proposed bill. The only thing that would make this "uncertain" is whether or not Caesar is in a good mood.
A slippery slope would be if I said "this legislation will open the doors for further legislation to do other things".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom
Your argument is that the small step of introducing this bill will leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect - abuse of workers and implied threats of dismissal. I think that fits the definition quite well
This is not a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> abuse occurs
That is an example of direct cause-and-effect.
This is a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> maybe another bill will be passed that does a thing --> maybe another bill will do another thing --> Hitler clones.
34390
Post by: whembly
azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote: azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote:Well... it still cost the employer one way or another.
You'd either get OT pay (x1.5 of base pay)... or
You'd get paid time-off (which basically employer pays you as if you're working).
BUT, you'd get a choice.
What's not to like?
Am I being a complete idjit here?
"Okay, son, here'd the deal. You're going to have to work 50 hours a week. Now, for those back ten, you have the choice: you can take it as overtime pay, or you can bank those hours for time off later. Now, between you and me, kiddo, I'd recommend you bank that time. I know you might need the extra money, but I don't like paying time-and-a-half, and, this being a Right-to-Work state and all, I might decide that I don't like your haircut or the cut of your jib after all, should you decided to opt for the overtime payout. Now, all the overtime hours you bank have to be taken by the end of the year, or else they expire. So you're gonna hafta co-ordinate with the scheduling manager to see what days are available -but don't even think about taking them during the 4th quarter, because that's a blackout period. Now, I know that sounds like you're getting completely screwed over if you work overtime during the 4th quarter, on account of you not being able to take any time off, but I assure ya it's a lot better to be workin' than it is to not be workin'!"
Okay... two things.
a) That treatment can happen with salaried employee (w/o the extra pay). gak, I've worked in a salaried position where I worked more than 40 hrs, but only got paid the flat 40.
Are you honestly stuck in the concrete operational stage? The vast majority of jobs are not salaried positions, and even if that weren't the case, a salary pays you a flat rate if you put in only 10 hours as well.
Uh, no... you can be terminated if you don't show up for work for those other 30 hours. 
But no... continue saying Employers are evil... go ahead.
Whembly wrote:b) It can cost businesses more to only "bank time off" hours than to simply pay time-in-a-half... that's 1 of the major reasons why there's a limit to "earned time off".
*shrugs*
I thing this is fear mongering.
You work 50 hours a week. Instead of you being paid 1.5x for the extra ten hours, you are told you can either bank the hours or you're fired (Right to Work state!). But there's a limit to "earned time off", and you've already hit your cap. So you have to bank the hours, but never take them, then they'll expire. Which means your boss just forced you to work for him for free.
*shrugs*
You have no fething idea what you're talking about.
whembly wrote:Am I being a complete idjit here?
Yes.
Takes one to know one. 
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:This is not a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> abuse occurs
That is an example of direct cause-and-effect.
This is a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> maybe another bill will be passed that does a thing --> maybe another bill will do another thing --> Hitler clones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_and_effect
Cause and effect (also written as cause-effect or cause/effect or cause and consequence) refers to the philosophical concept of causality, in which an action or event will produce a certain response to the action in the form of another event.
It is not certain that the response that you proposed will in fact happen, whether or not it comes to pass is dependent of the person in power. Therefore it is uncertain and does not fit the definition. So your claim that it is cause and effect is erroneous. What you have proposed is slippery slope, as shown above.
37231
Post by: d-usa
We are a country where you can be fired for wearing green socks in most states. And people really think that you won't be fired for insisting that you get pay instead of comp-time?
Having any kind of gun law = government will ban all guns and take them from you.
Having a law saying 'don't have to pay overtime is employee is okay with it" =\= at-will employees that are not okay with it being let go
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:This is not a slippery slope: Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> abuse occurs That is an example of direct cause-and-effect. This is a slippery slope: Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> maybe another bill will be passed that does a thing --> maybe another bill will do another thing --> Hitler clones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_and_effect Cause and effect (also written as cause-effect or cause/effect or cause and consequence) refers to the philosophical concept of causality, in which an action or event will produce a certain response to the action in the form of another event.
It is not certain that the response that you proposed will in fact happen, whether or not it comes to pass is dependent of the person in power. Therefore it is uncertain and does not fit the definition. So your claim that it is cause and effect is erroneous. What you have proposed is slippery slope, as shown above.
The reason the overtime laws were passed in the first place is because the employees were not being paid fairly. It is certain. Not in all cases, but it is certain that some employers will do it. EDIT: Whembly, thank you for perfectly justifying my statement. Also, I will submit to you my typical request: please try to not see the world as a binary between good and evil. I do not think that employers are evil (well, a select few are) but I won't make a sweeping generalization like that. I do, however, recognize and understand that employers treat employees as a cost of doing business (because they are), and will not employ them unless it is their last resort (because that is how a business works). As such, any employer that has the ability to screw over employees by not paying them, such as in the manner this proposed bill allows, will be taken quite often in any situation wherein the costs associated with employee attrition is lower than the savings created by not paying out overtime. This is primarily related to entry-level positions, which are typically paid hourly wages. This is an equation similar to one that I have utilized personally when determining the value of an employee. Wembly, my friend, if this concept is lost on you then it is you who has no idea what he's talking about (par for the course) and is either caused by willful ignorance due to parroting party slogans (likely), actual ignorance (less likely), or naivete (doubtful), or plain old-fashioned stupidity.
5534
Post by: dogma
CptJake wrote:Yes, but since those are rights guaranteed to each individual by basis of being a citizen, they are a lot harder to get rid of (and rightfully so). To take away a citizens right to vote usually requires that citizen to be convicted of a felony for example.
Per your apparent understanding of rights, you have no right to vote.
CptJake wrote:
That is all I am saying, Constitutional rights are supposed to be universal to all citizens and apply except in narrowly defined cases. Overtime is just not in that category.
Neither is voting.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:The reason the overtime laws were passed in the first place is because the employees were not being paid fairly.
It is certain. Not in all cases, but it is certain that some employers will do it.
You have nothing to substantiate your claim other than a base assertion that is itself uncertain. You have not shown that it is either known for sure; established beyond doubt (the definition of certain). Without that then it remains uncertain.
Also your tone when addressing another member of this community is starting to slip from what might be considered constructive, polite or even "magnanimous". People here have had differences of opinions with you without resorting to the same tone.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Some employees are already doing it. And suspicions and concerns are good enough for yourself when it comes to other topics.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 d-usa wrote:Some employees are already doing it. And suspicions and concerns are good enough for yourself when it comes to other topics.
Generally not when I claim things as certain. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to see it.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
In 2003, for example, the Department of Labor investigated 40,000 cases of employer overtime law violation which led to more than $212 million dollars in back wage collection. That same year, over $10 million in civil overtime lawsuit damages were awarded to victims of overtime law violations
Here's a specific example; you can use this link to browse through pages upon pages of documents on the Department of Labour's website.
34390
Post by: whembly
Um... thanks? Do I get the internetz cookiez pwease?
Also, I will submit to you my typical request: please try to not see the world as a binary between good and evil. I do not think that employers are evil (well, a select few are) but I won't make a sweeping generalization like that.
Man I find this statement hysterical coming from you...
Sure there's different shades of grey... it is YOU in this case is immediately lambasting this idea simply because it came from a Republican party.
I do, however, recognize and understand that employers treat employees as a cost of doing business (because they are), and will not employ them unless it is their last resort (because that is how a business works).
By the Emprah... what the feth are you saying here?
As such, any employer that has the ability to screw over employees by not paying them, such as in the manner this proposed bill allows, will be taken quite often in any situation wherein the costs associated with employee attrition is lower than the savings created by not paying out overtime. This is primarily related to entry-level positions, which are typically paid hourly wages. This is an equation similar to one that I have utilized personally when determining the value of an employee.
Paranoia much? Jeebus, you sound like a person who's not confident in their ability to get & hold a job yourself.
Wembly, my friend, if this concept is lost on you then it is you who has no idea what he's talking about (par for the course) and is either caused by willful ignorance due to parroting party slogans (likely), actual ignorance (less likely), or naivete (doubtful), or plain old-fashioned stupidity.
Wow... all I pointed out to you in the previous thread that I think this amounts to fear mongering, and you're attacking me personally in every manner, good job brah:
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:In 2003, for example, the Department of Labor investigated 40,000 cases of employer overtime law violation which led to more than $212 million dollars in back wage collection. That same year, over $10 million in civil overtime lawsuit damages were awarded to victims of overtime law violations
Here's a specific example; you can use this link to browse through pages upon pages of documents on the Department of Labour's website.
So 40,000 claims out of 146,743,000 of the population who actually work ( http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_are_employed_in_the_United_States). That equates to 0.0272% of the workforce. So because it may occur in a relatively small number of cases does that make it certain? It seems that the math would suggest that it is in fact far from certain.
121
Post by: Relapse
azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote:Well... it still cost the employer one way or another.
You'd either get OT pay (x1.5 of base pay)... or
You'd get paid time-off (which basically employer pays you as if you're working).
BUT, you'd get a choice.
What's not to like?
Am I being a complete idjit here?
"Okay, son, here'd the deal. You're going to have to work 50 hours a week. Now, for those back ten, you have the choice: you can take it as overtime pay, or you can bank those hours for time off later. Now, between you and me, kiddo, I'd recommend you bank that time. I know you might need the extra money, but I don't like paying time-and-a-half, and, this being a Right-to-Work state and all, I might decide that I don't like your haircut or the cut of your jib after all, should you decided to opt for the overtime payout. Now, all the overtime hours you bank have to be taken by the end of the year, or else they expire. So you're gonna hafta co-ordinate with the scheduling manager to see what days are available -but don't even think about taking them during the 4th quarter, because that's a blackout period. Now, I know that sounds like you're getting completely screwed over if you work overtime during the 4th quarter, on account of you not being able to take any time off, but I assure ya it's a lot better to be workin' than it is to not be workin'!"
You pretty much nailed it right there. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Tannhauser42 wrote:I have a federal job, so my take on this may be a bit different.
Where I work, we already have the option of earning comptime or overtime when we work over 8 hours in a day. However, overtime is only an option when there is money in the budget for it (which there usually isn't, thanks to the sequester and other budget cuts). Sometimes overtime is available, but these days it's only for people more special than me, and they get to voluntarily choose to work late, but when my extra hours are basically mandated by the operation I'm on, nope, no overtime for me because I'm not special enough (nooo, I'm not bitter...).
The problem with the comptime we earn is that it expires one year after you earn it. Not usually a problem if you don't earn a lot of it, but if you're one of the people who usually earns about 5-8 hours of comptime a week, in addition to your annual leave that is capped at saving 240 hours a year, you tend to have more time off than you can reasonably take, since we're a bit overworked and if you take off for 2-4 weeks, you come back to a huge pile of work that you now have to work extra hours (again) to clear up so you're back in the hole again because most of your work won't be covered by someone else while you're on leave because everybody else already has their own huge piles of work and so on and on.
I may have a rambled a bit there, but in short: comptime is great if you can actually use it, but otherwise, show me the money.
Another one with the truth of things about comp time. Automatically Appended Next Post: For those that support the comp time saying it's all good, I have to disagree strongly since I worked for a company that tried that. One day the comp time disappeared because we were told things were too busy. When I asked about overtime coming back, I was told I had a bad attitude and was let go within seconds of my statement.
I once again state that in a busy company that's going balls out, there are going to be a lot of people unhappy about comp time because they'll end with more racked up than they can take in a year.
Hourly employees cannot be treated like salaried ones simply because they most often don't have the same benefits package. Most hourly workers are just average Joes trying to get by and a lot of times, unfortunately, the overtime is what keeps the food in the cupboard.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Knowing the last company I worked for, I can safely clock in with team "This is a horrible fething idea"
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:In 2003, for example, the Department of Labor investigated 40,000 cases of employer overtime law violation which led to more than $212 million dollars in back wage collection. That same year, over $10 million in civil overtime lawsuit damages were awarded to victims of overtime law violations
Here's a specific example; you can use this link to browse through pages upon pages of documents on the Department of Labour's website.
So 40,000 claims out of 146,743,000 of the population who actually work ( http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_are_employed_in_the_United_States). That equates to 0.0272% of the workforce. So because it may occur in a relatively small number of cases does that make it certain? It seems that the math would suggest that it is in fact far from certain.
That's 40,000 claims in one year. Assuming the average person spends 30 years working, that would mean the average person has a 1 in 12 chance of suffering this abuse at some point in their careers. This, of course, is not to speak of the fact that those claims were the only ones with enough evidence to investigate; the dark figure surrounding the issue is likely to be quite large, simply because not every person is likely to file a claim with the DoL.
However, I do believe you are a proponent of the 2nd amendment on the grounds that the US government could turn tyrannical and you would save the day. The odds of that happening would suggest that it is in fact far from certain as well, yet you seem to be in favour of not taking the chance.
@Whembly: You are the only person who believes in party lines as something to swear allegiance to. This is a terrible bill entirely designed to take advantage of employees no matter who wrote it. However, are you really so blind as to how a company is run that you do not recognize an employee to be a cost of doing business?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:That's 40,000 claims in one year. Assuming the average person spends 30 years working, that would mean the average person has a 1 in 12 chance of suffering this abuse at some point in their careers. This, of course, is not to speak of the fact that those claims were the only ones with enough evidence to investigate; the dark figure surrounding the issue is likely to be quite large, simply because not every person is likely to file a claim with the DoL.
Can you clarify where you got 1/12? If there are 40,000 claims, a workforce of 146,743,000, and according to you 30 surely that would be;
(40,000/146,743,000) x 100 = 0.0272
0.0272 x 30 = 0.816
1/2 = 8.3333%
So it would seem there is a discrepancy.
Even we accept your 1/12 premise that is still a long way off being "certain".
73071
Post by: jason1977
as someone who works retail i dont like this. its hard enough Jan-Oct to pay 'normal' bills. come this years holidays Ill have 2 nephews, 1 neice, 1 daughter and another one on the way Id hate to loose my overtime. Yes I know I would get a few extra days off but that wont stop the bills.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:That's 40,000 claims in one year. Assuming the average person spends 30 years working, that would mean the average person has a 1 in 12 chance of suffering this abuse at some point in their careers. This, of course, is not to speak of the fact that those claims were the only ones with enough evidence to investigate; the dark figure surrounding the issue is likely to be quite large, simply because not every person is likely to file a claim with the DoL.
Can you clarify where you got 1/12? If there are 40,000 claims, a workforce of 146,743,000, and according to you 30 surely that would be;
(40,000/146,743,000) x 100 = 0.0272
0.0272 x 30 = 0.816
1/2 = 8.3333%
So it would seem there is a discrepancy.
Even we accept your 1/12 premise that is still a long way off being "certain".
At this point you're kinda wasting my time. What exactly is your argument? is it that you think my argument is invalid because I rounded 0.082 up to 1/12 (which is 0.083) in my head because math tells me not to round down to 1/13 (which is 0.077) and didn't feel like using the awkward fraction of 41/500?
Either contribute something of value or else don't bother. The hairs you are attempting to split here are ridiculous.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
SInce I'm about to either go to the private sector or federal government in say 4-5 months......I perfer comp time.....I rather not get tagged into a new tax bracket.....or...have a couple four day weekends.....the Comp Time bank is Use or Lose (Leave) for us......be creative on burning up comp time 3-4 day weekends
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Jihadin wrote:SInce I'm about to either go to the private sector or federal government in say 4-5 months......I perfer comp time.....I rather not get tagged into a new tax bracket.....or...have a couple four day weekends.....the Comp Time bank is Use or Lose (Leave) for us......be creative on burning up comp time 3-4 day weekends
Yeah, when you can get it to work for you, it can be pretty sweet. Many moons ago, I was in a position wherein I had a ton of comp time, and I was also in charge of scheduling for my department. It was pretty epic. However, there were many stars that required to align in order to pull that off, and it is by far not representative of how the situation typically works.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Mannahnin wrote:
In most companies I've worked for, HR has consistently been the least competent group I've interacted with. The least professional and responsive in terms of communication. I think it's a consequence of taking all those job applications, and the fact that you always need to weed out a bunch of junk applications. HR folks seem to get accustomed to seeing everyone who comes to them as supplicants, to whom any response from the HR is a beneficent boon.
Manny..you just won the thread. This has also been my experience, unfortunately, as well.
As to the whole issue of offering comp time instead of OT. I think it will be a rare thing for this to work out good for employees. I have been Exempt salary for a long time now, and one of the jobs I worked used the laws surrounding exempt salary employees, to there maximum favor. I.E. people would routinely work 70 and 80 hour weeks, but because they were exempt salary they only got paid for the 40. So, in effect, they got two employees for the price of one.
GG
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:Yup. At jobs I've worked, it's very normal for hardworking employees to have large quantities of banked time off and have a hard time using all of it by the end of the year. It's not uncommon for folks to lose some of it, because of the cap on how much can roll over. If you take away increased overtime pay in favor of comp time, you just exacerbate that issue while taking money out of the pockets of those folks working hard and extra hours.
That would be me right there.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:However, I do believe you are a proponent of the 2nd amendment on the grounds that the US government could turn tyrannical and you would save the day. The odds of that happening would suggest that it is in fact far from certain as well, yet you seem to be in favour of not taking the chance.
I do not recall making any argument saying that it was certain that the US government would become tyrannical. If you can show me where I did I would be grateful. Otherwise your argument appears to be an attempt at deflection and inferring bad faith where none exists.
azazel the cat wrote:At this point you're kinda wasting my time. What exactly is your argument? is it that you think my argument is invalid because I rounded 0.082 up to 1/12 (which is 0.083) in my head because math tells me not to round down to 1/13 (which is 0.077) and didn't feel like using the awkward fraction of 41/500?
Either contribute something of value or else don't bother. The hairs you are attempting to split here are ridiculous.
1/12 is 0.083, however as a percentage it is 8.33%. As I have been working in percentages using a different format may add confusion. In any event I stand by my math above.
So asking you to clarify where you got a figure where it is not shown is not an attempt to waste time. It is an attempt to clarify matters so a discussion may take place on solid ground, and to reduce the chances of a strawman being advanced. In this instance the figures that I had given were percentages, whereas yours were fractions or decimals, and which furthermore did not correlate with the figures as I have shown above.
My argument is, as it has always been, that your claims that this will erode worker's rights is not certain and is very much dependent on a variety of factors. I believe that this has been demonstrated sufficiently. I have been clear and consistent on that throughout so apologies if you have mis-read my posts.
Although I will note the irony of someone alleging that I am splitting hairs, when in a previous discussion that same person was relying on an archaic, and now uncommon, definition of a word in an attempt to make a point.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of this. If Employers need to pay out all this overtime, maybe then they will consider actually hiring someone to fill the need instead? This helps our economy.
If they can essentially, "bank" the expense, what insentive does that make for companies to hire a new employee? Instead, they can have people wait to take the time off /comp time when the company is runnign slower.
I can see why the Company likes this, it reduces their risks of over/understaffing. I know how risk averse and scared business folks are all the time.
34390
Post by: whembly
azazel the cat wrote:
@Whembly: You are the only person who believes in party lines as something to swear allegiance to.
Uh...no... but, thanks for playing! 
This is a terrible bill entirely designed to take advantage of employees no matter who wrote it.
I'm not saying that it's perfect or some unscrupulous employer wouldn't take advantage of that...
I'm just arguing that I'm not so sure that the "problems" you're expousing would be epidemic.
However, are you really so blind as to how a company is run that you do not recognize an employee to be a cost of doing business?
I went back to re-read that blurb... sorry, I thought you meant something else. Of course having "employees" is a cost of doing businees.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  Easy E wrote:Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of this. If Employers need to pay out all this overtime, maybe then they will consider actually hiring someone to fill the need instead? This helps our economy.
If they can essentially, "bank" the expense, what insentive does that make for companies to hire a new employee? Instead, they can have people wait to take the time off /comp time when the company is runnign slower.
I can see why the Company likes this, it reduces their risks of over/understaffing. I know how risk averse and scared business folks are all the time.
You do know that "banking" Comp Time also incurs cost to the employers... dontcha?
I've asked two different business owners (one in family and another is a friend) who staffs 50+ hourly people. THEY would prefer just paying OT. It's simpler.
However, if they would offer "banked time off"... those hours "sit on the books" for the employer and are subject to additional tax implications for the entire business. That's why in most shops that offer this sort of thing (like for salaried folks), there's a limit as to how much you ca n bank. What I didn't see in this bill which SHOULD be included is the ability to "sell" any banked hours. That way, you don't lose it if you can't use it for whatever reason. If that isn't in there, then I wouldn't want this bill "as is". We have the ability to sell our "bank hours" on 3 predetermined days in the following year... that's like a really nice bonus check that we know it's coming. Further more, I'd argue that if you have excess hours at the end of the year... you're paid the difference, rather than "lose it".
The full impact isn't exactly known, because the rules to "how to implement this" for hourly employees are unknown at this point. So no, this is "me just parroting whatever the GOP is pushing"...
221
Post by: Frazzled
I am not a fan of this.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I trust employers about as much as I trust politicians.
When both agree that something "is a good idea" then I know where the common man is left in this decision.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Remarkably I sympathize with D-usa's position.
68355
Post by: easysauce
I have worked for several companies where overtime could be banked for time off instead of paid out,
I always had the choice between the two, heck i stil have two comp hours leftover from 4 years ago that I need to take off/pay out
I dont see employers getting away with making comp hours go "poof" and gone, I have never heard of a company getting away with that. that it literally stealing time and money from employees.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 easysauce wrote:I have worked for several companies where overtime could be banked for time off instead of paid out,
I always had the choice between the two, heck i stil have two comp hours leftover from 4 years ago that I need to take off/pay out
I dont see employers getting away with making comp hours go "poof" and gone, I have never heard of a company getting away with that. that it literally stealing time and money from employees.
Many companies have a policy where unused time disappears at year end or a similar date shortly thereafter.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Every company I have worked for has had a rule that you can only carry over a maximum amount of banked time at the end of the year. Every single one has always done everything it could to get you to take the time (Reminding you before the year end, being very good with letting you take time off) but I could see how a less than helpfull manager (Never mind company, just supervisor level) could make the whole system brake.
A friend of mine works for a company where he can carry all of it over. He is up to about 6 weeks and plans to take it all off in one go at some point if he can. Lucky sod 
To an outsider this seems like a very bad idea and wide open for abuse.
Interesting that you have a legal 1.5x overtime. That is one thing you have better than the UK.
68355
Post by: easysauce
how can this bill be awful for allowing that then,
if it is already allowed to make the time go "poof its gone" after a certain time?
OFC I dont agree with time disapearing, but is this bill really doing what we fear its doing, if what we fear it will do is already happening? Automatically Appended Next Post: Steve steveson wrote:Every company I have worked for has had a rule that you can only carry over a maximum amount of banked time at the end of the year. Every single one has always done everything it could to get you to take the time (Reminding you before the year end, being very good with letting you take time off) but I could see how a less than helpfull manager (Never mind company, just supervisor level) could make the whole system brake.
A friend of mine works for a company where he can carry all of it over. He is up to about 6 weeks and plans to take it all off in one go at some point if he can. Lucky sod
To an outsider this seems like a very bad idea and wide open for abuse.
Interesting that you have a legal 1.5x overtime. That is one thing you have better than the UK.
my experience is very similar to yours above, they actively force you (to the point of booking it off for you if you dont do it yourself) to take the time off rather then have it go to waste,
oh except i get 2x overtime yay unions!
1206
Post by: Easy E
whembly wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You do know that "banking" Comp Time also incurs cost to the employers... dontcha?
I've asked two different business owners (one in family and another is a friend) who staffs 50+ hourly people. THEY would prefer just paying OT. It's simpler.
I did not know the specifics.
whembly wrote:However, if they would offer "banked time off"... those hours "sit on the books" for the employer and are subject to additional tax implications for the entire business. That's why in most shops that offer this sort of thing (like for salaried folks), there's a limit as to how much you ca n bank. What I didn't see in this bill which SHOULD be included is the ability to "sell" any banked hours. That way, you don't lose it if you can't use it for whatever reason. If that isn't in there, then I wouldn't want this bill "as is". We have the ability to sell our "bank hours" on 3 predetermined days in the following year... that's like a really nice bonus check that we know it's coming. Further more, I'd argue that if you have excess hours at the end of the year... you're paid the difference, rather than "lose it".
The full impact isn't exactly known, because the rules to "how to implement this" for hourly employees are unknown at this point. So no, this is "me just parroting whatever the GOP is pushing"...
I agree there needs to be some "Sell back" provision.
However, if a company has you bank it, they could then require you to take furloughs during aslow time, where peopel would naturally use their banked time; hence smoothing out the "ups- and-Downs" of the normal business cycle and oreducing overall risk and uncertainty. After all, isn't uncertainty the scariest thing that happens to a business?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:However, I do believe you are a proponent of the 2nd amendment on the grounds that the US government could turn tyrannical and you would save the day. The odds of that happening would suggest that it is in fact far from certain as well, yet you seem to be in favour of not taking the chance.
I do not recall making any argument saying that it was certain that the US government would become tyrannical. If you can show me where I did I would be grateful. Otherwise your argument appears to be an attempt at deflection and inferring bad faith where none exists.
I never said that you claimed it was certain; but you do claim that its possibility (however remote) is reason enough to have a personal legal protection against being disarmed. So why would you be against upholding worker's legal protections, even under your assumption that the odds of employees being abused be remote? (which, by the way, are exponentially greater than the odds of the US government turning tyrannical).
And you have not proven anything. I've used your own numbers and your own math to show that approximately 1 in 12 employees, in a 30-year working career, will statistically suffer from their employers taking advantage of them. 1 in 12 is not remote; that it a statistically significant number. All you have managed to "prove" is that you are skeptical because you just are. No reasons provided, mind you: you're merely crossing your arms and grunting. Hence, why I've asked you to contribute something. If you believe that I'm wrong when I say that the very nature of a for-profit business will take advantage of its labour force in any way possible, then why don't you provide something to the contrary other than "you rounded 0.082 up to 0.083 in order to use a 1/X fraction, theretore you must be incorrect about the entire principle." Seriously, unless you can provide better than that, I'm not going to respond to it.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:I never said that you claimed it was certain; but you do claim that its possibility (however remote) is reason enough to have a personal legal protection against being disarmed. So why would you be against upholding worker's legal protections, even under your assumption that the odds of employees being abused be remote? (which, by the way, are exponentially greater than the odds of the US government turning tyrannical).
I do not recall making the tyranny argument. So please stop attempting to ascribe arguments to me, it does not aid discussion as it gives the impression that you are acting in bad faith.
azazel the cat wrote:And you have not proven anything. I've used your own numbers and your own math to show that approximately 1 in 12 employees, in a 30-year working career, will statistically suffer from their employers taking advantage of them. 1 in 12 is not remote; that it a statistically significant number. All you have managed to "prove" is that you are skeptical because you just are. No reasons provided, mind you: you're merely crossing your arms and grunting. Hence, why I've asked you to contribute something. If you believe that I'm wrong when I say that the very nature of a for-profit business will take advantage of its labour force in any way possible, then why don't you provide something to the contrary other than "you rounded 0.082 up to 0.083 in order to use a 1/X fraction, theretore you must be incorrect about the entire principle." Seriously, unless you can provide better than that, I'm not going to respond to it.
I would again respectfully contend that your math is incorrect, and that it is not 1/12. To date you have not shown how you claim to have used "my math" to prove your point.
(40,000/146,743,000) x 100 = 0.0272%
0.0272 x 30 = 0.816%
In other words (Claims Made/Total Workforce) x 100 = X%
X% x Career Span = % Chance of Employee Suffering from Malicious Employer
So as you can clearly see the correct figure that 0.0272% of all employees in a year, or 0.816% in a working life, is not a "a statistically significant number". In fact it is far from a certain outcome as you have claimed. That is sufficiently clear I believe and any further insistence that I am being unclear cannot be a reasonable assertion. If you are unwilling or unable to address my repeated assertion that this is of a low statistical probability and is clearly not a certain outcome per your argument then it cannot be said that you are acting in anything approaching good faith, especially when it seems that you are deliberately mis-interpreting my argument.
In summation;
- I gave my experiences with a similar system
- You asked for details, and I provided them
- You made a bold claim and I challenged as to whether the outcome was certain
- You responded with "The situation I have proposed is a direct result of the proposed bill. The only thing that would make this "uncertain" is whether or not Caesar is in a good mood"
- I countered that your argument was a slippery slope as the outcome claimed was not definite
- You claimed your argument was direct cause and effect
- I clarified what cause and effect was and pointed out that the result must be certain
- You responded with "It is certain. Not in all cases, but it is certain that some employers will do it."
- I asked you to substantiate your claim that it was certain
- You provided the figure of 40,000
- I showed that 40,000 out of 146,743,000 was a statistically insignificant number, therefore the result could not be certain
- You then brought up the 30 years as a career lifetime which would impact the figure I came up with, as well as a mysterious 1/12 figure, and attempted to deflect with a question on an unrelated matter
- I adjusted my calculations to show that even with the 30 year career lifetime the result was still not statistically significant (it being less that 1%)
- You did not refute my argument, nor my figures, but claimed that you were unclear as to what I was trying to say and began to accuse me of splitting hairs
- I responded by attempting to clarify my position, the figures that I used and how it related to your argument
- Which leads us to your last post as quoted above, which still does not refute argument, nor my figures, and has been written with a somewhat dismissive tone that does not help engender discussion.
As can be demonstrated I have been consistent in my argument and my points raised, I have tried to make the same clear and accessible and attempted in good faith to clarify any misunderstandings. I apologise if this is still unclear but at this juncture I am not certain how I could make it clearer for you.
Whether you choose to respond to my argument, my figures or the points raised is entirely at your discretion.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Ah, I see we are talking about a syntx error, then. I see that you did not include the % sign in your original equation. That being the case, I apologize, it would seem the mathematical error is mine.
Then I shall make a very concise counter-argument for you:
These abuses occurred despite the fact that there was currently a law to explicitly protect the workers from the abuses listed. If the law that prohibits that abuse is removed, do you think that the behaviours of employers would remain the same, or do you think that the level of abuse would increase once it was no longer prohibited by law? I posit that employers would immediately take advantage of it, because that is the nature of how a for-profit business operates.
I put forward that it is the current restrictions which keep employers in line, and not merely the goodness in their hearts (because capitalism doesn't run on "goodness").
EDIT: To put it another way: if doing otherwise were not against the law, what percentage of people do you think would drive only 20 mph in a school zone?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Why are republicans even worried about overtime? I thought everybody was getting dumbed to part-time anyway to avoid ObamaCare...
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
d-usa wrote:Why are republicans even worried about overtime? I thought everybody was getting dumbed to part-time anyway to avoid ObamaCare...
You don't have to give all those illegal immigrants taking all the jobs perks like overtime or holidays do you?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:Ah, I see we are talking about a syntx error, then. I see that you did not include the % sign in your original equation. That being the case, I apologize, it would seem the mathematical error is mine.
As was pointed out in my post of 05/13/2013 07:16:12 when I said "1/12 is 0.083, however as a percentage it is 8.33%. As I have been working in percentages using a different format may add confusion. In any event I stand by my math above"
azazel the cat wrote:Then I shall make a very concise counter-argument for you:
These abuses occurred despite the fact that there was currently a law to explicitly protect the workers from the abuses listed. If the law that prohibits that abuse is removed, do you think that the behaviours of employers would remain the same, or do you think that the level of abuse would increase once it was no longer prohibited by law? I posit that employers would immediately take advantage of it, because that is the nature of how a for-profit business operates.
I put forward that it is the current restrictions which keep employers in line, and not merely the goodness in their hearts (because capitalism doesn't run on "goodness").
EDIT: To put it another way: if doing otherwise were not against the law, what percentage of people do you think would drive only 20 mph in a school zone?
I would posit that this is a very different argument to the ones previously advanced by you i.e. that it was "certain", and that it would happen to a "statistically significant" number.
Are you saying that Mr Kline is incorrect?
John Kline, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that "powerful special interests" -- that is, organized labor -- have stood in the way of the comp time reform. "There are extensive protections in this bill, but we've seen the straw men and heard the accusations," he said.
If so can you please give details as to why/how the "extensive protections" are not sufficient.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote:Why are republicans even worried about overtime? I thought everybody was getting dumbed to part-time anyway to avoid ObamaCare...
heh...good point.
Kinda OT...
But, I don't see how this changes Union Shops... their pay is determined by their collective bargaining agreements. I seriously doubt that if the union don't want this, they'll negotiate accordingly.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:These abuses occurred despite the fact that there was currently a law to explicitly protect the workers from the abuses listed. If the law that prohibits that abuse is removed, do you think that the behaviours of employers would remain the same, or do you think that the level of abuse would increase once it was no longer prohibited by law? I posit that employers would immediately take advantage of it, because that is the nature of how a for-profit business operates.
I put forward that it is the current restrictions which keep employers in line, and not merely the goodness in their hearts (because capitalism doesn't run on "goodness").
EDIT: To put it another way: if doing otherwise were not against the law, what percentage of people do you think would drive only 20 mph in a school zone?
I would posit that this is a very different argument to the ones previously advanced by you i.e. that it was "certain", and that it would happen to a "statistically significant" number.
Are you saying that Mr Kline is incorrect?
John Kline, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that "powerful special interests" -- that is, organized labor -- have stood in the way of the comp time reform. "There are extensive protections in this bill, but we've seen the straw men and heard the accusations," he said.
If so can you please give details as to why/how the "extensive protections" are not sufficient.
This is the same idea I have expressed since the beginning.
As to Kline's comments and the "extensive protections" he describes, do you have a link to what these alleged protections are? Because I'm disinclined to take his word for it.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:This is the same idea I have expressed since the beginning.
As to Kline's comments and the "extensive protections" he describes, do you have a link to what these alleged protections are? Because I'm disinclined to take his word for it.
Since the beginning you haven't been saying that it was certain that the new law would be abused? Your first line is a little unclear.
Considering that you were insistent that there would be certain abuse of the provisions of this legislation I was under the impression that perhaps you had seen them and weren't just looking at this from an ideological perspective. If you are unable to locate the legislation itself I believe this is the link - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1406/text
Is Mr Kline dishonest as a person, or is there something else that makes you disinclined to take his word for it?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:This is the same idea I have expressed since the beginning.
As to Kline's comments and the "extensive protections" he describes, do you have a link to what these alleged protections are? Because I'm disinclined to take his word for it.
Since the beginning you haven't been saying that it was certain that the new law would be abused? Your first line is a little unclear.
Considering that you were insistent that there would be certain abuse of the provisions of this legislation I was under the impression that perhaps you had seen them and weren't just looking at this from an ideological perspective. If you are unable to locate the legislation itself I believe this is the link - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1406/text
Is Mr Kline dishonest as a person, or is there something else that makes you disinclined to take his word for it?
I generally don't take any politicians at their word, irrespective of party lines (to which I am actually not certain what Kline's are; I know next-to-nothing about him).
Since the beginning I have been saying that employees would be abused in the absence of legal protections against such.
I am still saying that. I am saying that employees already suffer these abuses; in the absence of their legal protections I expect the number of instances of such to increase significantly.
So, after reading the act, I have some concerns. The first one that jumps out at me is the alleged protections to the worker against being intimidated or fired for choosing one option over the other. I'm unclear how that will interact with Right to Work legislation, but I suspect that it'll work exactly like I suggested it would in an earlier hypothetical monologue I wrote in reply to Whembly a couple pages back. additionally, I'm curious as to what will happen to any accrued or rollover comp time that is hanging in the aether when the sunset clause kicks in. However, even beyond that, simply due to the specific language of this bill (which I attribute to lazy writing rather than malice), it would appear that an employee can work overtime and bank the extra hours at the 1.5x rate, then be fired, wherein the employer only has to pay out those banked hours at the standard 1.0x rate, effectively performing an end-run around the existing overtime laws for entry-level workers in high-turnover positions.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:This is the same idea I have expressed since the beginning.
As to Kline's comments and the "extensive protections" he describes, do you have a link to what these alleged protections are? Because I'm disinclined to take his word for it.
Since the beginning you haven't been saying that it was certain that the new law would be abused? Your first line is a little unclear.
Considering that you were insistent that there would be certain abuse of the provisions of this legislation I was under the impression that perhaps you had seen them and weren't just looking at this from an ideological perspective. If you are unable to locate the legislation itself I believe this is the link - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1406/text
Is Mr Kline dishonest as a person, or is there something else that makes you disinclined to take his word for it?
Thanks for that...
Reading this now...
-compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.
Holy gak! That'll help me out! Whoohoo!. I only get time off at standard rate.
‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.
meh... we used to be able to accrue something like 600+ hours, but our limit is currently at 240 and will be set at 160 by next year anyways.
‘(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period
. So no more "Use it or Lost" Policy? This is a Win-Win...right?
‘(5) TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT- An employee who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).
So if fired or voluntarily leave job... employer still has to pay for accrued time. This is a change currently. Win-win?
(D) POLICY- Except where a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise, an employer that has adopted a policy offering compensatory time to employees may discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.
This gives Employers that chance to NOT offer this... erm... yay?
‘(4) PRIVATE EMPLOYER ACTIONS- An employer that provides compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of--
‘(A) interfering with such employee’s rights under this subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or
‘(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.
So... no more bullying?
And it has a 5 year shelf life so that Congress can decide to renew or let it expire.
All in all... it ain't doom & gloom y'all.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
whembly wrote:
Reading this now...
-compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.
Holy gak! That'll help me out! Whoohoo!. I only get time off at standard rate.
‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.
meh... we used to be able to accrue something like 600+ hours, but our limit is currently at 240 and will be set at 160 by next year anyways.
‘(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period
. So no more "Use it or Lost" Policy? This is a Win-Win...right?
‘(5) TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT- An employee who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).
So if fired or voluntarily leave job... employer still has to pay for accrued time. This is a change currently. Win-win?
(D) POLICY- Except where a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise, an employer that has adopted a policy offering compensatory time to employees may discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.
This gives Employers that chance to NOT offer this... erm... yay?
‘(4) PRIVATE EMPLOYER ACTIONS- An employer that provides compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of--
‘(A) interfering with such employee’s rights under this subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or
‘(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.
So... no more bullying?
And it has a 5 year shelf life so that Congress can decide to renew or let it expire.
All in all... it ain't doom & gloom y'all.
Thank you whembly for pointing out everything that I was going to concerning the benefits and protections
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
I find this article funny... I work for a construction company, our field crews work... about 55 hours a week on average for minimum hourly wage. They dont get time and a half (which i believe is illegal, anyone know who i can report my employers to? ). What makes House Democrats think that the time and a half law isnt abused?
Keep in mind that our field crews are all here legally (Ive had to file the paperwork for background checks personally, we are very careful not to hire illegals after an incident before i started working here) but all employees are foreigners, so they are probably unaware the law exists...
But seriously, eho do I report my employers to?
34390
Post by: whembly
chaos0xomega wrote:I find this article funny... I work for a construction company, our field crews work... about 55 hours a week on average for minimum hourly wage. They dont get time and a half (which i believe is illegal, anyone know who i can report my employers to? ). What makes House Democrats think that the time and a half law isnt abused?
Keep in mind that our field crews are all here legally (Ive had to file the paperwork for background checks personally, we are very careful not to hire illegals after an incident before i started working here) but all employees are foreigners, so they are probably unaware the law exists...
But seriously, eho do I report my employers to?
Looking at your location...
Go here?
http://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/viollblw.shtm
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Department of Labour
12313
Post by: Ouze
If the employer was required to pay out unused time at the end of the year, I think I'd be OK with this.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Ouze wrote:If the employer was required to pay out unused time at the end of the year, I think I'd be OK with this.
Good news then;
"(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period"
68355
Post by: easysauce
chaos0xomega wrote:I find this article funny... I work for a construction company, our field crews work... about 55 hours a week on average for minimum hourly wage. They dont get time and a half (which i believe is illegal, anyone know who i can report my employers to? ). What makes House Democrats think that the time and a half law isnt abused?
Keep in mind that our field crews are all here legally (Ive had to file the paperwork for background checks personally, we are very careful not to hire illegals after an incident before i started working here) but all employees are foreigners, so they are probably unaware the law exists...
But seriously, eho do I report my employers to?
EXACLTY,
the current laws are being abused, which leads people to think these new ones will be as well,
except the current laws are mainly abused because we LET them, because we are afraid of what "our employers could do" (illegally)
I had someone pull the "we dont pay overtime in this industry" line on my when I was working my way through university, total bollocks of course, because by law, every industry has to pay OT at the 1.5 rate,
my reply was to simply to "inform" them that they could pay out all the back overtime they owed, or they can go through labour canada and the courts. (they were very aware already, apparently most resteraunts/bars/ect tell their employees they dont get over time, and the employees just accept it as face value)
OFC I got paid, but what was sad was that a lot of the server girls who worked there wouldnt listen to me and claim the OT they had earned, basically they were afraid of being fired or getting crappy shifts, so they never claimed it. which is a pitty, because not standing up for your rights as a worker just makes the problem worse, and living your life in fear of your employer is no way to live.
in canada you report them to labour canada, not sure who you report to in the states, but you must have some labour law or code you can print off and show to all the guys getting screwed, present the laws to the employer as a group, so there are witnesses (even video tape it) that way if they dont pay, you have an air tight class action suit that will likely pay out more then the OT was worth.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Ouze wrote:If the employer was required to pay out unused time at the end of the year, I think I'd be OK with this.
Good news then;
"(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period"
Yeah, on a first reading this seems solid. I'd have a concern about the language used in paragraph (6), though... it specifies "regular rate", but does not explicitly say it is the "regular 1.5x overtime rate", meaning I suspect there could be an interpretation that it is paid out only at the 1.0x "regular" rate... which effectively robs the employee of overtime pay. I attribute the writing of such to lethargy and lack of foresight, rather than malice.
Or I could be reading it wrong, but I have a feeling that it would still get challenged as such eventually.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:Yeah, on a first reading this seems solid. I'd have a concern about the language used in paragraph (6), though... it specifies "regular rate", but does not explicitly say it is the "regular 1.5x overtime rate", meaning I suspect there could be an interpretation that it is paid out only at the 1.0x "regular" rate... which effectively robs the employee of overtime pay. I attribute the writing of such to lethargy and lack of foresight, rather than malice.
Or I could be reading it wrong, but I have a feeling that it would still get challenged as such eventually.
I'd like to see this clarified too because the language is arguable either way, so there is scope for mis-understandings
1206
Post by: Easy E
What problem is legislation solving?
34390
Post by: whembly
Um...
I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".
Attack!
Attack!
Wait... the bill does what?
Hmmmm... it might be doable...
Now the Democrat controlled Senate can choose to take the bill...then, make any adjustments as needed (ya know, clarify certain places that Azazel suggested?). Which would then have to go back to the House for them to approve or fail prior to sending to Prez.
It's like... it's how bills are supposed to work.
12313
Post by: Ouze
whembly wrote:I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".
Attack!
Attack!
Look, just... stop with this. It's not accurate, at all. The first 3 pages had at least 6 different posters articulating what they saw as concerns with it. You can argue the merits of those concerns (and we should, cause discussion forum!), but it's not accurate to misrepresent them the way you are doing here.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
whembly wrote:
Um...
I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".
Attack!
Attack!
Wait... the bill does what?
Hmmmm... it might be doable...
Or, y'know, it does all of those bad things that I said it probably will.
12313
Post by: Ouze
This is a very good question. Indeed, it should be the first question for any law. Has a rationale been articulated? I'm not too clear exactly what the problem with current law is on this.
Even with paying it out, there are problems. If they keep you from taking your accrued time for months on end via blackout periods and then paid it out later, you just essentially made an interest free loan to your employer. Not sure how that helps families.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Well, sometimes what you describe does happen, on both sides. I just don't think it's happened here.
34390
Post by: whembly
Ouze wrote:
This is a very good question. Indeed, it should be the first question for any law. Has a rationale been articulated? I'm not too clear exactly what the problem with current law is on this.
Even with paying it out, there are problems. If they keep you from taking your accrued time for months on end via blackout periods and then paid it out later, you just essentially made an interest free loan to your employer. Not sure how that helps families.
I think it's simply a PR tactic for GOP... *shrugs*
EDIT: Here's one of the writers:
"At the heart of the legislation is worker choice. Workers choose whether to accept comp time. Worker choose when to cash out their accrued comp time. And workers choose when to use their accrued time off," Kline said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:Well, sometimes what you describe does happen, on both sides. I just don't think it's happened here.
Yeah... that attack dawg needs to sit here... for now.
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote: Ouze wrote: This is a very good question. Indeed, it should be the first question for any law. Has a rationale been articulated? I'm not too clear exactly what the problem with current law is on this. Even with paying it out, there are problems. If they keep you from taking your accrued time for months on end via blackout periods and then paid it out later, you just essentially made an interest free loan to your employer. Not sure how that helps families.
I think it's simply a PR tactic for GOP... *shrugs* EDIT: Here's one of the writers: "At the heart of the legislation is worker choice.
If there is one thing the GOP is not exactly known for, it's caring about workers IMO. Workers choose whether to accept comp time.
And when your employer goes "I don't do overtime. Either accept comp time or get out of here" it will be the workers choice to be without a job. Worker choose when to cash out their accrued comp time.
Looking through the bill I couldn't tell. Can a worker cash out whenever they want, or is it only once a year? And workers choose when to use their accrued time off," Kline said.
Yeah, just like most workers get to choose when to take vacations. I'm still seeing this as a way to get rid of paid vacation and paid sick time. "Look, we don't have to provide you with paid holidays, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, or paid vacation. None of that is required. If you want to go spend a week for the family you better do some overtime to bank up some comp time..."
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: Ouze wrote: This is a very good question. Indeed, it should be the first question for any law. Has a rationale been articulated? I'm not too clear exactly what the problem with current law is on this. Even with paying it out, there are problems. If they keep you from taking your accrued time for months on end via blackout periods and then paid it out later, you just essentially made an interest free loan to your employer. Not sure how that helps families.
I think it's simply a PR tactic for GOP... *shrugs* EDIT: Here's one of the writers: "At the heart of the legislation is worker choice.
If there is one thing the GOP is not exactly known for, it's caring about workers IMO.
And I can think of UNION backed Democrats that hurt the non-workers... Workers choose whether to accept comp time.
And when your employer goes "I don't do overtime. Either accept comp time or get out of here" it will be the workers choice to be without a job.
Fear mongering... according to this law, they prohibit employers from bulling the workers into this. Besides... read it again, it's comped a the rate of 1.5 times pay. I don't get that now... that'd actually be a nice change for me. Worker choose when to cash out their accrued comp time.
Looking through the bill I couldn't tell. Can a worker cash out whenever they want, or is it only once a year?
Looks like they leave it up to the Employer's descretion... now, hold on... that's how it is with my current (and 2 previous) employment. I have to "schedule" the cash out (determine how much Earned Time Off) on one of 3 dates in the next calendar year. Sure it sucks that I can't do that at will... but, with planning, it really ain't a big deal. Again, with this law in place, my cash out would be higher (as my comp would raise from x1 to x1.5 base pay). And workers choose when to use their accrued time off," Kline said.
Yeah, just like most workers get to choose when to take vacations. I'm still seeing this as a way to get rid of paid vacation and paid sick time. "Look, we don't have to provide you with paid holidays, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, or paid vacation. None of that is required. If you want to go spend a week for the family you better do some overtime to bank up some comp time..."
Eh... we'll see. Remember there's a 5 year sunset date... which, I suspect it was placed there to have an easy mechanism to get rid of this law if it proves to be unpopular. If you're so concerned about it, call up your Senator and tell him/her to fix it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote: whembly wrote:I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".
Attack!
Attack!
Look, just... stop with this. It's not accurate, at all. The first 3 pages had at least 6 different posters articulating what they saw as concerns with it. You can argue the merits of those concerns (and we should, cause discussion forum!), but it's not accurate to misrepresent them the way you are doing here.
When Frazzled is nervous about it, everyone should stop cold and think about it a bit.
37231
Post by: d-usa
If you are working in an at-will-state, which Republicans love, then your employee can fire you if you don't like comp time.
And five years of people getting fethed over is not a good thing, just because it may automatically stop after that.
My senators are Inhoff and Coburn, it's not worth the bandwith to send them anything.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Frazzled wrote: Ouze wrote: whembly wrote:I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".
Attack!
Attack!
Look, just... stop with this. It's not accurate, at all. The first 3 pages had at least 6 different posters articulating what they saw as concerns with it. You can argue the merits of those concerns (and we should, cause discussion forum!), but it's not accurate to misrepresent them the way you are doing here.
When Frazzled is nervous about it, everyone should stop cold and think about it a bit.
But...
We can distract you...
We got...
QUESO!
*LOOK*
Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:If you are working in an at-will-state, which Republicans love, then your employee can fire you if you don't like comp time.
You live in an "at will" state, dontcha?
Do you live in fear of your job? <-- honest question... (I though you work for VA... which is separate from State laws... right?)
And five years of people getting fethed over is not a good thing, just because it may automatically stop after that.
How do you even know people will get fethed over? Scrooged McDuck is in every corner?
My senators are Inhoff and Coburn, it's not worth the bandwith to send them anything.
Aha...
Okay
50512
Post by: Jihadin
All the "overtime" I worked while in the military.........this is private sector right? Kind of lost my place in this....
29625
Post by: Newabortion
Well I don't like the idea of takeing away overtime pay, Thats bull skat. Earned time off could be how the railroad handles it, work 5 days you get a mandatory day off, if you for some reason work 6 days then you get a mandatory 2 days off and in the very rare occasion you work 7 days then you get 3 days off. Most of the guys I work with love overtime because the pay is so nice. If they were to pass this it should only really affect salary workers because the companies can and do work us to death, because they don't have to pay us overtime.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Frazzled wrote:When Frazzled is nervous about it, everyone should stop cold and think about it a bit.
I won't lie. that's what made me start to wonder what problem the Legislation is trying to fix in the first place.
However, on its face, the concept seems fine.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Newabortion wrote:Well I don't like the idea of takeing away overtime pay, Thats bull skat. Earned time off could be how the railroad handles it, work 5 days you get a mandatory day off, if you for some reason work 6 days then you get a mandatory 2 days off and in the very rare occasion you work 7 days then you get 3 days off. Most of the guys I work with love overtime because the pay is so nice. If they were to pass this it should only really affect salary workers because the companies can and do work us to death, because they don't have to pay us overtime.
Except that its not replacing overtime pay, you can choose. Even if it is implemented in your work place you can opt out - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1406/text
CONDITIONS- An employer may provide compensatory time to employees under paragraph (1)(A) only if such time is provided in accordance with--
‘(A) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of the employees under applicable law; or
‘(B) in the case of employees who are not represented by a labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of such employees under applicable law, an agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with section 11(c)--
‘(i) in which the employer has offered and the employee has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary overtime compensation; and
‘(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employees and not as a condition of employment.
‘(E) WRITTEN REQUEST- An employee may withdraw an agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at any time. An employee may also request in writing that monetary compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory time accrued that has not yet been used. Within 30 days of receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with paragraph (6).
‘(4) PRIVATE EMPLOYER ACTIONS- An employer that provides compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of--
‘(A) interfering with such employee’s rights under this subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or
‘(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.
|
|
