House Republicans pass bill to remove mandatory increased pay for overtime

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**Dreadclaw69**

We had something similar to this in one of my last jobs and it worked pretty well.

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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"?

**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.

**Valion**

My understanding is that it's the employee's choice with regards to this specific law.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**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).

**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.