Skip to main content

View Diary: Shock Doctrine: While RW screams conspiracy theories House GOP votes to END OVERTIME PAY for workers (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I suggest reading the bill before complaining (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ctexrep

    about what it says and does.  

    The patellar reflex is a deep tendon reflex which allows one to keep one's balance with little effort or conscious thought.

    by SpamNunn on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:39:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Bill text, here: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ctexrep, Egg, Catte Nappe

      The patellar reflex is a deep tendon reflex which allows one to keep one's balance with little effort or conscious thought.

      by SpamNunn on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:41:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since when do Republicans believe in facts? (19+ / 0-)

        Perhaps you've never been paid by the hour or have never worked in a "Right to Work" state?

        Why would an hourly employee not want to be paid after working overtime? Why would s/he choose instead to defer  payment and take it as time off-subject to approval by the employer when the rent is due? Comp Days make more sense with salaried employees, barely, but almost no sense for hourly workers.

        I have been both hourly and salaried and can tell you that I can not remember any fellow worker who wanted comp time. As a salaried employee, I have never been able to exhaust all of my comp days or received cash for unused comp time.

        Better to mandate paid sick days as a way of being more "family-friendly".

        The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

        by sebastianguy99 on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:17:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I especially like the part about dedicating (6+ / 0-)

        direct enforcement dollars to insure that complaints to the Department of Labor will be handled without delay.  The recognition that such a system cannot be fair to employees without rigorous enforcement is very forward looking.  Also, quite a surprise to see that in a Republican bill the enforcement funding is explicitly excluded from sequestration or any future spending cuts.

        must I say it?  heavy snark.

        the fact that you're right is nothing more than interesting

        by Egg on Tue May 14, 2013 at 11:23:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Okay, I've read the bill (28+ / 0-)

      (

      2) 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.

      I don't believe the bill as written provides protection against mandatory comp time.  It all comes down to the phrase "not as a condition of employment."  

      If I have two employees, and I need someone to work overtime, but I would rather them use it as a comp time, I can basically play them against one another.  I'm always going to favor the guy who is willing to work comp time.  In most right to work states it will be very difficult, near impossible, for employees to prove they were let go for not accepting comp time.  Indeed, the ability to work a "flexible schedule" is one of the main hiring incentives for low wage employers.  People who are willing to work flexible hours, comp time, will be preferred over those who require or desire overtime.  That is just the economics of the situation.  When choosing between two employees of equal skill, I'm going to choose the person willing to work for less.  

      •  and BINGO was his name-o (34+ / 0-)
        People who are willing to work flexible hours, comp time, will be preferred over those who require or desire overtime.  That is just the economics of the situation.  When choosing between two employees of equal skill, I'm going to choose the person willing to work for less.  
        Race to the bottom, achieved

        Or, as the last President was wont to say "Mission Accomplished"

        Regulate banks, not vaginas

        by MinistryOfTruth on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:56:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm. I wonder if (3+ / 0-)

        they could add a provision that says if someone worked for comp time and didn't take it by the end of the calendar year, the employer would be automatically obligated to pay the OT for the comp time that wasn't taken.

        That would discourage employers from "encouraging" employees (from giving preferential treatment) to work for comp time, knowing it would never be taken.

        I only suggest this because frankly, I wouldn't mind having comp time.  At this point in my life, time is more important to me than money.

        The problem, though, is that once you start allowing this kind of exception, it only encourages the next exception.  Then the next one, and the next .......

        •  Already there (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SilentBrook
          Now, what about having more time off? Under the bill, employees can use their comp time only at the employer’s convenience. If employees are unable to get timely approval for using the comp time, or decide not to use it, they can ask to cash it in, at which point the employer has 30 days to pay up.
          http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Tue May 14, 2013 at 11:24:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And any comp time should be time and a half (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eyesbright

          Just as monetary overtime compensation would be - so the employer doesn't get to shirk the penalty that's built into the wage structure specifically to prevent constantly requiring people to work abusive hours (hours in excess of 40 hrs/wk).

          You want an employee to work an extra 8 hours next week, then they get either 12 hours pay or 12 hours off, and if they aren't granted that time off by November 30 of the calendar year, they are paid the 12 hours pay no later than December 15 (just in time for the holidays). If they are laid off before receiving their comp time, the comp time converts into pay owed as part of the layoff package, and is a 1st tier debt that precedes all other debts should the company file bankruptcy.

          IF it were implemented that way, then it could be a fair option. However, there is nothing in current law that disallows employers and employees negotiating to allow comp time instead of pay already - so the law is entirely unnecessary, which means we should automatically be looking for the ways in which it is likely to be abused.

          •  Hadn't thought of that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radical simplicity

            Yes, comp time should be time & 1/2.

            Heh.  By the time we'd implement our changes (fair ones, I might add), the repubs wouldn't want it any more.

            I know about nothing being in current law that disallows this already.  I recall at my last job where we had an informal agreement with the management to take comp time in lieu of OT, but then we were all sent a memo from our NY head office stating we couldn't do it any more because it was illegal.  Or at least, they thought it was.  Or maybe that "time and a half comp time" issue came up.  Anyway, I was really bummed about that, cuz I enjoyed being able to string comp days together with my regular vacation days, and taking  some rather lengthy vacations.

            Those were the days ....

      •  But you still have to give him the time off (0+ / 0-)

        Which will cost you on down the road. (that or pay up for the hours which will ultimately cost what you would have paid in OT anyway.)

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Tue May 14, 2013 at 11:27:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But you're losing money under that scenario (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inspector Javert, SilentBrook

          For instance, if I work 100 hours at $10.00 an hour, under the overtime rules, I'd make $1100.00.  $800 for the first 80 hours worked, and $300 for the next 20.  Then the next week I'd go back to my regular schedule and my regular $800.00 two week paycheck.   Now I've made $1900 for 4 weeks of work.  

          However, if I have comp time, I'm stuck with one of two scenarios

          Option A: I work 100 hours and still only get the $800, with 20 hours to use as I please and get paid for.  So I'd work 50 hours the next week (20 x 1.5) and get paid $800?  That would be $1600 for two weeks.  Now I've worked 10 less hours, but I've earned $300 less dollars.  Plus I sat around for 30 hours not doing anything.  

          Option B: Or, more likely,  I would work that 100 hours, get paid $1,000 immediately and than use my 30 hours comp time (20 x 1.5) and only be able to work 50 hours the next week  - $500.00.  In this scenario I'm entitled to work less and get paid less.  I've worked 150 hours, 10 hours less than I normally would, and have gotten paid $100 less than I may have expected.  I don't see anything in the bill that prevents an employer from mandating option B.  

          BTW - as an employer, there is no way you would let comp time accrue more than 60 days.  It would be too much risk to let employees build up 100 hours of comp time - you would have to design policies to prevent that from happening.  

          •  Your comp time hours are 1.5x (0+ / 0-)

            Went back and looked at the details. If you work an hour of overtime, you get an hour and a half of pay or an hour and a half of comp time.

            Fully agree with your last paragraph. Many employers operating in good faith probably wouldn't even let it hang out that long. I know that many times I've had employees ask if they could use overtime worked this week to take time off in the next week or two.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:17:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong place (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betterthansoap, translatorpro

      You are advocating for harming working people. I think you need to take some comp time. Permanently.

      +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

      by cybersaur on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:08:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's harmless. Been around so long no one (0+ / 0-)

        pays him any mind because he's part of the furniture. I don't mind having a token, self-identifying"moderate" (from his profile, but it doesn't say "moderate WHAT")  around here to remind me what I DON'T strive for. One big point in his favor: he doesn't insult or call people names, at least not that I'm aware of, which is worth something, I think.

        „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

        by translatorpro on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:49:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site