Skip to main content

View Diary: 'Bama RepubliCon Out-A**holes the Rest: "No overtime pay for you." (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah but . . . (4+ / 0-)

    . . . overtime will no longer be required to be paid time-and-a-half. You think corporations won't use this to screw people.?

    I'll have to disagree.

    •  No, that's not what it says. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neuroptimalian

      Employers will be required to pay time and a half for overtime UNLESS the employee specifically agrees to take compensatory time.  So, if the employee does not choose the compensatory time, yes, employers will be required to pay overtime at time and a half.   From my perspective as an employee, I DON'T have the choice, I still pay the time and a half unless the employee chooses to take the compensatory time.  

      This law gives employees the choice.  Right now, under the law, if I have an employee who'd rather have the time off instead of the time and a half, the law does not allow the employee to choose that.

      To me, what makes the difference is that provision of the law I quoted above, which leaves it in the hands of the employee.  The employer is still bound to pay the time and a half.  

      •  did you see that wage theft amounts to more then (8+ / 0-)

        bank robbery
        convenience store robberies
        and gas station robberies combined?

        anybody who doesn't think this would result in people being cheated out of overtime pay, hasn't worked in corporate america.

        •  Well, I'm an employer (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neuroptimalian

          and I don't think we commit wage theft.  I like to think we follow the rules, and if we didn't, we'd be sued (since we're a law firm, I assume our employees know that they can sue over things like wage theft).  

          I think some -- not all, certainly -- of our employees would like to have this option, as long as it remains their option.  Our HR person has, on a couple of occasions, had to explain legal constraints that don't let us do this even when employees might want it.  

          For example, a working couple with children, who want the flexibility to take time off to attend school functions with pay, might appreciate having the option.  For some people, in some circumstances, they'd rather have the time than the marginal increase in take-home pay.  I don't see a problem giving an employee that choice, as long as the choice remains with the employee.    

          •  somewhat confused about what this adds... (0+ / 0-)

            My understanding is that the proposal would give 1.5 hours of paid time off for every overtime hour worked if the employee desires this in lieu of overtime pay. So, if an employee takes time off next week using overtime hours from this week, how is that any different than if he was simply paid the overtime pay and then took time off without pay next week?

            For instance, if he works 10 hours of overtime this week you either 1) pay him 15 additional hours worth of pay and he then takes 15 hours off next week without pay of 2) you pay him nothing additional but he gets 15 hours off next week with pay. Aren't these the same?

            For example, a working couple with children, who want the flexibility to take time off to attend school functions with pay, might appreciate having the option.  For some people, in some circumstances, they'd rather have the time than the marginal increase in take-home pay.  I don't see a problem giving an employee that choice, as long as the choice remains with the employee.    
          •  In my world we use PTO (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dirtandiron

            All vacation, holiday pay, education days and personal days are put into one pot for the employee.

            If you want to get paid for Thanksgiving on your paycheck, you put  notation on your timecard. Otherwise the holiday pay is added into your Personal Time Off (PTO) amount.

            The amounts add up quick with all the holidays, vacation days, ect.

            The only restriction is that you can't carry more than 2000 hours. If you get over 1500 hours payroll lets you know that you're close to use it or lose it.

      •  Then all the boss has to do is, only give (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        daveinchi, PJEvans, ItsSimpleSimon, ERTBen

        overtime to people who want so-called "comp time" and not to people who need the money to support their families. A lot of people will take home less money under this scheme.

        Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

        by Dirtandiron on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:06:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But they're nice bosses . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PJEvans, Dirtandiron

          . . . and they wouldn't do something mean like that.

          •  Some of us are not evil. (0+ / 0-)

            I know that's a revelation, but some employers do treat employers fairly.  Our law firm, for example, is generally considered a good place to work, has a lot of long-time employees (both lawyers and non-legal staff) and pays salaries generally near the top of the local market for commensurate skill and experience.  I like to think we treat employees fairly.  I like to think that our employees (since we are a law firm) know they can sue us if we don't follow the law.

            I know that some of our employees, if the choice remained with them, would probably want to take advantage of something like this.   Yes, we would say you can't take your comp during the very busiest times (like a local retailer would probably say you can't take your comp time on Black Friday) but I would expect that to be made clear up front as part of the "employee choice."  

            The fact that there are probably some evil employers our there should not be used to tie the hands of our employees, I think.  The solution is to enforce the law against the evil ones, not to assume we are all evil.  

            •  Yeah, and the ones that don't treat people (0+ / 0-)

              fairly drag down the market for the ones who do. If you have to cut wages and benefits to keep up with competitors , you will. No matter how much you may not like it.  That's why labor laws are important, to keep the low ballers from dragging everyone down with them. Saying I assume you are all evil is a straw man argument.

              Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

              by Dirtandiron on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 01:35:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  you sound (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dougymi, JeffW, Dirtandiron

        like someone who's never worked for hourly pay.
        I have, and I've worked 50 hour weeks, and trust me, even time-and-a-half doesn't make up for those long, long days.

        (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

        by PJEvans on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:14:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Au contraire. (0+ / 0-)

          I've worked for minimum wage on an hourly basis.  Several different jobs. Granted, that was before I graduated from law school, so yes, it's been a while. And I was an employee working very long hours before I became a partner.  

          But the fact that I am now an employer does not mean I've never been an employee.  

          I'm speaking now from both perspectives, but mostly from the perspective of our employees.  As I said elsewhere, some -- especially those who have two incomes and small children -- would appreciate the choice, I think, as long as the choice remained with them, and as long as people who valued the extra income more than the extra time could make that choice as well.  

          Our associate and of-counsel lawyers, professionals who are paid an annual salary, effectively have this choice.  In a law firm, time is your commodity.  Those lawyers make $x a year, and are expected to work x billable dollars a year.  If they work very very very long hours one month, say in a trial, they generally work less hours then next month.  They effectively can elect that.

          I'm not sure why our non-legal staff should not have the same kind of option -- as long as it remains THEIR CHOICE.  I'm not sure why the legal secretary working those same long hours with the lawyer during the month in trial should not be able to elect --- if he or she chooses -- to take an extra time off with pay the next month when things calm down instead of the marginal increase in take home pay, assuming the choice remains with him/her.  

          •  I suspect you are a small minority (4+ / 0-)

            Look, I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree - most employers will use this against employees.

            I worked for an accounting firm back when it had time and a half for associates below Manager.  You "banked" your overtime hours (at time and a half) up to 200 hours, and then you got paid for it thereafter.  In theory, you could keep the bank and get it paid out at the end of the year.  In practice, those who did so found themselves on crappy assignments, delayed promotions, etc. - nothing actionable, but the message was clear.  

            This would be more the norm under this proposed law.

            Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

            by absdoggy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:55:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Classic Libertarian speak (4+ / 0-)

      Everybody knows corporations will screw the people over given the opportunity.  Why?  because they've done it countless times before.  But Libertarians continue to believe in rainbows and unicorns and corporations that will behave.  

      This crap has been proposed before and the main criticism is that corporations reserve the right to decide when the employee gets to use their comp days.  I don't know if this latest iteration has that in it.  

      You know what would be a better option?  Mandate paid vacation and sick time.  That way employees could keep their overtime AND elect to take paid time off IN ADDITION TO overtime pay on weeks when they earn it.

      It would be much nicer of employers to offer that option instead of trying to take their employees overtime pay away.  

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:48:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, we give our employees paid vacation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neuroptimalian

        and sick time.  And overtime pay.  

        As I said above, some -- not all -- of our employees would like the option to work more than 40 hours a week in exchange for additional paid time off.  As long as the option remains in the hands of our employees, I think it's not a bad thing.  

        I guess I am not operating from the assumption that all employers are evil.  If SOME employers are evil, the answer, I think, is to enforce the law against the evil ones, not to tie the hands of all employees because SOME employers are evil.  

        •  Riiiight so gut laws (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dirtandiron, Tonedevil

          because supposedly "some" of your employees prefer additional paid days off rather than getting paid overtime.  And this is all so the "employees" have more freedom.  Because these onerous laws are somehow tying the hands of the "employees".

          Utter bullshit.  

          You also offer a false option.  Enforce current laws?  Enforcement of current laws isn't the issue.  It's the fact that certain politicians which you seem to side with want to gut current laws.

          Here's a better option, give 20 days paid vacation per year.  That way the employees will have much more paid time off they can take IN ADDITION TO the overtime pay.  

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 01:16:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  your firm isn't WalMart - one of the largest US (3+ / 0-)

          employers who would abuse the shit out of this.

    •  The relationship between worker and owner is (7+ / 0-)

      not one with a clean balance of power.

      Pass Roby's law and it sounds as if we are simply opening up the bargaining between a manager and a worker to options beyond a 50% bump in pay, per hour of overtime worked.

      Of course, that isn't what really happens in real life - nor is it the likely intent of the legislation, not withstanding the high-minded language about flexibility, fairness and mutual agreement twixt employer and worker with which it is being sold.

      Most (vast majority) of private industry shops do not have collective bargaining as a counter-balance to the aims and imperatives of owners and managers. One key aim is to lower labor costs - and it is this imperative Roby's bill embraces.

      Post passage a highly likely scenario is this: HR at Company X-Corp informs non-salaried employees of their shiny new "benefit" of compensatory time.

      Some workers might want to take that time in lieu of money, say if they are junior staff who often have smaller vacation or personal day pools from which to draw.

      But, what about a person trying to earn money to keep their family afloat? What if they consistently decline compensatory time? A highly likely outcome is that they find themselves doubly damned. Those willing to take comp time are given preference in scheduling over workers demanding traditional overtime - and there is nothing the worker can do to exercise their right to overtime compensation when they are now no longer scheduled to work the same.

      As for the other provisions in the bill - it caps the number of accumulated compensatory hours at 160 per year, 20 working days. Which, if not used, would be paid back, at a normal rate. So, they were earned at 1.5x rate - thus at least unused days actually get paid back at a rational rate.

      The bill also asserts that any employer coercing a worker to take comp time is subject to double damages. Sound fine, except that the rate at which employers are charged and fined for violations of existing labor laws is a fraction of the occurrence of those violations. This happens for several reasons - insufficient agents and regulators to pursue cases; other, punitive relatiatory actions employers take that are already allowed in law (right to fire for instance - so don't kick up a fuss or you'll be shown the door).

      All in all this legislation undermines a provision of existing law that works for workers - shifting further the balance of power toward owner and manager (owner by proxy).

      •  what is so bad about comp time? (0+ / 0-)

        you get free time at a factor of 1 and 1/2  for overtime.

        Sounds perfectly ok to me.

        The point of overtime legislation is to discourage its use by finacially penalizing it.  That works here, too.

        •  What is so bad about comp time ? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ItsSimpleSimon, JeffW, Dirtandiron

          Some employees desperately need the overtime money to support their families.

                       To be clear,
                        Heather

          Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

          by Chacounne on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:41:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They shouldn't. (0+ / 0-)

            the whole point of overtime legislation is to discourage its use.

            The basic assumption of a weekly work time limit is that too many work endangers the health of the employee.  So the legislative intent of overtime laws are to make it expesnsive. The employer rather should hire more people to get the work done.

            The 40 hours limit is there for a reason.

            •  Well, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dirtandiron

              let me say that as a professional nanny for under three year olds for twelve years I never worked less than 50 hours a week, because the parents always worked for right hours each day, then they needed an hour to leave work and get home.

              Also, as far as not needing the money, apparently you have not worked a minimum wage job, or close to it, and not been able to save for those emergencies like washer repairs, or added expenses like Christmas.

              Also, be aware that there are many others who work hours that are much, much longer than a 40 hour week, like movie crews, where the shooting day is generally 13 hours, and interns and residents, who work 80 hour weeks or so.

              40 hours may be the ideal, but for many it is not the reality.

                                         To be clear,
                                          Heather

              Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

              by Chacounne on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 09:51:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  you missed this part (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW
      In lieu of overtime pay, employees could receive compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime pay would otherwise have been required.
      As I read it this maintains the factor 1.5 for comp time.

      The point of the factor is to discourage employers to order overtime. This element is kept here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site