Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (169)
  • Community (68)
  • Civil Rights (44)
  • Baltimore (42)
  • Elections (35)
  • Culture (35)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Economy (31)
  • Texas (29)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Labor (25)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Freddie Gray (20)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Racism (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site