Skip to main content

Why we can't have nice things. Reason #9,201,123

I've started to really enjoy the show Face Off, so I'll give Alabama Tea Party Republican Representative Martha Roby (R - Zombiefield Estates) this . . . at least she's got her vapid, creepy stare plastered perfectly to her skull.

But that's about all the credit I can give her, because beyond her amazingly winched and riveted death glare from Jack Nicholson as the Joker, she's definitely the Asshole of the Week, in a week that really was chock full of assholes. Well-played, Rep. Roby. You are truly a frightening, frightening person.

More below the dancing eights.

From Janet Allon of Alternet


This is nice. And just in time for the holiday season. Meet U.S. Representative Martha Roby, a.k.a. Cruella DeVille. While the Tea Partying 37-year-old is not fighting tooth and nail against people getting affordable healthcare, she’s coming up with ways to deprive employees and workers of their hard-won rights and protections.

This week she introduced a resolution euphemistically called “Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013,″ which would end the requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act for employers to pay Time-and-a-Half to employees for every hour worked over 40 in one week. It’s called H.R. 1406, and here’s what the Congressional Budget Office has to say about it:

“H.R. 1406 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector. 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. Such compensatory time could be provided only in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement or with the consent of affected employees. The changes would be effective for five years after enactment of the bill.”

So, this bill is just so many different types of buckets of puke, it's hard to figure out which to dump into the contractor bag first.

For starters, let's be clear, this bill would basically repeal the portion of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which mandates that you get time-and-a-half pay for overtime. Representative Roby, if ever those beady little snake-eyes of yours were ever to glance across these humble lines, I just want you to know, that you have left me dumbfounded, speechless as it were. I mean, I just to I have to admit it here:  I am awe-struck by what a horrible, horrible person you are. You have authored a bill that removes a 75-year precedent, and even more importantly, would literally give corporate managers the ability to screw over their employees even more.  I salute you for displaying to me new depths of sheer ill-will and malice.

But wait, this pit ain't deep enough for ya?

Why don't you throw in some classic Rovian doublespeak gobbledygook? It's been a good couple of news cycles since the GOoPers opened up that playbook. Could you give the bill a wonderfully innocuous sounding name that makes it seem like it does the opposite of what it actually does? Oh wait, YOU ALREADY DID! The "Working Families Flexibility Act." So now working families have the . . . . ya know . . ."flexibility" or whatever . . . to not get overtime pay. So that's neat.

Now let's be clear, Representative Roby, most people outside of your sleepy little Prozac outhouse of a town, have never heard of you. But this? This just may be your moment to enter the hallowed halls of lexicon. Dare we call naming bills after the opposite of what they actually do Robyan irony? It's a question for posterity, but bream big, you creepy, snake-like creature, and you may just have a type of irony named after you!

Ms. Roby has already wowed me with sheer malice, and potentially entered history's dictionary, which are no small feats. But even these don't hold a candle to the coup de grace.

You know, as a teacher, I don't really get much "overtime pay," as it were. So I could be wrong here. But I thought the UPSIDE on overtime - from a worker's perspective - was that if you WERE able to put in some extra time, you would get paid a hefty amount more - "time-and-a-half." Now that Rep. Roby, with her welded-on face and robotic smile have done away with that requirement, and made things nice and "flexible," she has gone a step further, and flexibly upended the entire CONCEPT of overtime.

Here's how it works right? So you put in 55 hours one week at work. And no, you're not going to get time-and-a-half. That's gone now. Frowny Face! :-(</>

But you can turn that frown upside-down, because your time-and-a-half MONEY been replaced by something super-double-plus JUST AS GOOD, which is "time-OFF-and-a-half." Of course, a great majority of American workers do not enjoy paid time off. So that extra 15 hours that was accrued last week? You'll just be staying home for 15 hours next week and not getting paid for that. But don't worry, we'll only dock you ten hours next week, instead of fifteen.

Speaking as someone familiar with Rovian New World order doublespeak, I'd say that sounds highly double-plus flexi-tastical to me, Representative Roby! My working family's bank account will be so much more flexible without that extra money in it. Robyan irony has worked for me.

Unfortunately for Rep. Roby, and fortunately for everyone else in America, this skunk of a bill wouldn't pass the smell test in the U.S. Senate. But then who knows what the future will bring? After all, we live in interesting times. Bills that would have been politically unthinkable just a few years back are now finding their way on to the House floor, thanks to the Tea Party radicals from the extremist right wing. Maybe someday we can ALL enjoy the "flexibility" of not getting paid time-and-a-half for overtime work!

Only thus could a zombie's dream come true.


How would you describe Rep. Roby's creepy stare?

1%1 votes
1%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
16%10 votes
5%3 votes
3%2 votes
0%0 votes
66%39 votes
5%3 votes

| 59 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They Did This to Us State of Ohio Workers Many (13+ / 0-)

    years ago, and as I recall, it was 1:1 comp time; work 1 extra hour, get only 1 extra hour off.

    In my particular circumstances a 1.5:1 comp time would've been a welcome improvement, but many people want the money more.

    And in any case, the other purpose of overtime pay is to motivate employers to carry a larger work force.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:17:35 AM PST

  •  If this is part of the law, as written (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cris0000, Neuroptimalian

    retains this provision:

    Such compensatory time could be provided only in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement or with the consent of affected employees.
    I do not think it is a problematic as you indicate.  The way I read that is, an employee can elect -- if he/she wants -- to take paid time off in lieu of overtime pay. If the employee wants, he gets to stick to the law exactly as it is.

    I know some of our employees might take advantage of being able to work over 40 hours one week in exchange for the paid time off the next week, while some would prefer the overtime pay.  It would be nice for us to be able to offer our employees that option -- as long as they retained the ability to make the choice.    

    If the law put the decision in the hands of the employer, I would agree that would be problematic.

    •  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:

        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:

            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:

              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:

          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,

            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:

                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,

                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:
        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.

    •  And who do you think will be offerred the OT? (7+ / 0-)

      It is the employer that has the upper hand, not the employee.  To think otherwise is naïve.

      Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM UID 2547

      by ROGNM on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:41:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The employer gets to choose (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      when the employee gets to take that time, however.  Like maybe 35 years down the line?

  •  While I was a salaried employee... (4+ / 0-)

    ...when I worked for the City of Chicago, we worked a 35-hour week. Anything above 35 to 40 was straight time, and only given as comp time, and you had to use it within 90 days. Above 40 hours, in order to get paid there had to be money budgeted for the overtime, and you would get comp time if there wasn't, time and a half for weekdays, double time for weekends and holidays.

    Supervisors didn't get OT. One guy I knew would work OT, accumulate comp time, and take it off, while the work piled up. Then he would have to do this all over again, until they promoted him. He finally was able to take early retirement and end the extra work.

    The guy who was my supervisor for the first 20 of my 27 years didn't like us working OT, because we tended to use our comp time and were unavailable, especially when we became short-staffed. The fellow who beat me out for the supervisior spot was clueless as to what overtime is, which was good because by that time we were really understaffed.

  •  Wrong premise (5+ / 0-)

    Comp time off would be paid.

    The problem is being coerced into the time off that is not mutually agreed upon, say an extra hour for lunch that does the family no good.

  •  Counter proposal... (7+ / 0-)

    I propose that all hours in excess of 40 hours per week shall be required to be paid at 2 times the hourly wage of the employee.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:43:00 AM PST

  •  Comp time, bleh! (4+ / 0-)

    I don't think my mortgage company will accept comp time as payment. Nor will the supermarket, the gas co. the electric co. and so forth. If I never got any overtime pay, I would not be living the decent life I live now.

    Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

    by Dirtandiron on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:15:52 AM PST

  •  Dark Money - Again? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Dirtandiron, daveinchi

    Use those illegal NSA taps to determine who has motivated this ass-wipe to introduce this bill.

    Even radical, racist, right-wing, redneck, republicans cannot be this evil without the promise of money or the threat of blackmail.

  •  What the Democrats on EdWorkForce had to say (3+ / 0-)

    when this was introduced:

    The House Republican bill H.R. 1406 is the latest in a string of GOP attacks on workers' rights. The bill would force an unnecessary choice between overtime pay that workers rely on and time off that they may never be able to take advantage of. H.R. 1406 would give employers the ability to offer compensatory time off in exchange for any overtime wages the worker has earned. For instance, under current law, if an hourly employee is paid at 1.5 times the rate of their wage for hours worked more than 40 hours in a week. However, under this bill, the employer can take all of those wages earned above 40 hours and put into a pot for future time off that is controlled by the employer. In other words, the worker would not get paid for the work they perform during their current pay period. Unused time would be paid back at the end of the year, amounting to a no-interest loan to employers from workers.
    Workers shouldn’t have to choose between the overtime pay they need and the family-friendly policies they desire.

     •Democrats have introduced many proposals to provide needed family friendly leave policies without taking away workers’ overtime rights.

    •Congress should be looking at ways to give workers more power over their lives, not hand over hard-fought rights won by workers to their employers.

    This bill is a worn-out idea being pushed by the House leadership as part of their effort to soften the Republican brand.

     •The exact bill was proposed and died in committee in 2003. It will go no further than the House of Representatives. It is a waste of time.

    •Instead of focusing on the real challenges we face, the Republican majority is advancing policies that benefit the powerful at the expense of the broad interests of the American people.

    •The House Republican leadership rebranding effort will ultimately fail because the agenda being advanced hurts working families and the middle class.

    This bill gives employers the flexibility not to pay overtime to their workers. Workers who need flexibility in the workplace are not guaranteed time off when they need it under this bill.

     •Workers will not get paid for hours that exceed 40 hours a week. That compensation will instead go into a pot that will be controlled by their employer.

    •The employer can refuse to allow a worker to take time off to deal with a family member or attend a parent-teacher conference. This is not real flexibility for workers.

    •It’s an interest-free loan paid for by the workers’ wages since unused comp time will be paid back the worker at the end of the year.

    •Weak penalties in the bill will encourage employers to coerce workers into giving up their overtime rights.

  •  She isn't the only asshole supporting this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Eric Cantor is on record as wanting to do away with time-and-a-half overtime.

    Can we please ensure that whoever runs against Cantor next year has sufficient resources?

  •  I earn Comp Time, and trust me it is NOT the same (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Flying Goat, Dirtandiron

    I am a Federal employee, and my agency offers us comp time instead of overtime in our bargaining agreement. I have earned hundreds of hours of comp time in my years with this agency, which I would have much rather preferred to get paid overtime for. Several thousand dollars of extra pay would definitely put a dent in my student loans.

    Instead, we are forced to take time off when we really don't want to, and have work back up, or lose the time after one year. We are supposed to get paid out for it, but that only happens if you can prove that you tried to take it and management denied it. This has never happened, since that manager would get all hell for incurring such a cost to the department.

    Comp time could be ok if it's truly a choice that you can make, but as several people have stated above the balance of power in an employee/employer relationship is highly skewed. Otherwise, it's wage theft, pure and simple.

  •  What are the odds that it's just carrying the ball (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ..for ALEC or some other "think-tank" or PAC?

    Seems as though once a 'bagger reaches the big-time they tend toward cashing in their chips to the highest bidder. Not hard, since they began their careers in "gummint" as bought and sold Koch-suckers anyway.

  •  Question and Christensen v. Harris County (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In the case I cite above, the employer had to pay cash once the cap was reached. I don't see a pay provision in this GOP law. Has anyone discussed that?

    "Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place." -- Mandela

    by agoldnyc on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:07:54 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site