Reply With Quote
So 1 hour of unpaid overtime for 1.5 hour of paid vacation?
The House has passed a bill that allows employees to work past 40 hrs a week, and get an extra 1.5 hrs of vacation time for every 1 hr worked, overtime, without pay.
I like the idea. Anyone else? The version linked on the next line is on it's way to the senate to be killed.
link: H. R. 1406
So 1 hour of unpaid overtime for 1.5 hour of paid vacation?
I agree with it for different reasons. Employers and employees should be able to negotiate any compensation arrangement they agree on without interference from the Federal government.
i would much rather have overtime pay.
With my guys, the guys that want overtime want the money. The guys that value time off are the guys that don't want overtime.
War on (Hourly) Employees
If the Repugs wrote/passed it, you know that 99% are gettting screwed to the benefit of employers
http://www.politicususa.com/house-re...oliticus+USA+)
http://www.alternet.org/corporate-ac...d-40-hour-week
I have 130+ hours of vacation saved up atm, just took 40 in March. My company also lets you convert time off into pay from June-Oct alongside taking a vacation day as well, 1 for 1.
State of Texas has been using comp time instead of overtime with it's employees for decades now.
How then, do you prevent employers from exploiting power imbalances?
It is another do-nothing bill introduced with no hope for passage, but for the sole reason to give people like you some flag to wave around to prove how "free market" you are and how Democrats "hate free markets".As always.. the devil is in the details:
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/10/182910...would-you-pick
The parts your preferred propaganda sources will not cover:
The Democratic Pushback
Last week, the White House said President Obama would veto any legislation that "undermines the existing right to hard-earned overtime pay, on which many working families rely to make ends meet."
The administration says it objects to the Republican legislation because it lacks "protections for employees who may not want to receive compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay," and fails to "guarantee that workers would be able to use the time they have earned when they choose."
The White House also points out that the bill would allow a worker to accrue as many as 160 hours of comp time — or 20 full days — but provides no protections if the employer were to shut down or declare bankruptcy before employees' free time could be used.
The Economist's View
Nariman Behravesh, chief economist for IHS Global Insight, a forecasting firm, said that in terms of the broad economy, the legislation would not have much of an impact because employers have figured out ways to cope with peak and slack periods without relying heavily on overtime. He noted that Labor Department statistics show no increase in overtime hours in the past year because companies routinely turn to temps and part-time workers to cover seasonal rushes of business.
While comp time and overtime pay might be issues that matter to individual workers, "this is definitely not something we hear about" when meeting with business owners, he said. "Not being able to hire skilled workers is a much bigger issue."
Pablum for the converted, the intellectual equivalent of baby food, i.e. easy to swallow without effort.
Upon further review, it looks like they all do. Federal/State/Local government have been using comp time since the mid-80s.
Difference of course, is that goverments generally allow time off any time it is requested.
Not all private employers are so inclined, nor are they required to do so.
The benefit here is the time value of money.
ac ulated time off = liability sitting on the books
paid out wages = current period expenses
It lets businesses keep the cash assets a while longer, and is, in essence, a transfer from the employees to the company.
One can see why busineses and Republicans are pushing for it, when you put it that way.
Like I said, a non-issue, and arguably bad for workers overall, but makes for good PR to the faithful.
You don't. That's the point.
Last edited by baseline bum; 05-15-2013 at 01:06 PM.
Pretty much agree with all this.
I do know that as far as state workers go there's a limit as to how many comp hours they can ac ulate before the state is required to start paying them for those hours. That never happens though because the state will make you use your comp hours before you reach that point. I spent my summers in college working for TxDOT and it was pretty common to see guys being told not to come in for a week or two because they were getting close to their comp time limit. Actually worked out great for me since I was a summer hire they couldn't put me on comp time so I pretty much had unlimited overtime.
You make a fair point about the time value of money and the whole thing being to an employers benefit overall, but there are still some scenarios that would be to the employee's benefit. If an employee gets a raise between the time he earns the comp time and when he uses it, that's to his benefit because he ends up getting paid the higher wage for work performed back when he was earning a lower wage.
I also think you could make a pretty strong case that comp time would be beneficial to overall employment. With paid overtime the only limit to a single worker's productivity is how many hours he can work efficiently. With comp time, that worker's productivity is capped at an average of 40 hours per week. Work him 50 hours in one week, you'll only get 30 hours out of him some other week. No more working 4 guys 50 hours a week to avoid hiring a 5th guy.
lol whut?
A bunch of paranoid s in here that think all employers are out to screw their employees.
You're as bad as anybody with the absolutes. Not all, but some will. Under the current law, there are protections (any hours over 40, the employer pays time and a half. Under the proposed law this protection is lost. That's what is at issue here. You're inability to see that because you think you're a cool boss is irrelevant tbh.
Some do already. Point?
How so? It's still time and a half. 1 hour of OT worked would get you 1.5 hrs of comp time.
I guess you could make the case of reverse-monetization, sorta.
There is nothing in place to force employers to allow you to take comp time. You can't take off right now, we're too busy. Oh your comp time expired, sorry about that, well that's on you, you should have taken it when you had it...
household income has essentialy been flat for 35 years, median income has not kept up with GDP growth, while employer income has skyrocketed to 100s of times median salary, and US wealth inequality in USA is one of the worst of all industrial countries, and as bad a corrupt cesspool countries. That's the VWRC War on Employees. etc, etc, etc.
what's your explanation?
Every once in a while it pays to actually follow a link and read a little.
‘(1) GENERAL RULE- An employee may receive, in accordance with this subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.‘(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)--So, in summary:‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.
‘(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period.
1. It's still time and a half
2. Requires mutual agreement of employee and employer before the work takes place
3. 160 hour cap
4. Company and employee have to square up on unused comp time, in cash, every year
I think those conditions pretty much remove any reason to have a problem with this bill.
See my post above. The bill has all those concerns covered.
Computers and automation. Digital revolution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
