What do you think of the "Working Families Flexibility Act"?

It’s a bullshit maneuver to allow businesses to cut overtime wages for those who can least afford it.

It is snake oil. This isn’t designed to help families. What use is overtime if you aren’t paid for it. It is giving power to the already powerful and taking it from those who are powerless. It sucks.

In my personal opinion, this appears to be a benefit to employers so they don’t have to pay overtime, rather they can give you time off (not to exceed three hours.)

On the other hand, if you’re an hourly employee like myself, this could force companies to not force you to work overtime without paying you the required over time.

It sounds good to me. I worked most of my life with Comp time instead of overtime pay and I loved it. If you don’t like the comp time you can take overtime instead. The legislation requires that both the employer and the employee have to agree and it can’t be a condition for employment. It is a great opportunity for those that wouyld like an occasional day off to take the kids to the zoo during the week or any other endeavor. Why would you you complain about something you don’t have to subscribe to? It sounds like you don’t want it so nobody should be able to get it. very confusing to me.

@KNOWITALL

Where did you get the idea that it only goes up to 3 hours. I found nothing in this that limits anything to 3 hours. It does limit it to a maximum of 160 hours. Seems pretty generous and benefits both employers and employees.

@Jaxk My bad, that’s what I get for reading too fast. Thanks for catching that and letting me know!! (It was #3, not a 3 hour max – duh)

No employee may receive or agree to receive compensatory time off under this subsection unless the employee has worked at least 1,000 hours for the employee’s employer during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month period before the date of agreement or receipt of compensatory time off.

‘(3) HOUR LIMIT-

‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.

From what I understand from this bill.

It makes more work for any employer that wants to implement it. If they don’t want to offer comp time instead of overtime pay, they don’t have any change.

If they want to offer both options, they will have to track both for overtime pay and comp time. The employee does not have to opt for the comp time option and could choose overtime pay, comp time or a combination of both. The employer would have to pay overtime pay for any hours worked beyond the 160 limit.

If they want to offer only comp time, they are not allowed to under the current version of this bill.

It seems like employers can force employees to take comp time over OT, because they could favor employees willing to take the comp time.

I used to get comp time for working six days during the weeks between Black Friday and Christmas. One day for each week we had to work six days. We had no choice in the matter. We were salaried employees, management, so I guess we were supposed to be grateful we received any sort of compensation. I actually did prefer the comp days over getting paid more (money was not even an option in my case, but if it were I prefer the time off) but taking the time off was a pain in the ass also. The company rule was use the time by March 31, but I worked in southeast FL and that was high season and difficult to take time off. Not to mention inventory was in mid January. Finally my last couple years working there the new manager didn’t care what the central office policy was and extended it. She also had us work one fewer six day week leading to Christmas, breaking another rule. Comp time works well for businesses that have big swings in productivity. But, employees kind of get forced to take time when the company sees fit in my experience.

I’m torn about what I think. I am interested to see more answers. My inclination is I prefer the OT rule.

I believe that is one of the biggest questions; exactly when this comp time can or will be taken. Is it when the employee, who worked the extra time, want to take it or when the employer says they can? Section 2, Para 7 seems to give final word to the employer.
Section 2, Para 6A; Note the word “regular”. If you are laid off or quit with outstanding comp time, you are not compensated with the overtime rate of at least time and a half but “the regular rate received by such employee when the compensatory time was earned; or the final regular rate received by such employee,” 6B might be supposed to address this but it sure sounds iffy to me.

I am a little leery of this act.

@rojo good point. Only compensated at the regular rate if they leave the company. Not fair.

@JLeslie

You’re compensated with 1½ hours of comp time for every hour you work. Of course those hours are then paid at straight if you leave. the time and a half has already been figured in. I think you guys are trying so hard to make it bad, your missing the point.

Actually, @Jaxk is right on that one. If you had 1½ hours comp time coming for one hour overtime worked and they pay you at the regular rate you have been compensated at the full amount.

In many cases I would prefer the comp time to cash if I can take it when I need it, not when I am told I can.

I wonder how the compensate for the lost taxes that would have been paid for the overtime pay?

@rojo

I don’t really see anything lost in taxes. Say you work 48 hours one week, and take the extra 8 hours in comp time. You get paid for 40 hours. The next week you take the comptime (12 hours) and only work 28 hours. You still get paid for 40 hours. Taxes are paid on the 40 hours both weeks.

@Jaxk what if you take the overtime pay instead? Do you not pay additional taxes on the additional funds?
If I work 48 hours the first week, take the OT and work 40 hours the second would I (and the employer) not owe for a total based on a 92 hour biweekly amount?

@rojo

Yes, you have a point. It does not maximize government revenues.

@Jaxk Oh, that is fine then. From what @rojo had written it didn’t sound that way.

@rojo, @Jaxk, it seems like this would result in less being paid in FICA and/or Social Security, because I think these are based on wages paid.

@Yetanotheruser Another reason the Republicans would like it.

@Yetanotheruser not really, because paid time off is calculated as time worked for SSI and FICA.

@WestRiverrat Can you run through how that works? I keep trying to think it through and can’t sort it. I was salaried, management, which I know is not what we are talking about when it comes to this bill. Our comp time cost the company nothing, and no difference in taxes.

@JLeslie If an employee is salaried, there is no hourly wage, so there is no way to calculate overtime, so comp time is given. If an employee is hourly, it is required by federal law that most employees be given OT if they work more than 40 yours per week. This bill would allow the employer, under most circumstances, to offer comp time at the rate of 1½ times the actual hours worked, if the employee agrees.

A contract can already stipulate anything between an employer and employee without this bill.

To me it just seems like a step to getting the ‘if the employee agrees ’ bit removed.

As an employee that has put in a lot of overtime, I actually like the option of earning some extra paid time off. Currently, I accrue a set amount of hours each pay, whether I work 72 hours or 100 hours in that pay period. If I accrued a set amount per hours worked, I’d probably feel differently. As it stands, there is no way to get extra PTO at my work.

I understand the concerns about losing OT pay and the stipulations regarding using the PTO, but I can see a positive side to this.

@Seek_Kolinahr not true in the USA, regardless of what a contract states, employers must pay nonexempt employees at least time and a half for each hour of overtime worked a week.

I know there are some employers that try to cheat the system, but if they ever get caught it will cost them much more than what they saved.

@Yetanotheruser I understand all of that. As I said, in my case we were managers so the OT doesn’t apply. I am trying to figure out if the taxes are actually less if the wage earner/non exempt employee takes the comp time.

And, by the way the law does not go by whether you are salaried or paid by the hour, it goes by whether you meet the criteria to be an exempt or non exempt employee. Most non exempt are paid by the hour. An employer does not get around OT just because they pay someone a salary, the employee has to meet the criteria.

@JLeslie I do understand the difference between salaried/hourly and exempt/non-exempt, although I personally have never met a person who was non-exempt and salaried; I have come across some exempt employees who were paid by the hour.

Many years ago I was hired by a company as an exempt employee, with a salary based upon a 45 hour work week. There was no OT pay, but they were pretty liberal with paid time off.

@Yetanotheruser I worked for a company at one point that scheduled 45 hour work weeks also. Regularly we worked many more hours. So, what about the taxes for the nonexempt? Or, are you not answering that part? If someone is comped the time are they paying less taxes?

@JLeslie No, they are paying the same taxes. Taxes are based on money earned, not how long it took to earn the money. Theoretically if you are exempt you earn the same amount if you work 30, 40, or 50 hours a week, so your tax burden would not change.

@JLeslie

Look at what a non-exempt eployee would earn with over time. Say they earn $10/hr (to keep it simple) they work a normal 40 hour week but are asked to work Saturday. The next week they simply Work 40 hours. If they take the overtime pay they would earn $400 + 8 hrs at 1½ wich come to $120 hrs. The following week anoth $400 for 40 hrs. That’s $920 for the two weeks But if they take comp time for the 8 hrs of overtime they get pain for 40 hrs each week totaling $800. So yes they pay more taxes (income and SS) in the overtime example. The difference in hours however is that with the overtime they work a total of 88 hrs and with the comp time they work a total of 68 hrs. So, do you want to work the extra 20 hours for $120. The decision for me would be quite simple. The taxes in the overtime example are based on $920 while the taxes in the comp time example are on $800. So yes the taxes would be less

I’m ignoring the fact that at $10/hr you not paying much or any income tax.

@JLeslie

Sorry I screwed up my calculation on the total hours with comp time. You would actually be working 76 hours not 68. A 12 hour difference. Sorry.

@Jaxk Thanks for the example. Taxes are less for the employee and even the company saving the company FICA. I have to think about the math more. The different possibilities. It only works if the businesses can give the comp time. Places I have worked it was difficult to get leave of absence time (unpaid vacation). Maybe it is different now.

@JLeslie

It’s not likely to be much different now. Any company offering this would have to consider the impact it will have. I know my wife worked in a manufacturing environment and every month end they would work through the weekend making sure orders were filled (they couldn’t count the revenue unless it was shipped). Once the end-of-month was over things slowed down and she would take a few days off. She loved it. For my part I would take a day off when things were slow. Nothing is better than looking outside on a beautiful day and being able to just take the day and golf or ride my bike. It sure makes the work easier to take. Of course the flip side is that I never asked for the day off when things were busy.

@Jaxk That’s the thing, the day off is at the mercy, or let’s say the approval, of the business. So, if the business has trouble giving time off because of business demands, I don’t see them being so willing to give comp time, or at least not lots of it. While other businesses might have big down times where the comp time is preferred, but the employee might prefer overtime. No matter what I see the employer having a lot of influence over what the employee “chooses.”

because god forbid anyone should get paid for working overtime…..?~

@Jaxk – @JLeslie brings up an important point. If comp time is used, then all extra hours the employee works are for, at that time, “free.” They have a right to pay…BUT every hour after 40 is payed at some undetermined later date. Since scheduling is based on business needs, unless there is a built in right for the employees to take the comp time at their discretion, then management and ownership will dictate whether it can be taken.

Of course, all the comp time is paid out at the end of the year, it seems…so they can’t lose it if unused. However, the major problem there is that it allows, in essence, the employer to hold the unpaid wages for a period without being responsible for paying out any accrued interest or earnings on that money…at least that’s how it seems.

In the end, therefore, it is a benefit to the employer. I think there’s good potential for this idea, as it DOES investigate potential benefits of creating flexibility in the mandatory overtime structure. However, it doesn’t seem to account for the fact that overtime wages are earned AT THE TIME the work is done. In order for it to work, I think that it requires the creation of some form of escrow account where earned overtime is placed. Unfortunately, this creates a burden on employer to track the funds, as they aren’t fungible (e.g., $100 placed in the account at the beginning of the year by employee A is worth more than $100 placed in the account at the end of the year by employee B). Employers, however, would be able to assess whether the increase cost is worth it themselves…and the legislation would simply enable them to do so.

@iamthemob

Honestly I would think the holding of the comp time would be an insignificant piece of the puzzle. The employer would already have to track this as a liability as they do for vacation time so that acounting is required. And let’s not forget that if there are any raises or promotions in the interim, the comp time is paid out at the higher rate. I know the intention is to try and punish the employers but if we go through that exercise, we lose the benefit.

I know there have been many complaints that the employer would have a say in when the employee can take the time but once again, that is no different than vacation time. Bottom line is if you don’t like the comp time, take the overtime pay. The only thing this legislation does is give you a choice. How could that be bad?

The employer pretty much has to be able to say when someone can take time off. If they didn’t they very well could have 90% of the workforce taking the same days off, leaving the business unable to function.

Those complaining that the employer would have final say on when they could take time off, if everyone at your favorite store took their comp time between Thanksgiving and Christmas would you still shop there?

It has to be bad because the Republicans like the measure. Don’t you understand anything, @Jaxk? ~ I don’t understand how a choices are bad things either.

@bkcunningham

Rebuke acknowleded and accepted.

I wish I had the choice to edit responses after I find the grammatical errors of my ways.

Why does everyone think republicans are out to get them? What could they possibly gain from this? Honestly think about it for a few minutes please, in what way could this bill ever sway anyone to vote republican? Do you truly believe republicans are reaching out to you via overtime & PTO mandates?

@cheebdragon

There are a few rules that many believe are iron-clad and irrefutable. Like the laws of physics.

1. Anything that benefits an employer must be taken from the employees.

2. Employers will never do anything that benefits employees unless madated by law.

3. Republicans only care about employers. They have no concern about employees.

Now if you try to argue that this bill may benefit both employers and employees, you’ve violated all three rules. That can never happen.

For the record, as a liberalish person, I am not dismissing this bill out of hand. I am just trying to think it through. Lots of times things sound good on the surface, but there are consequences not considered and discovered too late. I asked my questions not because I am already against the idea, but trying to decide how I think about the idea. I would personally opt for the comp time most likely if given a choice.

@JLeslie

For the record I didn’t think you were. That attitude however, is implicit in the question.

Ok good. Thanks.

As an extraordinarily liberal person that would love to see anything good come out of modern politics, I want to give the bill a chance, but I’m thoroughly skeptical.

A-Number-One – I live in a Right to Work state. That means, anyone can be fired for any reason or none at all, with or without notice. You can also be denied a job without being notified as to the reason. Unions only exist if you’re a police officer, teacher, or fire fighter. There may be one or two other exceptions, but I can’t think of them at the moment.

So, you apply for a job. Potential employer says “We want you to work X hours a week for Y comp time.” You say, “The standard vacation/sick schedule and overtime works better for me, as I don’t need extra time off of work.” The next guy says, “Sure, I’ll work 90 hours a week for the same pay as 40, for some extra days off work at your convenience!” Who is getting that job? Seriously.

I was unemployed in the state of Florida for over five years. Unemployed people – any employees, really – have no rights in this job market as is, and we’re going to give them one more thing they have to negotiate, one more thing that they can be passed over for.

I don’t like it.

@Seek_Kolinahr

What you describe is just a form of wage slavery.

Here are a couple of quotes on the subject:

“The debt and work cycle is an ingenious tool of subjugation. Make people think they need all these things, then they must have a job, and they give up control of their lives. It’s as simple as that. We live in one of the most free countries in the world, but we fix it so we are not free at all. ”
– Larry Roth

“Capitalism only supports certain kinds of groups, the nuclear family for example, or ‘the people I know at my job’, because such groups are already self-alienated & hooked into the Work/Consume/Die structure.”
– Hakim Bey

@rojo Don’t I know it.