House Republicans Pass Bill to End Overtime Pay

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: curiouspatience

That's crazy. I thought working OT was for extra money, not time. This law is to give away workers earned money back in the pockets of the employer, and the employee pay the taxes too.

Try this for just a minute. Forget that this bill was brought in by the GOP. Now, pretend that you don't have a rabid hatred for "the other side".

If you can accomplish those two things, and you give the bill a read through, you will notice that it offers the EMPLOYEE the choice between overtime $ at time and a half over 40, or comp time at an hour and a half for each hour worked overtime. So this bill that you just hate so much is actually giving more freedom to the employee to either get payed, or have time off, when dealing with overtime hours.

The only way you could hate this bill after doing all that is to be an employer who wishes to screw your employees.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Aazadan

This law is not going to change a company's ability to send people home on a slow day.

If you're salary, at a rate below 47k it will. Previously you would get your salary plus overtime. Now you'll just get your salary, and some extra time off at the companies choosing.

The employee you mentioned who was threatened with being fired for reporting for Jury Duty needs to report this to the courthouse, and to management of the corporation, and that manager will likely be the one who is fired.

That unfortunately, is not how it works in small towns. People get reputations that follow them. Even adhering to laws can cause you a whole bunch of trouble. There's what the law says, and there's what the local business wants. For example, at a job I used to have I was routinely given 50 hours or so a week of work. I was paid for 20. My boss flat out told me "If you want more work next week, you'll find a way to hustle and get it all done". So I would work 50 hours a week and get paid for 20. I actually did bring it up to a lawyer once and he told me it was in my best interest to drop it. I could recoup some money by taking the employer to court, but it would also block me from just about every job in the area in the future.

That's how small towns work.

a reply to: Aazadan
Don't blame the law, it is people around her that are making bad. She has a choice as to what to do with the legal protections offered to her. A law cannot be faulted for any of this. It is the laws that will be there to protect her on what she chooses to do.

Tell me, what would you recommend she do now in her position? The average person does not even like jury duty and does their best to avoid it. Some people go right in to the clerk on their free day and tell them straight up how biased they are and try to be as extreme as possible just to be dismissed before even showing up for the trial.

Me personally, I would just mind my business as I don't have time to crusade the public and help them stand on their own feet. But if one was inclined to be altruistic with their time, perhaps ask for a moment of her time, and identify what she would choose to do, and inform her of her legal rights. Then see how she wants to go from there. if she is a passive aggressive, she will just shrug her shoulders and say "it is what it is." Will you still blame the law at that point, or just accept that some thirsty people do not want to drink water. They prefer soda or alcohol which just makes them more dehydrated.

a reply to: network dude

The employee never has a choice. Yes, the bill says it's up to them. It's still the employer who can pressure employees to pick a certain option though. And if they don't, they can be replaced with someone who will. Even when the employee would prefer time off though, it's still time at the employers discretion. They can choose to schedule it, not you. Unlike money which you can choose how to spend.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I'm not getting involved in it, it was just a conversation I overheard. If I were in her position though, I would try to have my day off scheduled for that day.

a reply to: Aazadan

I have witnessed what you say about coercion in general in a previous workplace. I have also had the same employer try to coerce me into a decision. I never accepted the intimidation, called it out to their face, and stood my ground when I know they are wrong. Others just allowed themselves to be steamrolled. I was not replaced or retaliated against.

What you are describing is simply the predator prey relationship among human kind. If you refuse to be prey and strike back, you can come out on top most of the time if you are in fact in the right. if you just accept being prey, you will be consumed by the predator, and like a bully your time in such an environment would just be more and more uncomfortable until one finally accepts defeat.

The number one obstacle to person's workplace conflicts is themselves. If one is too afraid and intimidated to stand up in a particular job, changing locations and/or professions will not solve it. The same type of individual would just get taken advantage of at even the most accommodating and enjoyable job of their choosing.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: network dude

The employee never has a choice. Yes, the bill says it's up to them. It's still the employer who can pressure employees to pick a certain option though. And if they don't, they can be replaced with someone who will. Even when the employee would prefer time off though, it's still time at the employers discretion. They can choose to schedule it, not you. Unlike money which you can choose how to spend.

If this bill was never written, how would this be different in the workplace then?

originally posted by: Aazadan

I'm more centrist than left, but I support a 30 hour work week. Why do you find that odd?

Actually 32 hour week based on a salary wage not hourly would be better, don't you think? Part time is 20 to 30 hours per week and when people plan on 40 hours per week of hourly wage to pay the bills that is when it gets ugly.

That's actually something I noticed about this bill, since it makes the maximum number of hours you'll work in a week 40 (on average), then it's essentially reducing the work week by the average overtime*1.5. On those merits I actually support it, but my question becomes, what happens when over-time-off has to be spent on a second job to make up lost wages? Who is really winning then?

Actually 40 is minimum and maximum. Even as a salary employee I need to show 80 hours on my time card every two weeks. That 80 hours can be either Work hours and/or Paid Time Off hours, but in the end it needs to be at least 80 hours. Having long term overtime pay basically suggests the manager is not efficient and they need to look at their manning, also too little hours work is also not efficient, well until Obamacare made it more efficient. If I had two people working for me long term at 60 hours per week don't you think the correct decision is to hire a third instead? You need to manage your manning plain and simple and if a person loses overtime pay that they need to maintain their lifestyle then they need to get a better job, or change their lifestyle.

BTW lets say a job is worth 20 bucks an hour, by your logic of winning a person who needs to work two jobs to pay the bill is getting paid 30 bucks an hour for a 20 bucks an hour job instead of working two jobs. I guess that person is winning but the company is not in they are paying 50% more per hour than what the job is worth to them.

Corporations never offer choice. If you don't pick what's most favorable for them, they'll replace you with someone who will. One could argue that you could negotiate it into your contract, but this bill is targeting the lower middle class. That's not a group that typically has any leverage in contract negotiations.

Corps are mindless entities that go the path of least resistant to profit, they go where the profit current takes them. If you make it better for them to move everyone to part time they will do it. If you make it cheaper to manufacture overseas they will do that to. As to employee contracts, my company is not union based and they work hard to please their employees. The main reason is that they can not afford to lose the skills and brain trust that those employees bring to the company. If those skills take a few days to gain to be an asset then that job will be low pay and treated poorly with no negotiation. If a person finds themselves still in those types of jobs 10 plus years after high school they have made some poor life choices and it is not a companies responsibility to pay more than what a job is worth just because an employee may need it and has low skills/education to do anything else.

originally posted by: network dude
If this bill was never written, how would this be different in the workplace then?

It depends on the company, you're not going to find this at McDonalds, but in some of the more professional workplaces where people are still bringing in low-medium salaries, it's not all that uncommon for the company to allow people to buy additional vacation days. I think that's a better program to accomplish what this bill is trying to do.

Since you're purchasing it, the company can't force you to buy, and it lets you hold the money from overtime and use it for whatever (emergency fund, investing, just getting interest, etc) until it's time that year to buy vacation days.

That allows employees the same option, under more favorable circumstances.

Lets say you're able to work some overtime... 8 hours per week. Would you rather have an additional 12 hours off at the companies choosing, or use that extra 12 hours salary to purchase 1.5 days of vacation time of (mostly) your choosing, and be able to hold that money in reserve for months, just incase, prior to having to purchase?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Actually 32 hour week based on a salary wage not hourly would be better, don't you think? Part time is 20 to 30 hours per week and when people plan on 40 hours per week of hourly wage to pay the bills that is when it gets ugly.

Reducing the work week used to be a pretty typical thing. Getting it under 40 has been challenging though. France has made 30 somewhat work, but they've run into a lot of problems along the way. Like you said, people plan their budgets on 40 hours of work, so when it drops to 30 their budget has to shrink. With that reduced budget comes less market activity until prices realign with the amount of work being done... and that takes years to settle.

The 30 hour thing is the best part of the ACA in my opinion because it's moving us to a 30 hour week and I support such measures. I'm not saying it will be easy, but as far as I can tell, the only long term solution to the unemployment issue is to reduce the work week, which should eventually open up positions for everyone that wants one.

originally posted by: Aazadan

The 30 hour thing is the best part of the ACA in my opinion because it's moving us to a 30 hour week and I support such measures. I'm not saying it will be easy, but as far as I can tell, the only long term solution to the unemployment issue is to reduce the work week, which should eventually open up positions for everyone that wants one.

The reality is the typical employee gets the same amount of work in at 32 hours as they do at 40 hours. They become more efficient as they get the same tasks that they have at 40 hours done in 32. Productivity is the same...

The problem is pay...when it is salary then hours do not really need to be the main factor in productivity. When it is hourly I need to provide 40 hours of work so that a person can get a non-fluctuating pay that they then can plan to live on.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I'm not saying it will be easy, but as far as I can tell, the only long term solution to the unemployment issue is to reduce the work week, which should eventually open up positions for everyone that wants one.

We do not have an unemployment issue in America, we have a lack of skills issue in America. The company that drops all their employees to 30 hours so they can bypass the intent of the ACA is typically a job that no one would want as a career anyways.

I feel that under employment is worst then unemployment....

I'm glad the liberal gods sent some worthy reinforcements to hold down the angle of TRUTH, JUSTICE and the American way against the republican onslaught of evil and the love and worship of the rich and super rich.


I of course held down the reason and truth angle admirably last night...


Hopefully the senate will block this

a reply to: SaturnFX

You have the premise right.

You can choose to take the over-time pay or bank it as 1.5 hours paid time off.

Principle concerns are that Employers might nudge, push or encourage employees to bank the time off vs. get paid.

The advantage is that the employer has caveats around paid time off..Nothing that would disrupt the business etc. etc.

The employee still needs employer approval for the time off even if paid..

So it is not as "flexible" as it first appears..

Second concern is the time value of money.

Yo0u work an extra 10 hours per week of OT for 3 weeks at time and a half.

Lets say you can take that overtime pay immediately and it's $500 dollars extra on your paycheck.

BUT...if you "bank" it as paid time off down the road? It's still $500 dollars worth of time off...but months later when both you and the employer agree you can take the days off.

That $500 dollars the employer didn't have to immediately pay you has been earning the employer interest for months..vs. earning you interest in your account.

Multiply that by Millions of workers at thousands of companies every year and the policy is a free and big boost to companies bottom line. Companies earn the interest value on any payroll they don't have to doll out...until they spend it in the PTO.

Companies can also strip back sick days, extra holiday time off etc. to encourage OT during average hours so people have to work more to bank what they got off before.

a reply to: network dude

Try this for a minute mr low government guy. Why does there need to be a law for this in the first place. It takes a law for employee to request to work some extra hours in lieu of some personal time off?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

So, another useless law some lobbyist thinks we needed?

originally posted by: CB328
One of the biggest problems with this is that it removed the incentive to not overwork people. Without a financial penalty companies will feel that they can make people work as much as they want.

People can still choose OT pay. So .. how?

Don't they essentially force this in Australia?...and they love it?

Like, as a baseline, a 2 person job will hire 3 people, and give one 4 months paid off at a time.

originally posted by: bigx001
the Fair Labor Standards Act has been under attack from businesses since it was passed. No where in there does it say you get comp time in lieu of overtime pay.

Which is the entire point of the current proposal - it will allow businesses to offer it if they choose. Nobody is being compelled to offer it, and even if it is offered then nobody is being compelled to accept it.

originally posted by: bigx001
If you really think a company is going to allow you to have time off you are mistaken.

Some companies may well be happy to offer it. Others won't. At least they will have the choice.

a reply to: MOMof3
Useless to you maybe. Clearly there are enough people having an interest to consider this a good option. If any workers in America choose to stay exactly how they have been compensated for their working lives, they can stay that way without any issues. All it takes for one to get their overtime pay upfront is to not be scared and say NO if they encourage the time off. Some people are just scared little rabbits though, and there are no amount of SJW's or laws or attorneys that will ever fix that. Many people simply prefer to be prey.