House Republicans Pass Bill to End Overtime Pay

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

It's not mandatory so why a law?

do they not have jobs in Idaho? Here in the rest of the US, currently the employer regulates these things via company policy. This law will now offer that choice to the employee, giving him/her the option to take overtime pay or Comp time. While some employers may give that choice, not all do and none are mandated to at this point in time. Reading the bill and using a little thought will take you much farther than continuing to post the same question.

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm still confused? Before this law an employer and employee could not agree on comp time in lieu of ot?

a reply to: CB328
Honestly, Overtime is overrated. With that said, companies are making changes where no overtime is available, meaning, you will only work your 40hrs a week. You will not be forced to work...LOL. My son works for a Fortune 500 company. They recently made changes, such as, no more overtime, off weekends, no more temps, and night worker's, which will be his new shift 3pm-11pm, will be paid significantly more. All benefits are the same with promotions, bonus', and paid education all still intact. This is a good thing. I always thought it was the greedy companies offering all this overtime, making greedy father's and mother's not at home as often with their family, (where they need to be), creating little time for one's self to reflect on what really matter's...living life instead of chasing it.
So, personally, I am happy with this change. We need more balance in the work place.

a reply to: childoffather

Companies have been doing this already, then what is this law for?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm still confused? Before this law an employer and employee could not agree on comp time in lieu of ot?

It's in many Union contracts.

But non-union workers (especially in small businesses) seldom get these options.

Are you getting this?

I know somebody in a union workplace that actually gets half the accrued interest on the money when they take the lump sums.

a reply to: MOMof3

Did you READ the bill ?

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes. It does not explain why there is a law for business already being done this way voluntarily. So, please explain it to me.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm still confused? Before this law an employer and employee could not agree on comp time in lieu of ot?

It's in many Union contracts.

But non-union workers (especially in small businesses) seldom get these options.

Are you getting this?

I know somebody in a union workplace that actually gets half the accrued interest on the money when they take the lump sums.

Wait a minute, let me wrap my head around this. Unions do this as per policy without a federal law, so now there is a law to force non union businesses to enact the same policy? I see why no one wanted to explain it to me. Must have something to do with prevailing wages.

a reply to: MOMof3

Some States have different laws about comp time.

This Federal bill would equalize the comp time dilemmas that exist.

Look it up and do some research.

I think comp time might currently be "illegal" by Federal statute unless it's in a contract.

Are you understanding it now?

a reply to: xuenchen

If what you said is true, then the other posters are liars or from other countries.

Quote:"Honestly, Overtime is overrated. With that said, companies are making changes where no overtime is available, meaning, you will only work your 40hrs a week. You will not be forced to work...LOL. My son works for a Fortune 500 company. They recently made changes, such as, no more overtime, off weekends, no more temps, and night worker's, which will be his new shift 3pm-11pm, will be paid significantly more. All benefits are the same with promotions, bonus', and paid education all still intact. This is a good thing. I always thought it was the greedy companies offering all this overtime, making greedy father's and mother's not at home as often with their family, (where they need to be), creating little time for one's self to reflect on what really matter's...living life instead of chasing it.
So, personally, I am happy with this change. We need more balance in the work place. "

What changed?

ETA Override state laws? I think I get it now.

a reply to: network dude
" This law will now offer that choice to the employee, giving him/her the option to take overtime pay or Comp time."

Didn't Obama already sign a law like that, about people who made over 47K? My daughter works in Idaho. She always gets the choice to work for comp or OT. So, this is to override state's law.

a reply to: MOMof3
So basically you are just trying as hard as heavenly possible to find some kind of fault with the bill for the sake of pointing fingers. Is that what you are getting at??

a reply to: worldstarcountry

What is the penalty for not following this law? I can't find that. Wouldn't you need to know that so that you don't inadvertently break the law?

originally posted by: MOMof3
I always thought it was the greedy companies offering all this overtime, making greedy father's and mother's not at home as often with their family, (where they need to be), creating little time for one's self to reflect on what really matter's...living life instead of chasing it.

Greedy companies...lol, more like greedy employees...

You know long term overtime is just poor personal management, right? If you have 2 people working 60 hours a week each it is much cheaper to the company to hire a third.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That was a quote from another poster. I'm talking about the law. I didn't understand why a new federal law, but I get it now. My daughter gets to choose between comp and OT for years, so its a state by state issue. I suppose this law is to override the state law.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: worldstarcountry
What is the penalty for not following this law? I can't find that. Wouldn't you need to know that so that you don't inadvertently break the law?

The penalty is outlined in Section 3 of the most recent version submitted to the Senate on 05/03/2017 under remedies. Section four states that new material will be disseminated by the Secretary for the employers to educate their employees with within 30 days. Section five outlines reporting by the GAO to congress on matters such as violations, the extent comp time is provided, as well as enforcement actions and amounts involved.

SEC. 3. Remedies.

Section 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b), by striking “(b) Any employer” and inserting “(b) Except as provided in subsection (f), any employer”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(f) An employer that violates section 7(s)(4) shall be liable to the employee affected in the amount of the rate of compensation (determined in accordance with section 7(s)(6)(A)) for each hour of compensatory time accrued by the employee and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages reduced by the amount of such rate of compensation for each hour of compensatory time used by such employee.”.

SEC. 4. Notice to employees.

Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall revise the materials the Secretary provides, under regulations published in section 516.4 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, to employers for purposes of a notice explaining the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to employees so that such notice reflects the amendments made to such Act by this Act.

SEC. 5. GAO report.

Beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act and each of the 3 years thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report to Congress providing, with respect to the reporting period immediately prior to each such report—

(1) data concerning the extent to which employers provide compensatory time pursuant to section 7(s) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as added by this Act, and the extent to which employees opt to receive compensatory time;

(2) the number of complaints alleging a violation of such section filed by any employee with the Secretary of Labor;

(3) the number of enforcement actions commenced by the Secretary or commenced by the Secretary on behalf of any employee for alleged violations of such section;

(4) the disposition or status of such complaints and actions described in paragraphs (2) and (3); and

(5) an account of any unpaid wages, damages, penalties, injunctive relief, or other remedies obtained or sought by the Secretary in connection with such actions described in paragraph (3).

Text of sections 3, 4, and 5 of H.R. 1180

This is what you are looking for. As far as inadvertently violating the law, the only way to do that is to deny overtime compensation, or compensatory time for overtime worked. This is typically never done inadvertently, and is usually intentional though. Although it still happens, happened yesterday, and will happen tomorrow. As I said earlier, laws do not stop criminal behavior or civil violations. But they do grant an avenue for recourse.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: SaturnFX
I am trying to figure this out, any help through the legalise would be helpful

From what I am gathering, the employee can choose to have that extra hour worked after 40 to go either as overtime pay, or to rack up hours so you can take paid time off down the road..so you can work like a ant for 50 hours a week and after 4 weeks, take a entire week off while getting paid.

From what I see, its the employee's choice.

If thats the entire bill, then I am actually in favor of that. Hell, work 4 months and take the 5th one off while paid. work an extra hour a day and come in on saturday for a few hours...

I am actually a big fan of that idea..but anyone taking a month off every 5th month would probably be replaced tbh.

hell yeah. im about to crash but i need to read this tomorrow. if it is structured like you say then i am all for it.
im all for it as long as the time off instead of time plus a half is my choice....

dont mind working extra to log time off as long as i can choose how that unfolds.
for the most part though i work extra hours for the extra money....i dont need time off if im broke you know

And I already get a paid vacation from my private no Government company. I want the OT pay if they expect more hours put into (the no fun stress job). You might have to earn your vacation time you already had, due to the years put into the company.

You would have to be a lawyer to understand all the jargon of the bill.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MOMof3
I always thought it was the greedy companies offering all this overtime, making greedy father's and mother's not at home as often with their family, (where they need to be), creating little time for one's self to reflect on what really matter's...living life instead of chasing it.

Greedy companies...lol, more like greedy employees...

You know long term overtime is just poor personal management, right? If you have 2 people working 60 hours a week each it is much cheaper to the company to hire a third.

It's even cheaper to pay them a salary and still make them work 60 hours.

originally posted by: MOMof3

That was a quote from another poster. I'm talking about the law. I didn't understand why a new federal law, but I get it now. My daughter gets to choose between comp and OT for years, so its a state by state issue. I suppose this law is to override the state law.

I'm not a fan of feds always thinking they need to override/replace state laws... There is a reason we are a Republic of 50 States, and the power of the state is important.

originally posted by: libertytoall
It's even cheaper to pay them a salary and still make them work 60 hours.

We call them senior managers and above...lol

Other than that they would quite or sue as in the case of Walmart. All my workers are salary and they only work 40....