It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Republicans Pass Bill to End Overtime Pay

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Why is it a bad bill???



How many times now have you been asked this very simple question?

Read the thing. Then type out why it's bad, your word, press enter, and we'll go from there.




posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Something to consider after feeling I was taking crazy pills by Willtell

Something I would ask for is a word interjected

(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.


specifically this part:

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.


Add in the word *paid* between compensatory and time.

make sure that there is no "well it didn't say paid..just allowed..so we wont fire you as you take off a week" type arguments.

It would be nice if people stopped being ideological and started pointing out legal mumbo jumbo that could hurt the employee.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
BTW...They aught to cease using the euphemism comp time and call it what it is, slave time



“Comp time” undermines the 40-hour work week. Quick history review: in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) became law. We say it “established” the 40-hour work week, but really it just “encouraged” it, by telling employers that for any hours worked past 40, workers had to be time-and-a-half and receive it in their next pay period. The idea was you get eight hours at work, eight hours to sleep, and eight hours to do whatever you want. Another goal of time-and-a -half pay was to give employers a financial incentive to hire more workers when they have more work, instead of forcing workers already on the job to work beyond their scheduled hours.


With “comp time,” employers are encouraged to do the opposite. Making overtime less expensive to employers means more workers being scheduled for 50 or 60-hour shifts. Which means less time with your family – not more

blog.workingamerica.org...

edit on 3-5-2017 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Yeah. I mean it's understood, or should be, that "paid" should be automatic. But putting it in closes whatever loophole might be there. Not much of one, since any union would eat that alive, and no judge would side with an employer.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

I think the word "compensatory" requires payment, and the specifics of paying for unused compensatory time kinda reinforces that.

But it wouldn't hurt to add the word "paid."

TheRedneck



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


My GOD!! It is clear to me you are in fact actually insane! How is it that you still cannot answer a question with the specific paragraphs and sections of the bill which has been sourced several times for you that you disagree with??

How is an employer saving money when they are in fact still paying out the money?? If you work 1 hour of OT, you can get paid in either 1.5 hours of $$, or 1.5 hours of time off. Or, by golly, you can change your mind at ANY TIME and expect the payment in $$$ anyways down the road.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Isn't compensatory already assuming you earned it?

Work>paid>deferred to compensatory.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   
okay, seems this has been pushed for a long time and it seems the reason why it wasn't passed was because of worries to include:

Primary reasons for contesting the use of comp time are questions over the actual scheduling of time off, and whether employees will be free to choose either comp time or payment in return for overtime work. Those opposing legislation suggest that employees in practice will not be allowed to freely schedule the use of their comp time but will be restricted by employers. This would result in an option much less valuable to employees, limiting the prospect of "emergency" time, and restricting time off at certain points during the year. Concerns have also been expressed over possible pressure from businesses on employees to accept comp time over monetary compensation for overtime work, and whether voluntary overtime could be offered only in exchange for comp time. Finally, unions object to proposed comp time arrangements in which hours do not count toward pension benefits.


Also for very small businesses,it wouldn't be very feasable given it would create a skills shortage. Well, in that case, dont overwork your employee, or make sure its a understanding its overtime vs comp.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SaturnFX

Isn't compensatory already assuming you earned it?

Work>paid>deferred to compensatory.

Reading through the legal definition, its not actually stated..just that its 1.5 hours off for every hour OT worked.
I guess its implied, but I would be more comfortable with that word stuck in there...and stated of the rate being equal to standard hourly breakdown (says paid, I pay you 1 penny for a hour of comp time)
edit on 3-5-2017 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Finally, some talking points.




Making overtime less expensive to employers means more workers being scheduled for 50 or 60-hour shifts. Which means less time with your family – not more


Some of us already work like this. Being able to "bank" some days off is a very nice perk. Keep in mind this is also an option, not a rule.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
One more PROOF of the absurdity of this bill that republicans very proudly claim…it’s to make families have more time together. In a twisted sort of way this may be true…

By working overtime and not getting paid promptly, this will make it so daddy has little money to provide things like giving the kids movie money because since he doesn’t really get paid for overtime he’s too broke to give his kids go out money. So they all will have to stay home together because daddy is so dam broke.

Twisted logic of the GOP



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
BTW...They aught to cease using the euphemism comp time and call it what it is, slave time



“Comp time” undermines the 40-hour work week. Quick history review: in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) became law. We say it “established” the 40-hour work week, but really it just “encouraged” it, by telling employers that for any hours worked past 40, workers had to be time-and-a-half and receive it in their next pay period. The idea was you get eight hours at work, eight hours to sleep, and eight hours to do whatever you want. Another goal of time-and-a -half pay was to give employers a financial incentive to hire more workers when they have more work, instead of forcing workers already on the job to work beyond their scheduled hours.


With “comp time,” employers are encouraged to do the opposite. Making overtime less expensive to employers means more workers being scheduled for 50 or 60-hour shifts. Which means less time with your family – not more

blog.workingamerica.org...

That was the old argument
This is the new bill with new rules the dems and unions have (minus their moaning about the pensions not filling their coffers with the sweet, sweet 1.5x pay if the employee *chooses* comp over pay)
Care to discuss the bill today or you stuck in the old debate?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

That also is my worry, however vacation time works the same from my understanding and experience. " 'ey boss, i want to take vacation next week!"

"no can do, we're busy."

Sometimes happens like that.

As to the rule of compensatory, I would agree. Anything bolstering being comfortable for the workers and not for the employer in this particular bill is gravy.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SaturnFX

That also is my worry, however vacation time works the same from my understanding and experience. " 'ey boss, i want to take vacation next week!"

"no can do, we're busy."

Sometimes happens like that.

As to the rule of compensatory, I would agree. Anything bolstering being comfortable for the workers and not for the employer in this particular bill is gravy.

Thats typical inter office politics though. plan ahead, avoid the busy times. I imagine this will be the same. no good if you are trying to take comp time at the christmas tree factory in early december type thing.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You do realize, do you not, that that employee gets paid for the 8 hours he worked that day. The hour, or however long, in OT is paid to him at the later date. Nor is it compulsory, it's strictly voluntary...that employee doesn't have to do it.

Yes, you read that right. It's voluntary.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

No matter what, there will always be those who only want to game the system. We could restrict every movement of every muscle and every syllable uttered, and someone would figure out how to game it.

But a better economy will put those folks out of business. If there are plenty of jobs, people won't work for tyrants.

In the end, those gamers are why the courts are there.


Also for very small businesses,it wouldn't be very feasable given it would create a skills shortage. Well, in that case, dont overwork your employee, or make sure its a understanding its overtime vs comp.

Employers do not have to offer comp time under this bill, unless there is a union agreement supporting it. They can freely choose to offer it otherwise, but are not required to. I imagine most Mom and Pops won't offer it.

Either way, it's a company wide decision... open to everyone or closed to everyone.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Exactly. Usually you know...usually.

My biggest worry would be employers doing a way with already established PTO and force OT so you can have time off. I don't like that prospect at all.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

True enough.

That's why, in my experience, this sort of thing is planned well in advance. ...and keep reminding them from time, to time. It helps prevent misunderstandings.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Absolutely. For what it's worth, my employer may not even participate. /shrug



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SaturnFX

Exactly. Usually you know...usually.

My biggest worry would be employers doing a way with already established PTO and force OT so you can have time off. I don't like that prospect at all.

Well, in a strong economy, that comes down to the perks.

Companies are not required to give any vacation days, but they do to lure in people and keep the employees happy. happy employee = happy business.
If Bobs burger offers X dollars and 2 weeks pto and Bills burger offers the same $ but no time off, I know which one I will apply to, even if I am working at Bills.
Let bill flip his own damn burgers.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join