House Republicans Pass Bill to End Overtime Pay

It's actually not a no brainer. If you get the overtime pay it's time and a half. If you take the day off your employer only has to pay you regular pay. The employers make out with this deal.

a reply to: RickinVa

Comp time ends up being a better deal because you get your paid time off (i.e. comp time) before taxes.

Especially if you're over a certain GS you are maxed out at an overtime rate. I forget what grade that is, but I basically always earn comp time rather than get paid overtime...

a reply to: libertytoall

In the Government your "time and a half pay" is maxed out at a certain grade, so even feds above a certain grade are already in this boat...

originally posted by: libertytoall
It's actually not a no brainer. If you get the overtime pay it's time and a half. If you take the day off your employer only has to pay you regular pay. The employers make out with this deal.

Not really, when you think about it. Comp time has value, often not directly measurable in direct dollars. There's a lot of benefits here for the employee. Like, paid time off to take care of personal business or spend time with family. Plus, overtime pay is subject to the tax man like anything else, and by the time he gets done taking his share, what's left isn't worth the extra work, stress, and lack of time off.

I like the idea of choice. Being able to decide if I want extra money, or "me time". If I am reading this bill correctly, that's what it is doing, giving people the choice. Which sounds pretty good to me, and if it means employers can save money by offering employees the choice, it sounds like a win for everyone.

This is actually a really good thing. I'll never understand how libtards can't get this through their heads, but Employers are the true saints in this whole situation, and workers should be kissing their asses that they're even being given the opportunity to get paid for the work! The business owner is entitled to ALL the profits, and its only through their good graces that their employee's are getting paid as much as they are. Heck, with automation coming up soon, employment will be synonymous with welfare! Consider though how much stimulation of the economy can finally occur when all the profits from business go to the Executives to then create/invest in new businesses, further enriching God's chosen few (as it should be - God doesn't make mistakes). The trickle down will be insane! Everyone just needs to relax and let the good people controlling Washington to finally set everything right.

a reply to: Wayfarer

whats with you. All you seem to do is post sarcasm in your responses lately. The bill is virtually bullet proof, if anyone actually cared to read it. I would wear it as a ballistic vest, that is how confident I am after reading the entire thing, which takes only about five minutes.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Its sarcasm born out of frustration. Erosion of worker's rights is never a good thing, has never historically been a good thing, and yet for a large swath of the American population they gleefully support it because its posited by their 'team'. Even as a small business owner, I don't want the lower/middle class people who work in this country to have less power, I want them to have more.

If I may pose a hypothetical situation for you:

You are employed full time at a machining shop making lathed parts for various industries. A super large order comes in, and your employer informs you that he needs you to work 80 hours a week for the next 2 months to satisfy the order. They then inform you that you will receive compensation for the 320 extra hours you worked in the form of paid vacation, however, due to the backlog, the only available windows they allow for this vacation time are in half day increments (to not be taken more than once a week). Would you feel that was a good thing, something that benefited you the worker, or would you have rather preferred to receive a lump sum payment for your extra work?

a reply to: Wayfarer
You have the legal right to accept the payment in your paycheck, and the bill also outlines penalties for the employer for non-compliance, which can be litigated through a number of government agencies at the local, state, and federal level.

If you would actually read the bill, you would already have had your answer.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I did read it, I just don't buy into the removal of the time and a half pay-scale (extra work) in lieu of regular time pay as compensation for overtime. Although you repeatedly argue its 'bulletproof' all it really is doing is gutting time and a half pay for overtime, and instead turning into regular pay or regular pay equivalent compensation in 'paid vacation' (which is employer dictated as to when it can occur - meaning its not really vacation rather than paid time off when work is slow - whenever that is).

So yes, you can now be worked to exhaustion as if there is no reasonable limit to how much work an employer can place on their employees (since the cost factor doesn't limit them any longer nor push them to hiring additional employees to avoid the overtime), and the employee's are no longer entitled to the overtime pay they would have gotten before this bill passed.

You actually think that's good? You actually think your average blue collar worker has the time/money to litigate against their employer? You actually think the number of people that could utilize legal ramifications to fight their employer is greater than those who can't afford to?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Why are people being so obtuse? You are still getting 1.5, either in pay or in time. You work 10 hours overtime, or 50 hours a week, you earn basically 15 hours. You get to choose to take the 15 hours off or take it as 15x (your payrate); either way its a win. Also, if you choose the time off, you can always go back and request the pay at a later date. It's a win no matter what. The only drawback is when you can take the time off, but that goes for every time off request.

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.

A lot of companies in the UK offer "flexitime" or TOIL (Time Off in Lieu). You can do things like work four ten-hour days, and get a three day weekend (work Mon-Thu 9am to 7pm, then you get Fri-Sun off). Or you can work 10am to 6pm rather than 9am to 5pm. But there are core hours from 10am to 4pm. Some companies even let you work one day from home, letting you use a computer to connect via a VPN.

I think this is all very wonderful.

Legislation without any kind of corporate lobbying behind it!

Legislation so simple that any ordinary Joe can understand it, meaning no lawyers will ever make a meal of it!

Employers that have their employees best interests at heart!

What a time to be alive.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: libertytoall
It's actually not a no brainer. If you get the overtime pay it's time and a half. If you take the day off your employer only has to pay you regular pay. The employers make out with this deal.

Not really, when you think about it. Comp time has value, often not directly measurable in direct dollars. There's a lot of benefits here for the employee. Like, paid time off to take care of personal business or spend time with family. Plus, overtime pay is subject to the tax man like anything else, and by the time he gets done taking his share, what's left isn't worth the extra work, stress, and lack of time off.

I like the idea of choice. Being able to decide if I want extra money, or "me time". If I am reading this bill correctly, that's what it is doing, giving people the choice. Which sounds pretty good to me, and if it means employers can save money by offering employees the choice, it sounds like a win for everyone.

I like your argument with exception to one thing left out. Many employers control when you can and can't use your available time off.

a reply to: libertytoall

That's usually the case, though, with employers. With things like vacation and days off.

a reply to: Wayfarer

None of this, I repeat, NONE OF THIS IS MANDATORY. You know how you can keep working and earning your wages as if this law was never passed??? By simply opting for your pay if the option for time off is offered. You just say "no thank you, I just want my money in my check" . Please, please do tell me where there is gimmick or catch in that??

You won't find it. Time off requests will always be at the discretion of the employer/business owner. So anybody who opts to bank it as time off already will have that understanding.

Employer is given a choice to offer an employee a choice. There is not a single line in this bill stating mandatory. If you want you pay, you keep your pay, and it is written exactly like that. Not only is it written that way, it even outlines the penalties and allocates a record keeping database of reported violations. Violations happen today. Today somebody somewhere violated an OT law as an employer. No amount of laws will prevent those numerical probabilities of jackasses. There are however, avenues for legal action and penalties for those who violate.

This law existing or not has not changed any of it. Choice is choice. It all comes down to that. Somebody will have to spin extra extra bigly to somehow correlate free will and choice as a negative consequence. But as I have seen, it won't stop dissenters from trying.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Wayfarer

None of this, I repeat, NONE OF THIS IS MANDATORY. You know how you can keep working and earning your wages as if this law was never passed??? By simply opting for your pay if the option for time off is offered. You just say "no thank you, I just want my money in my check" . Please, please do tell me where there is gimmick or catch in that??

You won't find it. Time off requests will always be at the discretion of the employer/business owner. So anybody who opts to bank it as time off already will have that understanding.

Employer is given a choice to offer an employee a choice. There is not a single line in this bill stating mandatory. If you want you pay, you keep your pay, and it is written exactly like that. Not only is it written that way, it even outlines the penalties and allocates a record keeping database of reported violations. Violations happen today. Today somebody somewhere violated an OT law as an employer. No amount of laws will prevent those numerical probabilities of jackasses. There are however, avenues for legal action and penalties for those who violate.

This law existing or not has not changed any of it. Choice is choice. It all comes down to that. Somebody will have to spin extra extra bigly to somehow correlate free will and choice as a negative consequence. But as I have seen, it won't stop dissenters from trying.

I've been seeing the same comments on Facebook about this. CNN makes misleading headline and now here come the baa's. If your employer isn't the best at giving vacation time then still continue taking the time and a half. There is literally no reason to bash this bill at all. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on.

a reply to: Throes

Then why the time and expense of making a federal law?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Throes

Then why the time and expense of making a federal law?

You have to read the bill to see what's in it.

Try that sometime, it works !!

a reply to: xuenchen

It's not mandatory so why a law?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

It's not mandatory so why a law?

Read the whole thing.

That's all you have to do.



HR 1180

Gives people choices to accrue time off without getting fired.

And, gives people a way to "bank" a lump sum payment if they want to.