Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Talking point: House GOP advances pro-family bill that promotes time off to spend with family. Reality: It's a big business-backed bill that does away with overtime. Back to work serf   (motherjones.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, House GOP, GOP, House majority leaders, U.S. Labor Department, hourly workers, time-and-a-half, Eric Cantor  
•       •       •

2850 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 May 2013 at 6:38 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-07 06:40:57 PM  
Let's just bring back slavery and get it over with.
 
2013-05-07 06:41:07 PM  
The bill would allow companies to give hourly workers comp time in lieu of overtime if the workers agree to it.

And of course, the workers will agree to it or they won't have jobs anymore.
 
2013-05-07 06:41:50 PM  
So they're going to run on eliminating overtime in 2014?

Cool.
 
2013-05-07 06:42:01 PM  
*sigh*
 
2013-05-07 06:42:35 PM  
It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.
 
2013-05-07 06:42:40 PM  
FTFA: Federal laws dating back to the 1930s make it harder for parents who hold hourly jobs to balance the demands of work and home.

You really have to admire, even in abject horror, how much they try to rewrite history.
 
2013-05-07 06:43:59 PM  

weiserfireman: It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.


And what if you boss starts hassling you for taking too much time off?
 
2013-05-07 06:44:12 PM  

lennavan: The bill would allow companies to give hourly workers comp time in lieu of overtime if the workers agree to it.

And of course, the workers will agree to it or they won't have jobs anymore.


Meh. As someone who is salaried, I don't have overtime anyway.

Though I did have an hourly job that accrued time off per hour worked and gave me overtime pay.
 
2013-05-07 06:44:35 PM  
I had a job where they gave us comp time instead of overtime, although we always had a "choice" in the matter.

It was cool to see all of those comp time hours add up.

It was not cool when you tried to use some of them only to have your requests denied.

Ended up paying me fairly well when I left.

Fark those guys.
 
2013-05-07 06:45:26 PM  
Overtime? What's that?
 
2013-05-07 06:47:46 PM  
I can't believe I'm going to out-lib Mother Jones, but here goes:

That might not be such a terrible thing, except that the bill doesn't give workers any power to decide when to use the comp time.

It would be a terrible thing even if it did give workers that "power."  Because the basis of our labor laws, including time-and-a-half, overtime limits, safety restrictions and all the rest of it, is that workers are not able to bargain for these things on their own, independently or even collectively.

/feels dirty, heads for shower
 
2013-05-07 06:48:40 PM  
Federal laws dating back to the 1930s make it harder for parents who hold hourly jobs to balance the demands of work and home. An hourly employee cannot convert previous overtime into future comp-time or flex-time.

So assuming your boss is okay with it, why wouldn't you just cook the books for the time card?  Sure sure there are jobs where the hours matter in big ways (regulated safety limits etc),  but if you're just some hourly shmo somewhere where your hours only represent pay and you want to sub a hour this week for a hour next week, as long as your boss doesn't care, who cares?

/probably illegal in some silly unenforceable way unless someone turns you in
 
2013-05-07 06:51:35 PM  

lennavan: The bill would allow companies to give hourly workers comp time in lieu of overtime if the workers agree to it.

And of course, the workers will agree to it or they won't have jobs anymore.


We do this at my work. My thinking is I'd rather have an extra few hours off than the money.

Does the bill have 'freedom' or 'patriot' in the title?
 
2013-05-07 06:52:20 PM  

weiserfireman: It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.


Right now, your boss has to pay you the overtime. If this passes, your boss will give you extra time off... and has no requirement to ever actually let you take that time off.
Also, most employers have limits to how much time off you can carry from year to year. So, it is possible that you could be forced to work long hours at no overtime pay to get time off which you cannot use and cannot store.

This is not an improvement.
 
2013-05-07 06:55:19 PM  

weiserfireman: It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.


Union? They have protection. Protection against things like:

That might not be such a terrible thing, except that the bill doesn't give workers any power to decide when to use the comp time. The employer gets to decide that. If the employer fails to let the worker use a bunch of accrued comp time, the bill would allow the worker to demand the overtime compensation in cash, but it gives the company 30 days to make good on the payment. And if the company stiffs the worker on the overtime compensation, the bill prevents workers from complaining to the US Department of Labor, as they can now, and instead forces them to try to find a lawyer who will take up their cause to collect a few hundred dollars worth of back pay, a fairly toothless enforcement measure.

BTW, you get fired when you sue your employer. They'll find a reason.
 
2013-05-07 06:55:33 PM  

Testiclaw: I had a job where they gave us comp time instead of overtime, although we always had a "choice" in the matter.

It was cool to see all of those comp time hours add up.

It was not cool when you tried to use some of them only to have your requests denied.

Ended up paying me fairly well when I left.

Fark those guys.


So basically, instead of overtime they gave you comp time.
And you gave them an interest free loan for that entire sum for as long as you worked there.
 
2013-05-07 06:56:29 PM  
Let's just post this, FTA, here:

That might not be such a terrible thing, except that the bill doesn't give workers any power to decide when to use the comp time. The employer gets to decide that. If the employer fails to let the worker use a bunch of accrued comp time, the bill would allow the worker to demand the overtime compensation in cash, but it gives the company 30 days to make good on the payment. And if the company stiffs the worker on the overtime compensation, the bill prevents workers from complaining to the US Department of Labor, as they can now, and instead forces them to try to find a lawyer who will take up their cause to collect a few hundred dollars worth of back pay, a fairly toothless enforcement measure.

Seems like there's a whole lot of unnecessary crap in there if the goal were truly to give some flexibility to hourly workers...
 
2013-05-07 06:56:34 PM  
I'm just surprised Republican branded "pro family" legislation isn't anti-homosexual.
 
2013-05-07 06:56:41 PM  
Doesn't matter how much leave time I have accrued

/I'm afraid if I took off I'd be replaced by the time I got back
 
2013-05-07 06:57:02 PM  

lennavan: The bill would allow companies to give hourly workers comp time in lieu of overtime if the workers agree to it.

And of course, the workers will agree to it or they won't have jobs anymore.


See also: arbitration.
 
2013-05-07 06:57:03 PM  
I haven't gotten overtime since I was 17.  Everything I've done has been salaried or contract work - so I don't really care about this bill.
 
2013-05-07 06:57:54 PM  

MFAWG: lennavan: The bill would allow companies to give hourly workers comp time in lieu of overtime if the workers agree to it.

And of course, the workers will agree to it or they won't have jobs anymore.

We do this at my work. My thinking is I'd rather have an extra few hours off than the money.

Does the bill have 'freedom' or 'patriot' in the title?


It's the fact that the employer has no obligation to actually give you the hours or extra pay that people have a problem with.
 
2013-05-07 06:58:26 PM  

kieran57: weiserfireman: It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.

Right now, your boss has to pay you the overtime. If this passes, your boss will give you extra time off... and has no requirement to ever actually let you take that time off.
Also, most employers have limits to how much time off you can carry from year to year. So, it is possible that you could be forced to work long hours at no overtime pay to get time off which you cannot use and cannot store.

This is not an improvement.



Except the part where the bill says you can choose to take the $$ or time off.... And if you choose the extra hours off you can change you mind and the employer must pay you within 30 days.... But other than that yeah.
 
2013-05-07 06:59:13 PM  

kieran57: weiserfireman: It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.

Right now, your boss has to pay you the overtime. If this passes, your boss will give you extra time off... and has no requirement to ever actually let you take that time off.
Also, most employers have limits to how much time off you can carry from year to year. So, it is possible that you could be forced to work long hours at no overtime pay to get time off which you cannot use and cannot store.

This is not an improvement.


Flex time is not new, and that's EXACTLY how it worked everywhere I've encountered it. You have too much work to not go into OT, and never get caught up enough to take the extra time off. Then you eventually hit the flex hours cap for the year, and you essentially work for free.
 
2013-05-07 06:59:15 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Doesn't matter how much leave time I have accrued

/I'm afraid if I took off I'd be replaced by the time I got back


Same here
 
2013-05-07 06:59:41 PM  

JonPace: MFAWG: lennavan: The bill would allow companies to give hourly workers comp time in lieu of overtime if the workers agree to it.

And of course, the workers will agree to it or they won't have jobs anymore.

We do this at my work. My thinking is I'd rather have an extra few hours off than the money.

Does the bill have 'freedom' or 'patriot' in the title?

It's the fact that the employer has no obligation to actually give you the hours or extra pay that people have a problem with.


Not disagreeing, mind you.
 
2013-05-07 06:59:43 PM  
Yeah, pretty much done in one.


/ If your boss knows you cant finish the job in 40 hours why dont they hire more workers?
// Hello 60 hour work week!
/// Workin' for the Slashies!
 
2013-05-07 07:01:25 PM  

Obama's Left Nut: kieran57: weiserfireman: It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.

Right now, your boss has to pay you the overtime. If this passes, your boss will give you extra time off... and has no requirement to ever actually let you take that time off.
Also, most employers have limits to how much time off you can carry from year to year. So, it is possible that you could be forced to work long hours at no overtime pay to get time off which you cannot use and cannot store.

This is not an improvement.


Except the part where the bill says you can choose to take the $$ or time off.... And if you choose the extra hours off you can change you mind and the employer must pay you within 30 days.... But other than that yeah.


And if they don't follow the law, you can no longer complain to the Dept of Labor, you have to sue your employer instead. Meaning you have to risk getting fired, and even if you don't whatever overtime you might've earned is going to lawyer's fees instead. So you're screwed either way.

/Not saying all employers would abuse this, just that abuse was made way, WAY too easy
 
2013-05-07 07:01:25 PM  
I'm sure businesses would love this.

I can't tell you how many places I've worked where they would give us peons loads of flex or comp time in exchange for mandatory overtime.

And god help the poor slibs who try to use some of that accrual.

Heck in this economy most people I know aren't even taking their regular accrued vacation time for fear of being axed for "not being team-oriented" during the next semi-annual mass-firing/re-org.

Screw you GOP.
 
2013-05-07 07:02:08 PM  
Without safeguards that employers cannot do a number of slimy things which would undermine the benefits of such a law, as well as a way to enforce this that doesn't the cost-ineffectiveness that is hire a lawyer who will cost more than the employee would be owed in most cases, this is a horrible bill.

I wish some Democrat would offer bipartisan support presuming that these things are included in the bill.  Then make a big stink about it when they reject it all.
 
2013-05-07 07:03:36 PM  

skilbride: I haven't gotten overtime since I was 17.  Everything I've done has been salaried or contract work - so I don't really care about this bill.


Spoken like a true conservative.

/it's not my problem?
//oh, it's not a problem then
///3
 
2013-05-07 07:03:57 PM  
Howaboutno.jpg
 
2013-05-07 07:04:51 PM  

YoungLochinvar: And if they don't follow the law, you can no longer complain to the Dept of Labor, you have to sue your employer instead. Meaning you have to risk getting fired, and even if you don't whatever overtime you might've earned is going to lawyer's fees instead. So you're screwed either way.

/Not saying all employers would abuse this, just that abuse was made way, WAY too easy


This is actually just shifting the buck though.  So my friend worked at a resturant where she didn't get her overtime.  (It ended up being like $1,500 by the time she complained to the department of labor.  What happens is they get a warning letter saying, "Pay up!" and if they don't pay up, they get a fine.

Then - they have to take them to the court.  The entire process took her three years going through the department of labor to get that $1,500.  She was pissed enough at her boss to see it through but most people would've given up.

This is actually preferable. Because you don't have to wait for the department of labor to take them to court and go through the paper work.  You go to a lawyer who says that a company screwed you over, they take them to court - add their lawyers fees to the company, and you get all your money much faster.

(Also, it's the same way it works with discrimination cases - so I never understood why overtime pay was done through the department of labor.)
 
2013-05-07 07:04:56 PM  
 
2013-05-07 07:05:55 PM  

Obama's Left Nut: kieran57: weiserfireman: It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.

Right now, your boss has to pay you the overtime. If this passes, your boss will give you extra time off... and has no requirement to ever actually let you take that time off.
Also, most employers have limits to how much time off you can carry from year to year. So, it is possible that you could be forced to work long hours at no overtime pay to get time off which you cannot use and cannot store.

This is not an improvement.


Except the part where the bill says you can choose to take the $$ or time off.... And if you choose the extra hours off you can change you mind and the employer must pay you within 30 days.... But other than that yeah.


And the employer can "choose" to not hire you unless you sign a contract "agreeing" that overtime will be paid at the company's discretion. Currently, if your co-worker gets sick, and you have to pick up two extra shifts, you should get paid time and half for the 16 hours, or 24 hours worth of pay. Under this bill, anytime within the next 30 days, the employer could (at its discretion) tell you to go home early and pay you only for the extra 16 hours, saving them the eight hours of pay for the exact same amount of work.

This is crap, and large, manpower-heavy corporations such as Wal-Mart must be chomping at the bit to get it put into place. This would eliminate all of the overtime Walmart has to pay its employees for working their special holiday sales, such as when they opened on Thanksgiving last year.

It's not enough that they force workers to work on Thanksgiving, now they're making sure they won't have to pay them overtime.

And somehow, there are people in Congress touting how this is so "good" for working women.
 
2013-05-07 07:06:42 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: skilbride: I haven't gotten overtime since I was 17.  Everything I've done has been salaried or contract work - so I don't really care about this bill.

Spoken like a true conservative.

/it's not my problem?
//oh, it's not a problem then
///3


:)  I'd be interested to see how many people on fark actually get overtime pay....
 
2013-05-07 07:06:56 PM  
It gives employees the choice of overtime or extra PTO.  Choice is a bad thing now, libs?
 
2013-05-07 07:08:58 PM  
Um why do they need to rewrite labor law when companies can do this already?
 
2013-05-07 07:09:22 PM  
So, this convoluted increase in payroll administration is supposed to benefit who?  The employee?  Right.  Businesses all around the country are just looking for ways to increase their kluge of payroll for no other reason than to give their employees options in pay and PTO.
 
2013-05-07 07:10:33 PM  

ox45tallboy: And the employer can "choose" to not hire you unless you sign a contract "agreeing" that overtime will be paid at the company's discretion. Currently, if your co-worker gets sick, and you have to pick up two extra shifts, you should get paid time and half for the 16 hours, or 24 hours worth of pay. Under this bill, anytime within the next 30 days, the employer could (at its discretion) tell you to go home early and pay you only for the extra 16 hours, saving them the eight hours of pay for the exact same amount of work.

This is crap, and large, manpower-heavy corporations such as Wal-Mart must be chomping at the bit to get it put into place. This would eliminate all of the overtime Walmart has to pay its employees for working their special holiday sales, such as when they opened on Thanksgiving last year.

It's not enough that they force workers to work on Thanksgiving, now they're making sure they won't have to pay them overtime.

And somehow, there are people in Congress touting how this is so "good" for working women.


????

The law doesn't require you to be paid time and a half for working on a Federal Holiday.  This gets avoided by making sure you aren't at 40 hours with those shifts already.

(At least it was my last retail job at Best Buy which was when I was 17...  we did ghost shifts Monday / Tuesday / Wednesday then full 12 hour shifts for Thursday / Friday / Saturday.  No overtime pay.)
 
2013-05-07 07:11:16 PM  

skilbride: This is actually preferable. Because you don't have to wait for the department of labor to take them to court and go through the paper work. You go to a lawyer who says that a company screwed you over, they take them to court - add their lawyers fees to the company, and you get all your money much faster.

www.familytreecounseling.com

 
2013-05-07 07:11:52 PM  

weiserfireman: It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.


Read the rest of it. You don't have the luxury of choosing your comp time. You can, if they won't give you comp time, ask for the comp time back as payment - but they can wait 30 days to pay you. Or, they can stiff you and you are legally barred from going to the DoL to file a complaint, you would have to spend money to hire a lawyer.

Sure. That's a good deal.

People like you are the reason that everything the unions fought for in the early 20th century has been dismantled by the right wing. You don't understand where your labor rights came from, nor do you know (or care) how to defend your rights against your employer, who does not - no matter what they say - care about you, nor share your interests.

The worst employers out there say things like, "I treat my employees like family."

You can bet that guy murdered his mom or something.
 
2013-05-07 07:12:23 PM  

codergirl42: weiserfireman: It gives employers the option to give comp time at 1.5 hours per hour of overtime, instead of money

I have friends who are City Employees who have this option now.    I would love to have some extra time off occassionally.

And what if you boss starts hassling you for taking too much time off?


My private employer does flex/comp time. And, he's not an a-hole about it.

Basically, you get paid for the lesser of the total number of working hours in a month, or your actual time. Anything you worked over goes into a bank. It's your bank, but it's there. Then, if you are short on hours at the end of the month, you get hours subtracted from your bank to bring you up.

Now here's the kicker. If at the end of the year you still have hours, he will cut you a check for the number of hours in your bank.

Oh, and this is a professional job requiring a STEM degree. And the weeks are often >40 hours.

Oh, and he's not an a-hole.
 
2013-05-07 07:13:00 PM  

serial_crusher: It gives employees the choice of overtime or extra PTO.  Choice is a bad thing now, libs?


Yet again you demonstrate your ignorance regarding laws.

Nice summary from  ox45tallboy: [T]he employer can "choose" to not hire you unless you sign a contract "agreeing" that overtime will be paid at the company's discretion. Currently, if your co-worker gets sick, and you have to pick up two extra shifts, you should get paid time and half for the 16 hours, or 24 hours worth of pay. Under this bill, anytime within the next 30 days, the employer could (at its discretion) tell you to go home early and pay you only for the extra 16 hours, saving them the eight hours of pay for the exact same amount of work.This is crap, and large, manpower-heavy corporations such as Wal-Mart must be chomping at the bit to get it put into place. This would eliminate all of the overtime Walmart has to pay its employees for working their special holiday sales, such as when they opened on Thanksgiving last year.It's not enough that they force workers to work on Thanksgiving, now they're making sure they won't have to pay them overtime.And somehow, there are people in Congress touting how this is so "good" for working women.
 
2013-05-07 07:13:34 PM  

ox45tallboy: skilbride: This is actually preferable. Because you don't have to wait for the department of labor to take them to court and go through the paper work. You go to a lawyer who says that a company screwed you over, they take them to court - add their lawyers fees to the company, and you get all your money much faster.
[www.familytreecounseling.com image 283x282]


When the department of labor takes them to court for you, they have to do an investigation of the company, make sure that you and all the other employees are being paid the same, warn them to change their ways,  wait 90 days, and the prove that they didn't comply.  If YOU take them to court, you just have to say, "I was supposed to get my overtime pay in 30 days and I didn't.  Give me my money."
 
2013-05-07 07:14:01 PM  
Federal workers already have this option.  So why not private business as well?
 
2013-05-07 07:14:04 PM  

skilbride: The law doesn't require you to be paid time and a half for working on a Federal Holiday. This gets avoided by making sure you aren't at 40 hours with those shifts already.


However, the needs of business dictate that an employer opening on a national holiday, in conjunction with heavy advertising of retail items at or below cost, might necessitate more labor being on hand than your average Thursday.

I wasn't referring to automatic OT for holidays, just that retail outlets will generally need more labor on those occasions and be forced to pay overtime, as those who would normally have the day off must work.
 
2013-05-07 07:14:47 PM  

atomic-age: lennavan: The bill would allow companies to give hourly workers comp time in lieu of overtime if the workers agree to it.

And of course, the workers will agree to it or they won't have jobs anymore.

See also: arbitration.


See also fta: And if the company stiffs the worker on the overtime compensation, the bill prevents workers from complaining to the US Department of Labor, as they can now, and instead forces them to try to find a lawyer who will take up their cause to collect a few hundred dollars worth of back pay, a fairly toothless enforcement measure.

No arbitration.  Go pay a private lawyer out-of-pocket.  Have fun trying to sue walmart for the next century.
 
2013-05-07 07:14:55 PM  

friday13: Yet again you demonstrate your ignorance regarding laws.


Or you did by quoting an incorrect statement.

Companies are not required to pay time and a half for federal holidays.  Some CHOOSE to, but they are not required by federal law.
 
2013-05-07 07:15:58 PM  
This is also a case of a zombie bill, which has been shut down time and time again but keeps crawling back from the dead, taking up time and labor on the Hill.  But hey, why not from the party that tried to overturn Obamacare 37 times?

This is the type of thing that makes me glad that I vote for Democrats.  Because they occasionally do something to try to help the working person.  Even if that something is just shutting down gross corporate power grabs.  Sometimes you actually have to play defense.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report