Repub scum bring us one step closer to proper wage slavery.

[Highlord Laan]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/news/ec ... index.html

Do you get paid for overtime work? The House of Representatives just passed a bill you may want to know about.
The measure, backed by Republicans, would let employers give workers paid time off instead of time-and-a-half pay the next time they put in extra hours. The vote tally was largely along party lines, with no Democrats voting in favor of the bill. Six Republicans also voted against it.
G.O.P. leadership has touted the legislation, called the Working Families Flexibility Act, as an attempt to codify flexibility for employees.
"I don't think there's anything more powerful than giving them more control over their time so that they can make the best decisions for themselves and their families," Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington said Tuesday morning in a press conference held by Republican leaders in the House.

The Trump administration also came out in support of the measure on Tuesday. The White House said in a news release that the president's advisers would recommend Trump sign the bill into law if it was presented to him in its current form.
But Democrats stand in strong opposition. Their chief concern is that employers have the final say on when comp time can be used, which means bosses can defer compensating employees for overtime work.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts -- a Democrat who has made workers' protections her flagship cause and sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions -- called the bill a "disgrace" on Twitter.
Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, who is the top Democrat on the Senate HELP committee, said the bill doesn't put workers first.
"This is nothing but a recycled bad bill that would allow big corporations to make an end-run around giving workers the pay they've earned," Murray said in a statement.

Congressional Republicans have pitched similar measures a number of times over the past two decades but have been unable to get the rule on the books. An analogous bill passed the House in 2013 but died in the Senate.
Republicans, who hold 52 seats in the upper chamber, will need eight Democrats to vote in favor of the legislation to avoid a filibuster.
The House bill is sponsored by Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has introduced a similar bill in the Senate, but it's still in committee.

I look forward to being a corporate serf. It's what make murrica great.

[Crazedwraith]

What makes getting time-in-lieu instead of overtime pay, wage slavery?

[Imperial528]

What makes getting time-in-lieu instead of overtime pay, wage slavery?

The fact that many states allow employers to arbitrarily dictate when your paid time off is used, which means that even though you are technically earning a form of extra pay for the overtime, you are not guaranteed to receive any of it.

[Khaat]

Edit: yeah, nevermind, better minds will explain it for you.

[RogueIce]

What makes getting time-in-lieu instead of overtime pay, wage slavery?

It doesn't, especially since it's not actually mandatory under the House version, which Trump said is good enough for him to sign as-is. Hell they can even revoke the PTO clause and go back to regular time-and-a-half pay if they want. This is not in any way actually mandatory. And it's still time-and-a-half, just with PTO hours instead of money.

And even if you agree to the PTO, you can request in writing that they cash you out at any time, and they have to comply in 30 days.

People should try reading the bill before declaring doom.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... /1180/text

Specifically:

“(2) CONDITIONS.—An employer may provide compensatory time to employees under paragraph (1) only if such time is provided in accordance with—
“(A) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of the employees under applicable law; or
“(B) in the case of an employee who is not represented by a labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of such employee under applicable law, an agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with section 11(c)—
“(i) in which the employer has offered and the employee has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary overtime compensation; and
“(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and not as a condition of employment.

---

“(D) POLICY.—Except where a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise, an employer that has adopted a policy offering compensatory time to employees may discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.
“(E) WRITTEN REQUEST.—An employee may withdraw an agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at any time. An employee may also request in writing that monetary compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory time accrued that has not yet been used. Within 30 days of receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with paragraph (6).
“(4) PRIVATE EMPLOYER ACTIONS.—An employer that provides compensatory time under paragraph (1) to an employee shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of—
“(A) interfering with such employee’s rights under this subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or
“(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.

[MKSheppard]

“(E) WRITTEN REQUEST.—An employee may withdraw an agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at any time. An employee may also request in writing that monetary compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory time accrued that has not yet been used. Within 30 days of receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with paragraph (6).

Fiscal guy said that because of the finances of the place I work for, no cash-outs this year.

I bet a lot of people suddenly get really sick or take long vacations right before they quit or retire as a result.

[MKSheppard]

I look forward to being a corporate serf. It's what make murrica great.

My place gives us the option of Comp Time or Overtime when we work overtime. We can make officially up to 80 hours of Comp each year, but some people go slightly over that, because time-keeping is not completely exact.

Personally, I'd rather get the Comp time over OT; because OT is taxed such as to make it pretty much worthless. Comp time means I can be doing what I want (research, beach vacation) and get paid for it.

[MKSheppard]

The fact that many states allow employers to arbitrarily dictate when your paid time off is used, which means that even though you are technically earning a form of extra pay for the overtime, you are not guaranteed to receive any of it.

Welcome to my life. I can't take cruises from December to March.

[MKSheppard]

If everyone wanted to make the workingman's life better; make Overtime at 2x the regular rate, and make it NON-TAXABLE for Social Security, Income, etc purposes on all levels (Fed, State and Local). Then you'll see people burning up the OT.

[The Romulan Republic]

One more reason why we should have Basic Income, I suppose. Though that's very high on the list of things that are pipe dreams under the current Congress.

[Broomstick]

Frankly, quite a few people would opt for comp time over time-and-a-half as long as they get to make the choice. Some people need time as much or more than they need more money.

That said, I'm always concerned about the potential abuse of employees by employers.

[RogueIce]

Frankly, quite a few people would opt for comp time over time-and-a-half as long as they get to make the choice. Some people need time as much or more than they need more money.

That said, I'm always concerned about the potential abuse of employees by employers.

They do get to make the choice. They can even take back the choice whenever they want, as outlined above.

Is it possible employers can abuse employees and force them to take the PTO? Sure. But it'd be illegal. If they're going to do that, they'd probably make them work 'off the clock' already to avoid OT in the first place though, so there's that.

Nothing in this law allows employee abuse of that nature, and even provides remedies if it happens. As usual though, how well it's enforced is another thing. But if the employer is going to break this new law, why should we expect the weren't already skirting around the existing provisions of the FLSA? But that's a whole different area than adding a new option for OT compensation, which is what this bill does.

[Tribble]

Frankly, quite a few people would opt for comp time over time-and-a-half as long as they get to make the choice. Some people need time as much or more than they need more money.

That said, I'm always concerned about the potential abuse of employees by employers.

They do get to make the choice. They can even take back the choice whenever they want, as outlined above.

Is it possible employers can abuse employees and force them to take the PTO? Sure. But it'd be illegal. If they're going to do that, they'd probably make them work 'off the clock' already to avoid OT in the first place though, so there's that.

Nothing in this law allows employee abuse of that nature, and even provides remedies if it happens. As usual though, how well it's enforced is another thing. But if the employer is going to break this new law, why should we expect the weren't already skirting around the existing provisions of the FLSA? But that's a whole different area than adding a new option for OT compensation, which is what this bill does.

Can the employer include as part of the contract that the employee is required to take PTO over OT?

Also, what impact if any does this have on employees in "fire at will" states?

[Broomstick]

Can the employer include as part of the contract that the employee is required to take PTO over OT?

Damn few employees have a "contract" in the US. That's generally a feature of upper management in major corporations, and those would be salaried position to which overtime regulations don't apply.

Hourly workers almost never have employment contracts here. Most hourly workers here would look at your question as WTF? Contract? What's that?

Also, what impact if any does this have on employees in "fire at will" states?

Probably not much - if the employer wants rid of you a reason will be found anyway. Otherwise, in at some circumstances, it gives an employee MORE options, not fewer. There have been several periods in my life when I would have been happy to take comp time rather than time-and-a-half pay but the option was barred by law. The key is how voluntary that choice will actually be in practice.

[Gandalf]

Can the employer include as part of the contract that the employee is required to take PTO over OT?

Damn few employees have a "contract" in the US. That's generally a feature of upper management in major corporations, and those would be salaried position to which overtime regulations don't apply.

Hourly workers almost never have employment contracts here. Most hourly workers here would look at your question as WTF? Contract? What's that?

Wait. Here, a contract is how I as an hourly employee know that I'll be paid regularly (or otherwise if in the contract), and for what amount, plus other stuff like leave. If the employer fucks off I have a nice legal document. What would be the US equivalent?

[streetad]

Yeah, I was quite confused (and a little taken aback, despite viewing myself as quite the right-wing bastard) to see people in the States out protesting because they didn't have something as basic as a contract. It seems really quite alien.

The stuff dealt with in the OP would be the kind of thing outlined in your contract in Western Europe, rather than a matter for legislation. (Of course legislation exists to set the parameters of what can BE in that contract).

[Broomstick]

Can the employer include as part of the contract that the employee is required to take PTO over OT?

Damn few employees have a "contract" in the US. That's generally a feature of upper management in major corporations, and those would be salaried position to which overtime regulations don't apply.

Hourly workers almost never have employment contracts here. Most hourly workers here would look at your question as WTF? Contract? What's that?

Wait. Here, a contract is how I as an hourly employee know that I'll be paid regularly (or otherwise if in the contract), and for what amount, plus other stuff like leave. If the employer fucks off I have a nice legal document. What would be the US equivalent?

Federal (and sometimes state) labor law.

There is a link in my signature, in the Firefly quote, to how a US employee that is not properly paid goes about resolving the issue.

No, the vast majority of US workers, whether paid by the hour or even salaried do not have an employment contract. As I said, that's reserved for the upper echelons of upper management and some folks like professional sports players.

[Highlord Laan]

Frankly, quite a few people would opt for comp time over time-and-a-half as long as they get to make the choice. Some people need time as much or more than they need more money.

That said, I'm always concerned about the potential abuse of employees by employers.

Potential? It'd be getting abused from the onset. People need to get it through their heads that their employer is not their friend and will squeeze them to the breaking point, suck them dry, then throw them away and replace them with another warm body. It's how jobs work for we middle class proles now. It's happened to me, family members, and friends and their families. Fuck, whole work crews I've been part of have been driven into the dirt with back-to-back 90-hour weeks for a three weeks, only for all of us to be dumped once people started complaining. And good luck getting the state Department of Labor to lift a finger for you.

And now the fucking republican scumbags want to make it even easier for employers to fuck people out of their pay? "Potential abuse" my ass.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, well, you ARE talking to someone who had to haul a former employer into court just to get my regular wages. I get it.

[Block]

Damn few employees have a "contract" in the US. That's generally a feature of upper management in major corporations, and those would be salaried position to which overtime regulations don't apply.

Hourly workers almost never have employment contracts here. Most hourly workers here would look at your question as WTF? Contract? What's that?

Wait. Here, a contract is how I as an hourly employee know that I'll be paid regularly (or otherwise if in the contract), and for what amount, plus other stuff like leave. If the employer fucks off I have a nice legal document. What would be the US equivalent?

Federal (and sometimes state) labor law.

There is a link in my signature, in the Firefly quote, to how a US employee that is not properly paid goes about resolving the issue.

No, the vast majority of US workers, whether paid by the hour or even salaried do not have an employment contract. As I said, that's reserved for the upper echelons of upper management and some folks like professional sports players.

You're right about guaranteed contracts but unless I'm mistaken what they're talking about is an employment agreement. I've never been a full time employee anywhere in the US that didn't require me to sign a wage agreement and include a job description in that. I guess some small businesses can get away with it, I've only worked for one, and they outsourced the hr.

[Stormin]

Quick question since the discussion on other sites is saying every which way on this and I don't look into it too hard since I'm in another country.

Working one hour of overtime now means getting payed for 1.5 hours normal pay before this law. After this law does the employer now have the option to pay with 1 hour off paid at normal rate at a time of their choosing later instead? That seems like a nasty hit, and even with the yearly conversion of hours to pay rather than the paid time off expiring like at most places it's still a 50% loss on pure money the employee would have gotten in addition to it being a yearly lump sum rather than a bonus on the next payday.

[RogueIce]

Can the employer include as part of the contract that the employee is required to take PTO over OT?

No, the law specifically prohibits this option being required as a condition of employment. Which you couldn't do for a new hire anyway, because you'd need to have "worked at least 1,000 hours for the employee’s employer during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month period before the date of agreement or receipt of compensatory time off" in order to be eligible.

The only exception is if you're in a legally recognized labor organization (read: union) and they have it as a part of their labor contract with the employer.

Also, what impact if any does this have on employees in "fire at will" states?

"At-will" still doesn't let them violate labor law to fire you. However, you'd generally have to prove that the reason why they fired you was as retaliation for saying no to the PTO OT option, which could prove difficult depending on how your employer does things.

Quick question since the discussion on other sites is saying every which way on this and I don't look into it too hard since I'm in another country.

Working one hour of overtime now means getting payed for 1.5 hours normal pay before this law. After this law does the employer now have the option to pay with 1 hour off paid at normal rate at a time of their choosing later instead? That seems like a nasty hit, and even with the yearly conversion of hours to pay rather than the paid time off expiring like at most places it's still a 50% loss on pure money the employee would have gotten in addition to it being a yearly lump sum rather than a bonus on the next payday.

It's 1.5 hours of PTO accrued for every 1 hour of OT worked. Which means the payout would wind up being the same if you asked for it in cash later or never used the PTO in the prescribed 12 month period.

[darkjedi521]

The state I'm in allows PTO to expire without payout. I believe the rule is that PTO only has to be paid out if it is company policy to do so. I'm only allowed to carry 200 hours between fiscal years. So, if this applied to me, and I accrued PTO faster than I could use it, my employer wins because they got OT from me, and didn't have to give me any additional real compensation.

[RogueIce]

The state I'm in allows PTO to expire without payout. I believe the rule is that PTO only has to be paid out if it is company policy to do so. I'm only allowed to carry 200 hours between fiscal years. So, if this applied to me, and I accrued PTO faster than I could use it, my employer wins because they got OT from me, and didn't have to give me any additional real compensation.

Not really, no. Because this PTO accrual is different from your other methods of PTO accrual, and is done in accordance with this law. And federal law trumps state law, or in the case of the FLSA it goes to whichever benefit is greater if there's overlap.

Also, this apparently needs to be repeated: you must opt-in for the PTO accrual via OT to matter at all; if you're worried your employer will screw around with you on it, just don't opt-in - it is illegal for them to coerce you to do so.

Of course, one important thing to keep in mind: you (individually covered), or the company you work for (enterprise coverage), have to actually fall under the coverage of the FLSA in the first place. If you or your place of business do not so qualify, this law will mean literally nothing to you. You're entirely at the mercy of your state laws.

[SCRawl]

If everyone wanted to make the workingman's life better; make Overtime at 2x the regular rate, and make it NON-TAXABLE for Social Security, Income, etc purposes on all levels (Fed, State and Local). Then you'll see people burning up the OT.

If the goal is to make things better for the everyman, wouldn't it be better to *not* create an incentive for workers to put in OT? If there is work that needs to be done, hire enough people to do all the work and have everyone put in 40 hours, rather than just load up the few who already have a job. Full employment is good for everyone.

Personally, I'd rather get the Comp time over OT; because OT is taxed such as to make it pretty much worthless.

Now, come on, you're smarter than that. I know that the paystub makes it look like you're practically working for free when you put in OT, but that's just because of the way the wage deduction tables work. OT isn't taxed at any higher rate than any other work. It all comes out in the wash at the end of the year.