I don't see anything that says a person has to be in one category or the other for all time in memoriam. I assume folks will be able to switch back and forth, though it may well be that the folks who want time off get the extra work. The danger for the company, though, is having to pay out any unused time in a monetary sum by the end of the year. So, in the end, it could end up the same monetarily for the company. I guess the question could also be asked what's stopping companies from making sure no one goes over 40 hours in a work week by giving time off the next day after a worker works more than an 8 hour shift? There are some businesses that would have an issue if their workers chose to take time-and-a-half off rather than working for additional money. If a worker wouldn't be missed when they take their time-and-a-half off, then perhaps the company needs to rethink why they have that employee in the first place (since there apparently isn't enough work to keep those workers busy throughout the year).
Any time the corporations are heavily in favor of a bill, and worker's rights groups are opposed to it, middle and lower class individuals are about to get screwed. My company gives 10 days a year of comp time already, which equates to about 1 workday a month that you can use for personal time. That's fair enough i think. The best comparison I can think of is to income taxes. Why let your corporation make money on hours that you've already worked? That money could be sitting in your investment account earning interest for your kids college fund. I want my overtime money now, because you never know when you're going to get laid off and all that comp time you have coming to you will most likely vanish. Paid comp days are kind of pointless if you don't get to decide when to take them.
Once again, does the law actually say you don't get to decide (or have input into) when you take your comp days? I know Ivins (or Flo King) is saying it, but is that in the bill itself? Looking that the bill itself on House.gov says this: USE OF TIME - An employee-- `(A) who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1); and `(B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time , shall be permitted by the employee's employer to use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer. Maybe I'm dense, but that sure looks like it says the employee requests the use of the time and certainly seems to say that the employee gets to decide when unless if unduly disrupts the operations of the employer. But I'm sure Molly Ivins (or Flo King) is right.
I think what some people are worried about is the wording. <i>Reasonable</i> means nothing to me. It corporate terms one year to 5 years may seem very reasonable, but I may want to take my time within 6 months. Also, what protects the employee from getting laid off and not getting the monetary benefit from the accrued time off? I've been laid off with over 3 weeks vacation and 2 weeks comp time and saw non of that in my severance check. Everyone else was issue the same standard check. In a time with very high turnover, I don't trust companies holding onto my money for long periods of time. That said, if I felt like this program would be used in a manner where the workers can't get screwed over then I'd support this bill. If the time is guaranteed, and the employee MUST be paid for all comp time if they are let go, or if they leave on their own accord. B
courts will define what reasonable means...it will be different in different industries and in different sized companies, I'm sure. it won't be a one size fits all approach, i would assume.
Did you take it up with your state's employment commission when you weren't paid your accrued vacation?
I can't find any of these things in either the Senate or House version of the bill. Maybe someone can go to House.gov or Senate.gov and find these provisions for me because I can't find them.
Well, they have to give you the bucks at the end of their calendar year, according to the bill, if you don't take the comp time (for whatever reason). The bill requires employees be paid for the accrued overtime at the rate in force at the time it was accrued in case of the employee losing the job or leaving on his own accord. The bill also says the choice of whether to participate in the plan is up to the employee and that employers can't intimidate, threaten, etc. employees into taking the time off over pay (or vice versa), and that the decision on whether to be a paid overtime or comp time overtime employee cannot be used as a condition of employment. It also can't conflict with any collective bargaining agreement, and an employee who is on the comp time plan can request payment for the accrued hours at any time and that the employer has to provide it within 30 days.
mrpaige, Where are you getting your info on this bill? I see nothing about employee termination, or if a company goes bankrupt. I'd like to see the full bill before I make even more of an ass of myself by just reading the links provided in this thread. B
I haven't studied the fine print of these bills, so I will reserve judgment. I can say that I have had plenty of experience working with small companies that wanted to implement flex-time plans as a benefit to their employees or to retain workers who might otherwise leave the workforce. Under the existing labor laws, it is extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive to implement flex-time plans. I hope the proposed bills are well drafted - it could be a win-win situation for both employers and employees.
I'm reading the bills on Thomas. The Senate version at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s317is.txt.pdf says: "An employee who has accrued compesatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (2) shall, upon the volutary or involutary termination of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (8)." The bankruptcy protections are the same as they are now, and unused comp time owed to an employee are considered to be unpaid monetary overtime compensation by the bill.
Now that I can actually read the bill I feel MUCH more comfortable about it. All the loopholes I'm worried about are covered, and there are some good benefits to holding on to your comp time if you think you are getting a raise. <i> (8)(A) If compensation is to be paid to an employee for accrued compensatory time off, the compensation shall be paid at a rate of compensation not less than— (i) the regular rate received by such employee when the compensatory time off was earned; or (ii) the final regular rate received by such employee; whichever is higher. </i> B Edit - I read the entire bill and all I can say is that the article misrepresented it badly. I have absolutely no problems with the bill. If you are upset or worried about the bill, I HIGHLY suggest reading the entire thing before you critique it like I did. All my concerns were covered in the fine print.
It's like a mail-in rebate almost. Takes forever to get back, have to have all of your original receipts(time cards), and the company will most likely do it's best to make the process of redeeming complicated to cut down on the number of people taking advantage of it.
Or you could just decide not to participate at all and take your overtime in money. If you start receiving less overtime because of that, then your employer is in violation of the law and you should take the remedies available to you. This bill would simply provide an option to employees and potentially provide a benefit to companies, as well. Will the implementation of the law be perfect if it should pass? I'm sure it won't be, just as I'm sure that many laws we have on the books now are not followed by employers, employees, etc. The question is whether it would be a benefit overall. That's open to debate, of course. But I'd rather debate what's in the bill itself rather than what Molly Ivins (or Flo King) says is in the bill but apparently isn't. I don't know if this bill is good or bad, but it sure appears that, in attacking it, Molly Ivins has not painted an accurate picture of the contents of the bill. And that's my beef.
Actually, I don't think you have the "right" to overtime. It's not protected that you get to work overtime.
I agree with you, but if, for example, you started getting passed over for overtime opportunities in favor of someone who was on the comptime plan, then you might have a case. That's really what I was trying to say, but I didn't do it very well. The point is that, under the bill, an employer can't choose one person to work over another based on their comptime vs/ monetary overtime status. And if an employer did, there are potentially legal remedies.
One thing I would like to point out, and I've seen it many times with the State Legislature, is what form will the bill be in when it's voted on and presumably passed? From time out of mind we've seen what appear to be good, reasonable ideas be butchered in committee. I hope that's not the case here, but I wouldn't count my ducks before they quack.
That is true. As it is, it appears the Senate and House versions of the bill are very similar. I didn't see any major differences. So it may well be that the compromise bill doesn't differ much, assuming the thing gets that far in the first place.
