Family Timeand Workplace Flexibility Act

[ripdog]

My first exposure to the bill was Molly Irvins opinion piece in the Seattle Times this morning. Her slant is that it's just another attempt by Republicans to screw workers while convincing them that it's good for them. Here's her article:

Back at the ranch, they're picking your pocket (http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv)

Considering that at least half of the article consists of the cheap shotting that I'd expect from Rush Limbaugh or FOX News, I had to wonder if she wasn't leaving out some critical info. So I checked out the bill for myself. Here it is:

Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s317.html)

It looks fair to me, but I see a couple of contradictions. Section (2)(A) seems to say that comp time will accrue at 1.5 hours per overtime hour worked. Work your way down to (8)(A) and it looks like any untaken comp time gets paid out as straight time. Furthermore, the employer may cash out any employees banked hours in excess of 80. It appears to me that these hours will be paid at straight time, not time-and-a-half.

Can anybody see Irvins's point here? I don't see how an employee choosing between time off and overtime pay can be considered a screwing.

[Jimbo]

"It appears to me that these hours will be paid at straight time, not time-and-a-half."

That is correct. The hours were accrued at a 1.5 per hour worked rate so by paying them at straight time they are receiving time and a half for the total hours they actually worked. Hopefully I was clear in my explanation.

[MMMMMM]

The whole idea that employers should have to pay "overtime" at a rate of 1.5 is nonsense in the first place.

All an employer should have to do is meet safety standards, and the labor market can sort all the rest of it just fine by itself. Same goes for minimum wage.

If the employeees don't like it they can find another job or become self-employed.

[MMMMMM]

...are the two major issues. Other laws regarding minimum wage, overtime, and things like that need not be legislated IMO.

If Company A offers better wages and benefits than Company B then it will get to hire better employees.

If minimum wage is "too low" then high school kids will mow lawns, etc. instead of working at McDonald's. And if McDonald's pays too little then nobody will work there.

[ripdog]

A look back in time makes me hesitant to agree with you on this. The reason that these protections were put in place was because the large companies were taking advantage of their workers--in much the same way that American companies in Mexico take advantage of the workers there. Also, your reference to high school workers at McDonald's implies that those are the only people who will stoop to jobs like those. That's absolute nonsense. A lot of hard working people work jobs that you and I wouldn't think about taking--and they ought to be paid at least a minimum wage for doing that. I don't imagine that I'll ever take the corporations side, especially with all of the examples of wrongdoing that I could cite.

[andyfox]

So you're against the 40 hour work week? Employers should have the right to insist that employees work whatever hours they say, otherwise too bad?

[andyfox]

Your belief in the efficacy and decency of the free market is naive. Take a look at what working conditions were like before labor unions fought for worker's rights and before governments took an interest. A giant proportion of our economy is now controlled by giants; if anything, conditions would be worse without protection for the workers. Company A and company B would be in cahoots, either officially or secretly and all the workers would be screwed.

[John Cole]

M,

At what point, then, would you want to draw the line, especially since workers can be forced to work overtime? 18 hours a day? 20?

John

[MMMMMM]

I believe much of the problems in the old-time workplace had to do with two things: lack of safety standards, and monopolies abusing their power. Once safety standards were legislated, and antitrust laws came into being, things changed significantly. Beyond that I do have a pretty fair bit of faith in the market--at least, more than I have in "special interest legislation" or in misguided attempts to legislate forced altruism.

[MMMMMM]

Definitely (as long as safety standards are not violated in so doing). So too should employees have the right to quit or find another employer who treats them better (another reason antitrust laws are important).

[MMMMMM]

1. If the hours worked constituted a safety hazard (such as 80 hr./weeks driving tractor trailers), that would be one place to draw the line.

2. If the hours worked constituted a health hazard (such as back-to-back-to-back 20 hour days) that would be another place to draw the line.

3. Not only do we have antitrust laws today, but business fills vacuums today far more quickly than in the past. Interrelatedness, expanding markets, interconnectedness--all this suggests to me that one or a few companies making ridiculous demands on employees wouldn't last too long today--or if they did, they'd have a steadily shrinking staff--and their competitors (existing or new) would soon have all the best people. In other words, generally speaking, companies today don't have nearly the same legal or actual clout to be effective slavemasters as in the past.

[MMMMMM]

Working over 40/hrs. per week happens a lot now. Salaried employees often work 50 or 60 hours a week (or more) for no extra money. I just don't see why companies should have to pay 1.5 time for hours over 40.

I'm not trying to imply anything about McDonald's or their employees. Offer too little and nobody will work for you, that's all. If McDonald's wants to offer fifty cents an hour, let them do it and let's see how fast they go out of business or change their tune.

[MMMMMM]

I don't think I said or implied anything about 'forced to work.' I'm not just quibbling; most workers in the USA today have multiple or even vast choices in choosing potential employers.

If the extensive hours worked are unsafe or seriously unhealthful, paying 1.5 time for extra hours isn't going to change that one bit.

I'm not for slave-driving workplace conditions. However if it isn't unsafe or unhealthful to work, say, 50 hours/week then I don't see why companies should be legally required to pay for an extra 15 hours instead of the extra 10 hours. Paying extra on top of extra doesn't make those hours any safer or healthier.

Some companies would probably pay the overtime anyway since companies must compete for employees. But why should it be legislated? Heck we might as well legislate everything we would like to see happen or everything we think is good. But there are problems with that approach.

Necessary legislation = good. Unnecessary legislation = bad. And I mean the word 'necessary' very literally here.

Safety and health regulations in the workplace = necessary regulations. How much money employers pay their employees = unnecessary regulations (IMO). In today's diverse and accessible business environment and workplace, the market is perfectly capable of sorting out how much employers are willing to pay and how much employees are willing to work for. Whether hours over 40/wk. get overtime pay or straight time pay is a question the market can take care of.

Here's a question for you now;-):

Since many salaried employees work over 40 hours per week and don't even get straight time pay for the extra hours, why shouldn't their overall effective hourly rate be computed (before and after overtime) and companies then be forced to pay them hourly wages instead so they can also be forced to pay them overtime appropriately?

[adios]

"Here's a question for you now;-):

Since many salaried employees work over 40 hours per week and don't even get straight time pay for the extra hours, why shouldn't their overall effective hourly rate be computed (before and after overtime) and companies then be forced to pay them hourly wages instead so they can also be forced to pay them overtime appropriately?"

There is no reason except that labor costs would go up. The idea of "exempt" employee is a total sham IMO. Salaried employees are "laborers" too in the sense that they are an "economic resource" who is paid for providing "their services."

As far as this whole discussion, I'll weigh in that their should be a "balance" struck between labor and employers. I've heard the argument that minimum wages cost people jobs. Not sure to what degree that is true. My sense is that the minimum wage has probably been a good thing in striking the balance between labor and employers. I would think that this is the case with safety standards as well. Again I'm not certain as to what degree the number of jobs is impacted by current government regulations in these areas. I'm fascinated by the prospects that lower interest rates bring to the economy. Owning homes has become a lot more available to a lot of people that have low incomes now. This is probably worthy of a post by itself so maybe if I get the time. BTW lower interest rates are IMO much more relevant to the overall economic health of the US economy than stock market valuations. So when the Democrats start pissing about the stock market decline as a Bush induced drag on the economy, IMO they're missing a far more important and far reaching economic phenomona that has occurred i.e. the significant decline in longer term interest rates.

[andyfox]

There have been successful law suits where salaried people were forced to work overtime without compensation. We recently wanted to hire someone on a salary basis, but my accountant advised me that the position was not really a supervisory or managerial position and, therefore, the person should be put onto hourly wages.

For a salaried person, the disadvantage of not being paid overtime is far outweighed by the many advantages of not being on the clock.

[adios]

"For a salaried person, the disadvantage of not being paid overtime is far outweighed by the many advantages of not being on the clock."

This is debatable on three levels. First of all I don't see very many hourly employees punching a clock. Therefore I'm assuming that you're stating in general hourly workers have a much more regimented time schedule. I think it's fair to say that this phenomona occurs quite a bit with salaried personnel as well. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've seen management impose strict time schedules and monitor them when a project I've worked on falls behind schedule. All the employees involved were paid on salary. Or when a company has a flex time policy management will impose hours anyway on salaried personnel. Second of all the fact that salaried personnel may have some advantages, it does not mean that they should be not receive compensation for working overtime. I remember working as a contractor in the late nineties where the direct employees who were all salaried were not paid any money for their first eight hours of overtime. As a contractor basically doing the same work, I was paid 1.5 hours for overtime. That struck a lot of the directs as patently unfair and they had a point IMO. I suppose that in "lean times" the directs would have more job security but how much more? Not that much IMO as evidenced by layoffs a plenty when business sours enough. The third thing is that I'd mention is that the vast majority salaried personnel must fill out a time sheet, accounting for their hours. Try filling out a time sheet and putting only 20 hours on it and indicating that you're a salaried employee therefore you get paid irregardless. I mean if it's ok for salaried personnel to work 10-20 hours a week for free because they are salaried personnel I think I can counter those arguments by stating that it's just as valid at certain times to work 10-20 hours less given the reasons that management gives for why salaried personnel should not be paid for the extra hours.

[Zeno]

This is interesting as I am a "salaried employee" but am paid hourly. Classified as an exempt employee but I get an hourly rate that shows up on the paycheck stub and on the timesheet etc. I also get paid straight time for any overtime worked. This is because I often do field work and 10 to 12 hrs a day is the norm for this kind of activity. So if they only paid 40 hrs and I put in 60 hrs that week, this adds up to a large differential.

I think that technically the company does not have to pay me the extra hours but does so anyway. But the issue is foggy because I have to work overtime to get the fieldwork done, which may involve crews or large equipment that cost a bundle to operate. Anyway, I do remember calling the department of labor about the rules and if an employee is classified as exempt – the employer is not required to pay more than 40 hrs (Salary) per week.

This led to a fight in my former company – when times got slim they started a new policy that the first 4 hours of “overtime” by exempt employees would not be paid. After that you would be compensated. The problem was, of course, that the very people that were bringing in the money would be singled out to bare the entire burden of the new policy. Almost none of the office personal ever worked overtime, whereas everyone out in the field was required to work overtime. Things got ugly quick. To make this short, I put up with the new policy for a time for my own personal reasons. But after awhile I simple made my own policy – I told my boss that I would only work 8 hrs a day then I was going home. I was salaried right? And only required to work 40 hrs a week, right? If he did not like it – fire me. We were working a very large clean-up job at the time that was the only moneymaker for the office and worth millions. So I was suddenly paid all my hours. I left that company about 2 years ago. I am still on their books as an employee – on a part time status. Which means they use my resume in bidding jobs and then hire or get someone else much cheaper to do the work.

Is there a point to my post? Ah-- I'm not sure.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

I think hourly employees all either actually punch a time clock, or "punch" a time clock. That is, they only get paid for the hours they work. This is certainly true for factory workers in the industries in which I'm familiar (garment, etc.) here in L.A. I'm not sure whether they do or not in, say, the auto industry, where the unions are much stronger.

I also assign strict time schedules for projects to be completed, but I don't see hourly people getting coffee or hanging out at the water cooler or talking on the phone to a customer, ostensibly about business, but also chatting about golf or the family or politics.

I agree that a strong case can indeed be made for paying salaired people overtime. When we do trade shows, for example, we use hourly people to transport merchandise and to set up the booth, etc. We pay them a set amount. That is, they don't clock in on those days, but we pay them an amount that they and we agree is fair for the time and effort they're putting in.

Our salaried people then work the trade show, which in some cases runs from 8 to 6 and involve opening up and shutting down the booth, dinner with customers, etc. And sometimes these are on Saturday and/or Sunday. But they do know, when hired, that working longer hours, at either trades shows, or for special projects or at busy times of the year, comes with the terrotory.

Speaking only for my own business, we tend to give perks to the salaried people who work long hours: a spouse comes to the trade show and we foot the bill; a personal dinner is handed in as a company expense (with my approval); a day of golf and tennis; etc. This is not to say that there are some goodies also given to the hourly people, but certainly the salaried people, who earn more money anyway, have a better life at work.

[andyfox]

The point might be that these things can be complicated and not as cut-and-dry as they might at first appear.

For a while, we had a law in California that employers didn't have to pay for overtime in a given day if the employee only worked 40 hours for the week. Thus, if someone worked 12 hours in one day, an employer could get away with not paying for the 4 hours of overtime by only having him work 4 hours the next day; of if the person was ill on a subsequent day of the week, they would lose not only the time off, but the overtime earned on the prior day. The law has since been rescinded.

We have a certain number of paid Holidays for all employees. Salaried people get the Holiday pay because they get their regular paycheck every other week. But hourly employees must work a full 8 hour day both the day before and the day after the Holiday to get the Holiday pay. So salaried people, who get a certain number of sick days and paif vacation days depending on their length of service with the company, sometimes make themselves a four day weekend by adding a day contiguous to the paid Holiday. The salaried person gets paid for both days off. If an hourly person did this, they'd get paid for neither day off.

[Ray Zee]

zeno, if they are doing this then you may have a claim against them. they are using your credentials for their gain. see a lawyer and get a quick settlement. then send my 10% or i will get a lawyer for a quick settlement.

[David Steele]