Republicans & Democrats

[MAKAVELI]

Well in certain jobs Federal law does prohibit that very thing(Fair Labor Standards Act). This proposed bill(Working Families Flexibility Act) would change that. In broad terms if you are engaged in interstate commerce or produce goods or services used in interstate commerce the FLSA applies to you.

The way I read this new proposed law it benefits the employer much more than the employee. The flsa exemption for compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay is at the employees discretion as well as scheduling.

 

[av8torntn]

Nope, wrong again...I oppose the government mandating that it is ok that your employer to keep your OT for a year after you work it. I don't think there is a law on the books that says a company can't offer that, in fact some companies already do that.

Except one small thing. The proposed bill doesn't mandate that. Another small thing. Refer to post 352..

 

[island1fox]

I would miss tos if he were no longer posting here.

I enjoy the give and take .

I have been in the past contacted by Cheryl and the mods and do not have a problem with that.

I respect them for Keeping Brown café as a place to voice different opinions and ideas --disagree --agree -whatever ---but all of us are part of this functional -dysfunctional family !!

 

[av8torntn]

The way I read this new proposed law it benefits the employer much more than the employee. The flsa exemption for compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay is at the employees discretion as well as scheduling.

I am not trying to be combative but it doesn't seem like you read the bill. Dang near the entire bill limits what the employer may do. The proposed bill also implicitly makes it illegal for an employer to require an employee to use compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay.

 

[upschuck]

Except one small thing. The proposed bill doesn't mandate that. Another small thing. Refer to post 352..

It mandates that a company can hold days for a year and then pay if not taken. What do you think would happen at UPS? Case closed.

 

[av8torntn]

Here is a link to the bill since none of you seem to have read it.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/1406/text

 

[av8torntn]

It mandates that a company can hold days for a year and then pay if not taken. What do you think would happen at UPS? Case closed.

Well actually it prohibits a company from holding your days and allows you to sue them for damages for holding your days. Kind of the opposite of what you claim. I sense a pattern here.

Edit to add since you can't seem to read the bill.

`(7) 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.

 

[upschuck]

Here is a link to the bill since none of you seem to have read it.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/1406/text

I was wrong...The employer can hold it up to 13 months

Well actually it prohibits a company from holding your days and allows you to sue them for damages for holding your days. Kind of the opposite of what you claim. I sense a pattern here.

Edit to add since you can't seem to read the bill.

`(7) 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.

That is a very ambiguous statement. And what is a reasonable time? 1 week? 2 weeks? a month? The company, not employee decides when employee gets off.

I will keep what I have. Get paid OT the week after I earned it.

 

[av8torntn]

Again, if you would have read the bill you would not have to accept comp time you could keep your overtime pay at your discretion. Your position is that you would not want it so nobody else should be allowed to have it and I find that position something that I cannot post on here.

Again, It would be against the law for your employer to "hold" your comp time. At least your opinion of the bill is consistently opposite of what the bill says.

 

[The Other Side]

I am not trying to be combative but it doesn't seem like you read the bill. Dang near the entire bill limits what the employer may do. The proposed bill also implicitly makes it illegal for an employer to require an employee to use compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay.

Do you know what an "applicable" collective bargaining agreement means? That doesnt include ALL agreements.

AS I said, NO agreement can violate a state or federal law.

If it said ALL COLLECTIVE bargaining agreements, then your point would be sustained, but it doesnt.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

Again, if you would have read the bill you would not have to accept comp time you could keep your overtime pay at your discretion. Your position is that you would not want it so nobody else should be allowed to have it and I find that position something that I cannot post on here.

Again, It would be against the law for your employer to "hold" your comp time. At least your opinion of the bill is consistently opposite of what the bill says.

AV8, the bill states, that if an employee "chooses" compensation vs time off, the employer has up to 13 months to PAY THAT MONEY. Its an interest free loan to the employer and NOT in the employees best interest.

TOS.

 

[av8torntn]

AV8, the bill states, that if an employee "chooses" compensation vs time off, the employer has up to 13 months to PAY THAT MONEY. Its an interest free loan to the employer and NOT in the employees best interest.

TOS.

No thats not what it says. The bill actually makes that illegal.

 

[av8torntn]

Do you know what an "applicable" collective bargaining agreement means? That doesnt include ALL agreements.

AS I said, NO agreement can violate a state or federal law.

If it said ALL COLLECTIVE bargaining agreements, then your point would be sustained, but it doesnt.

TOS.

The bill says "applicable provision of a collective bargaining agreement" not what you claim it says. Nowhere in the bill does it require an employer to offer or an employee to accept comp time instead of overtime pay. Not that actual facts matter to you.

 

[upschuck]

No thats not what it says.

6). An employer may designate and communicate to the
employer's employees a 12-month period other than the
calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be
provided not later than 31 days after the end of such
12-month period.

12 months + 31 days = 13 months

I think the problem we have here is that I believe that big companies will use what is best for them, and you don't.

 

[av8torntn]

6). An employer may designate and communicate to the
employer's employees a 12-month period other than the
calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be
provided not later than 31 days after the end of such
12-month period.

12 months + 31 days = 13 months

I think the problem we have here is that I believe that big companies will use what is best for them, and you don't.

That says that the employer does not have to use the calendar year i.e. January to January and they can designate another period such as a fiscal year or something like October to October.
Its not a problem what big companies will use or will not use since both the employee and the employer must agree for this benefit to be available.


`(4) Private employer actions.--An employer that provides
compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees 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.'

 

[MAKAVELI]

I believe that a majority of businesses that are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement would also offer less vacation and sick leave to it's employees. Just another way of increasing their bottom line at the American workers expense.

 

[av8torntn]

I believe that a majority of businesses that are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement would also offer less vacation and sick leave to it's employees. Just another way of increasing their bottom line at the American workers expense.

In turn if the total compensation offered was too low they would not be able to attract qualified employees or there would be a surge in organizing.

 

[MAKAVELI]

In turn if the total compensation offered was too low they would not be able to attract qualified employees or there would be a surge in organizing.

I'm sorry but that is not the reality bro. Just like the argument for lower or no minimum wage. Corporate America has always had the upper hand in making the rules work in their favor. This law would not favor the average worker, no matter how the right tries to spin it.

 

[av8torntn]

I'm sorry but that is not the reality bro. Just like the argument for lower or no minimum wage. Corporate America has always had the upper hand in making the rules work in their favor. This law would not favor the average worker, no matter how the right tries to spin it.

Sorry but thats economic law much like an increase in a minimum wage increases the unemployment rate in low skilled and entry level workers. I believe theres a thread on this forum where I addressed this some time back with links to academic, and government studies.

There is no negative for the average worker with this law no matter how you guys try to spin it. Every negative thing that has been posted in this thread so far is expressly prohibited by this law. At best there is some type of bias against liberty with its detractors. At its worst there is some type of sheeple opposition to progress mentality from its detractors.

 

[island1fox]

I hate Corporations. Corporations are evil. Corporations are not fair to their workers.
Corporations stink. I hate Corporations. etc, etc,etc.

I do not believe in God --this is my only life --I will spend a great deal of it working for a LARGE CORPORATION.

Liberal Logic !! Go figure.