House Republicans Pass Bill to End Overtime Pay

I was a salaried store manager for a popular card shop and worked ALOT of overtime because there's always a major holiday to prep for. I did not get paid any overtime whatsoever. That part really stunk.

They just passed a bill last year where anyone who makes a salary less than 47, 500 gets paid overtime. (Went into effect in December) This is good news, as we didn't get paid well for all the extra (and hard!) work that went into the constant floor moves we did.

I really like this new bill, as it would've given me the option to take the money or get extra time off. Card shops often have blackout dates each month right before and after each holiday. It would be difficult to actually take more time off. But...I can take the money instead.

I'm not seeing anything in this bill about workers making OVER $47,500 salary who will benefit from this bill, however.

a reply to: MOMof3

Honest question no gotcha...

even if it is 1 hour paid time off for 1 hour overtime, it would allow people to spend more time with family while being paid...

Many jobs out there do not offer paid vacation time, this has the potential to open that door for people that had never had it...

How can that be a bad thing?


Of course we have to wait and see what the final bill looks like before we know the truth... I will freely admit that.

a reply to: Aazadan

Aren't you still paying taxes on the OT just for some time off? So, this is a way for employees to pay for benefits like sick leave and personal time off.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Then choose to take the #ing $$$ and shutting the # up now please.

The issue is that it's not a choice. What's going to happen in the vast majority of cases, is your employer is going to "encourage" you to take the time off when they're slow and there's no work anyways. In some cases, this will lower take home pay drastically.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I wonder what the pork filler is on this bill? Distract the more important details hidden 2000 pages in.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Having more personal time is why we have labor laws like 40 hour weeks. Vacations are extra benefits.

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: Irishhaf

I wonder what the pork filler is on this bill? Distract the more important details hidden 2000 pages in.

No doubt at all... the devil is in the details.

On the surface it is a good deal... even if the employer urges you to take it while business is slow, you will still get a check... instead of just your only going to get 15 hours of work this week since business is slow... and you have to eat the lost pay, it will still put money in your pocket.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: Irishhaf

I wonder what the pork filler is on this bill? Distract the more important details hidden 2000 pages in.

No doubt at all... the devil is in the details.

On the surface it is a good deal... even if the employer urges you to take it while business is slow, you will still get a check... instead of just your only going to get 15 hours of work this week since business is slow... and you have to eat the lost pay, it will still put money in your pocket.

If a employer can do that, then he would anyhow without looming comp time. layoffs are a bitch.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Irishhaf

Having more personal time is why we have labor laws like 40 hour weeks. Vacations are extra benefits.

I get that... this is a way for more employees in the country to get paid time off..

Like I mentioned to Antar, even if the employer only wants you to use it when business is slow, it can keep more cash in your pocket when your work hours get cut.

As a federal employee I was able to use my paid time off (which the comp time I earned was part of) every time I got order to deploy for the reserves, allowing me to keep a second pay check for a few weeks while I was in the desert.

it helped me out a lot actually.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Aazadan

Aren't you still paying taxes on the OT just for some time off? So, this is a way for employees to pay for benefits like sick leave and personal time off.

A lot of companies have already moved to a system called unlimited vacation, which basically means you can take any day you want as PTO with no limit as long your work is done, and it's not crunch time the company doesn't care. They like it, because in practice companies can pressure employees to not ask for time off, and they can schedule (a lot) of black out dates. Plus, it means that without banked PTO for each employee, the company has much less financial overhead to worry about. In practice people working in unlimited vacation companies take about half as much time off.

So the whole time off argument doesn't really hold water, you can already have time off, and more companies are switching to unlimited vacation by the day. It's extremely popular with small business where payroll is a bigger chunk of revenue.

One of the benefits to full time employment is having steady work, just like everything in life there's a risk vs reward ratio at play here. You put in your hours each week, and work for less than the value you're generating (with your employer taking the difference in profit) in exchange for having that steady paycheck. If you take the risk of self employment, you get a higher wage but also have the risk of no money coming in during the slow times.

What this bill will do is allow employers to schedule boom and bust cycles. They can work you for 60 hours a week to complete a rush of work, and then give you your time off over the next week, while there's no work to be done and they're lining up future jobs. Essentially, it lets employers work you for overtime, and then not work you in the time they weren't going to work you anyways.

And, it gives your employer more control over your life. If you get overtime pay, you're free to spend that pay whenever and however you want. If you're compensated in time off, while you can still use that time off however you would like, your employer will be allowed to dictate when you can take that time off. Just like vacation time it's still subject to manager approval.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I find it interesting that the left have not complained about Obamacare in it makes it beneficial for companies to hire all part time. I don't see the left complaining about a 30 hour hard set work week that their Representatives and administration created.

I'm more centrist than left, but I support a 30 hour work week. Why do you find that odd?

That's actually something I noticed about this bill, since it makes the maximum number of hours you'll work in a week 40 (on average), then it's essentially reducing the work week by the average overtime*1.5. On those merits I actually support it, but my question becomes, what happens when over-time-off has to be spent on a second job to make up lost wages? Who is really winning then?

No, it is those damn republicans trying to create a better life style by allowing employees the ability to choose what is best for them. The forced 30 hour per week is OK...anything created by the left is OK with the left...seems they can't do wrong and the right can't do anything right in their extreme views.

Corporations never offer choice. If you don't pick what's most favorable for them, they'll replace you with someone who will. One could argue that you could negotiate it into your contract, but this bill is targeting the lower middle class. That's not a group that typically has any leverage in contract negotiations.

This is excellent.

I know people would like to work a little late one week to make up for needing a day off the next week, especially when out of vacation time.
But according to law, employers could not do that if they wanted to.
And because time and 1/2 costs more than regular time, it was too expensive to allow employees to work the overtime.

Now employees can arrange a day off without losing pay, because they can make up the time at some other time.

We have a engineering facility in Poland and they have the 32 hour week. You would think their output would be better but they get to work at exactly 8AM and will just leave when they feel like it. Actual production has been logged at 60% instead of the 80% you would expect.

No bonuses for them

a reply to: Aazadan
Except the law, as it is written, gives legal protection to the employee to take the OT. It is in writing, and also sets up penalties for non-compliance. In fact, there is not even a guarantee that employees will have the option for comped time off, because the bill gives the employer the choice to offer it. It does not create an entitlement. It gives both the employer a choice to offer to the employee, who can make the choice as they wish.
Also, the law gives the employee the choice to simply change their mind and cash in the banked time off for the original pay at any time with 30 days notice.

If an employee is feeling coerced, there are a multitude of legal avenues at the local, state, and federal level for labor compliance issues just like there already is for employers who try to be sneaks and skip on OT or deny legally mandated breaks. There are many laws in place that employers, today already try to get around to stiff their staff. The case would be the same with or without this law, and even after a hundred more laws are passed for other issues.

Those are the exceptions and not the rules though. This is why attorneys exist, as well as the compliance agencies I mentioned.

Tell me, do not some employers still to this day try and get over on OT payments and denying breaks even though they re legally protected?? You have probably been witness to this yourself. We can pass laws until the cows come home, but somebody somewhere will still break those laws. And an attorney somewhere will be there to prosecute and capitalize on said behavior. The shining light here, is merely an added benefit of choice.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I just witnessed a conversation between a manager and an employee (I'm writing from a Bob Evans). The employee went to the manager and informed her she got a jury duty letter and wouldn't be able to work some day a couple weeks from now. The manager told the employee, that if she didn't show up to work that day she was fired. It was up to her to take responsibility and claim she never got the letter. Work comes first.

This is the type of place that will be affected by this law. Low wage, shady employers. Do you really think they're going to ok a day off of the employee's chosing? What's going to happen, is business is going to use this as a tool to smooth over scheduling. If they're slow some day, they're going to start sending people with overtime on the books home, as a half day, or a couple hours early here and there.

If it's a professional establishment where people collaborate, losing a person for a day throws off everyone else. What they'll do is mark a specific day off, as a company holiday, and burn everyones OT surplus on it.

a reply to: Aazadan
That lady has a legal case she could easily bring up the the labor board in that jurisdiction. Tell me the city and I will find the agency that can help her, and you can relay that information to the employee in question. It is her choice what she decides to do with that information of course. As the old saying goes, "you can lead horse to water, but you cannot make it drink"

Like lotto winners who get tens of millions of dollars, and end up flat broke in but a few meager years. Human beings will choose to do as they wish. Whether it be bad choices, or no choice at all. The point is they have that choice, and are even armed with the information that can help them. But some of them will be damned if they think we can force them to drink the water while they complain of thirst. Its just the way people are.

a reply to: Aazadan

This law is not going to change a company's ability to send people home on a slow day.

The employee you mentioned who was threatened with being fired for reporting for Jury Duty needs to report this to the courthouse, and to management of the corporation, and that manager will likely be the one who is fired.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Maybe she can work a lot of OT for comp time to spend in court and attorney's offices.

a reply to: MOMof3
That depends on whether her employer offers it, as the employer has the choice to keep things as they always have been. Overtime has to be approved from the get go anyways. It has been my experience in life, that lower wage jobs tend to avoid overtime like the plague, with strict mandates not to go over 40 hours and disciplinary action if they do.

People cannot just willy nilly work overtime because they want too. It still has to be approved. I find it doubtful this law will have any effect whatsoever in her workplace. She may never see the option to take time off in lieu of an immediate time and a half payment on her next check. She my not even ever have been given the option to work OT.

Im guessing you will find fault with that as well though, right?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
That lady has a legal case she could easily bring up the the labor board in that jurisdiction. Tell me the city and I will find the agency that can help her, and you can relay that information to the employee in question. It is her choice what she decides to do with that information of course. As the old saying goes, "you can lead horse to water, but you cannot make it drink"

Sure, she has a case. Problem is, what's she supposed to do if she follows up on it? It's a small town. If you make trouble for an employer, people find out and you wind up unemployable anywhere. Just because the law says you can't be fired for that, doesn't mean others are obligated to hire her, or that the company can't simply fire her for something else.

It's a similar situation with this law. People will find out if you're a team player or not, if you don't do what's in the interests of the business community, it will come back to bite you in the ass.