Cantor overtime bill passes House

Boy, This one sure flew in under the radar!

Now they want to mess with our overtime pay!

Source

What a brilliant way to steal our hard earned money!

I can see it now, Vacation accrual will probably go away.

Oh, And who would REALLY keep track of how much overtime they've worked over the course of a year?

My overtime money pays for a lot of stuff I want or need RIGHT NOW!

Not somewhere down the road...

We are corporate owned, Lock, Stock and Barrel...

I dont think youre reading it right. It gives the employee the option to either take the overtime pay or take "comp time" which is paid time off for hours worked. Theyre not taking anything away from anyone.
I used to work at a place that allowed me to do comp time and thought it was a great idea.

Employees would have to enter an agreement with their employer to seek comp time, but the employee can withdraw from the pact at any time and take the wages in cash.

Did you read the article at all or just the title and drew youre own conclusions?

“And so they will not be able to earn overtime because the employer will invariably, not because they’re bad people, but will invariably go to the person that will in fact do it for free,”

reply to post by Berzerked


This is the part where OT pay would be lost.

reply to post by BattlePlastic


Thats just speculating on what could occur.
Also, any job that I ever had that required overtime, it was more or less not voluntary, you did it when they asked or you would be on your way out.
The job i have now is crap salary job, no matter how many hours I work, I get the same pay every two weeks.

reply to post by BattlePlastic

It's true that it wouldn't be called overtime pay, but it wouldn't be lost. The person getting comp time would get the money while he was sitting at home doing whatever he wanted. It's paid vacation.

Originally posted by Berzerked
I dont think youre reading it right. It gives the employee the option to either take the overtime pay or take "comp time" which is paid time off for hours worked. Theyre not taking anything away from anyone.
I used to work at a place that allowed me to do comp time and thought it was a great idea.

Employees would have to enter an agreement with their employer to seek comp time, but the employee can withdraw from the pact at any time and take the wages in cash.

Did you read the article at all or just the title and drew youre own conclusions?

edit on 8-5-2013 by Berzerked because: (no reason given)

from what it sounds like is all overtime pay will be put in an account that they get interest for,, when your ready to claim they give you what you paid in with big penalties for getting or needing the money.

reply to post by mytheroy

Sorry, I missed where it talked about interest or penalties. Could you point it out to me? Thanks.

First, how about we link to the bill so people can read and determine what it means without first getting what ever slant some news source wants to put on it; may it be intentional or just inferred.

The bill is HR 1406 *NOTE: Direct link to a PDF*

Here is the change (actually, addition) that they propose:

‘(1) GENERAL RULE
.—An employee may receive, in accordance with this subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.

There are of course conditions. First, if you are in a CBA (union), it will be drawn up in that agreement to allow such an employee to choose one in lieu of the other. Second, if you are not in one, the employer and employee must come to an agreement (just like everything else; it is private contract between you and your employer).

It also isn't a lose of money. Instead of getting time and a half in monies, you are getting time and a half in paid time off that doesn't count towards any personal time off (vacation, sick, etc). Work four hours of overtime and get a free day (paid) off.

Employers can start demanding that this is their policy but my guess they will see a drop in employment opportunities. I think this will balance out but I am not seeing why Congress needs to get involved in my private life and contract between my employer and what I will accept as an exchange for my labor.

I work for the government and they've been doing this to us, saying that there is no money for overtime so no one can work overtime, instead they are making us use something called "credit hours" which seems bogus to me.

I bet a lot of employers will charge people comp time, but then not approve them to take it off, it's basically getting free labor, which is just like Cantor he's a dirtbag.

I would almost bet dollars to donuts that the comp time would not be something that would be in your control.

ME: I got a family event coming up. Can I take some comp time?

BOSS: Nope... can't do it right now. Need you where you are.

ME: (two weeks later) Hey bossman, can I have some comp time 2 weeks from now? I gotta go out of town..

BOSS: Nope... can't do it right now. Need you where you are.

ME: Damn I wish I would have taken the overtime for this inconvenience.

Originally posted by Berzerked
I dont think youre reading it right. It gives the employee the option to either take the overtime pay or take "comp time" which is paid time off for hours worked. Theyre not taking anything away from anyone.
I used to work at a place that allowed me to do comp time and thought it was a great idea.

Employees would have to enter an agreement with their employer to seek comp time, but the employee can withdraw from the pact at any time and take the wages in cash.

Did you read the article at all or just the title and drew youre own conclusions?

edit on 8-5-2013 by Berzerked because: (no reason given)

That is the theory at any rate. The reality is many employers will pressure employees into taking the comp time with no real choice in the matter.

Originally posted by Terminal1
I would almost bet dollars to donuts that the comp time would not be something that would be in your control.

ME: I got a family event coming up. Can I take some comp time?

BOSS: Nope... can't do it right now. Need you where you are.

ME: (two weeks later) Hey bossman, can I have some comp time 2 weeks from now? I gotta go out of town..

BOSS: Nope... can't do it right now. Need you where you are.

ME: Damn I wish I would have taken the overtime for this inconvenience

It is addressed and it will be applied similarly as when you request normal earned time off. Did you read the bill?!

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
That is the theory at any rate. The reality is many employers will pressure employees into taking the comp time with no real choice in the matter.

Except that is addressed....

Read the linked bill. First, the employer cannot force comp-time in lieu of; it must be agreed upon mutually. Second, there are some solid provisions there to protect your fears.

Geesh....read and educate yourselves people.

The hospital where my wife works already has comp time. They call it PTO [paid time off]. For every shift you work, you get x amount of accrued time. When/if you miss a day, you can use your PTO time to keep from having your check a day short. Come vacation time, you can use it for that or just take it in cash. You can even cash it in during the year for extra money, such as Christmas time.

reply to post by DAVID64


That is not the same thing. That is accrued paid time off. This bill deals with people who maybe want to earn time off outside of the scope of personal time off (sick leave, vacation, annual time off, etc) in lieu of monetary compensation for overtime worked.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


It is 'addressed" but will happen anyway. All this is, is more undercutting hard fought for workers rights. Typical conservative play from the same tired old playbook. There will be plenty of people that may not be forced, but will coerced into taking the comp time. Don't think so? Just ask the many people that get injured at work, put on light duty that get coerced into doing more than they should be sooner than they should be because they know they have no real choice. Or how about the people that go to look for a new job and have their current or former one bad mouth them and ruin the prospect. If's against the law to do it, but they still do and get away with it. This is just more BS that will be against the law for them to do and all but impossible for you to prove they broke it.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

It is 'addressed" but will happen anyway. All this is, is more undercutting hard fought for workers rights.

What is undercut? The fact that it must be mutually agreed upon or designated within a CBA? Yep, seems like undercutting "rights" when two consenting adults come to an agreement on compensation.

Typical conservative play from the same tired old playbook.

How? Expound on this.

There will be plenty of people that may not be forced, but will coerced into taking the comp time. Don't think so?

Really? There is a provision in the bill regarding coercion....oops, you didn't read the bill. What a joke. Whine and complain without educating yourself.

How you you get through life living as a "victim" all the time?!

I don't get overtime anymore with a shift to salary but a couple of years ago I lived on it. At the time I made $22 hr, at 40 hours a week that was $880/wk. Add 25-30 hours a week of overtime at $33 hr and that gets boosted to $1870/wk. That's a hell of a cut if someone has to give that up. People are always told not to depend on OT pay but in some industies, OT is so common it becomes a part of your regular income. I went 5 years where I didn't have a 2 week paycheck with less that 130 hours. When it's that common, you end up relying on it.

I don't have time to read the bill atm. Does it mention whether time off is rated at time and a half of OT hours worked?

Originally posted by BattlePlastic
That's a hell of a cut if someone has to give that up.

They (employees) are not being forced. It allows for the mutual agreement between employee and employer to use that avenue. Keyword, mutual. No one is forced.

I don't have time to read the bill atm. Does it mention whether time off is rated at time and a half of OT hours worked?

Minimum at time and a half or negotiated rate of overtime (I have worked at a place where I received double-time); in that case, a person who has negotiated with their employer to take comp-time in lieu of would receive the greater amount.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


It seems to me that where you and the other posters are sliding past each other is in different views of the current environment for most American employees. Unemployment is still high, employers have been pushing workers for the past several years with a take it or leave it, like it or lump it attitude. This just gives them more wiggle room to continue doing that but now in an area with a severe hit to the wallet. I (and I think they) understand that the bill doesn't *say* "Hey, employers we will help you take advantage of your employees! Ha Ha Ha!" but that doesn't mean that the reality will not be exactly that. Perhaps you have had better experiences with employers than most of the other posters. If so, you are lucky. The things I have seen and heard the past couple of years are disturbing. In most businesses there is very, very, little concern for the workers and there are company policies about percentages of staff that may be out, etc. In an environment with a regular overtime culture it is easy to envision staff racking up more hours than policies would allow them to actually take. And as far as the agreement aspect between the employer and employee -- there have been a lot of things that employees "agreed" to over the past few years. They were coerced. They know it. Their boss knows it. But it isn't on paper anywhere....

Doesn't our government have bigger fish to fry right now? Why do they need to micromanage when they can't even do their own jobs?