HR 1406 Your tax dollars at work...... making sure you can't make anything extra.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


It depends on you employer, now, remember that within the bill is The right of you as an employee to get into a bargain agreement on how the provision in the bill will apply to you, always read the fine print.

That is, if the employer decide to offer the compensatory time rather than over time pay, they do not have to if they do not want too.

But they do have the choice to eliminate the over time over the compensation at their discretion.

Just remember that if you chose to get compensatory time you will not see the overtime you earn in the time period you worked, but it will go into a pot at the employers benefit (free loan) to be pay at the end of the year if you do not use it during that time.

Now if you depend on overtime to come out even at the end of the pay period this bill may affect you.

While it sounds like a good idea it can eliminate the way you receive your over time a the discretionof the employeer that will put their business needs over you needs.

But as usual is all about interpretations, loopholes and whatever bargain agreetment is reached between you and your employeer, the employer may chose to have the right to decided what will work best for him no you.

I found this site that explain what the bill do not protect.

H.R. 1406 would not prevent employers from cutting the overtime hours and reducing the take-home pay of employees who currently have the right to overtime compensation. The legislation does not provide sufficient protections for employees who may not want to receive compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay.

The proposed legislation also does not guarantee that workers will be able to use the time they have earned when they choose. Instead, H.R. 1406 could be read to provide employers broad discretion to deny requests to use compensatory time off if it would unduly disrupt their operations. Additionally, the bill fails to specify what remedy would be available to those employees who are denied their requests.

Finally, the bill does not fully protect a worker's right to receive monetary compensation for compensatory time they may have accrued but not used. The bill allows workers to accrue as many as 160 hours-- 20 full days-- but does not protect that accrued time if employers go out of business or declare bankruptcy.

Remember that is if is not in writting and part of the bill then it do not apply.

Overtime is not protected under this bill. So an empoyer can eliminate over time option over compensation time.

downwithtyranny.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by MilesTeg
The employer is not going run their business with a skeleton crew, so you ask the employer for the time off accrued....... and they say no. So your overtime hours are basically you just working harder for absolutely no pay.

And that is absolutely not true. From the text of the bill:

‘(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (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.

‘(C) EXCESS OF 80 HOURS- The employer may provide monetary compensation for an employee’s unused compensatory time in excess of 80 hours at any time after giving the employee at least 30 days notice. Such compensation shall be provided at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6).

‘(D) POLICY- Except where a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise, an employer that has adopted a policy offering compensatory time to employees may discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.

‘(E) WRITTEN REQUEST- An employee may withdraw an agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at any time. An employee may also request in writing that monetary compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory time accrued that has not yet been used. Within 30 days of receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with paragraph (6).

They MUST pay you for unused accrued time off. That is federal law.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

It depends on you employer, now, remember that within the bill is The right of you as an employee to get into a bargain agreement on how the provision in the bill will apply to you, always read the fine print.

That is, if the employer decide to offer the compensatory time rather than over time pay, they do not have to if they do not want too.

But they do have the choice to eliminate the over time over the compensation at their discretion.

The employers cannot eliminate overtime compensation. This bill only adds the option for the employee to take overtime as paid time off, rather than be forced to take pay for it. I know people who hate working overtime, because the extra pay bumps up their tax bracket to a point where they bring home less money working overtime, than they do without overtime.

Just remember that if you chose to get compensatory time you will not see the overtime you earn in the time period you worked, but it will go into a pot at the employers benefit (free loan) to be pay at the end of the year if you do not use it during that time.

Or you can request the money at anytime, and the employer has to pay it within 30 days.

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
Also note there is a difference between Public and Private Unions. I am not thrilled about the Police Officers or Teachers Union either

100% agree with this and should have clarified what I was getting at. I work in the private sector as a consultant for the public sector. I honestly don't care that much about private unions (though I do believe they have only themselves to blame for the jobs fleeing overseas.) Public unions, however, are a pile of crap. They've got public servants paid with tax dollars and getting guaranteed salary increases which are never tied to performance while the tax payers sit and flounder in the real world. It is beyond ridiculous.

So if what I am reading is correct (from page 1) this is what I got out of it:
1) The employee will have 2 options.
a) Take overtime pay as normal
b) Instead of OT pay they can earn 1.5 hours of PTO (paid time off) for every 1 hour of OT they work
2) So if employee A chooses OT pay they would still get 1.5x the base rate and if employee B chooses the PTO route they would get 1.5 hours.

So employee B works 4 hours of OT in one week. They are compensated with 6 hours of PTO to put into their bank.

Just trying to clarify and make sure I am understanding this correctly.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
Also note there is a difference between Public and Private Unions. I am not thrilled about the Police Officers or Teachers Union either

100% agree with this and should have clarified what I was getting at. I work in the private sector as a consultant for the public sector. I honestly don't care that much about private unions (though I do believe they have only themselves to blame for the jobs fleeing overseas.) Public unions, however, are a pile of crap. They've got public servants paid with tax dollars and getting guaranteed salary increases which are never tied to performance while the tax payers sit and flounder in the real world. It is beyond ridiculous.

Ah- yes, I would agree with this.
Unions are crooked- No doubt. They can protect the lazy as well-
When I wanted to go back to school (for non employment reasons) I could get no Union help, but thankfully my employer knows I am not amongst the lazy folk, nor do I see things as Union vs management so THEY worked with me.

I think Private Unions are important to the worker but I also think they often take things too far in an "us vs them" mentality.

If you are talking about Public Unions I 100% agree. Our Police Union actually fought (using tax payer money by proxy) having to drug test Police Officers. Our teachers Union fights constantly to save the jobs of worthles teachers. I feel if tax money is involved (even with the GM buyout) then Unions are a bad idea.
Anyhow, my apologies since I mistook what you were saying here.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


From what I understand the money goes into a pot that the business owner can draw interest off of and you get a yearly check for your overtime. So you don't get the overtime pay on your check. It's drawing interest and making money for the boss. If you ask me, you should get the money from the interest accrued but I'm certain that's not the case.
Have you read 1984? Are you familiar with the term"double speak"?

They word it so that it sounds really good, and then it doesn't really hit home until it starts digging into your pocketbook.

I just think that if you work overtime you are making money for the owner and now instead of getting compensated on your next check you get time off or you wait for a year to get overtime pay?

I see this as an attempt to appease the business owners and prevent the inevitable financial collapse that is ahead.

reply to post by HawkeyeNation


They are abolishing time and a half over time pay and giving the employer the option of offering PTO or you can get a yearly check that is NOT time and a half, but base pay for the extra hours work. The company takes the money you would be getting with every check that you worked overtime, invests it, makes money off of it, and then you get a yearly checks worth of pay for the overtime that you did not use as PTO. Unless there is some loophole..... or you get terminated. There is nothing in the documentation about how an employee would be compensated their overtime after being terminated.

Originally posted by MilesTeg
reply to post by HawkeyeNation

 

They are abolishing time and a half over time pay and giving the employer the option of offering PTO or you can get a yearly check that is NOT time and a half, but base pay for the extra hours work. The company takes the money you would be getting with every check that you worked overtime, invests it, makes money off of it, and then you get a yearly checks worth of pay for the overtime that you did not use as PTO. Unless there is some loophole..... or you get terminated. There is nothing in the documentation about how an employee would be compensated their overtime after being terminated.

edit on 13-5-2013 by MilesTeg because: (no reason given)

No they are not

‘(6) RATE OF COMPENSATION- ‘(A) GENERAL RULE- If compensation is to be paid to an employee for accrued compensatory time off, such compensation shall be paid at a rate of compensation not less than-- ‘(i) the regular rate received by such employee when the compensatory time was earned; or ‘(ii) the final regular rate received by such employee, whichever is higher. ‘(B) CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT- Any payment owed to an employee under this subsection for unused compensatory time shall be considered unpaid overtime compensation.

It is base pay for accrued compensatory time off, which is accrued at 1.5 hours per hour worked over 40 hours in a week (or 8 hours in a day).
You can request to be payed what is owed at any time.

Opponents of the bill claim that the bill do not protect overtime time-and-a-half pay

That is what the debate is about, no protection from the employer choosing to offer only one choice and eliminating overtime and half pay altogether as long as they provide something.

Now, I found this article explaining why the bill will eliminate overpay eventually at discretion of the employer.

It was actually two bills, one protecting overtime and the other one just giving flexibility to the "employee" to take whatever the employer is offering under written agreetment.

“The representations that the workers are free to choose between comp time and overtime pay, in fact, are not correct. At the end of the day, the employer has the right to veto any comp time that this bill will allow to accrue,” said Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee. “That’s why the many organizations representing working families and representing women have resoundingly come out in opposition to this legislation.”

Now this is something that should concern the working force in the nation when it comes to the bill. The committee for Education and Workforce telling a lie? for political reasons?

Well they claim that this bill will only end up giving one choice at the end.

In addition, opponents of the Republican bill say that it does not contain sufficient safeguards to ensure that workers really have the choice between overtime pay and nonguaranteed comp time off. An employer could schedule fewer hours or even fire workers who choose to keep their overtime pay without facing strong penalties.

Republicans rejected an amendment by Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H) to ensure that workers would actually be able to use the comp time they earned in cases of a family illness or a medical appointment for a veteran. The Democratic amendment would also prevent companies from making workers choose between overtime pay and time off if the business has violated the Equal Pay Act, the 1963 law that makes it illegal to pay women less based on their gender.

“Undermining workers’ paychecks or making their work schedules less predictable is no way to support working families,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the senior Democratic member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. “Instead, Congress should be working to actually help our nation’s working families by increasing the minimum wage and allowing workers to earn paid time off, all without taking away their overtime pay.”

Who do you believe.

I read the bill, the bill is short and easy to navigate, but nowhere I found anything that said that the employer will not replace overtime and that will be given as a option, but I read that an option can be given over overtime.

I am wrong? I don't know but that is my interpretation of the bill.

DISCLAIMER
I do not associate with any political party at this point, my links are just research matterial.

BTW This bill is doubfull that will be signed by Obama

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


I believe if I am not mistaken that it will take 30 days to get your money after a written request. So if you are having an emergency you will need to find funds somewhere else for the time being.

Originally posted by MilesTeg
From what I understand the money goes into a pot that the business owner can draw interest off of and you get a yearly check for your overtime. So you don't get the overtime pay on your check. It's drawing interest and making money for the boss. If you ask me, you should get the money from the interest accrued but I'm certain that's not the case.

Would be true, but it is written clearly that pay vs comp time is at EMPLOYEE'S DISCRETION. By your logic, if your employer earmarks your wages early in the year and sets them aside in an account, you should also get any interest that money earns before you've been paid.

Also, you do realize that the entire practice of time and a half isn't intended to put more money into an employee's pocket but to discourage employers from issuing OT at all combined with the political carrot on a stick concept of pushing those employers to simply hire another worker, thus increasing the employment figures?

I also do not think employees should get the "interest payments" and have zero issue with having to take the time off when its best for the employer.

Can you imagine the issues if I could just "leave" or announce I wlil not be in tomorrow (and we are backed up on work?)

-The idea here (as I am seeing it) to benefit both parties.

I like the idea if I am seeing this correctly- Alot. I feel this should have been in place years ago.
That said, we will see how it plays out. Lots of interpretations here and probably lots to come- But its a start. I could see myself accumulating hours upon hours and then being able to take a paid vacation during the slow time- Or a bunch of 3 day weekends when its not going to hurt business and keeps me from having to do "busy work"-

The ONLY place I see this as hurting someone would be seasonal workers (like roofers ) who will probably find themselves worked to the bone all summer and then not getting those unemployment checks for the rest of the year- But this will also save tax money-

IDK. Time will tell. But it really is a good place to begin this discussion I think.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

I believe if I am not mistaken that it will take 30 days to get your money after a written request. So if you are having an emergency you will need to find funds somewhere else for the time being.

The employer has up to 30 days to pay out. They could pay the day they receive the request. Or on your next paycheck.

Within 30 days of receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with paragraph (6).

Originally posted by defcon5
They could still straight out fire you for going to your grandmas funeral and tell you so. There is nothing you could legally do about it if they did. This law has no affect on that at all. No time off is guaranteed by any laws with the exception of FLMA.

This is not entirely true. When you are hired when you get your employee handbook which details your time off and other compensation. Until that handbook is revised and you are issued a new copy they are legally bound to live up to the terms they set regarding such matters. Naturally they can fire you if they wish over it, but it is gonna cost them alot more than the time off if they do.

reply to post by benrl


I think he may be angry at s 3(a). Otherwise, I don't see the problem when reading his comments.

‘(3) HOUR LIMIT- ‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.

reply to post by MilesTeg


Interesting that they would make these restrictions on recorded income.

I know allot of people that have been circumventing this system for years, before this ever came about.

How?

By selling items on the black market.
By collecting bottles and cans.
By mowing yards.
By hauling scrap.
By giving private lessons of certain skills.
By buying stuff at garage sales and selling at auctions.
By purchasing Gold and Silver and reselling it for a cut.
By doing different types of Free Lance work and getting paid under the table.
By doing Any other kind of side job you can imagine.

Just because you have a job that is restricted doesn't mean that it has to be your only job
These are all things that produce unrecorded income.
AND
Produces CA$H which can be used to make unrecorded purchases.

People have to do what they can to survive.
People have to eat and KIDS have to eat.
Operative word being EAT.
It is a Requirement.

Like they say "Desperation Breeds Courage".

reply to post by marg6043


As an employer I would say either or could see a benefit here. I am friends with many other business owners, we are mandated by our government (I'm no American) to give our employees certain things like breaks, lunches, overtime, etc. (Damn lazy bastards, you work, you work now! 100 hours no complaining!)

So in this case, a few of my friends like to do the ol' "want more hours?" "overtime?, no no no"

It's pretty standard for some employers to tell their employees, that they can put in extra hours but they don't get overtime. So instead, they might pay them under the table, pay them through a separate billing measure (this is the legal way and can only be done if the corporation you are operating has multiple businesses registered under it, but many do)....

So, in some cases it's not profitable for owners to pay out overtimes. Just simply isn't. If that's the case, I would hire extra employees and everyone gets cut hours, probably all the positions are going to be just under fulltime hours.

In which case, a law like this is really good. A woman, for instance, can throw in a 16 hour work day on monday let's say, and go home for a long weekend by taking Friday as a paid vacation day (essentially).

Now, if the company has the habit of paying overtime as it is, and they manipulate this law so it basically just lets them covert the time-and-half hours to reg pay, non work days, which will be given to someone a week later and fill that person with someone else. Then yes, the worker loses.

I don't know... I don't see it as a major problem. Some employers refuse to pay overtime as it is, no matter the circumstances. And they will do everything in their power to make sure they aren't.

I'm not sure this is a big deal considering that some people already make sure they aren't paying overtime wages. In which case, now, they can offer those hours and employee XYZ can take a paid day off the next week.

For the ones currently paying overtimes, and if they want to manipulate it so they can take advantage of this and their workers stop seeing overtime, yes, the employees could lose out...

This will be one of those things that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Might be good for some....

reply to post by KeliOnyx


A lot of companies that I've worked for have a "right to terminate" clause that states that they can fire you at any time, for any reason. That means that if you go to your grandmother's funeral, and it's in the middle of a big project, they can fire you for leaving the project. Or they can just fire you because you missed a day, and it's not going to cost them a dime, because it's in the agreement that you signed when you got hired.