Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

Alabama Republican Introduces Bill to Eliminate Overtime Pay

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, April 21, 2013

I wouldn’t have believed it had I not read it for myself from the official Congressional website.

U.S. Representative Martha Roby, a Republican from Alabama’s 2d Congressional District has introduced H.R. 1406, officially named the “Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013″ which would END the requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act for employers to pay Time-and-a-Half to employees for every hour worked over 40 in one week.

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

The Congressional Budget Office has reported on the bill, and in part wrote that:

“H.R. 1406 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector. In lieu of overtime pay, employees could receive compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime pay would otherwise have been required. Such compensatory time could be provided only in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement or with the consent of affected employees. The changes would be effective for five years after enactment of the bill.”

The CBO’s full report of the one page document may be downloaded here:
(https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr1406.pdf)

Mrs. Roby’s act, H.R. 1406, would be, according to the CBO report, “revenue neutral.” In other words, it would NOT affect the cost or performance of the federal government, or of state or local governments, nor would it impose any costs upon them. In fact, the report states:

“Enacting H.R. 1406 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. Implementing the bill also would not affect spending subject to appropriation. H.R. 1406 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.”

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44100

Note to the reader: Contained in this entry are Links to these topics on the Wikipedia site: Fair Labor Standards Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Congressional Budget Office, compensatory time, Martha Roby, U.S. House of Representatives, Alabama, Wikipedia, Alabama’s 2d Congressional District, Mises Institute, child labor, collective bargaining agreement, and collective bargaining.

This is a blatant effort to eliminate employees legal rights and protections.

In my opinion, Mrs. Roby and the exceeding majority of her GOP cohorts are radicals who are Hell-bent upon destroying every hard-gained law that protects American employees from abuses by their employers. It wouldn’t surprise me to continue to see efforts to whittle away at Labor Laws, including those forbidding Child Labor. This is such a shocking development that I am incensed beyond imagination. It would not surprise me in the least to continue seeing such efforts by Republicans to chip away at Employees Rights, up to and including prohibitions on Child Labor.

Ideologically, of course, the action proposed by this bill is in keeping with the radicalized wing of the GOP, which has been hijacked and co-opted by the TEA Party movement, which is nothing more than a thinly disguised Libertarian in Republican’s clothes. Those are the types who also align themselves with the Utopian, ivory-towered, theoretical visions of the Mises Institute, which is headquartered in Auburn, Alabama. For those who may not be aware, the Mises Institute teaches that government should not exist, but that instead of government, free enterprise should rule mankind. Their theoretical vision for “free markets” cannot work, because it supposes a perfect world.

Concerning H.R. 1406 introduced by Mrs. Roby, it is also a hypocritical bill, because “compensatory time could be provided only in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement or with the consent of affected employees,” and as is well known, Republicans are at increasing odds with Labor Unions and Organized Labor, and continue seeking to enact laws that strip away protections granted by collective bargaining agreements, which themselves are virtually non-existent in so-called “Right to Work” states, which in large part are in the Southeast. The term itself – Right to Work – is a misnomer, because in those states, an employee has NO RIGHT to work, and can be fired for any reason. Your hair is curly? You’re fired. Your eyes are blue? You’re fired. The “Right to Work” states are also called “Employment At Will” states, which is an attempt at “rebranding” the issue, as if it empowers the employee, when in fact, it does not.

Philosophically, H.R. 1406 is an effort to return to the “bad old days” in which deaths in unsafe working conditions were common throughout the United States; in which Child Labor was common; in which employers did not have to pay their employees any wages, and often changed their rates of pay – to reduce it – without the employees’ knowledge or consent, and more.

It is, in essence, very much like the story told in the Exodus account, in which the Hebrew children suffered oppression in their labors at the hands of Pharaoh, who at last, told them that they were to “make more bricks, but could not use hay.” And surprisingly, it’s not a new message. Today, we say “Do more with less.” In that historical narrative, in return, Moses delivered a message to Pharaoh from the Almighty to “Let my people go.”

Portrait of Martha Roby, Republican Representative from Alabama, on Monday, October, 10, 2011, in Washington, D.C. Photo by Shealah Craighead

Official Portrait of Martha Roby, Republican Representative from Alabama’s 2d Congressional District, on Monday, October, 10, 2011, in Washington, D.C. – Photo by Shealah Craighead

In the modern scenario, people are already not being paid enough to survive, CEO’s, BIG BUSINESS and the über-wealthy are paying lobbyists to curry favor with Congress to lower tax rates upon the very wealthy or eliminate corporate income tax, and like modern-day pirates, they hide their vast accumulated wealth in tropical island paradise tax havens such as the Antilles, Bermuda, Caymans, Seychelles and more. It’s theft by deception, pure and simple.

In turn, government oppresses the employees by making or eliminating laws that would empower or favor employees over the denizen hoards of corporate lawyers protecting their Big Business employers, and they’re made to believe they’re free, but that somehow, when the weak are made strong, it is the “liberal Democrats” and Nancy Pelosi who are behind every effort to undermine their way of life.

Martha Roby’s bill – H.R. 1406 – would render employees powerless against their employers who in turn could legally refuse to pay them for mandatory overtime. Don’t like those terms? Don’t like working here? Tough. You’re free to leave. After all, this is an “employment at will state.”

Is this the scenario you want for yourself or your children?

What do you think?


Addendum, Saturday, 23 November 2013

It’s GREAT to read the vigorous discussion in this thread!

There are jobs where such “comp time” is a regular part of the compensation package, and given IN ADDITION TO overtime, regular time, and vacation time. In some, but not all, cases, if the comp time is not used in a given period – such as in a year – the time is lost, and the employee is paid for all unused time. In other scenarios, comp time may be accrued without limit. In the better scenarios where comp time is an ADDITIONAL PART of the total compensation package, comp time is paid out completely when an employee leaves the company. But not all states require that to be done.

Rep. Roby’s bill would supplant, i.e. completely REPLACE the legal requirement to pay time-and-a-half for overtime with CTO – Compensatory Time Off.

Here’s the Office of Personnel Managment’s website on Comp Time for federal employees.

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/compensatory-time-off/

About these ads

153 Responses to “Alabama Republican Introduces Bill to Eliminate Overtime Pay”

  1. Jay Croft said

    Totally disgusting.

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Pass it along, Jay… pass it along!! Let EVERYONE you know, KNOW!!

      • Greg said

        This is a true GOP’s assault on every working man and woman. And, if you can still vote “REPUGNANTCAN” after seeing the true colors of these GOP “PARASITES”. Then “YOU” deserve everything you are handed!!! What a crock of crap to be slung on the working class. Hey people. Still think there is no such thing as “CLASS WARFARE”? Damn sure better think again.

      • This is something that I, as a Republican do not stand behind. She is not my representative so I can’t respond to her or vote her out but I suspect her to get voted out. I hate to see if a Democrat gets to replace her since our State has been predominately Republican and has fought against Democratic bull, it will give us one more Democrat to swing the scales liberally.

      • Tony Bart said

        Is it amazing how the authors of this bill assumed their constituents are lazy, ignorant and illiterate and would not read into the terms by titling it “working families flexibility act” as if it was beneficial to working families from the very start. All you need to do is read the 1st paragraph to know the incumbent must go next election, 95% voted here on this proposal alone and it spells out political suicide for the author.

    • j jeffers said

      I just love it when the hard working people in our once great nation, try to put someone in office that is to represent them and the so-called office holder get to their new position just to have someone to slide them a few thousand dollars secretly under the table just to get them to throw the citizens to the curb and pass some idiotic bill to take care of the major industry, government entity, oh what shameful greed they will use to further depress the nation of many.

    • Stephanie Watson said

      It’s amazing how Chuck says he’s against it,but yet he still wants to vote republican in our state. We’ve been, as you said, Republican for a long time, and where has it got us?

  2. Good post.

    Listen to the words of Representative Richard Hanna — a Republican —
    “I appreciate the intent of this bill and its sponsors to provide working families more flexibility in scheduling their overtime hours worked and time off. However, as someone who has employed hundreds of workers and managed a payroll, I do not think the bill ultimately took enough concrete steps to protect workers’ rights in dealing with their employers when negotiating and executing the comp time agreements proposed by H.R. 1406.”
    “I voted No on H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act.”
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    This sham legislation has been tried before … in 2003, Representative Jim Gerlach – a Republican – expressed the view of many :
    “I have not heard from employers in my district that it is a big problem. The bottom line is that I just don’t see the need to do it. When you talk to our business people back in our district, their concern is with taxes, regulation and [the] increasing cost of health care. Those are the issues we ought to be working on.”
    ~~~~~~
    What’s change since 2003 … the House Republicans have no new ideas, so they pull out the old stuff. Are businesses happy with taxes, regulations and the cost of healthcare today? So why are not the House GOP working on the budget ? The FY2014 budget is in a stalemate as Speaker Boehner has refused a House-Senate Conference Committee … so they are pulling out all stops to look busy.
    It’s a sham.

    Worse yet, although CBO said it would be neutral, it was amended to add government reporting requirements, which means it will cost the taxpayers.

    The concept of the bill — a written agreement between the employer and employee — will end up having many employees being duped as Bosses will award OT to those employees that want Comp Time.

    It’s a bad bill … but typical for this Republican-controlled House.

  3. Evan said

    Federal workers have had the option of taking comp time rather than overtime for years. But contrary to the information in your article, it is up to the employee. We must tell management whether we want comp or over-time, otherwise they give us overtime. It is a system that works very well, as benefits the employee much more than it does the employer. I consider myself to be an independent and progressive, and your reporting is just plain wrong. The bias leeches out of every word. In that you are no better than Fox News.

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Evan. I won’t deny bias. And so, in that regard, you are correct – I am for the employee having options AND rights. As you already know and understand, part of the reason why laws exist is to prevent abuse of the weak by the powerful, and to allow fair play by the weak when competing with the powerful. It’s exactly the same reason we have a Constitutional Amendment forbidding forced quartering of troops in private residences. Thanks for your thoughts!

      • Bob Carpenter said

        Does that include abuse by the unions. Tell that to the citizens of IL, who have lost hundreds of jobs with the Firestone and GM plants closing up here.

      • Greg said

        There is no abuse by unions you fool. Open a book and learn a bit about them. Then you can take that foot out of that overloaded “MOUTH” of yours.
        God what a jerk. As Forest would say. “STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES”.

      • There is a difference between bias and misleading and misrepresenting. I’m as Democratic blue as anybody so please explain to me how “In lieu of overtime pay, employees could receive compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime pay would otherwise have been required” is the same as eliminating overtime? I work as a gov’t employee and I love the fact that I can choose Compensation time or overtime at 1.5 times rate for every hour over 40hrs. If I need the money I take it but that is rarely never…… love me all the vacation time I can get.

    • Sven said

      To follow up on Evan’s point, this bill would actually provide MORE time off for employees, if the ELECTED to take the comp time. Typically, comp time for overtime worked is at a 1:1 ratio, while this bill would increase it to a 1.5:1 ration.

    • William lake said

      This is straight from the bill in question.

      “Prohibits an employer from intimidating, threatening, or coercing an employee in order to: (1) interfere with the employee’s right to request or not to request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation, or (2) require an employee to use such compensatory time.

      Makes an employer who violates such requirements liable to the affected employee in the amount of the compensation rate for each hour of compensatory time accrued, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reduced for each hour of compensatory time used.”

      Where in this does it hurt the employee? Where is the employer getting the upper hand to screw with there employees?

  4. Mike said

    Why is the government even in the business of regulating what or how an employer pays its employees. Last time I checked, I could leave my present employer anytime I like and offer my services to one who would value them more. No wonder so many jobs have left our shores.

    • Jenny said

      Because if they weren’t, you’d have countless ‘Scrooges’ paying pennies to hard working people, picking and choosing who they want to pay fairly and who they wanted to underpay, and women, people of color and kids would never catch a break. So yeah, until every employer on earth thinks it’s best to protect their employees more than their bottom line(will never happen) we need government protection.

    • idiaj said

      Are you serious? Do you have any idea what it would be like if the govt (union) had not fought for the overtime, saturday/sunday off, insurance, good working conditions, age of the people who can work. Dude get a grip.
      Greed is the reason jobs go off shore, not requiring good working conditions with adequate pay.

      • Charlie Manson said

        Sorry, I accidently hit the down button instead of the up button. Idiaj says it all and correctly. People actually fought, shed blood, and died for the Labor Rights we have today to protect workers from unscrupulous employers. Sorry to say, idiots like Roby can get elected and still put out their b.s. and call themselves Americans.

    • staziaw said

      You must have forgotten history, Mike. Without some laws to protect workers, employers would f*&^ employees over as much and as often as possible. Do you not understand this? Do you not understand that one hundred years ago, workers fought for the 40-hour work week, the five-day work week, a minimum wage, a minimum age (eliminating child sweat shops), sick days, vacation days? Are you really that clueless on the history of employment in this country? Sweet Sadie …

    • DT said

      Because the minute they stop, minimum wage would be done away with. Then you’d have Wal-mart dropping pay to compete with the Chinese. And then every American business would follow their business model or have to drop their pay as well, to compete. Pretty soon we’re all sleeping on dirt floors.

    • Mike,
      To point out the error in your logic, please let me try to elaborate on one example, a recent one from my home state of Maine.

      We recently had an attempt by Conservatives to modify the portion of our employment law that limits the number of hours high school student are allowed to work during the school year. I may not have the numbers precise, but it went something like this.

      Currently, our law limits when 16 and 17 year-olds can work as follows:
      • No more than 6 hours on a school day.
      • No more than 10 hours on any holiday, vacation, or workshop day.
      • On last day of school week may work up to 8 hours.
      • No more than 24 hours in a week except may work 50 hours any week that approved school calendar is less than 3 days or during the first and last week of school calendar.

      And for those under 16, it’s even more restrictive. And if memory serves, the attempt was to increase the number of hours that these teenagers are allowed to work per week by 50% or more. And the point that proponents made was that this was obviously not a requirement that they work that many hours, but simply that it was their option.

      The problem, you see, with modifying this law is that it would serve to push a large number of hard-studying teenagers out of the workforce, because employers would then be able to favor the teenagers who were willing to work the extra hours; the ones who did not feel the need to focus on their studies. Why, in this day and age when a strong education is very important in the American workforce, would we be wanting to discourage students from studying? The only alternative for those hard-studying teenagers who need to work would be for them to cut back on their studies and be willing to work the longer hours/week that employers would be requiring for their entry into the job market. That’s a very sad unintended consequence.

      • Maurice said

        A College education is extremely over-rated and nothing but a large push by corporations. Wars, high taxes and regulations have destroyed opportunities for everyone in America. The debt our government has taken on for these social programs have basically bankrupt us. Maybe we shouldn’t be trying so hard to force everyone to go to College. It is arguably better for students to finish school later on but to have more work experience and more opportunity to earn income and not take on so much debt at such a young age, becoming slaves to corporate America and government handouts for the rest of their lives. There will always be poor people. Stop restricting them from working. I worked full time when I was 13 years old. Without that, I’d be homeless today. Stop assuming you are more knowledgeable and can make better decisions than the rest of us can about our own lives. If I’m 17 and want to work 40 hours a week and go to school another 40 hours a week, you have no right to try and stop me and keep me from having money for food, housing and school. Cut out the damn insistence on running everyone else’s lives already. Others are perfectly capable of making their own decisions

    • Meech Lynn said

      Yes, they’ve left our shores so that employers can pay people to work 18 hour days for a chicken and two sticks to rub together every month. Those of us who aren’t fervently adherent to political ideology to the point of forfeiting all rationale can see this easily.

    • The reality is that these laws did not appear out of a vacuum, nor out of mere desire to regulate business. The laws were written and enacted because of the abusive practices of business. You do have the “liberty” to walk off the job and go to work for some other business that is exactly like the one you left. Wow.

      Unless you’re in a union, you do not have the liberty to require an employer to engage in safe and ethical work practices. You have no power in the workplace to effect change — except as provided by labor laws. Without legislation stipulating safe and ethical practices, you have nothing except boot licking to maintain your position in the company. You could not sue the employer after the unprotected bandsaw zipped off your right arm or the asbestos left you with one lung and a $1 million medical debt. If the employer declines to pay you time-and-a-half for that 40 hours of OT last week, only labor law protects you.

      Sadly, in the modern-day pursuit of Mammon, the “grubbing for geld” mentality has overtaken the American workplace in a way that exceeds even the abuses of the Gilded Age of 100 years ago. Coal companies spent millions of dollars over decades denying health problems caused by the effects of coal dust; as did the companies producing asbestos deny mesothelioma, as did companies marketing tobacco products deny lung cancer, as did the chemical companies deny environmental pollution. When your own health, safety and future are concerned, you’re an idiot to believe your employer. You’re nothing but a back and a pair of hands deployed in the pursuit of profit, to be discarded when you no longer provide sufficient output in that cause.

  5. Mike Pont said

    This is just another try by the state that is happy living in the dark ages to share its backwardness with the rest of the nation. I have watched the uneducated, backwoods dwelling, redneck people elect and reelect the most oppressive candidates to govern and represent this state! The state is run by the religious right and far right tea publicans. This proposed legislation needs to be tossed in the trash!

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Mike! I concur. Thanks for your thoughts!

    • Nick said

      Uneducated, backwoods dwelling, rednecks. Have you met all of us sir? I’m thrilled we live in a country where you can preserve your right to be a pompous ass. I for one don’t agree with this bill and yes I’ve read because this ole hillbilly learnt to read before him wuz in kinnygarden. Good job making yourself look like a narrow minded nitwit. Good day.

    • Sven said

      Look at the current compensatory time practices that most employers offer and you’ll see that this INCREASES the amount of compensatory time an employee would receive if they CHOSE to accept the comp time, in lieu of pay. The bill does not state that it eliminates overtime.

  6. robert ard said

    FyI she is not in the dam GOP. They kicked her butt out when she got herself into that scandal a few years ago. She is an independent! This is just another attempt for liberals pugs to discredit the republicans. Thank you for informing the voters cause she will be up for reelection soon.

  7. frank said

    Easy on the scaremongering. What is wrong with people being allowed to take comptime in lieu of money? The worker is not being forced to accept comptime, if the person does not want to.They are being paid at the end of the year if they don’t use the time. The companies and government agencies are not being required to go this route, if there is a prior agreement otherwise. If an employee goes over the the 160 hours of comptime accumulated, they would have to be paid money for any overtime worked. They may not be asked to work though, but eventually that worker will be needed to work overtime.

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Frank! Thanks for reading & sharing your thoughts. The bill is problematic for the reasons shared in the post. It’s not an attempt at “scaremongering.” Personally, I think it has little chance of passing.

      • Jason said

        WSB, when you state that this is potentially the first step that could eventually lead to the revocation of Child Labor laws and getting rid of unions, then it is precisely scaremongering. You provide little actual analysis, and only highlight the potential dire outcomes, which are all worst case scenarios. You don’t provide any context for your quotes, and your article title is meant to sensationalize instead of inform. Your logic fallacies abound (straw man, slippery slope, ad hominem attacks, to name but a few); additionally, you draw incorrect conclusions and misstate facts. HR 1406 does not END overtime pay requirements, as you state, but instead allows the employee the option of receiving compensatory time, instead. The employee can still choose overtime pay; even if the employee opts for compensatory time, the employer must pay the employee for any unused compensatory time. So, given that you misstate facts, provide information out of context, and then use that information to, in an illogcial way, lead people to unlikely worst case scenarios, then I would say that you are scaremongering.

  8. jeff said

    I hope your cutting YOUR overtime pay too miss roby! Don’t enforce things you wouldn’t want done to you! And if your cutting overtime pay then noone should have to work overtime it should be optional at all employers and if you refuse and the company wants to fire you that should be illegal!

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Jeff! Thanks for reading & sharing your thoughts. It’d be nice if the laws that Congress passed applied to them, wouldn’t it?

    • Logan Rollo said

      Actually Jeff, members of Congress don’t get overtime pay. They have a set salary. Please read the bill yourself instead of relying on WSB to do it for you: they got it wrong.

  9. jj drogg said

    Idiot. Businesses can’t afford to give the stretched-thin workforce time off. They would much rather pay the measly 50% extra, instead of hire more people.
    In the 70’s, the military needed those huge C5 airplanes, for the war. It was a ‘national emergency’, and all employees had to work 7/12’s. Maybe longer? And many people lived an hour or two away, so they didn’t bathe, and slept in their cars.
    Plus, the planes were built wrong. The gov wanted them built right away, without the needed redesign. They spent mega-millions beefing up the wings, after the war.

  10. Cheri Gros said

    I dont agree because my husband works for an offshore company and they work 7/12. Last yr alone he worked a total of 330 days out the yr! Everyone who does some kind of overtime should be compensated for their time. These companies know damn well that of these employees did not work the overtime their projects or tasks would NEVER get finished!

  11. Chevonne said

    Thanks for the info. I will most certainly research this before our next election. However, I will not be following this site. I’m amazed that I even have the intelligence to read since we are all backwoods dwelling rednecks.

  12. Reblogged this on Progressive News & Politics.

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Adrian! Thanks for reposting!

      • No problem..Keep up the good work!

      • Everyone doesn’t seem to be a fan of your work. I received this comment about your post.

        Corey Darrough | November 21, 2013 at 6:56 pm

        H.R. 1406 would not END anything. It would allow employees (or unions) the choice of taking Paid Time Off (Compensatory time) at a rate of 1.5H PTO per 1H worked over 40 hours in one week. Which, I need not mention is exactly the same rate as Overtime pay.

        As I mentioned, it would be a CHOICE. The employee can ask for the compensatory time, if they do not, then they will receive standard overtime pay by default.

        For a Republican, this is a very liberal and EXCELLENT idea. Please read and research before you re-post misleading articles.

      • I believe this describes H.R. 1406 pretty well

        The House Republican bill H.R. 1406 is the latest in a string of GOP attacks on workers’ rights. The bill would force an unnecessary choice between overtime pay that workers rely on and time off that they may never be able to take advantage of. H.R. 1406 would give employers the ability to offer compensatory time off in exchange for any overtime wages the worker has earned. For instance, under current law, if an hourly employee is paid at 1.5 times the rate of their wage for hours worked more than 40 hours in a week. However, under this bill, the employer can take all of those wages earned above 40 hours and put into a pot for future time off that is controlled by the employer. In other words, the worker would not get paid for the work they perform during their current pay period. Unused time would be paid back at the end of the year, amounting to a no-interest loan to employers from workers.

        Workers shouldn’t have to choose between the overtime pay they need and the family-friendly policies they desire.

        Democrats have introduced many proposals to provide needed family friendly leave policies without taking away workers’ overtime rights.
        Congress should be looking at ways to give workers more power over their lives, not hand over hard-fought rights won by workers to their employers.
        This bill is a worn-out idea being pushed by the House leadership as part of their effort to soften the Republican brand.

        The exact bill was proposed and died in committee in 2003. It will go no further than the House of Representatives. It is a waste of time.
        Instead of focusing on the real challenges we face, the Republican majority is advancing policies that benefit the powerful at the expense of the broad interests of the American people.
        The House Republican leadership rebranding effort will ultimately fail because the agenda being advanced hurts working families and the middle class.
        This bill gives employers the flexibility not to pay overtime to their workers. Workers who need flexibility in the workplace are not guaranteed time off when they need it under this bill.

        Workers will not get paid for hours that exceed 40 hours a week. That compensation will instead go into a pot that will be controlled by their employer.
        The employer can refuse to allow a worker to take time off to deal with a family member or attend a parent-teacher conference. This is not real flexibility for workers.
        It’s an interest-free loan paid for by the workers’ wages since unused comp time will be paid back the worker at the end of the year.
        Weak penalties in the bill will encourage employers to coerce workers into giving up their overtime rights.

    • You’ll probably regret that when people actually start looking at the bill.

  13. John McCall said

    You all have this bill totally wrong. The bill gives the employee the choice of overtime or comp time. It does not take away the option of overtime pay. It simply gives the employee the option of time off later. I think it is a good bill.

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi John! Thanks for reading & for your reply. The bill as presented is problematic for the reasons mentioned in the post. Thanks again!

    • Tim R. said

      Yes, they have the “option.” Allow me to demonstrate via a short dialog…

      Employer: “Hello non-union employee, There is a new law that gives you the ‘option’ to select compensatory time instead of overtime. Please let me know what you’d like to select. Of course remember that I don’t like paying overtime and I can fire you for any reason or no reason (as long as it’s not a specified illegal reason that you are able to prove in expensive litigation in a court of law). So what do you choose?”

      Employee: “Uhh, I’ll choose compensatory time.”

      Employer: “good choice!”

  14. What an evil person. How did they get in office.

  15. This foolish woman has no idea what the impact of this bill would be to the thousands upon thousands who work a wage job and need that overtime pay. SHE HAS NEVER WORKED A REAL JOB! Most likely born with a GOLD spoon in her mouth with servants so she has NO CLUE to what its like to earn a wage. SHAME ON HER!

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Lynda! I would tend to agree with you that Rep. Martha Roby has never had a “real” job in her life. Being an attorney – while it is a despised and necessary profession – it is honorable. As I am fond of saying, everybody hates lawyers… until they need one. It would seem to me that Rep. Roby needs more experience “under her belt” before she continues her political career. And yet, the folks in Montgomery apparently approved of her. Why that is, I do not know.

  16. Dan said

    this bill doesn’t eliminate overtime pay. whoever wrote this article should be ashamed of him/herself. “warm summer breeze” yep that’s a credible journalist’s name right there. idiot

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Dan! Thanks for reading & sharing your thoughts. You are correct. The bill does NOT eliminate overtime pay. It would only allow employers to swap time off in the equivalent of time off for overtime pay at the same rate… BUT! Only with a Collective Bargaining agreement. And that, my dear friend, is part of the problem, which I addressed in the entry. Thanks again!

      • Paul said

        No. You are reading it wrong. It’s not that you can only be compensated at all with a collective bargaining agreement. That’s not what it says. It doesn’t say you get nothing without a bargaining agreement. It’s saying that you get overtime pay, UNLESS you opt for the time off instead, either through a bargaining agreement or personal choice. Either way, you are compensated. It’s your choice, or your union’s choice, as to which way you are compensated. Under no circumstances are you not compensated at all. Again, to be clear: By default, you get overtime pay. If you or your union opt for time off, you get that instead. Calm down. This article is misinformation on the level of Fox News.

      • Mike said

        The text says “With a collective bargaining agreement OR with consent of affected employees. So if the company is unionized, it details would be addressed in the contract. If not unionized, the employee would have the choice. This would be especially beneficial to newer employees with little vacation time.

      • Sven said

        The bill gives EMPLOYEES the option of choosing overtime pay or compensatory time off, which the bill would require to be given at a higher rate than is the current standard of 1:1.

  17. What is you wanted to work over 40 hours but your employer refused because your employer does not want to or can not afford to pay overtime?

  18. Kristi said

    Did you read the bill? Doesn’t sound ANYTHING like what you’re touting!!! http://yellowhammernews.com/blog/roby-introduces-bill-to-remove-restrictions-on-private-sector-comp-time-agreements/

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Kristi! Thanks for reading, and for your reply. To answer your question, yes, I have read the bill, as well as other opinions – official and non-official – on it. The way it’s written is particularly problematic, as I have so stated. What would improve the bill – if it were to garner serious consideration – would be to allow for the employees to choose for themselves, and NOT BE COERCED by their employer’s strong arm. Again, such points were mentioned in the post. Thanks again!

      • Kristi said

        Isn’t that what this line in the bill addresses: Allows employers to offer employees a choice between cash wages and comp time for overtime hours worked. Employees who want to receive cash wages would continue to do so.

      • Sven said

        The bill, as is, allows the employee to choose, not the employer. Perhaps you should reread it. To paraphrase Indigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

      • Read here in this part of the bill for that particular protection Breeze. If you did actually read this bill, (and not just the summary) I think you missed something.

        “(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.

  19. Jean said

    We need to vote out everyone in Montgomery and Washington and let them know we are tired of this kind of stuff. We elect our officials to go and protect us and they only pad their pockets and rip up every chance they get, if we vote all them out maybe the next bunch would listen to the lay people and if not they could be one term folks and so forth and so on. After a period of years they might get the message and listen to the people who elected them. I am so sick of politicians thinking they are so smart and are the ultimate supreme and what we want does not matter, because we don’t count. Wrong wrong wrong!!!

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Jean! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. Please accept my apologies for a tardy response. Whereas once, I opposed term limitations for legilators (specifically Congress), now, I favor them. It seems to me that 2 Senate terms (12 years) and 4 House terms (8 years) for a GRAND COMBINED TOTAL of 20 years elected public service ought to be enough for anyone. And, as far as I know, the only person who has come close to any type of self-imposed term limitation is Dr. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who was first elected in the House of Representatives, and vowed an oath during his first campaign not to serve (or compete to serve) in the House for more than three terms, and in the Senate for more than two. While philosophically and politically, there are points of disagreement with his perspective and mine on some matters, there are others with which I agree with him.

      Thanks again for reading, and most importantly, for sharing your thoughts!

  20. Ah said

    Already have this problem. It’s called a salaried position. And I only get an already decided amount of time to be off per year, called “sick days”. 8 of them. But anytime there is a late event, or unexpected work load increase, I can count on staying late and also working from home, working weekends, you name it.

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Ah! Thanks for reading & sharing your thoughts. The primary problem with salaried positions is that not everyone has them. But then again, the matter is not necessarily one of eliminating money… it is of eliminating abuse. Because, as I’m certain you know, being salaried does not necessarily prevent abuse.

    • DT said

      No offense, but I would gladly take the extra work load or late event in exchange for access to better benefits and a more regular set of hours than the sketchy various schedules and meager benefit options those of us who punch a clock receive. Some weeks I may have 40 or more hours, others I may only have 20. The only way to plan a monthly budget is to prepare for the least amount of hours and hope for the best. I’d gladly trade you!

      • Ted said

        I’ve had it both ways, and I gotta say, I prefer the sketchy hours. I like to try to find ways to keep me busy, or entertained, around the house, that can also bring in/save a little cash. Rather than spend all my spare time making money for someone else, at the expense of my family/social life. But that doesn’t mean I want to play games with my employer about the time I’m owed.

    • Jen said

      Even if you’re salaried you are still legally entitled to overtime pay unless you are properly classified as an exempt employee

  21. This is what they are bought and paid for,

  22. Zac said

    Where’s Jared Lee Loughner when ya need him?

  23. Cyn said

    Perhaps this has already been stated, but who’s to say companies OFFER Comp Time!! One may just be screwed out of OT in general.. You have to admit there are very few laws that protect in the workplace.

  24. teamster said

    Nice teeth, to bad that the face don’t match them, YUCKKKKKK!!!!!!!

  25. tom said

    put that cunt in a coal mine and make her work 80 hr weeks and see her change her mind

  26. Chris said

    Did y’all actually READ the bill? It gives the option of either getting paid the OT at 1.5 times or get Comp time at 1.5 times. If that comp time is not used the employer is required to pay it out at the end of the year. This gives more options to the worker who would rather have the comp time than the pay. Sensationalize much?

    • Ted said

      Provided the company keeps good track, and doesn’t try to bully the worker out of either option. What stops the company from forcing the worker to take said comp instead of a layoff, denying fair unemployment? Thats the sort of fine print thing that I’m worried about, as an american laborer.

      • Cameron said

        What stops the company from forcing the worker to take the comp time? Maybe the very bill we are discussing:

        Prohibits an employer from intimidating, threatening, or coercing an employee in order to: (1) interfere with the employee’s right to request or not to request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation, or (2) require an employee to use such compensatory time.

        Maybe you are worried that the company will skirt around the law, and that the employee will be powerless because they do not understand the law or cannot afford to take the employer to court. These are valid concerns, but that is basically a problem with employment law and now with this law in particular. Basically, if the employer is a rotten dirtbag that tries to cheat its employees, it is probably already doing so.

        Another thing worth mentioning is that the employer doesn’t actually save any money if the employee takes time off instead of comp pay. This is because the employer will be paying wages to the employee who is off, AND will be paying wages to the employee that takes their place. Consider this scenario: I work 60 hours this week, and I request time and a half pay for the 20 hours OT. Next week, I work 40 hours. My employer pays me a total of 110 wage hours in this 2 week period. Now, consider if I had worked 60 hours, and instead requested time and a half off instead. Next week, I work for 10 hours and take my 30 hours off. My employer pays me 80 wage hours over the two weeks, but also has to pay another employee 30 wage hours to cover the time I didn’t work in the second week. In both scenarios, the employer pays 110 hours, and got 60 hours of labor followed by 40 hours of labor. The only difference is whether that labor was divided among one person or two.

        Since it is more cost effective to have one person do a job rather than two (due to the increased overhead of training and otherwise “managing” more people), it would be more inconvenient for the employer if the employee did take the time off. This bill may actually be bad for that reason, and you might legitimately oppose the bill for this reason. Just make sure you do the research and put some thought into it.

    • Angie Warner said

      What the heck is comp time? What company does that? They would find a legal way to get around it!

    • Donna said

      I see my comment was removed. Don’t like the truth?

  27. No, don’t pay overtime after forty hours. Pay overtime for every tenth of an hour beyond one’s scheduled shift!

    http://iclast.net/Articles/Overtime.html

  28. Al said

    THe Republicans are slaves to the business community, this bill doesn’t help the standard of living for American workers it just mandates more control for corporations to exploit the American worker. American Workers deserve to be respected by their political representative. Roby will be offered a pplum job once she loses her seat.

  29. Nate said

    Bet you get paid really good off the taxes that you get off of our overtime pay? You people need to eat sandwiches and potato chips and then let us poor folks know how you feel! The government needs an uprising with some good ole country folks! This is stupid and makes me ashamed to call myself a republican !

  30. Scott Hoyem said

    Yay, Chris! I’m glad somebody got it. It’s disappointing so many people lack reading comprehension skills. Words like “could” are included. Where on Earth did “eliminate overtime pay” come from. Total baloney. . . this thread.

  31. Carrie said

    I really want to know her rational behind this Bill. I can’t grasp the idea that she values not paying people for services rendered. My husband works overtime frequently. He’s a building engineer and many of the the things he has to do has to be done through the night when tenants aren’t present. Theses things need to be done to uphold the safety of the building. And what about a firefighter who works OT to save a life? Do we really think time off is a valuable compensation? I’m a school teacher. I work overtime everyday. I work above and beyond whats stated in my contract. I don’t get time and a half and I don’t get time off. Maybe she should work on a Bill capping the amounts of money politicians make or some Bills in education that will help strengthen education. And not a bill that screws the middle class even more.

  32. Logan Rollo said

    Sad to see that you are misleading our citizens. The bill allows an employer to offer comp instead of overtime. Seems to be specifically aimed to companies that are struggling to pay overtime.

  33. Tim Kammerer said

    Can’t wait for election time, Get rid of this bitch and every other bitch and asshole who are favoring corperations and are trying to take away the rights and previlages of every american in this country and hopefully start over with maybe some honest people for a change….

  34. Little concerned about the 4.28% who think this is a good idea! =(

  35. Linda said

    My husband works 6 days a week 10 to 12 hour shifts plus a 1 1/2 drive one way making it a 3 hour round trip to work and back to home. And thanks to Obama our taxes has doubled and our hospital insurance has doubled. And now Martha Roby you want to take overtime pay away from the hard working people that are trying to make a honest living and provide for there family. My husband is told to work these crazy hours if he don’t he is threaten with his job either work or go off the hill you can be replaced in a matter of minutes. It is a shame the way these companies treat there employees and get by with it. Martha Roby if you had to work hard for you money and like a lot of hard working Americans do in stead of sitting on your ass. Would love to see you go out and work 10 to 12 hour shifts at some hard labor and see if you would like your OT taking away.

  36. Dale Nesfeder said

    Alabama’s low minimum wage and no overtime is very attractive to business. Without a Union you are screwed

  37. This is just the next wave of attacks on the working citizen! It will soon be happening in all states if we don’t do something about it.

  38. Mark said

    I don’t agree with the original post….seems very biased. I don’t know that it is a great bill, but our American workforce has got to compete with others from around the world….this is why we are falling off on our GDP and will continue to fall if we don’t change up our great entitlement and benefits all around mentality! There are so many rules protecting workers, so many giving rights, and so much compliance that these tycoon business owners are unable to compete! Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to over $10 will also be another killer for employees….that’s right, employees! That being said, reap what you all are sowing, and you can keep buying chinese merchandise for a long time to come!! P.S. Teamster and Tom, your posts are unintelligent and disgusting….way to contribute!

  39. Ron said

    Some can understand this proposal, some can’t. Point being, why is it not written clearly and simple to avoid such debates. When it comes to politics or news, people in such professions no longer have a desire to speak naturally, and definitely do not have a desire to interpret something with common sense. They choose to over examine, speculate, devour, and mislead a persons statement until it is of a new meaning, of which they know it was not the intent of the original speaker. It is like when someone knows what they mean, they shrug their shoulders, and they say, “You know what I mean”, or “Come on guys”. Why have we ventured from common human conversation into a detail only oriented technical speaking and deciphering scheme? That was a mouthful of bad English, but you get the point.

  40. Anastasia said

    Because of laws forcing employers to pay time and a half, any job I, or my husband has had, has given us no end of grief if we incur overtime, mostly meaning lower scoring year reviews thus lower pay raises. So because of these time and a half laws on the books I’m not allowed to work any extra hours at all. So once again, extra government regulation is just hurting me and my law income family, not helping it. Best to take it away all together.

  41. Anastasia said

    Forgive me…low income* not law income.

  42. […] http://warmsouthernbreeze.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/alabama-republican-introduces-bill-to-eliminate-o… […]

  43. Joy said

    While I agree that OT should not be eliminated, but the author writes this as if he is familiar with the Fair Standards Labor Act which in fact he is not. He isn’t even slightly concerned for the welfare of his fellow coworkers. Because if he was, he would not be proporting the labor laws as fair. They are not. How many of you are aware that these same laws allow certain businesses to pay less than minimum wage to employees with disabilities? They are paid piece rate, meaning they are paid by how much they complete, which given that they have a disability isn’t much sometimes. Their checks are often times less than $5.00. So get indignant over that before you get mad over this.

  44. Brenda said

    Why not pay our Congressmen and women an hourly rate and see how much time they’re willing to work for us?

  45. Ted said

    I worked for a company out of Maryland that did this to us. They claimed it was perfectly legitimate, but we knew better. When we tried to take our time they claimed we were too busy to allow anyone time off. “After this contract”, then came another. Needless to say I was never fully compensated, which is probably my own fault for not fighting harder. Anyways, bad idea.
    On another note, the author mentioned Child Labor Laws, which I think are a little too strict. I think this country would be a much better place if kids were still encouraged to go out and get odd jobs. Nothing wrong with picking berries, yard work, house cleaning, paper routes, etc. Obviously they shouldn’t be doing work men should do, but KEEPING THEM BUSY with something that is also rewarding in a way thay can see immediately teaches them something T.V., and video games, or even modern school systems just can’t provide.

  46. William lake said

    Your article makes it seem like a bad thing. Read the bill. It’s actually helping employees. The overall choice in the matter is on the employee. If they have a bargaining agreement it was voted on by the employees. The employer can’t impose this on the worker. So if you want to get the overtime you can still get the money and if you want to build your leave up for a extended weekend, vacation, routine appointments, etc. then you can.

  47. Jen said

    The law sounds terrible. But, you say in your article that “At Will” is a re-branding of “Right to Work.” They are actually completely different things. Every state but Montana is an at-will state. Some states have right to work laws, that essentially mean that you cannot be required to join a union.

  48. Hawkeye said

    No offense to you warmsouthernbreeze, but I don’t think you correctly read the law and what it is proposing. There is nothing radical about this, and for a Republican, this is a very liberal idea. I’m not sure when giving the employee more options on what to do with their overtime became a bad thing. 1.5 hours of Paid time off per hour worked over 40 in one week is the same rate as taking the time-an-a-half pay per hour worked.

    If the employer doesn’t offer comp time, then the employee gets Overtime. Simple enough, and good for the employee. Read the law and make sure you understand it before writing such an inflammatory article please!

  49. California Girl said

    I’m sorry, maybe I’m not reading it correctly, but it doesn’t appear to me that it “eliminates” overtime pay so much as provide that employers and their employees (whether or not they are unionized) can choose whether overtime is compensated with time off or overtime pay. This doesn’t sound like the worst thing in the world. Now, whether there are safeguards to ensure employees lacking a collective bargaining entity aren’t improperly coerced one way or the other is a different kettle of fish, but I think you might be overreacting to the general aim of the law.

  50. Robert said

    Where in the text(http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/1406/text) do you get this, “…would render employees powerless against their employers who in turn could legally refuse to pay them for mandatory overtime”?

  51. Angie Warner said

    It’s always baffled me why people who work hourly wages and are from the South think the Republican Party is for them! This Is a perfect example and the fact they are trying to stop the hourly minimum wage from being raised! It’s not just her! As you can see, this would be another victory for corporate America! Then corporate America say without us there would be no jobs! Well without the blue collar Americans there would be a poorer corporate America!

  52. Ron said

    Some can understand this proposal, some can’t. Point being, why is it not written clearly and simple to avoid such debates. When it comes to politics or news, people in such professions no longer have a desire to speak naturally, and definitely do not have a desire to interpret something with common sense. They choose to over examine, speculate, devour, and mislead a persons statement until it is of a new meaning, of which they know it was not the intent of the original speaker. It is like when someone knows what they mean, they shrug their shoulders, and they say, “You know what I mean”, or “Come on guys”. Why have we ventured from common human conversation into a detail only oriented technical speaking and deciphering scheme? That was a mouthful of bad English, but you get the point.

  53. what kind of bullshit is this comp pay fuck comp pay times are hard enought people like me depend on that over time pay we need that over time pay now not at the end of the year thats what filling income taxes is for i bet that bitch was given everything growing up get that bitch out of there

  54. Treasa said

    At the rate these politicians/government are messing things up we will be lucky if we are all not standing in front of a garbage can trying to keep warm. Wtf. Why don’t they just face it. We are never going to be out if debt. Print some more money off and let’s enjoy life while we are alive.

  55. Donna said

    Why don’t you stop your lies. If you need the bill explained, this might help you…………The Working Families Flexibility Act: Allows employers to offer employees a choice between cash wages and comp time for overtime hours worked. Employees who choose to receive cash wages would be able to continue to do so. The employer and the employee would have to complete a written agreement to use comp time. The agreement would be entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee. This protects all existing employee protections in current law, including the 40 hour work week and how overtime compensation is accrued. Employers would be required to pay cash wages for any unused time at the end of the year. Workers could ‘cash out’ their accrued comp time whenever they choose to do so.

    As passed by the House, The Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013 would allow private-sector workers to receive paid time off, or “comp time,” for overtime hours worked. A working mom or dad could use an hour of overtime he or she earned as paid “time and a half” off work instead of “time and a half” cash, if that’s what they prefer. The “comp time” option is legal and commonly used in the public sector thanks to a 1985 revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but remains restricted by federal law for private businesses and their employees. No worker could be forced to take paid time off, and no business owner could be forced to offer it.
    There, that’s it…..nothing scary, only more options for employees!!

  56. Bukko Boomeranger said

    For the people who think that workers are shielded from unpaid overtime because the proposed law only applied to folks under “collective bargaining agreements,” that’s negated by the second bit of wording about “with the consent of the employees.” Which, if this took effect, would work out to be Mr. Boss saying “You consent to work 60 hours this week at straight-time pay, right? Because you want to keep your job, right? And if you want time-and-a-half, Ol’ Jim-Bob there starts at your job next week. After you train him over the weekend. At straight-time wages.” Consent my azz!

    And let’s not forget that when a worker attempts to take that comp time off, the business is too busy to go without them, so forget those vacation days. Or they’ll be UNPAID vacation days. Somehow, the workers will get screwed out of the supposed benefits from this deal. Because that’s the way it works in the real world. People with power will abuse it, if there are no laws in place to stop them, and law enforcers to slam those laws down on the heads of the abusers. It’s why we have police, eh? Armed robbery and murder are wrong, and no decent person would do those things, but the world has never been populated by decent people. In the Glibertarian mindset, though, businesses are all honest, there is no corruption, and everybody plays fair with each other. Yeaaaaaah, just like in my imaginary world I can leave my bicycle parked unlocked on a busy street and it will still be there when I come back…

  57. Rich Lane said

    Hmm how about the Fairness to voters act, which one provision of would reduce the pay of all members of congress to minimum wage; and would also eliminate all the perks which the receive as well. After all the original idea was to have citizen legislators who did their job for their constituents while working regular full time jobs and living their own private lives like every other citizen, not full time paid like royalty legislators who suck the tax money dry!!

  58. Glen Fingar said

    Your missing the point completely.
    Allowing companies to offer time off instead of pay would be nothing but a disaster, most would force to to “bank” your hours then argue with you about how much comp time you have coming, or lay you off and force you to hire a lawyer to get your money. Put a misleading lable like “working families flexibility act” and everyone but labor historians will think its a great idea. If you really believe republicans have the best interest of workers in mind your sadly mistaken

  59. Actually, this is the same system used in the Netherlands in the big corporations (e.g., Philips). My own company has a flex hour bank for every employee and that bank is reset every quarter. Per our works council and union agreements with the company (two different entities that favor the employee, one on-site and elected by the people that work there and one national), we are able to take flex time as we want and we can get our extra hours paid out every quarter when the bank resets. We can also request to carry over the hours to a new quarter if we can’t use the flex time and don’t want it paid out. It happens to be a great system and I love it. Sure, you don’t get your pay immediately and you can decide to take time off rather than work so you would get paid for that time as well since it was already owed to you.

    http://warmsouthernbreeze.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/alabama-republican-introduces-bill-to-eliminate-overtime-pay/#comment-form-load-service:Facebook

    This is not to say that some horrid Republican corporate whores like this one won’t find a way to screw people, especially when they introduce the “collective bargaining” into the picture. Since collective bargaining is one of the many things the GOP and their business masters have been pushing to eliminate or severely curtail, you just know that hidden somewhere deep in the Byzantine text of the bill will be something that bends over the employees and shows them the meaning of the word “corporate relations”.

    There is always a ruse with Republicans, though, and I think it’s the way the comp time is calculated. Ours is purely by when you clock in and out, but I don’t see how it will work for employees that are on strict schedules, such as shift workers or people in time sensitive industries. But it could work if you could really insure that the employees weren’t getting screwed in the deal.

  60. Charley James said

    Ted Kennedy said it best, often wondering out loud, “What do Republicans have against working people?”

  61. Richard said

    She should be a democrat

  62. NVRDC said

    Reblogged this on Nevada Rural Democratic Caucus and commented:
    Yep … them GOP folks are all about helping the middle class! And if you believe that ….

  63. You are an idiot with no reading comprehension skills. The part you mention about unions just means this bill doesn’t affect Union contracts. Current law also doesn’t affect Union contracts.
    The second part of that summary point just means individual employees decide between comp time or traditional overtime pay. That is why the next point forbids employers from coercing the worker.
    You have either misunderstood the whole issue, or you are just a democrap tool lying to gullible people.

  64. bigruss_usn_vet said

    WSB, apparently you didn’t read the bill because it does not say they are doing away with overtime, it just gives an option for using comp time instead of overtime. This bill would up the compensation ratio on comp time from 1:1 to 1.5:1, actually being better than it is now. Typical liberal and union scaremongering!

  65. Jack F. said

    If employers are unable to coerce workers, then corporations shouldn’t possess the ability to force workers to work overtime hours at the same pay rate. If this law was to be passed, it could blow up in their faces, because without having employees who desire to work extra hours, the company will be forced to hire extra employees to do the extra work, thus adding to the payroll and benefits.

  66. Mark said

    Are you high or something. Overtime was created for the fact that if your business wants to take more time away from families that you will pay more. Family time is worth more then what you work for. If this passes the whole state of Alabama in every work sector should strike until this abomination gets revoked. This is absolutely absurd thinking, how can you think this is a good idea and that it will help your countrymen, were not china and nor shall we intend to be. Stop accepting jobs for less wages like non union scabs. It’s an abomination to even ponder this idea. Stand up for your rights people let your voices be heard so as a whole we can continue to move forward and not backwards. Lets move to a new age and not back to a Stone Age. All you business owners stop thinking of your pockets and start thinking of health and welfare.

  67. Maurice said

    A College education is extremely over-rated and nothing but a large push by corporations. Wars, high taxes and regulations have destroyed opportunities for everyone in America. The debt our government has taken on for these social programs have basically bankrupt us. Maybe we shouldn’t be trying so hard to force everyone to go to College. It is arguably better for students to finish school later on but to have more work experience and more opportunity to earn income and not take on so much debt at such a young age, becoming slaves to corporate America and government handouts for the rest of their lives. There will always be poor people. Stop restricting them from working. I worked full time when I was 13 years old. Without that, I’d be homeless today. Stop assuming you are more knowledgeable and can make better decisions than the rest of us can about our own lives. If I’m 17 and want to work 40 hours a week and go to school another 40 hours a week, you have no right to try and stop me and keep me from having money for food, housing and school. Cut out the damn insistence on running everyone else’s lives already. Others are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.

  68. Dan Tannehill said

    Did you people read the bill for yourself? Or did you sheeple just decide it’s a bad idea because the Congresswoman is a Republican?

    “H.R. 1406 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector. In lieu of overtime pay, employees could receive compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime pay would otherwise have been required. Such compensatory time could be provided only in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement or with the consent of affected employees. ”

    The bill offers a choice. Either take overtime pay at time and a half, or take future time off at the rate of one and one half hours per hour of overtime. And comp. time cannot be forced on an employee without either C.B. or the employee’s consent.

    Now let’s look at a hypothetical situation. A factory gets an unusually large order that needs to be filled this week. Each worker is required to work 60 hours-that is the regular 40 hours plus 20 hours of overtime. Let’s just thro a number in here, say the base pay is $10 per hour. (I’m self employed in agriculture, so if the number is way off, just play along. I picked 10 because it makes the math easy). The following week, the schedule reverts to the regular 40 hours.

    Under the old law, the worker will receive (before taxes and deductions) $700 this week and $400 next week for a total of $1100 for working 100 hours.

    Under this new bill, the employer may offer comp time. Their incentive to do so is that next week, there may not be enough orders to keep everyone busy. They’d rather offer comp. time than lay off workers. For the workers that elect to use comp time, they will get 30 hours off this week. Remember, it’s 1-1/2 hours of comp time per hour of overtime. This week, they earn $600 for working 60 hours. Next week, they only work 10 hours, so they only get $100. So, altogether, they earn $700 or $400 less than the old way. However, for a worker with young children, they get an extra 30 hours this week to spend with them. If the $400 difference would be a hardship, the option to take overtime pay still rests with the employee. If, on the other hand, they are in good financial shape, they can spend some valuable time with family.

    Granted, Big Government wants us to turn over our families to them for raising while we labor away deep in the hive. This bill gives the worker some freedom to choose if he’d rather work for a dwindling dollar or spend a little extra time with Junior.

    • Compensatory time is paid leave, not unpaid leave. So in your example, 60 hours under comp time = $600 and 30 hours comp time banked this week. Next week would be 10 hours + 30 hours comp time spent = $400. For a total of $1000. That’s $100 less than the OT option for the same amount of pay-hours (100) but only 70 actual work-hours.

      In essence, the person in this example would be getting paid $1000 for 70 work-hours over two weeks, instead of $700 for 70 work-hours over two weeks. Those extra 30 hours could be very important for workers with dependents to care for. And it helps employers that have no need to keep full-time 40-hour employees on staff.

      I don’t see how this is a bad thing for employee or employer. This system works -very- well in favor of employers with the situation you just described, because they would only be paying out $1000 over two weeks, instead of $1100 and 30 hours of no work for full-time employees to perform. It also works out great for the employee, who would be making only $700 in those two weeks if the employer cut the hours to suit the job.

      The only people threatened by this bill are unions and and employees that don’t pull their weight, but still want their full 40-hour workweek. Leeches that have the jobs that could be given to umemployed, hard-working Americans. Alabama doesn’t have unions, but oh boy do they have leeches. And it looks like those leeches are scared.

  69. You already have a choice of taking time off in lieu of compensation. Ever heard of “no pay leave”?????

  70. allforgood said

    “Rep. Roby’s bill would supplant, i.e. completely REPLACE the legal requirement to pay time-and-a-half for overtime with CTO – Compensatory Time Off.” wsb

    Where in the world do you get that.

    I don’t get what great problem this legislation purports to fix and I don’t get what great problem it creates. You have had a few serious commenters point out basic problems with your commentary which you have basically ignored. Your comments do wade deep into the fearmongering and employ much misleading.

    It is the light of day that gets us to a better place–not the smoke of fear.

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi AFG! Thanks for reading & sharing your thoughts. While in some regard I concur with you, I hasten to point out that, given the anti-union sentiment (where collective bargaining agreements are often struck), and in conjunction with strong-arm and retaliatory tactics (though they are vehemently denied by firms who use them), that the employees would be forced to kow-tow to any such plan if the law were passed, and fired if they did not.

      I further hasten to add that my addendum remarks (at the end of the post) should be further considered, which is that there is presently NOTHING preventing companies from ADDING such time off IN ADDITION TO any other compensatory pay & packages for their employees. That is the high road, which cheapskate, skinflint chiseling companies often avoid.

  71. My name is Erick Wright I live Martha Roby district in Alabama. The people here are struggling with unemployment, violence, poor broadband Internet, cities without side walks, Automatic budget cuts crippling the two military bases, and government shutdowns causeing thousands of government contractors to miss work. This is my home! I can see her slowly destroying it. In Alabama we have a large influx of foreign manufacturers; kia, Hyundai, ect. There are Chinese busniess men thats visiting Dothan Alabama now in prospects of building factory jobs. This measure is a attempt to take american workers back, China doesnt have a minimum wage nor overtime they don’t reconize human rights. So why should I expect them to come to My Alabama and do something different? They are not and im not going allow them! Martha Roby is up for reelection and there isnt a Republican or Democrat that will oppose her. So ive taken it upon my self to petition the state of Alabama to have my name added to 2014 ballot. 15000 signtures is the mark to be added to the ballot I have collected 10000 already deadline is June. Alabama will have its 1st independent candidate. Please support the movement, Facebook/Justthinkwright. Com or Alabama2nd-JustThinkWright.com

  72. Keith said

    Yet another example of the economic slavery that is very common in this country. When holidays came around this year, my boss decided we HAD to work on the Sunday after Thanksgiving(on Tuesday afternoon). If we couldn’t due to prior plans, we lost all pay for the 2 day holiday. Meanwhile, he couldn’t work that Saturday beforehand because he went golfing.

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Keith! Thanks for reading, and for sharing your thoughts. The abuse which you mention is precisely the type about which I have concern. Thanks again!

  73. kim ward said

    OK first of all AL struck a nerve for me because one drunk is free after hitting me who lives there and no one will even go after him, so let me tell her a thing or two about why this is so very wrong. First of all there is a reason for overtime and I know from what I am speaking of because my husband works a lot of it. Do you know why? Because the BIG companies have figured out how to work their employees overtime, paying them what they should be making in a 40hour week and getting MORE hours out of them wearing out that worker. WHY: So they do not have to hire or train more workers and pay them and the insurance. What would be the best solution for this country and create MORE jobs would be to pass a law that says unless a company pays their workers a rate that keeps up with the rate of inflation, they cannot work them overtime and they HAVE to hire workers to pick up the slack. Tie this to the bonuses they are GIVING the CEOs and you have a REAL law that would have some teeth in it and would put people to work, let those who are already worn out have that time off they say they SO desperately need. All she is wanting to do is put more money in the CEOs pocket she is evidently getting in the money bed with.

  74. Mark Trail said

    Wow, way to totally misread the bill. Do you people understand the key points to this thing or what it does? All it allows an employee to do, UNDER THEIR CONSENT or UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT is to trade their overtime work hour for 1 1/2 hours of paid time off…IN OTHER WORDS the employee would first have to consent and then wouldn’t lose a nickel! This would assist people like seasonal workers to maintain a more steady income….I can see all kinds of benefits to this.

  75. Mark Trail said

    I will also point out, this is an AMENDMENT, not a REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT…there is a huge difference. This does not in anyway remove the requirement of overtime pay, as I feel even with your amendment, you have implied. Instead this simply provides employees who consent or employees who want this under a collective bargaining agreement another avenue.

  76. Reminds me of the film “Roller Ball”, starring James Cann.
    Where corporations ruled and fought each other in the “game” for resources as opposed to going to war.

    For all the gains Labor has made in the past century this is a frontal attack to all those protections. This opens up an entire gama of abuses that will be perpetrated by the corporate bosses. History repeats it’s self.
    From where Ms. Roby sits, it must be easy to expound such idiocy.

  77. Rich said

    Complain about republicans, but support democrats 100% even when they do this crap???

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/senate-dems-block-amendment-to-restore-veteran-benefits-by-closing-illegal-immigrant-welfare-loophole/

    • Warm Southern Breeze said

      Hi Rich, and thanks for writing! Having read the article which you shared via linked URL, I noted the phrase “loophole that illegal immigrants have used to unlawfully obtain.” By definition, a “loophole” is legal and valid, simply because the law does not address the matter in the fashion being exploited. And, that’s what it is… an exploit. So, on that account, the blame should be squarely placed with those who write tax law, which is the Congress. I regard this matter -which I find onerous- a tit-for-tax… er, tit-for-tat political ploy in which both parties refuse to budge on two separate matters. That is, there is no willingness to compromise on any matter which would accomplish a greater good for the people. And it is precisely that type logjam which has so despitefully characterized this most recent Congress.

      I also hasten to add this note on the ITIN: “The appearance of an ITIN is substantially similar to that of a SSN. ITINs consist of nine digits, though always beginning with the number “9.” Also similar to SSNs, ITINs are in some cases being used for broader purposes than originally intended. Due to this, the IRS is taking steps to curb ITIN use for purposes other than the filing of income tax returns. The IRS has openly discouraged, for instance, the use of ITINs for the issuance of driver’s licenses.”

      Concluding, I ask this: Is there any rationally legitimate reason why ITINs cannot be changed from their present easily-confused similarity with SSANs?

      Thanks again for reading, and for sharing your thoughts!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,290 other followers

%d bloggers like this: