GOP New bill allow employer to choose not pay 1.5x OT hourly

[stormkroe]

Except a company could make you take pay as comp time, then never actually take the time off. Thus going for time and half to zero time. At least I think that is the fear.

I just read the bill, and it looks damn good to me, actually. I have a natural distrust of republicans messing with labor laws, and with the dems fighting it hard there might be a catch I'm missing. But it looks like it is 100% employee's choice for comp time or pay, the comp time accrues at time and half, there are responsible max accruals, and unused comp time has to be paid out.

Really this is very similar to many companies policies for exempt engineers (except no time and half for engies). I personally always preferred comp time, unless I was working a ton of OT at once.

Does any one know what the Dems have against this?

Comp time could also be great for people that work unpredictable jobs where they could be working 7/12s one month, then have no work and no hours the next month.

This is almost identical to the laws in Alberta, and allows for some creative choices by the employee. For instance, with the really high wages, it's easy to catapult into the next bracket for the year, so I have several employees who request comp time for planned vacations, etc. Saves them a ton in the end.

 

[agent00f]

This is the hill you are going to die on? lol You must also believe OT pay is optional then.

I'm just informing you of how reality works because you're having such a hard time of it.

I'm really not seeing how this could screw over employees in anything except the shittiest companies that already ignore labor laws. If you are going to hang your hat on the idea that employers won't follow the law, shouldn't that be a complaint with the current laws too?

Hardly a great idea to remain so confused when even pcgeek gets it.

 

[agent00f]

Yeah, I don't understand how this law makes it easier for employers to screw their employees. It seems to me like it is easier to coerce an employee to work overtime without recording the extra hours than it would be to accurately record their overtime, force them to take comp time instead of pay, refuse to allow them to use the comp time, and then fail to pay out the comp time after a year when it expires.

Why do it illegally when conservatives can help make it legal.

 

[Cozarkian]

Why do it illegally when conservatives can help make it legal.

You understand it is still illegal, right?

In order to cheat employees when paying monetary overtime companies just have to illegally fail to track overtime.

In order to cheat employees with comp time, companies would have to keep accurate records, illegally coerce employees, and then illegally fail to pay employees for the unused time at the end of the year.

An employer cheating with comp time is more likely to get caught and would be creating the evidence needed to bust them. Cheating employers will just move forward with business as usual by cheating on tracking time.

 

[agent00f]

You understand it is still illegal, right?

In order to cheat employees when paying monetary overtime companies just have to illegally fail to track overtime.

In order to cheat employees with comp time, companies would have to keep accurate records, illegally coerce employees, and then illegally fail to pay employees for the unused time at the end of the year.

An employer cheating with comp time is more likely to get caught and would be creating the evidence needed to bust them. Cheating employers will just move forward with business as usual by cheating on tracking time.

As mentioned in the thread, many jobs have more/less busy times. So instead of getting a bonus in the former period and catch a break while on the clock in the latter, now it's in the employees' best interest to choose an alternative "bonus" of taking the latter time off.

Now it's your obligation to play too dumb to understand anything.

 

[Cozarkian]

As mentioned in the thread, many jobs have more/less busy times. So instead of getting a bonus in the former period and catch a break while on the clock in the latter, now it's in the employees' best interest to choose an alternative "bonus" of taking the latter time off.

Do you know what those companies willing to illegally coerce employees into taking comp time and illegally forcing them to take the comp time during slow seasons can do now? They can legally schedule employees for fewer hours during the slow season.

Why risk labor lawsuits to do something illegally that can already be done legally?

The only downside is if the company has a few employees that prefer comp time and a few that don't. In that case the company won't have to illegally coerce employees to take comp time, it will simply give more overtime to those employees that want comp time without coercion. While that is a downside for some employees, it is a perk for others.

 

[agent00f]

Do you know what those companies willing to illegally coerce employees into taking comp time and illegally forcing them to take the comp time during slow seasons can do now? They can legally schedule employees for fewer hours during the slow season.

Why risk labor lawsuits to do something illegally that can already be done legally?

The only downside is if the company has a few employees that prefer comp time and a few that don't. In that case the company won't have to illegally coerce employees to take comp time, it will simply give more overtime to those employees that want comp time without coercion. While that is a downside for some employees, it is a perk for others.

Must be real hard to grasp the benefits of avoid paying overtime.

 

[Cozarkian]

Must be real hard to grasp the benefits of avoid paying overtime.

Assume a wage slave gets $10 per hour.

Status Quo:
Busy week - employee works 50 hours is paid $400 + $150 overtime for $550 total.
Slow week - employee is scheduled for 20 hours and is paid $200.
Total = $750

With comp time instead:
Busy week - employee works 50 hours and is paid $400 plus 15 hours comp time.
Slow week - employee works 20 hours and takes 15 hours comp time and is paid $350.
Total = $750.

The employer didn't avoid paying overtime, it delayed the payout time (up to a maximum of one year) and got to earn interest during the delay.

The employee was still paid over time and didn't have to worry about saving income from the busy time to cover the slow time, which makes budgeting easier. The employee may also get more overall - if the employee gets a 10¢ raise between busy week and slow week, the employee will be paid $753.50 total instead of $752.

In another industry, there might be busy weeks (50 hours) and slow weeks of 40 hours. Status quo employee works 90 hours and gets paid $950. With comp time employee works 75 hours and gets paid $800. Some employees will prefer the former, some the latter. Just because you don't like the latter option of working less doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to have that option.

Could an unethical employer in the second example illegally coerce the employee into the comp time option to save $150? Sure, but why risk the lawsuit when the company could just switch to example one and tell the employee we don't need you for 40 hours in the slow week, you are only scheduled for 25, resulting in the employee being paid $800 and working 75 hours.

 

[theeedude]

The real solution is automating these jobs away, not trying to nickel and dime your employees and hurting morale.

 

[agent00f]

Assume a wage slave gets $10 per hour.

Status Quo:
Busy week - employee works 50 hours is paid $400 + $150 overtime for $550 total.
Slow week - employee is scheduled for 20 hours and is paid $200.
Total = $750

With comp time instead:
Busy week - employee works 50 hours and is paid $400 plus 15 hours comp time.
Slow week - employee works 20 hours and takes 15 hours comp time and is paid $350.
Total = $750.

The employer didn't avoid paying overtime, it delayed the payout time (up to a maximum of one year) and got to earn interest during the delay.

The employee was still paid over time and didn't have to worry about saving income from the busy time to cover the slow time, which makes budgeting easier. The employee may also get more overall - if the employee gets a 10¢ raise between busy week and slow week, the employee will be paid $753.50 total instead of $752.

In another industry, there might be busy weeks (50 hours) and slow weeks of 40 hours. Status quo employee works 90 hours and gets paid $950. With comp time employee works 75 hours and gets paid $800. Some employees will prefer the former, some the latter. Just because you don't like the latter option of working less doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to have that option.

Could an unethical employer in the second example illegally coerce the employee into the comp time option to save $150 in overtime? Sure, but why risk the lawsuit when the company could just switch to example one and tell the employee we don't need you for 40 hours in the slow week, you are only scheduled for 25, resulting in the employee being paid $800 and working 75 hours.

Seems pretty obvious even by your own narrative the reality is it offers those with some power in these relationships to cut hours without actually cutting hours. Of course it's sold as some kind of benefit to the working man as you're obliged to, a part time cut as a "vacation".

 

[Zorba]

Seems pretty obvious even by your own narrative the reality is it offers those with some power in these relationships to cut hours without actually cutting hours. Of course it's sold as some kind of benefit to the working man as you're obliged to, a part time cut as a "vacation".

Employers already cut people's time the time. Maybe this makes it happen a little more often, but maybe this also gives sometime time of to do something they care about.

As someone that values time off at a far higher rate than its hourly rate, I would love to get comp time instead of OT even if I was pushed to use it in slow times.

 

[Ackmed]

I too would like to be able to pick vacation time over overtime. Even though I rarely take vacation, I depleted most of mine taking time off for our 4th child. I am only scheduled for 120 hours a month, 14 days in total. Two 4 day weeks, and a 6 day week, that's it. A 36 hour week, 40 hour week, and 44 hour week. I get two 4 day breaks, and a 7 day break every month between them. So a week off every month, not really any need to take vacation time. But taking 4 days off that are in-between a 4 day and 7 day break would give me about two weeks off, which is nice. Especially this time of year. We're allowed to bank 160 hours of vacation time, we have to either use, lose, or sell it by the end of the year. I usually sell it, which gets taxed highly. But good for Christmas time. Perhaps with the new union contract negotiations next summer, its been talked about before.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This is almost identical to the laws in Alberta, and allows for some creative choices by the employee. For instance, with the really high wages, it's easy to catapult into the next bracket for the year, so I have several employees who request comp time for planned vacations, etc. Saves them a ton in the end.

But the "bracket" just taxes earnings over the threashold, I've never understood being concerned about it unless it's a State tax thing you're talking about and it works differently. I think people claiming it are uneducated about how it works.

 

[Cozarkian]

Seems pretty obvious even by your own narrative the reality is it offers those with some power in these relationships to cut hours without actually cutting hours. Of course it's sold as some kind of benefit to the working man as you're obliged to, a part time cut as a "vacation".

Those in power already have the power to cut hours. This law doesn't give them any new power in that regard. What it does do, is let an employer give workers a choice between more vacation and more pay.

 

[stormkroe]

But the "bracket" just taxes earnings over the threashold, I've never understood being concerned about it unless it's a State tax thing you're talking about and it works differently. I think people claiming it are uneducated about how it works.

Sorry for the ambiguity, that's why I said 'catapults', I've paid workers $30k in just OT for the year.
I'll also point out that I think giving employees yet another government-backed bit of control is great, and very important in shifting the current accepted perspective that employers are your rulers. Both sides of the equation need to be EQUAL or you're getting paid too much or too little. Once the idea that employment agreements are more like a contract between 2 equal parties, the US will begin to be more accepting of things like REAL maternal/paternal leave, worthy wages, etc.

 

[Zorba]

Sorry for the ambiguity, that's why I said 'catapults', I've paid workers $30k in just OT for the year.
I'll also point out that I think giving employees yet another government-backed bit of control is great, and very important in shifting the current accepted perspective that employers are your rulers. Both sides of the equation need to be EQUAL or you're getting paid too much or too little. Once the idea that employment agreements are more like a contract between 2 equal parties, the US will begin to be more accepting of things like REAL maternal/paternal leave, worthy wages, etc.

I hadn't thought about that before, but if you were taxed at 30% for state and federal, then FICA at 7.5%, you lose 37.5% of your OT pay since it'd likely all be at your marginal rate. However, if you take it as comp time you'd get 100% of it. Yes, overall you'd get less money, but the straight "value" would be higher with comp.

 

[stormkroe]

I hadn't thought about that before, but if you were taxed at 30% for state and federal, then FICA at 7.5%, you lose 37.5% of your OT pay since it'd likely all be at your marginal rate. However, if you take it as comp time you'd get 100% of it. Yes, overall you'd get less money, but the straight "value" would be higher with comp.

Like everything, distillation of concept is best, if possible. 'Pay for vacation with higher taxed money or lower taxed money'.
Now, not everyone wants to vacation all the time, but many people do other jobs/home repairs during that time instead of fishing.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Sorry for the ambiguity, that's why I said 'catapults', I've paid workers $30k in just OT for the year.
I'll also point out that I think giving employees yet another government-backed bit of control is great, and very important in shifting the current accepted perspective that employers are your rulers. Both sides of the equation need to be EQUAL or you're getting paid too much or too little. Once the idea that employment agreements are more like a contract between 2 equal parties, the US will begin to be more accepting of things like REAL maternal/paternal leave, worthy wages, etc.

No disrespect intended on you. OT & tax brackets is just a pet peeve of mine. I cringe when I hear about someone turning away 30k in earning over the fear of paying like $600 extra in taxes.
I'll never forget the Republican strategist who said raising the minimum wage will be a burden to low income people because they'll pay more in taxes. That's the whole point and they'll never pay more in taxes than the extra earnings unless its a highly special circumstance that effects maybe one or two people in the US.

 

[stormkroe]

No disrespect intended on you. OT & tax brackets is just a pet peeve of mine. I cringe when I hear about someone turning away 30k in earning over the fear of paying like $600 extra in taxes.
I'll never forget the Republican strategist who said raising the minimum wage will be a burden to low income people because they'll pay more in taxes. That's the whole point and they'll never pay more in taxes than the extra earnings unless its a highly special circumstance that effects maybe one or two people in the US.

No disrespect found, I let employees decide how they want to do it. It's not so much JUST the extra tax money spent, but rather a 'work to live' mentality vs 'live to work'.
I did have to set a rule about OT due to an employee loopholing me. I started out as anything over 8, anything over 44. The guy started working extra hours over 8, then missing half days to watch sports on TV. So he was getting several hours of OT, but only working 35 to 36 hours per week.
Other than that, they're in control of how they want to play it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

My OT gets taxed like crazy.

For instance, I recently was paid 250 in OT, after taxes I received 133.

So yea, sometimes I turn down OT for projects and such because it's not worth it that time around. Sometimes you get stuck on a problem and the OT just happens.