Earlier this month, a Republican-backed overtime pay bill, known as the Working Families Flexibility Act, was passed in the House. Essentially, the new bill is designed to “allow employers to offer comp time instead of paying overtime.” While many on the right have applauded the bill, many Democrats are worried that such a bill will end up impacting employee paychecks.
Earlier this month, a Republican-backed overtime pay bill, known as the Working Families Flexibility Act, was passed in the House. Essentially, the new bill is designed to “allow employers to offer comp time instead of paying overtime.” While many on the right have applauded the bill, many Democrats are worried that such a bill will end up impacting employee paychecks.
So how will this new bill work, exactly? Well, it will “give employees a choice between taking time off or being paid time-and-a-half when they work more than 40 hours in a week.” So if the bill allows actual employees to decide what they want to do, why are the Democrats worried? For starters, some on the left argue that “low-wage workers who need the extra money could feel pressured to take time off when they would prefer a bigger paycheck.” Critics worry that “given the power differential, many nonunion workers would feel compelled to accept comp time.”
Additionally, some see conflict down the road with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which “requires private-sector companies to pay time-and-a-half to hourly employees who work overtime.” However, the idea for the new Working Families Flexibility Act arose when Republicans realized that “some workers would rather take earned time off instead of receiving overtime pay.” Because the new legislation would grant workers a choice between “comp time” and overtime pay, Republicans claim workers can end up saving “as much as 160 hours — or about one month’s worth — of paid time off.” According to the legislation, at the end of the year, companies would pay employees “for any time off they don’t use.”
Martha Roby (R-Ala.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said, “employees would not be forced to take time off if they prefer to cash in a bigger paycheck.” She also attempted to quell democrat concerns by claiming that “private-sector employers would not be forced to participate in the program. They could continue paying overtime, but would likely save money by offering paid time off instead.”
On the other side of the aisle, however, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) says the bill “takes away overtime pay” and instead gives workers a “vague IOU.” She agrees with many of her peers that “employees would be far better off getting paid time-and-a-half for their overtime hours and putting that money in the bank where it can earn interest, rather than having their paychecks withheld indefinitely.”
It’s important to note that while the bill passed on the House floor 229-197, it didn’t receive a single Democrat vote.
Join the conversation!