Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm trying to figure out exactly how this works (I don't work in this type of occupation, so I never deal with it).
I'm going to squeeze it all into two weeks, just for simplicity. So let's say you have a normal 40-hour work week. After 40 hours is considered overtime. You normally work five 8-hour days. You want the second Monday off. You work extra hours in the first week, accruing the equivalent of eight hours.
Now, in the following week, do you get your Monday off, and still only work eight hours a day for the other four days, or do you get Monday off but still have to work the forty hours in the four remaining days?
I'm trying to figure out exactly how this works (I don't work in this type of occupation, so I never deal with it).
I'm going to squeeze it all into two weeks, just for simplicity. So let's say you have a normal 40-hour work week. After 40 hours is considered overtime. You normally work five 8-hour days. You want the second Monday off. You work extra hours in the first week, accruing the equivalent of eight hours.
Now, in the following week, do you get your Monday off, and still only work eight hours a day for the other four days, or do you get Monday off but still have to work the forty hours in the four remaining days?
It's between you and your employer as to how it works out.
It's between you and your employer as to how it works out.
A comp day means you get paid for the day off.
That's what I was trying to get at. It kept sounding like people were saying that those overtime hours could lead to a day "off", as in "an unpaid day off". That would not be a deal under any circumstances.
I am okay with this bill solely on the idea, but I see it as ripe for employer abuse. I know far too many employers who would have the employee work tons of overtime hours, then turn around and deny the time off when requested. If I work overtime hours for no money, but only future time off, then it should be my choice when I take that time, within some reason.
That's what I was trying to get at. It kept sounding like people were saying that those overtime hours could lead to a day "off", as in "an unpaid day off". That would not be a deal under any circumstances.
I am okay with this bill solely on the idea, but I see it as ripe for employer abuse. I know far too many employers who would have the employee work tons of overtime hours, then turn around and deny the time off when requested. If I work overtime hours for no money, but only future time off, then it should be my choice when I take that time, within some reason.
Did you read the bill ?
The agreement has to be made with employer and employee before the work is done.
You don't own a business do you? It's pretty clear from your lack of comprehension.
I agree- I think the American worker has far too many rights as it is. The employer needs more power in today's workplace. Next thing you know, these whiny self entitled workers are going to demand to be treated like human beings!! They'll be spewing out stuff like "fair wages" "benefits" "fair and ethical treatment" "workers rights" etc. Don't they understand that there's a businiess to run, profits to be made?? How DARE they demand to be treated fairly-that kind of attitude has no place in Corporate America!! It should be all about profit and employer rights, and nothing else period
I think you are making much of nothing. In the first place, an employer could not require overtime without pay. Period. That is against existing law.
Secondly, I think it's a great idea to be able to offer comp time to those who want it. Some would probably gladly work overtime for extra time off in the future.
What the bill would do is end long-standing labor law by allowing private-sector employers to offer compensatory time off in lieu of time-and-a-half pay for overtime. If it became law, there are some workers who would prefer payment and some would prefer comp-time. However, there is nothing to stop an employer from discriminating against those who prefer payment by cutting their overtime entirely. Nor would employers face any penalty if they forced unpaid overtime on workers who fear losing their jobs if they object.
So, instead of paying workers for additional hours, paying comp-time effectively adds to the company's profits as it shifts the liability of the comp-time to the future -- which, according to the bill, can only be used at the employer’s convenience.
How does this help families again? It adds flexibility to employers not families. Fortunately, it won't make it out of the Senate.
Overtime is not protected by law. If I don't want any of my employees working a minute past 40 hours, they certainly won't. As the business owner, that's my prerogative. There's nothing discriminatory about it.
The difference is that we conservatives understand this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
