Plan B Forum

One upon a time I was an hourly worker. Company policy--time-and-a-half for anything beyond 8 hours continuous or more than 40 hours in a calendar week. Double time for weekends or scheduled time off. Triple time for holidays. It was not a union shop. This pay policy was an important lever to keep out unions.

There was/is a federal law regulating all this stuff. I think only the time and a half is federal mandate. But this could be changing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on- ... 6b51c068bd

This proposal to permit comp time instead of overtime pay still must go to senate. I NEVER liked comp time I hated to even take vacation.
When I was gone, my work just piled up. Nobody else did it. It was all waiting form me when I got back. And by-the-by, there is overtime provisions for non-hourly workers, they just have a higher threshold before it kicks in. I was always under the impression that overtime pay was not mandated by federal law to compensate the worker.

It was intended to punish the employer for not hiring enough people to do the job that was to be done. Do you believe the employer who is working the existing employers to the extent that overtime pay kicks in, will not figure out subtle or not so subtle ways to get the worker to agree to pie-in-the-sky-someday when I might lay somebody off comp time? Many already fake the work records to avoid overtime pay.

snailgate

My major issue with comp time is it vastly less than time worked if even taken at all.

I liked comp time when I got it. I would either get an extra two weeks vacation or if vacation was not at maximum I could bank vacation as an extra savings account (which grew in value as my salary went up) or an extra two paychecks when I left that job. Great deal. Outside of Calif. I think few states require employers to allow you to carry over vacation so most companies screw their employees with a use it or lose it policy. (go us!)


yrs,
rubato

The comp time Rube talks about was strictly a CA or even company issue: AFAIK once you are exempt, under existing FLSA, the company can demand of you what it wants. The changes to the FLSA which came about late last year after many months of comment period would have changed all that: they pushed the definition of exempt upwards so that (if memory serves because I am too lazy to look it up) most jobs paying less than $47K became non-exempt and therefore OT was payable. While I had some problems with this law as a manager it made sense and, dollar-wise, it was a return to the levels back in the seventies or so (remember - when America was great) but nevertheless incurred the ire of Republicans across the board. It never came into force despite the fact that companies had spent millions upgrading their systems to cope with the new requirements.

We get "comp time" or flex as it's known, plus overtime.

I like this...I could use the extra riding time!