H.R. 1406: Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013

[John F Kennedy III]

H.R. 1406: Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013

Passed the House on the 8th 223-204

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1406/text

Vote:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h137

Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen: “Today was one of the saddest days the House of Representatives has probably ever seen.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. —Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09) spoke on the U.S. House floor about the House passage of HR 1406, which eliminates the 40-hour workweek. The measure, designed to drive down earnings for working Americans to inflate corporate profits, was passed with support from every Republican member of Congress from Tennessee —U.S. Reps. Phil Roe (TN-01), Jimmy Duncan (TN-02), Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03), Scott DesJarlais (TN-04), Diane Black (TN-06), Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) and Stephen Fincher (TN-08).

[adisongrace]

Seems really strange RPF'ers aren't even discussing this.

[John F Kennedy III]

It's really, really weird for a piece of political news to not have any discussion here. You guys are usually on top of everything. What's up?

Edit: Before posting this thread I searched here and did a google RPF search and both came up empty...so not like RPF

[John F Kennedy III]

Rest of text because after the upgrade to RPF posting from mobile is a trainwreck, can't scroll to the bottom of the post.

http://tndp.org/blog/2013/05/09/u-s-house-republican-majority-votes-to-axe-40-hour-work-week/

Democratic Reps. Jim Cooper (TN-05) and Cohen both voted against the bill which passed 223-204 mostly on party lines.

The “Pay Working Families Less Act,” which Republicans tried to call the “Working Families Flexibility Act,” would cheat workers out of overtime pay, with no guarantee of paid vacation days when employees need to use them, and give working families less flexibility, not more.

While House Republicans advertise the bill as aiming to help working families, independent evaluations have found that the bill will actually hurt them by undermining overtime pay and giving workers little flexibility.

The nonpartisan National Partnership for Women and Families finds that “The mis-named Working Families Flexibility Act will mean a pay cut for workers without any guaranteed flexibility or time off” and that the proposal “erodes the basic guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act: fair pay for overtime work and time off from work.”

A senior economist for the Center for Economic and Policy Research writes, “Its major effect would be to hamstring workers —likely increasing overtime hours for those who don’t want them and cutting pay for those who do.”

Instead of working to expand the middle class with reforms that reward hard work, this bill drives down pay and rolls back workers’ benefits. Republicans have entered the American worker in a global race to the bottom. The only winner is big corporate special interests.

Here’s more on the “Pay Working Families Less Act” from Congressman Cohen’s office: What this bill really means is more work and less pay for workers, not flexibility:

Workers will not get paid for hours that exceed 40 hours per week. That pay will instead go into an employer-controlled pot to be paid later. An 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. Employers could schedule excessive overtime hours and only offer overtime work to workers who agree to take comp time instead of overtime wages. Since unused comp time will not be paid to workers until the end of the year, this amounts to an interest-free loan out of workers’ pockets to the employer.

[Spoa]

This bill is awesome. One of the few bills leadership didn't dump liberal ideas into.

[John F Kennedy III]

This bill is awesome. One of the few bills leadership didn't dump liberal ideas into.

What makes this bill awesome?

[jclay2]

What makes this bill awesome?

Families/Flexibility? Whats not to like with those words.:confused:

[adisongrace]

This bill is awesome. One of the few bills leadership didn't dump liberal ideas into.

This bill destroys a family's ability to provide for themselves or have PTO. How is that free?

[adisongrace]

Also this bill makes you forfeit your sick leave, overtime pay, and access to the money
you earn funnels all of those funds into what is being called 'a pot' to be decided on later.
Again how is that free?

[ClydeCoulter]

What effect would this have on ObamaCare provisions?
My wife's hours are going to be cut to below 30/week so that they don't have to provide health care (they don't provide health care for school aides currently, but will have to if they are considered full time after some provisions of OC kick in). If there's no "A full time is 40 hours" type thing...then...what?

[libertyjam]

The Family Unfriendly Act
By TERESA TRITCH
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/the-family-unfriendly-act/

There are two good things to say about the Working Families Flexibility Act, which passed the House this week with 220 Republican and three Democratic votes.

One, the bill is bound to go nowhere in the Senate and, two, even if it did advance, the White House has threatened to veto it.

The bill, in brief, is worse than meritless; it is a fraud. According to its Republican backers, it’s an expression in legislative form of how much they care for families, work-life balance and, in particular, working women. If this is caring, I would hate to see what contempt looks like.

The bill would amend long-standing labor law by allowing private-sector employers to offer compensatory time off in lieu of time-and-a-half pay for overtime. Employers and workers are supposed to agree on the arrangement, but there is nothing to stop an employer from discriminating against those who prefer payment by cutting back on their overtime hours. Nor would employers face any real deterrent against forcing unpaid overtime on workers who fear losing their jobs if they object. The recourse for coerced workers would be to sue, a far-fetched and unaffordable option for most people.

[libertyjam]

http://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=327101

H.R. 1406, The Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C. | April 9, 2013 -


THE PROBLEM:

For many Americans, balancing the demands of family and the workplace can be difficult. State and local government employees have long been able to choose paid time off as compensation for working overtime hours, allowing these public-sector employees greater flexibility to meet family obligations. However, the federal government prohibits private-sector workers from enjoying this same benefit. An outdated federal law has become an impediment to employers who want to help employees manage work and family responsibilities.

THE SOLUTION:

To remove this obstacle in federal law, Representative Martha Roby (R-AL) introduced the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. The legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to allow employers to offer private-sector employees the choice of paid time off in lieu of cash wages for overtime hours worked. It is pro-family, pro-worker legislation that gives workers the flexibility to spend time with family, attend teacher conferences, care for aging parents, stay home with a newborn, or attend to other family needs that may arise.

H.R. 1406 - THE WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2013:

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. No employee can be forced to take comp time instead of receiving overtime pay.

Protects employees by requiring the employer and the employee to complete a written agreement to use comp time, entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee. Where the employee is represented by a union, the agreement to take comp time must be part of the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the union and the employer.

Retains all existing employee protections in current law, including the 40 hour work week and how overtime compensation is accrued. The bill adds additional safeguards for workers to ensure the choice and use of comp time are truly voluntary.

Allows employees to accrue up to 160 hours of comp time each year. An employer would be required to pay cash wages for any unused time at the end of the year. Workers are free to ‘cash out’ their accrued comp time whenever they choose to do so.

The Working Families Flexibility Act is commonsense legislation that will help American workers better balance the needs of family and the workplace.

[adisongrace]

All of these points are moot and obviously are paradigmatic sources of thought. The government has no place in my workplace. Plain and simple.

[Zippyjuan]

Shouldn't companies be able to exploit their workers as much as they possibly can? It will keep the costs of products lower. (On the other hand, people will also have less money to spend buying products as well).

[adisongrace]

Shouldn't companies be able to exploit their workers as much as they possibly can? It will keep the costs of products lower. (On the other hand, people will also have less money to spend buying products as well).

No corps. shouldn't. They are oligarchical financial, and obsolescent engineers with one goal--sell, sell fast, and devalue the market.

[pcosmar]

Is overtime a requirement? Or a bonus?

Is a paid vacation a requirement or a private agreement between employer and employee?

If it is required,, who says? Who is it required by?

[pcosmar]

Oh,, and to the bill. It sucks. And it is misnamed.
it is a bad revision to bad law and the original should be stricken in entirety.

[adisongrace]

Is overtime a requirement? Or a bonus?

Is a paid vacation a requirement or a private agreement between employer and employee?

If it is required,, who says? Who is it required by?

Its not required but this bill also effects those who have healthcare at 40 hours
min. Shit they PAY for! They are overreaching and demanding that owners change
their policies in which also could be very costly.

I honestly think this should be a state vote. Not one chosen by the elite.

[pcosmar]

Its not required but this bill also effects those who have healthcare at 40 hours
min. Shit they PAY for! They are overreaching and demanding that owners change
their policies in which also could be very costly.

I honestly think this should be a state vote. Not one chosen by the elite.

And is Health Care a right?

Is "healthcare" someone else's responsibility?

or is my health care my own responsibility?.

[Zippyjuan]

Is a job a right? Is an income a right?

[redmod79]

How does this affect non-exempt employees?

[MelissaWV]

This may shock you guys, but there are literally millions of things --- most of them actually potentially important --- that are never discussed on RPFs at all.

[TaftFan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/house-set-to-ok-bill-to-change-overtime-pay-law/

Sounds good.

[Matthew5]

So am I understanding this correctly? The bill would allow an employer and employee to voluntarily negotiate compensation for over time worked?

[adisongrace]

And is Health Care a right?

Is "healthcare" someone else's responsibility?

or is my health care my own responsibility?.

In my view our healthcare system can be universal
without taxation or communist overreach. There are
plenty of systems in our world that work this way.
So in short... yes. Sustainable health is a right.



Is a job a right? Is an income a right?

Yes I believe that a sustainable ability to provide for yourself is a right
and shouldn't be discriminated on regardless of the issue. This
bill provides no protection for workers and will create many issues
and distraction in the workplace.

[adisongrace]

So am I understanding this correctly? The bill would allow an employer and employee to voluntarily negotiate compensation for over time worked?

No it demands that the worker has no say in it.
The workers have no protection.

[pcosmar]

So am I understanding this correctly? The bill would allow an employer and employee to voluntarily negotiate compensation for over time worked?
Nope.. it only changes the Rules.
and it adds more rules. It looks like it may favor employers some,, but likely not much..
And Obama Care will very likely negate any positives for the employer and Force all employees to pay (one way or another) for mandatory Suck Shit Insurance.

[pcosmar]

No it demands that the worker has no say in it.
The workers have no protection.

No. the workers still have a say.
they can quit.
or the employers can have a say, and fire the lot of them..or close up shop and go elsewhere.

It does get Government involved in private contracts. and that is never good.

[Matthew5]

No it demands that the worker has no say in it.
The workers have no protection.

Mind citing where it indicates this? I'm missing it...

[adisongrace]

No. the workers still have a say.
they can quit.
or the employers can have a say, and fire the lot of them..or close up shop and go elsewhere.

thats the issue. our economy is dead.
those options aren't there for the majority
of people who are currently employed or own their business.

hence no protection.

[adisongrace]

Full Bill

AN ACT

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013’.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATORY TIME.

Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(s) Compensatory Time Off for Private Employees-

‘(1) GENERAL RULE- An employee may receive, in accordance with this subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.

‘(2) CONDITIONS- An employer may provide compensatory time to employees under paragraph (1)(A) only if such time is provided in accordance with--

‘(A) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of the employees under applicable law; or

‘(B) in the case of employees who are not represented by a labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of such employees under applicable law, an agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with section 11(c)--

‘(i) in which the employer has offered and the employee has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary overtime compensation; and

‘(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employees and not as a condition of employment.

No employee may receive or agree to receive compensatory time off under this subsection unless the employee has worked at least 1,000 hours for the employee’s employer during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month period before the date of agreement or receipt of compensatory time off.

‘(3) HOUR LIMIT-

‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.

‘(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period.

‘(C) EXCESS OF 80 HOURS- The employer may provide monetary compensation for an employee’s unused compensatory time in excess of 80 hours at any time after giving the employee at least 30 days notice. Such compensation shall be provided at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6).

‘(D) POLICY- Except where a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise, an employer that has adopted a policy offering compensatory time to employees may discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.

‘(E) WRITTEN REQUEST- An employee may withdraw an agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at any time. An employee may also request in writing that monetary compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory time accrued that has not yet been used. Within 30 days of receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with paragraph (6).

‘(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.

‘(5) TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT- An employee who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).

‘(6) RATE OF COMPENSATION-

‘(A) GENERAL RULE- If compensation is to be paid to an employee for accrued compensatory time off, such compensation shall be paid at a rate of compensation not less than--

‘(i) the regular rate received by such employee when the compensatory time was earned; or

‘(ii) the final regular rate received by such employee,

whichever is higher.

‘(B) CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT- Any payment owed to an employee under this subsection for unused compensatory time shall be considered unpaid overtime compensation.

‘(7) USE OF TIME- An employee--

‘(A) who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1); and

‘(B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time,

shall be permitted by the employee’s employer to use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.

‘(8) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection--

‘(A) the term ‘employee’ does not include an employee of a public agency; and

‘(B) the terms ‘overtime compensation’ and ‘compensatory time’ shall have the meanings given such terms by subsection (o)(7).’.

SEC. 3. REMEDIES.

Section 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216) is amended--

(1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘(b) Any employer’ and inserting ‘(b) Except as provided in subsection (f), any employer’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(f) An employer that violates section 7(s)(4) shall be liable to the employee affected in the amount of the rate of compensation (determined in accordance with section 7(s)(6)(A)) for each hour of compensatory time accrued by the employee and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages reduced by the amount of such rate of compensation for each hour of compensatory time used by such employee.’.

SEC. 4. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.

Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall revise the materials the Secretary provides, under regulations published in section 516.4 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, to employers for purposes of a notice explaining the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to employees so that such notice reflects the amendments made to such Act by this Act.

SEC. 5. GAO REPORT.

Beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act and each of the 3 years thereafter, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to Congress providing, with respect to the reporting period immediately prior to each such report--

(1) data concerning the extent to which employers provide compensatory time pursuant to section 7(s) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as added by this Act, and the extent to which employees opt to receive compensatory time;

(2) the number of complaints alleging a violation of such section filed by any employee with the Secretary of Labor;

(3) the number of enforcement actions commenced by the Secretary or commenced by the Secretary on behalf of any employee for alleged violations of such section;

(4) the disposition or status of such complaints and actions described in paragraphs (2) and (3); and

(5) an account of any unpaid wages, damages, penalties, injunctive relief, or other remedies obtained or sought by the Secretary in connection with such actions described in paragraph (3).

SEC. 6. SUNSET.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall expire 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives May 8, 2013.

Attest:

KAREN L. HAAS,

Clerk.

[pcosmar]

hence no protection.

And I still have all the "protection" I ever had. NONE.
My Creator is the only "Health Care" I have ever had. Still alive after 55 years.
I'll go home when he says so.

[pcosmar]

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938


It revises it.
A socialist piece of crap act. It needs to be discarded,, not revised. Not Replaced.

[adisongrace]

And I still have all the "protection" I ever had. NONE.
My Creator is the only "Health Care" I have ever had. Still alive after 55 years.
I'll go home when he says so.


First of all I don't think god should ever be brought into a debate.
Only facts.

However worker protection is something that I believe is vital in changing the system.
This is MY view. You have the ability to disagree with me. Its called having a free mind.
I respect that.

But worker protections in this country that were established LONG AGO to ensure
that workers are safe, and have access to provide for their families; are slowly dying.

[adisongrace]

It revises it.
A socialist piece of crap act. It needs to be discarded,, not revised. Not Replaced.

Socialism is much different than communism. That act was communist. Just as this one is.

[John F Kennedy III]

It seems a mod is deleting comments....how about you stop censoring discussion? At least post why you deleted it instead of hiding.

[adisongrace]

Furthermore in a free society we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Its all about
choice.

[John F Kennedy III]

It revises it.
A socialist piece of crap act. It needs to be discarded,, not revised. Not Replaced.

Absolutely agree, along with pretty much every other bill passed since FDR took office.

[Matthew5]

entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employees and not as a condition of employment.

Doesn't this mean a voluntary agreement?

[TaftFan]

Kinda confused at all the ranting. My guess is some have a special interest in federal labor regulations. This loosens that.

[adisongrace]

Doesn't this mean a voluntary agreement?

its not voluntary. the employer holds all the cards by use of the "accept or fire"
clause they added.

[pcosmar]

Furthermore in a free society we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Its all about
choice.
It should be about choice.
I should be able to negotiate a deal with my employer without any government interference.. and I have often in my life.
On the same level my employer should offer me whatever incentive or payment that I will agree to,, without government interference.

That is how a free society works.

[TaftFan]

its not voluntary. the employer holds all the cards by use of the "accept or fire"
clause they added.

That is voluntary. Are you a libertarian?

[pcosmar]

its not voluntary. the employer holds all the cards by use of the "accept or fire"
clause they added.

Is the employer required to hire you? Do you believe that somehow you have a right to employment?

What if your demands are not acceptable,, or excessive?
What if you are not worth your pay?

[Matthew5]

its not voluntary. the employer holds all the cards by use of the "accept or fire"
clause they added.

Where do you see such a clause? Did they strike:


(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.

[adisongrace]

Is the employer required to hire you? Do you believe that somehow you have a right to employment?


You misunderstand what my meaning is. I see this act being used as coercion against the worker.

[adisongrace]

That is voluntary. Are you a libertarian?

Its not. It gives the employer the power to do whatever they please. To me thats nothing more
than corporatist slavery.

I am nothing. Not left, not right, not center---NOTHING.
I have a free mind.

[adisongrace]

Where do you see such a clause? Did they strike:

That is a vague protection it can be used against the employee and the employer.

Regardless of the protection(s) given/taken this should be a state vote.

[TaftFan]

Its not. It gives the employer the power to do whatever they please. To me thats nothing more
than corporatist slavery.

I am nothing. Not left, not right, not center---NOTHING.
I have a free mind.
Umm yeah, that is called property rights.

You prefer paid overtime vs. paid leave.....you don't have to work there.

What this bill does is allow the choice.

[John F Kennedy III]

Is the employer required to hire you? Do you believe that somehow you have a right to employment?

What if your demands are not acceptable,, or excessive?
What if you are not worth your pay?

An employer isn't and shouldn't be required to hire me. Employment is not a right. But in this controlled collapse of society, there aren't many options but to accept whatever BS you have to in order to pay the bills. I'd much rather have a free society.

[TaftFan]

That is a vague protection it can be used against the employee and the employer.

Regardless of the protection(s) given/taken this should be a state vote.

It should be a state vote except this is amending an act already in place. All federal labor laws should be repealed though.

[adisongrace]

its not voluntary. the employer holds all the cards by use of the "accept or fire"
clause they added.

I misspoke. Its not a clause. Its merely a very undefined and vague statement.
This statement can be used against both the employee and the employer.

FORCE. They are FORCING you to change the way you conduct business. This is
my issue with this bill. It isn't the place of the government to be involved in
private business affairs.

[Matthew5]

I misspoke. Its not a clause. Its merely a very undefined and vague statement.
This statement can be used against both the employee and the employer.

FORCE. They are FORCING you to change the way you conduct business. This is
my issue with this bill. It isn't the place of the government to be involved in
private business affairs.

Well, yes, but isn't a move toward voluntary choice a good step?

[adisongrace]

Well, yes, but isn't a move toward voluntary choice a good step?

any use of force against the people, in the name of the "greater good" is nothing more than
terrorism. real terrorism.

[pcosmar]

Its not. It gives the employer the power to do whatever they please.

Not really.

And I will use personal example.
I worked for a Body Shop, for years and until it closed. On my first day my employer told me "Don't hurt yourself,, I don't carry insurance".

He was not joking.
I told him that I was using an alias,, and fake SSN.
I was not joking.

He hired me for minimum wage as prescribed by law and filed all required paperwork and Taxes as required by law.

I got a check.. for the hours I worked. And he paid me cash for the rest of what he thought I deserved for the week.
I made him money,, and he compensated me fairly. I quit that job three times. and he hired me back. because I made him money.
I went back because he paid me fairly.

I still have tools that I bought from him when he closed his shop and retired.
As to health care,, none was provided for in our agreement, But he did take me (personally) to a dentist and have a tooth pulled,,and paid for it out of his pocket.

Because I made him money.

[Zippyjuan]

Informal poll. How many here would willingly take a cut in their pay? It would create more jobs and reduce the costs of goods you buy. Your employer would no longer be forced to pay you what you are currently getting. How low would you be willing to go to keep your job (if you don't go low enough, it will go to the lowest bidder and you will lose it)?

[pcosmar]

Not really.

And I will use personal example.
I worked for a Body Shop, for years and until it closed. On my first day my employer told me "Don't hurt yourself,, I don't carry insurance".

He was not joking.
I told him that I was using an alias,, and fake SSN.
I was not joking.

He hired me for minimum wage as prescribed by law and filed all required paperwork and Taxes as required by law.

I got a check.. for the hours I worked. And he paid me cash for the rest of what he thought I deserved for the week.
I made him money,, and he compensated me fairly. I quit that job three times. and he hired me back. because I made him money.
I went back because he paid me fairly.

I still have tools that I bought from him when he closed his shop and retired.
As to health care,, none was provided for in our agreement, But he did take me (personally) to a dentist and have a tooth pulled,,and paid for it out of his pocket.

Because I made him money.

No Government necessary.

[adisongrace]

Not really.

And I will use personal example.
I worked for a Body Shop, for years and until it closed. On my first day my employer told me "Don't hurt yourself,, I don't carry insurance".

He was not joking.
I told him that I was using an alias,, and fake SSN.
I was not joking.

He hired me for minimum wage as prescribed by law and filed all required paperwork and Taxes as required by law.

I got a check.. for the hours I worked. And he paid me cash for the rest of what he thought I deserved for the week.
I made him money,, and he compensated me fairly. I quit that job three times. and he hired me back. because I made him money.
I went back because he paid me fairly.

I still have tools that I bought from him when he closed his shop and retired.
As to health care,, none was provided for in our agreement, But he did take me (personally) to a dentist and have a tooth pulled,,and paid for it out of his pocket.

Because I made him money.

That example has nothing to do with this subject.
Both of those examples used in your statement were
illegal (in this society, but we are talking about the lack of free trade here).
Therefore aren't viable in this situation.

[pcosmar]

How low would you be willing to go to keep your job (if you don't go low enough, it will go to the lowest bidder and you will lose it)?
Cut in pay?
I have been unemployed for years,, and yes,, I will work cheap.

Few can do the quality of work I do. Unfortunately, many accept inferior quality these days. (producers and consumers)

I may have a Vette to paint soon though. Get some nice weather.

[TaftFan]

any use of force against the people, in the name of the "greater good" is nothing more than
terrorism. real terrorism.

How is allowing voluntary agreements force? I agree the entire act is force, but I don't see this amendment as that way.

[adisongrace]

How is allowing voluntary agreements force? I agree the entire act is force, but I don't see this amendment as that way.

It isn't voluntary. The bill is vague and can be used to exploit workers.
That is my view. It isn't changing.

[pcosmar]

That example has nothing to do with this subject.
Both of those examples used in your statement were
illegal (in this society, but we are talking about the lack of free trade here).
Therefore aren't viable in this situation.

Sure they are.. Employment is a private agreement. (regardless of legality)
(btw. I was an illegal in my own country for several years.)
Government involvement for or against either party is wrong. And not necessary.

It is in an employers best interest to have productive employees,, so compensation for work is a voluntary and private matter.
It is in the employers best interest to recruit and keep good workers,,

[adisongrace]

Sure they are.. Employment is a private agreement. (regardless of legality)
(btw. I was an illegal in my own country for several years.)
Government involvement for or against either party is wrong. And not necessary.

It is in an employers best interest to have productive employees,, so compensation for work is a voluntary and private matter.
It is in the employers best interest to recruit and keep good workers,,

I agree that the governments involvement isn't needed and is criminal.
However the compensation is a trade, not a voluntary dictatorship.
There are limits to what they can demand you to perform. (such as in
safety or health issues). Should those aspects be purely at the will
of the employer? Or can an employee cut off his arm and continue to work
because it is in the best interest of the employer?

[TheTexan]

This may shock you guys, but there are literally millions of things --- most of them actually potentially important --- that are never discussed on RPFs at all.

For the record, Crown & Pepsi pales in comparison to Crown & Coke. It's just not the same.

Slightly more on topic, I've been informally accepting PTO in exchange for overtime for years. Unless I'm missing something, removing a restriction off both employers & employees is a good thing

[adisongrace]

For the record, Crown & Pepsi pales in comparison to Crown & Coke. It's just not the same.

Slightly more on topic, I've been informally accepting PTO in exchange for overtime for years. Unless I'm missing something, removing a restriction off both employers & employees is a good thing

the act is forcing businesses to conduct this way.
don't you find force a bad thing?

[pcosmar]

Should those aspects be purely at the will
of the employer?

They are not.
That would be slavery. But an employer can offer any wage they wish.
And and employee can refuse to work.
No pay,, no work..

No work, no product.

Yes,,an employer can offer a dollar a day,, to anyone that wishes a dollar a day.

Or he can offer a hundred a day, if it is worth that to him.

You are free to accept or refuse the offer.

You are entitled to nothing.

[adisongrace]

They are not.
That would be slavery. But an employer can offer any wage they wish.
And and employee can refuse to work.
No pay,, no work..

No work, no product.

Yes,,an employer can offer a dollar a day,, to anyone that wishes a dollar a day.

Or he can offer a hundred a day, if it is worth that to him.

You are free to accept or refuse the offer.

You are entitled to nothing.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

[ClydeCoulter]

Things are not black and white. Ideal ways require ideal situations. Similar to immigration reform and border security being tied, so there are many other situations that have requirements of other situations in order for them to work properly. Without those requirements being met, certain protections should remain in place.

edit: There are even some laws in place that were a negotiated peace. Tearing down those laws requires visiting the original problem that they attempted to solve.

[John F Kennedy III]

Things are not black and white. Ideal ways require ideal situations. Similar to immigration reform and border security being tied, so there are many other situations that have requirements of other situations in order for them to work properly. Without those requirements being met, certain protections should remain in place.

edit: There are even some laws in place that were a negotiated peace. Tearing down those laws requires visiting the original problem that they attempted to solve.


This ^

[majinkoola]

This bill is not perfect, by any stretch. However, it is giving an employer an additional option as opposed to forcing them to pay overtime. That is good.

Those that want to help the poorest working people the most should push for eliminating payroll taxes. That in effect reduces the minimum wage for employers (eliminating employer's portion) and raises minimum wage for employees (eliminating employee's portion).

[TheTexan]

the act is forcing businesses to conduct this way.
don't you find force a bad thing?

That wasn't my understanding of it. Granted, I've had more than a few Crown & Pepsi's and didnt really read it. If that's the case, then ya

[John F Kennedy III]

This bill is not perfect, by any stretch. However, it is giving an employer an additional option as opposed to forcing them to pay overtime. That is good.

Those that want to help the poorest working people the most should push for eliminating payroll taxes. That in effect reduces the minimum wage for employers (eliminating employer's portion) and raises minimum wage for employees (eliminating employee's portion).

We should get rid of government interference in voluntary contracts.

[adisongrace]

This bill is not perfect, by any stretch. However, it is giving an employer an additional option as opposed to forcing them to pay overtime. That is good.

Those that want to help the poorest working people the most should push for eliminating payroll taxes. That in effect reduces the minimum wage for employers (eliminating employer's portion) and raises minimum wage for employees (eliminating employee's portion).

Force for force isn't a viable option. This is how all of rights are being incrementally stripped. I also am strongly against
employers withholding OT pay and funneling it into a 'pot' post disbursement stockpile. To me that can cause so many work related
issues and would be an HR nightmare.

I am however intrigued by the elimination of PR taxes. I have been in debate with both sides of this argument for a while now
and believe this is an issue worth talking about. [not stating my position on this subject because it is out of place for this thread]

[adisongrace]

That wasn't my understanding of it. Granted, I've had more than a few Crown & Pepsi's and didnt really read it. If that's the case, then ya

Well then you are excused lol. But yeah. This bill reeks of force and subjective vague statements.