I've seen several short videos from Representative Martha Roby about the Working Families Flexibility Act she is sponsoring in the House. It sounds just wonderful. The Republicans have said over and over that the regular working folks should have the same rights that government employees enjoy. These employees have the right to choose time and a half extra pay for their overtime hours or to be compensated with hours of extra time off during regular working hours.
Is this good? The example I've seen a couple of times is about a mother that works at an accounting firm. She is very busy during the tax season January - April 15th. She obviously won't be taking any vacation time during this part of the year, and she will work a lot of overtime as the tax filing deadline approaches. On the other hand, the rest of the year isn't nearly as busy. She would prefer to take all of the overtime she has worked during tax season as extra vacation time during the rest of the year. That makes a lot of sense for her, giving her time to spend with her children. It is also beneficial to her employer. The company doesn't need to staff up during peak tax season with temporary employees or pay a lot of extra overtime salary to the regular employees. So the employer saves money.
Without the passage of this act, employers in the private sector must pay their employees time and a half for the overtime. Taking "comp time" in lieu of the pay is not an option, and it is against the law. The Working Families Flexibility Act changes this. According to what I've read about this act, the employee will have the choice: pay or comp time. That is generally good for the employee, but are there unintended consequences?
What if the employee works in a manufacturing plant, and the corporate sales are increasing as the company comes out of the recession. They have been running 2 shifts, and now 16 hours/day x 5 days/week isn't quite enough to meet production demands. So the 1st shift employees come in an hour early for a while. Then, as sales continue to rise, the 2nd shift begins working an extra hour every day. This gradually increases until both shifts are working 2 hours/day overtime, and first shift works on Saturday mornings. At this point, the company adds a partial third shift. What if an employee decides that he or she wants to take the extra 80 or 100 hours overtime as 2 - 2 1/2 extra weeks of vacation? What if the employer's sales are continuing to rise and they really can't afford to do without this employee for all of that "comp time?"
I think the sentiment is great. The government always tries to make things better for us. The problem is that they usually end up creating a MessAPolitico. Why is it the government's place to tell us how to run our lives or our businesses? If an employer needs employees, they will do something to entice them to come to work for the company. That might mean offering higher pay or better benefits or child care or "comp time" or whatever it takes to get employees with the skills demanded by the job. If we have a truly laissez-faire economy, employers will compete for the best employees. Conversely, employees will have the incentive to stay in school and gain skills that provide them with better compensation.
I think we are replacing one MessAPolitico with another. The government should never have told employers that they had to pay people for overtime with no other option. By the same token, they should not tell them that the employee's wishes for "comp time" must be allowed. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE MESSING AROUND IN THIS AT ALL! Stay out of our business. If I don't like the way I'm treated or compensated at work, I'll just go find another job. (At least, I would if the government hadn't run so many of the good manufacturing jobs out of the country with laws and regulations like this one.)
No comments:
Post a Comment