The end of the 40 Hour Workweek

Direct transcript of some of the debate on the "Working Families Flexibility Act", which has been nicknamed the "Pay Working Families Less Bill", from Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer's website.

My take? House Republicans voted to allow corporations to pay overtime in time off rather than money, and to allow them to refuse overtime to anyone that actually wants to be paid money for their work... meaning there would be no financial disencentive to not force tons of overtime and likewise no financial incentive to hire more workers. It forces down wages, hurts employment rates, and devastates the idea of the 40 hour workweek.

Or to put on my cynical hat: Everyone hop on the express lane back to the Gilded Age, where if you work hard enough for all 100 hours this week at minimum wage you'll be paid by being allowed to see your family for a day or two.

 

You still work 40 hours a week, just they can be at different times is what I get out of it. Or if the business needs you to work 12 hours one day, you will have to take off 4 hours later. Before the employee would work the 12 hours and get paid time and a half for the extra 4, then still have to work 8 hours the next day.

Still not the 32 hour work week that we should be pushing for.

 

It would overturn 75 years of labor law requiring overtime pay for non-exempt employees
Overtime Pay - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - U.S. Department of Labor

And effectively gives employers the option of offering comp time instead (at some designated time in the future). The employee's only recourse would be to file a complaint with the DoL/Fair Labor Standards Board and wait months/years for adjudication.

This is hardly a family friendly bill.

 

I'll have to read up more on it (even though it doesn't affect me as I'm in Canada). But if it gives employees the flexibility to put in their 40 hours a week however, they see fit, that would be good. If it means that putting in extra time and getting time off compensation for that at another time I'm not a big fan of that as you may not be able to take that time off whenever you want. In fact I'm wondering if there would be a limit or if it would have any effect on vacation accrual.

For me the 40 hour work week doesn't exist. I work in the tech sector here in BC and that means I'm actually not covered under our Employment Standards act. This means that if I work over 40 hours a week then I do not have to be compensated for anything. This was introduced during the dot com boom with the realization that we had stock options and by putting in more work, the company value went up and our compensation was higher stocks. But since the bust this is not the case and the law should be changed. For my particular position I can get a bonus (over a quarter) if I put in enough billable hours but that is all dependent on the work coming in. However, the flexibility of my job is what makes me stay. I can coach, help out with the kids, etc. as long as I put in a minimum of 40 hours a week. I can work 4 hours one day and 12 the next day, or make up 4 hours on the weekend...as long as I get my projects done. If this type of flexibility was given to everyone I could see it helping out working families quite a bit...as long as it didn't end up forcing them to put in more hours.

 

The thing is America is not Canada. What it ACTUALLY would do down here is let employers either refuse to authorize overtime or fire anyone that demands it, flood the remaining people with work, and "pay" them with some miniscule amount of time off that they may or may not be able to ever use when their boss deems it allowable. Combine that with the fact that people who actually use their time off here in the States tend to find themselves unemployed...

 

My company actually is an american company even though we operate this, "division" lets say, out of Canada. And we have many other American companies that are part of our group of companies so I know your statement about people who use their time off become unemployed is not all-inclusive. However, I do get your point though and I do know of companies that frown on employees taking time off and would use that to their advantage.

 

Its been along time since i worked as little as 40 hours a week...

 

i just wish that people who work over 40 hours didn't get more money taken out of their check for the government. it doesn't really work well for trades where it's feast or famine. in my trade, it's common to do 50-70 hour weeks for months then not work for a week or so. it's not fair for them to get less money imo.

 

Much like the 401k was originally deemed to stop a tax loophole for CEOs, and eventually every single company switched to it to eliminate pension funds and pull the rug up from under the American worker... even the best intentions on this will result in abuse.

Unfortunately, with their track record I have a VERY hard time believing the GOP even had good intentions at heart on this.

 

shareholder returns uber alles.

 

You know simply by the way they try and pass this off as a family initiative that it's a measure to screw workers out of household income. Period. Workers don't advocate for employers and vice versa. /fairy tale

 

If the bill stated that the employee could choose between overtime pay or comp time, I would agree. But it doesnt.

It overturns 75 years of labor law and gives the employer an equal (?) say in the decision, with the employer being in a position of greater power and influence over the worker.

Employee - "I want overtime pay"
Employer - "I want you to take comp time"
Employee - "But, I want overtime pay"
Employer - "Take it to the NLRB"

 

I'm not sure how this anecdote about your dad's hardware shop is all that relevant.
1. we won't have a choice
2. the impersonal world of nat'l/int'l corporations where most of the people affected by this are employed are not small town hardware stores

I don't know that this has ever not been true. Except before the enactment of labor laws that gave workers the right to collective bargaining and protections from predatory employers. Before that it was just about employers screwing workers.

 

With this "I fire people when I please" reasoning there is no difference whatever laws you make (except preventing people to be fired).
If I risk to be fired for using rightfully earned comp time-off, then I risk to be fired if I refuse to do overtime for free.

As stated by Lindy the actual law, and also the employers dispositions, seems luckily quite different...

To be said that the standard 40-h working week is in any case doomed to an end sooner or later. In 40 years Automation will do the automats (and less automats) job, and We will be project oriented workers self-employed-like with flexible project oriented hours and personally-sized commitments. If it would be heaven or hell just depends on how much people keep to apply the "survival of the fittest" to society and business.