Rep. Kristi Noem is pretending that the "Working Families Flexibility Act" will help workers by allowing employers to offer employees comp time instead of extra pay for overtime. The bill is really about giving management (a.k.a., the corporate cronies who want to save even more money to put into Noem's campaign coffers) one more tool with which they can oppress the working class.
Oh, Rep. Noem will purr, her big business pals would never exploit workers. Workers will be absolutely free to choose whether they want overtime wages now or comp time later. The Working Families Flexibility Act empowers workers, right?
Baloney. Check out the story of Maverick Steak and Cocktails in Aberdeen stiffing its employees of the overtime pay to which current law entitles them:
Kevin Stillman, a former Maverick's employee who has since moved back to Mississippi, said the U.S. Department of Labor investigation was initiated after he contacted the department to report that many employees were not receiving overtime pay.
He disputes Schlaht's statement that the failure to pay overtime was a computer error.
"(Mavericks) had us sign a paper that said if we worked past 40 hours a week, we would not get overtime," he said. "I needed the extra hours. I needed the money, so I signed it."
Schlaht said that he did not have employees sign an overtime waiver.
Stillman, who worked for Mavericks from July 2012 to March, said he typically worked 50 hours a week and never received overtime pay. He calculates that he will likely receive $1,300 to $1,500 in back wages.
"They were wrong not to pay us," Stillman said. "I thought I lived in America and was entitled to my rights. I'm glad me and other employees are going to get our pay."
Allen said the department of labor does not determine intent or the cause of failure to pay overtime. The report does not state whether the failure to pay was related to a computer error, he said.
"What we are concerned with is identifying violations and making sure employers adhere to fair labor standards," he said [Jeff Natalie-Lees, "Mavericks to Pay $26,553 in Back Wages, Fines," Aberdeen American News, 2013.05.24].
The U.S. Department of Labor does not confirm whether Stillman's allegations are true, but Stillman's complaint illustrates the power dynamic that labor laws exist to check. When you need the money, and the boss is signing the check, you don't have a lot of power to challenge the boss. Even when a worker knows the law is on his side, it takes a lot of courage to look a law-breaking employer in the eye and say, "You can't make me do that, now hand me my paycheck."
Noem's fantasy of "flexibility" ignores the real power disadvantage workers face in the workplace. The current very simple system—the boss makes you work overtime, the boss pays you time and a half—offers workers plenty of flexibility... to use the extra pay they get to pay for babysitters, hamburgers, or whatever else the market offers to meet their needs.
Personally, when I was working for a company that only offered a couple of weeks of overtime, I offered to work extra hours and collect them as "comp" time. My employer said they were willing, but could not do that because it was against the law. If we made an arrangement and I later came back and filed a complaint, the burden of proof would be on the employer, as I recall. I would have liked to have this law in effect when I worked an hourly wage. What some people see as exploitation, others see as an opportunity. Of course, the choice would have to be the employee's to make it work.
So if employers are so evil, why do we have them?
MC, for the same reason we have a federal government: we just need certain things to make society work. But we also need to maintain proper checks on the power of those institutions who may abuse their power.
Dugger, if workers had stronger bargaining power, I'd be more comfortable with making the comp time option legal. But in the context of the GOP war on organized labor, this bill smells of one more effort to take power from workers and give it to management.
MC, why do employers need employees?
Hold that thought, Jana: why do you think we're developing computers and robots? ;-)
I think your looking at the Working Families Flexibility Act wrong. From my point of view it actually has more potential downsides for employers than employees.
However that isn't why I'm commenting. Cory said "But in the context of the GOP war on organized labor". I think this is where the GOP needs to change. Organized labor is not the evil that the GOP is making it out to be. There are certain large Unions that have lost sight of their actual purpose (a potential with any large organization). However instead of using these large (possibly corrupt) Unions as an example of all Unions the GOP should embrace organized labor. When organized labor is done well and in the right industries it makes for a very efficient work environment; which in turn will increase productivity, job satisfaction, and corporate profits.
Instead of attacking all organized labor the GOP should only target specific Unions; and only do so when relevant. (I sometimes fail to state that when I attack the policies of certain Unions, but I'm trying to get better about it).
Ken! Dagnabit! How are we supposed to hastily generalize all conservatives as corporate tools and enemies of the working class if you keep dropping by here acting all complicated and rational? ;-)
Checks and balances: we need them in government; we need them in the economy. Both government and unions can be corrupt, and we should watch them closely. But we should not get rid of them; we should work to keep them on the right track, serving the people they are meant to serve.
Haha, don't worry. That will change. I plan to reduce work during this summer to hang out with my little boys. I have a feeling that much time with constantly fighting/scheming boys will remove any sanity!