House Republicans Vote to Change the Overtime Pay Rule

Absentglare said:

Can employers offer PTO? Yes or no?

(I know they do, i received PTO in two states.)

Click to expand...

Yes, no one here is saying otherwise.

This bill doesn't give employers the ability to provide PTO.

Click to expand...

No one here is saying it does.

It gives employers the ability to have employees work overtime without getting paid overtime wages. That's it.

Click to expand...

Yes, but only if the employee chooses the option of PTO instead of monetary compensation.

longview said:

It must be embarrassing for you, your employer always had the final say when you can take any time off, other than actual sick time.

Click to expand...

Right, so what does this bill accomplish? An employer has absolutely no more obligation to recognize a "comp day" request than an unpaid day off. None. No difference.

The only difference is if the employee chooses "comp days", that means the employer withholds wages until those days are consumed. Free money for the employer to give the employee the illusion of freedom (but actually a weaker position in every single way).

It's rather embarrassing for you to be so wrong.

longview said:

The benefit is real, if the employee is unable to us the time by the end of the year, it is paid out.
This bill could give employees the ability to bank time for some event they know they will need extra PTO for.

Click to expand...

That's just plain stupid. They could save the overtime wages, invest it in something, and then take unpaid time off.

longview said:

If they do not need such, they can choose to continue to receive overtime pay as before.

Click to expand...

In theory yes in practice no. How ignorant are you of labor laws?

azgreg said:

Yes, no one here is saying otherwise.



No one here is saying it does.



Yes, but only if the employee chooses the option of PTO instead of monetary compensation.

Click to expand...

You're free to assume that not a single one of the ~28,000,000 employers will ever apply any pressure to choose one option over the other. In theory, all drivers will always adhere to posted speed limits. In theory, no one will ever stretch any law, ever.

But in practice, employers trample on employees so we need to give them strong protections.

They could have just said "PTO accrues for hourly workers at a rate of no less than .04 hours of PTO for each hour worked." And guarantee every full-time hourly worker two weeks of PTO per year.

But they didn't do that, because this isn't really about the perk. It's about evading overtime pay. Do you think it's a good idea that, even under the rules in this bill, employers can just keep a worker at 40hrs/week and then they never get any vacation?

Absentglare said:

You're free to assume that not a single one of the ~28,000,000 employers will ever apply any pressure to choose one option over the other. In theory, all drivers will always adhere to posted speed limits. In theory, no one will ever stretch any law, ever.

But in practice, employers trample on employees so we need to give them strong protections.

Click to expand...

Sure, there has been a **** ton of instances of employers stepping all over their employees but this law doesn't give them the right to do so. Again, you are reading way too much into this.

They could have just said "PTO accrues for hourly workers at a rate of no less than .04 hours of PTO for each hour worked." And guarantee every full-time hourly worker two weeks of PTO per year.

But they didn't do that, because this isn't really about the perk. It's about evading overtime pay. Do you think it's a good idea that, even under the rules in this bill, employers can just keep a worker at 40hrs/week and then they never get any vacation?

Click to expand...

Employers can do that without this bill.

Look, all this bill does is allow employers to offer an alternative form of compensation for overtime. Anything else you read into it is a you problem and I recommend you pick future employers better.

azgreg said:

Sure, there has been a **** ton of instances of employers stepping all over their employees but this law doesn't give them the right to do so. Again, you are reading way too much into this.



Employers can do that without this bill.

Look, all this bill does is allow employers to offer an alternative form of compensation for overtime. Anything else you read into it is a you problem and I recommend you pick future employers better.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that alternative form of compensation is taking an interest free loan from the employees by granting the illusion of PTO. (It's an illusion because they are legally owed the pay so they're just getting deferred overtime pay, so it's really like unpaid time off)

Absentglare said:

Right, so what does this bill accomplish? An employer has absolutely no more obligation to recognize a "comp day" request than an unpaid day off. None. No difference.

The only difference is if the employee chooses "comp days", that means the employer withholds wages until those days are consumed. Free money for the employer to give the employee the illusion of freedom (but actually a weaker position in every single way).

It's rather embarrassing for you to be so wrong.



That's just plain stupid. They could save the overtime wages, invest it in something, and then take unpaid time off.



In theory yes in practice no. How ignorant are you of labor laws?

Click to expand...

Actually what the bill accomplishes, is allowing private sector companies the option of offering their employees the choice
between taking overtime pay, vs being able to accumulate paid time off at the 1.5 rate.
Until now private sector employers did not have a choice, and could not offer a choice to employees.
The difference between using a comp day vs an unpaid day off, is that you still get paid, for when you are not at work.
There may also be some tax savings, by going the comp time route, as most overtime pay has a much greater withholding rate, reducing the net pay.
When an employee would use their 1.5 times earned comp time, they would use it at the 1.0X rate, replacing hours not worked,
so the withholding would stay the same.
I have a feeling you did not read the bill, but here it is again,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1180/text
Two provisions apply to how this would work in practice.

(

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 employee and not as a condition of employment.

Click to expand...

So the employee would have to ask for compensatory time instead of overtime pay!
As to how labor laws work, the department of labor, seems to keep a BIG stick around for employers who violate
the overtime laws, and since this would be part of the the overtime laws, I do not see the DOL sparing the rod!
It would not be the employee the company would have trouble with if they violate the rules, but the department of Labor!

Absentglare said:

Can employers offer PTO? Yes or no?

(I know they do, i received PTO in two states.)

This bill doesn't give employers the ability to provide PTO. It gives employers the ability to have employees work overtime without getting paid overtime wages. That's it.

You're also missing another point: workers are desperate for days off (paid or unpaid). This bill doesn't require employers to accept requests for days off, whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Currently private sector employers cannot offer their employees PTO, in lieu of overtime pay.
A benefit which is allowed in the public sector.
While it is true, that the bill does not require employers to accept requests for time off,
The employee must be paid for any unused time at the end of the year, so the employer could reduce a known
financial burden, by allowing their employee the time off. (It is also good for moral, for the company to allow people time off when they want it.)