The Worker Thread

[O Really]

Somebody has introduced a bill to allow "comp time" for employees in the private sector about every year or so. It's similar to what has long been allowed and used in the public sector. Here's the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... text?r=444

I don't personally favor comp time, but in general it does work satisfactorily for the employees in the public sector. Employees can choose - are not required to take - comp time. If it's inconvenient for the employer, they always have the option to pay cash instead of allowing extra time up until the time off is actually requested. Then they have to let the employee take the time.

I'd like to know some detail on the "$17 billion lost each year..." Most company-sponsored retirement funds (such as the 401(k)'s have investment choices tightly structured, and even those on the "more risk" side of the scale are pretty conservative. Could it be advisors selected by individuals for their IRA's or other funds intended for retirement? Or are they saying that within a give fund, advisors pick individual stocks that perform less well than others they shoulda coulda picked and that is based on their ownership? Sounds unlikely. But hey, I've never been much of a fan of stockbrokers or fund managers anyway, and undoubtedly some are sleazy. Many are not, if for no other reason than they know they can get fired easily if their funds don't perform satisfactorily.

[Vrede too]

Not my field but here's what the Economic Policy Institute, a group I tend to trust, has to say:

Workers are never better off under comp time than overtime—and they are typically worse off

In the one job where I had the option I generally took the time and a half comp time. Money wasn't an issue for me at the time and I liked that they had to give me several vacations a year.

Methodology for estimating the losses to retirement investors of fiduciary rule delay

EPI estimates that the proposed 60-day delay of the fiduciary rule would cost workers saving for retirement $3.7 billion over the next 30 years.

Our methodology and assumptions were adapted from the 2015 report The Effects of Conflicted Investment Advice on Retirement Savings by the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). The findings of the CEA report were cited extensively by the Department of Labor when the final Conflict of Interest Rule was published in April of 2016. The report finds that savers receiving conflicted advice earn annual returns that are roughly 1 percentage point lower each year than returns that savers would have earned if they had not received conflicted advice, and that an estimated $1.7 trillion of IRA assets are invested in products in which savers receive conflicted advice. These two estimates together yield an aggregate annual cost of conflicted advice to savers of about $17 billion each year....

Above my skill set to know whether it's credible.

[O Really]

I've got no particular beef with the EPI, but the examples aren't particularly realistic from a practical standpoint. As I said, I don't favor comp time plans, but IFL examples from the public sector show it's not a devil's caldera. I'm not going to join anybody at the barricades over it until/unless the bill starts saying comp time is mandatory, determined by the employer.

[Vrede too]

I wonder if employers use subtle or overt pressure to get employees to accept comp time in lieu of OT pay given the eventual monetary advantage to the employers.

Why don't you favor comp time plans?

[O Really]

There is a monetary advantage to employers only for jobs where you don't have to replace the employee who is out for comp time. If you don't, then sure - you're paying out the same amount of cash as you would if the employee worked, except s/he's not working. For overtime in cash, you're paying out more. However, additional time off is a benefit to employees, so it's not like they're getting nothing for their voluntary exchange. It's similar to cashing in vacation - employees can make a choice of time off or cash. But for employers who have to find a fill-in for the employee who is out, comp plans are a pain in the ass. and no money is saved because they have to pay the fill-in while they're paying the guy out.

I like straight-forward pay plans - do the work, get the pay. If an employer wants to control overtime, there's ways to do it. After all, they'r'e the ones who set the schedules and make the staffing plans.

[Vrede too]

According to EPI the monetary advantage to the employers comes from the interest free withholding of due compensation for up to 13 months, though that might be reduced somewhat by the temp replacement costs that you cite. It would still be a loss to the employee if use is delayed by the boss. In my case, I was able to use my comp time rapidly, always the next scheduling period if I chose, so there were none of the scheduling hassles mentioned and I lost little theoretical "interest".

[O Really]

"interest free withholding" is a bit of a mis-representation, even if true. It is not a loan, and is "withheld" at the employees choice and until s/he decides to use it. Interest isn't generally paid on deferred compensation plans, either. The dollars for comp time, like deferred comp plans, are just bookkeeping entries. There isn't typically a real fund with specific dollar allocations, it's just a "promise to pay."

[Vrede too]

"interest free withholding" is a bit of a mis-representation, even if true. It is not a loan, and is "withheld" at the employees choice and until s/he decides to use it.

Supposedly that's difficult for some or many employees, though it does have to happen sometime. I wouldn't know, it was never a problem for me.

Interest isn't generally paid on deferred compensation plans, either. The dollars for comp time, like deferred comp plans, are just bookkeeping entries. There isn't typically a real fund with specific dollar allocations, it's just a "promise to pay."

I think it's apt, it's a deferred payout that the boss can use free for whatever, multiplied by however many employees have comp time and how long it takes them to use it. Could add up. When the comp time can be used in a reasonable period of the employee's choosing, probably not that big a deal for her/him.

[O Really]

That argument reminds me of an old joke, with some base in reality: A couple of guys were in their hot air balloon and found themselves lost. They floated up to a tall building and through the window asked some people inside where they were. The answer: "you're in a balloon, about 100 feet in the air." The balloon pilot said "thanks, now I know where I am," and started off. The passenger asked how did that answer help. He says, "well, that had to be the Microsoft building - answer was technically correct but useless."

First, the only employees who can currently have a legal comp time program are in the public sector. So unless you were working for some damgummintal unit, your comp time program was not legal. Hospital staff can use an 8/80 plan, but that's not comp time. Secondly, while in theory an employer could "use" money not paid out (this week) in overtime, wages and salaries are really just paid out of general funds, which are constantly in wave-like motion as money is spent, revenue received, etc. So the employer might theoretically be able to spend Jose's earned overtime this week on a new computer, in a few more weeks he'll have to (theoretically) not buy a new computer because he has to pay Jose's OT while Jose is out. To over-simplify, the employer is always going to have the same amount of money in his wage/salary account no matter who gets paid or who doesn't because it's all accounting magic.

But in what we know from the only legal real-life examples we have, employees taking the time when they want it is not a problem - it's a requirement. Nobody is required to take comp time, although some places may encourage it more than others. Except through error, employees don't get shafted, as they will get either pay or time and records are kept to assure that. For police, fire-fighters, sanitation people, for example, comp time is considered a good benefit because they work a lot of OT and appreciate that they have to be given real time off.

There's no reason to think that some bill introduced by one of the right wing loonies would follow exactly the current public sector program. But it is likely that by the time a bill actually got passed and the DOL developed regulations to implement it, that it would most likely be close. I would still personally vote against it if I got a vote, but I wouldn't waste any personal angst if it passed.

[Vrede too]

... First, the only employees who can currently have a legal comp time program are in the public sector.

Really? EPI seems to be saying different:

... It is being touted by congressional Republicans as a boon to worker flexibility, but do not be fooled—everything the comp time bill purports to provide for workers is actually already available under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act....

I wouldn't know. My job with comp time was at a public hospital.

.... To over-simplify, the employer is always going to have the same amount of money in his wage/salary account no matter who gets paid or who doesn't because it's all accounting magic.

That part doesn't make sense to me. Outflow delayed is always a good thing if it doesn't cost extra. Unspent money is earning interest.

But in what we know from the only legal real-life examples we have, employees taking the time when they want it is not a problem - it's a requirement.

EPI seems to be saying different:

... What these examples show is that when employers allow workers to take time off when they need it, workers end up exactly the same under comp time as under overtime; comp time doesn’t offer them anything new. But when the employer does not allow workers to take time off when they ask for it, workers are clearly worse off under comp time than overtime in the short run, and possibly worse off under comp time in the long run. Notably, there is nothing in the comp time bill that suggests employers will be more prone to grant time off when the employee needs it than they already are. Under the comp time bill, the employee has to make a formal request to use their comp time, and the terms of denial are so broad that the employer can deny it for essentially any reason—anything the employer claims “unduly disrupts the operations of the employer.” ...

Nobody is required to take comp time, although some places may encourage it more than others. Except through error, employees don't get shafted, as they will get either pay or time and records are kept to assure that. For police, fire-fighters, sanitation people, for example, comp time is considered a good benefit because they work a lot of OT and appreciate that they have to be given real time off.

I liked it.

There's no reason to think that some bill introduced by one of the right wing loonies would follow exactly the current public sector program. But it is likely that by the time a bill actually got passed and the DOL developed regulations to implement it, that it would most likely be close. I would still personally vote against it if I got a vote, but I wouldn't waste any personal angst if it passed.

Not gonna be an issue I'll follow. I signed and I'm still fine with that, but the chat has educated me.

[O Really]

EPI's statement that "...everything the comp time bill purports to provide for workers is actually already available under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act...." is a Microsoft statement. Yes, 3(s)(1)(C) of the FLSA does provide for comp time. Specifically, "Under certain prescribed conditions, employees of State or local government agencies may receive compensatory time off, at a rate of not less than one and one-half hours for each overtime hour worked, instead of cash overtime pay. Law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency response personnel and employees engaged in seasonal activities may accrue up to 480 hours of comp time; all other state and local government employees may accrue up to 240 hours. An employee must be permitted to use compensatory time on the date requested unless doing so would “unduly disrupt” the operations of the agency."

So one could argue that the simple way to do it (if it should be done) is simply to amend the provision to delete "State or local government agencies."

BTW, the meaning of "unduly disrupt" has been litigated thoroughly over the years, and unless the Republicans managed to produce totally new definitions and regulations, that term couldn't be interpreted as "any frivolous reason."

On the employer use of funds, OK, if it's a small employer with bad cash flow, then not paying cash overtime in a given week would be an advantage. But for everybody else, it just wouldn't make enough difference to argue over. Actually, the same argument could be made that the employer is benefited by an employee's absence because of the payroll "savings." True, but a bad way to run a business.

If you've got, for example, 1,000 employees, then every week you're going to have people absent, work overtime, on vacay, get pay changes, add new people, lose some people, yada. You don't have a fixed payroll amount every week - it varies, and the "leftover" isn't invested in any interest- bearing fund. IRL, except in unusual circumstances, the impact of deferring OT for later just isn't going to matter.

[Vrede too]

EPI's statement that "...everything the comp time bill purports to provide for workers is actually already available under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act...." is a Microsoft statement. Yes, 3(s)(1)(C) of the FLSA does provide for comp time. Specifically, "Under certain prescribed conditions, employees of State or local government agencies may receive compensatory time off ...

Ah, thanks.

So one could argue that the simple way to do it (if it should be done) is simply to amend the provision to delete "State or local government agencies."

BTW, the meaning of "unduly disrupt" has been litigated thoroughly over the years, and unless the Republicans managed to produce totally new definitions and regulations, that term couldn't be interpreted as "any frivolous reason."

You've often described how bosses can invent ostensibly legit explanations for otherwise illegal deeds.

...If you've got, for example, 1,000 employees, then every week you're going to have people absent, work overtime, on vacay, get pay changes, add new people, lose some people, yada. You don't have a fixed payroll amount every week - it varies, and the "leftover" isn't invested in any interest- bearing fund.

I think you're wrong about that. Even my checking account bears interest and businesses routinely park unused funds in savings accounts or CDs of varying lengths that have greater interest. No one smart leaves money idle.

IRL, except in unusual circumstances, the impact of deferring OT for later just isn't going to matter.

Depends on how much comp time for how many people deferred for how long.

[O Really]

Oh, I could be wrong on where a given company might hold its general funds. Maybe some are in interest-bearing accounts. But it would still take a lot of people racking up a lot of comp time over a long period to make any difference - certainly not enough difference to make it a decision point on whether or not to offer comp time if it were to become legal.

Employers have always and will always stretch ummmm, "creativity" to the limit to try to avoid regulations they find inconvenient. For that fact I, Lady O, and Muttley O are deeply grateful since if it weren't for those employers we might have to spend winters in the cold. And some of my friends on the plaintiff side would have to give up their sailboats.

[Vrede too]

The war on the middle and working classes continues -

How President Trump and congressional Republicans are undercutting wages and protections for working people

... 1. Protecting Wall Street profits that siphon billions of dollars from retirement savers....

2. Letting employers hide fatal injuries that happen on their watch....

3. Allowing potentially billions of taxpayer dollars to go to private contractors who violate health and safety protections or fail to pay workers....

4. Undermining important regulations that protect workers and consumers....

5. Allowing employers to penalize employees who don’t want to reveal their private medical information....

6. Gutting the strength of labor organizing by forcing unions to represent and protect non-dues-paying workers....

7. Cutting pay for construction workers on federally funded infrastructure projects....

8. Putting the brakes on overtime pay for the middle class....

9. Slashing the budget for the Department of Labor, hindering its ability to enforce wage theft and worker safety laws or provide job training programs....

10. Declining to raise the minimum wage and lift pay for low-wage workers....

[JTA]

Working class poor folk back home have this belief thay there's a class of people on welfare that are mooching off of them, and they're so broke and poor because the government keeps taking their hard earned minimum wage dollars and redistributing it to the welfare people. So everytime legislation pops up aimed at helping them, they believe it's another plot to steel their money and give it to someone on welfare. That's why they hate Democrats as well.

[JTA]

Cynicism.

[Vrede too]

Yep, dividing the 99% against itself is a longstanding tactic - economy, immigration, war, environment, etc., and sadly it's often successful.

[JTA]

Always having somebody else to look down on makes people feel better about themselves.

Kind of off topic, but the Hillary hate of many working-poor is really interesting. If you press them for details, they can't really provide anything​ other than her being a "shrill evil bitch". She's still the monster lurking under the bed for them. Even Trump still talks about her from time to time.

Propaganda was incredibly effective during this election. Too bad most adults are too fucking stupid to not be susceptible to memes flooding social media.

[Vrede too]

It was fucking stupid to see Trump as a champion of the working-poor and middle and working classes, but Hillary was iffy on them in deeds and rhetoric, too, though she (and Bill) did resonate with blacks. That's why so many nonwealthy white primary voters preferred Bernie.

[JTA]

Hillary was out of touch with the working class but not a Manhatten billionaire that lives in a guilded condo in a tower with his name on it.