There's not a single democrat who thinks comping vacation time is ok?

[myDeaconmyhand]

If overtime-related PTO "expires" it immediately becomes payable in cash. Under no circumstances will the PTO you earn from working overtime legally expire with zero compensation to you.

Standard PTO is not legally protected. It is a perk that the company offers that is as meaningful as the company's willingness to let you take it.

If they convert the overtime to PTO that they track, there is a record of that time. That record is proof that the employee is due that compensation. Those records do not exist under the current system. In that regard, this is an improvement from the current system that hides abuse.

Even in that case, a person who was compensated for OT with PTO might not receive actual compensation until that PTO expires?

 

[smallbigtall]

Even in that case, a person who was compensated for OT with PTO might not receive actual compensation until that PTO expires?

31 days after year-end at the latest (since they have the full year to use the PTO, just like regular PTO), or, if they want to cash out earlier, they can receive cash payment for unused overtime-related PTO throughout the year.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

By this logic, you are saying the existing FLSA should not have been passed because some companies will try to skirt the legally required overtime protections.

No - FLSA added meaningful protections. This is a transparent bill to give businesses more "flexibilty" aka opportunity to compensate their employees less.

 

[smallbigtall]

No - FLSA added meaningful protections. This is a transparent bill to give businesses more "flexibilty" aka opportunity to compensate their employees less.

...compensate their employees with less cash and more PTO, if and only if the employee is willing.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

...compensate their employees with less cash and more PTO, if and only if the employee is willing.

 

[smallbigtall]

Again, you are saying the bill shouldn't be passed because there are companies out there who might break the law. For employers and HR departments who fully intend on following the law, why should this not be an option if the employee is willing?

 

[DistrictDeacon]

Because the potential harm outweighs the potential benefits.

 

[smallbigtall]

If you can provide data that shows that the potential harm to unwilling employees outweighs the potential benefits to both willing employees and employers, I'll concede that this bill won't have any positive consequences worth the risk.

It's not perfect, but for employees who want more PTO and employers who want to better control their unpredictable overtime costs, it's a solution that currently exists and works in the public sector. And if you don't think the public sector is able to abuse overtime protections ("potential harm" as you put it), you are sorely mistaken.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

What percentage of public sector employees take the PTO?

I can't see any situation where money in hand is less desirable that a promise of time off in the future.

 

[AMCDeac]

I can't see any situation where money in hand is less desirable that a promise of time off in the future.

I run into that question several times a year - private sector employee requests "comp time," employer asks if they are allowed to do it, and I say no. So, from what I see, employees often times want overtime. I know with absolute certainty that one of my own employees would prefer comp time instead of overtime.

There are some ways to reach the same result within the same pay period but I am too lazy to type it out.

For people who think the restriction against private-sector comp time should remain illegal, why allow it in the public sector?

 

[dartsndeacs]

What percentage of public sector employees take the PTO?

I can't see any situation where money in hand is less desirable that a promise of time off in the future.

At my public accounting firm people had the option of taking less salary and getting up to an additional few weeks of vacation. I think it was like you can get 2 weeks of vacation for the price of 1 week of wages. Pretty much everyone took it. Worked well for both, although it might have been the 50 percent discount people liked. Accounting is seasonal so there's often nothing to do mid-year.

 

[ChrisL68]

At my public accounting firm people had the option of taking less salary and getting up to an additional few weeks of vacation. I think it was like you can get 2 weeks of vacation for the price of 1 week of wages. Pretty much everyone took it. Worked well for both, although it might have been the 50 percent discount people liked. Accounting is seasonal so there's often nothing to do mid-year.[/QUOTE]

BENEFIT PLAN AUDITS!!!!

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

If you can provide data that shows that the potential harm to unwilling employees outweighs the potential benefits to both willing employees and employers, I'll concede that this bill won't have any positive consequences worth the risk.

It's not perfect, but for employees who want more PTO and employers who want to better control their unpredictable overtime costs, it's a solution that currently exists and works in the public sector. And if you don't think the public sector is able to abuse overtime protections ("potential harm" as you put it), you are sorely mistaken.

Public sector union density is way higher than private sector. But public sector union density can't compare to the #density of people who don't recognize this bill as a simple wage theft scheme.

 

[bmoneydeac]

Saw this the other day and thought of you tuffalo.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Public sector union density is way higher than private sector. But public sector union density can't compare to the #density of people who don't recognize this bill as a simple wage theft scheme.

This is a quality post.

 

[dartsndeacs]

Spoken like a few guys who have never ran a business with any sort of seasonal tendencies or fluctuations in workload.

Because the alternative is just laying people off, then re-hiring seasonally. The most profitable companies do just that.

It's not theft, but it does help manage costs. If you can do it and help the employee at the same time it's a win/win. As others said, there may be a few bad apples, but that's not adequate reason to not support it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ImTheCaptain]

You know it's good Whenever management says a new policy is a win/win

 

[smallbigtall]

Public sector union density is way higher than private sector. But public sector union density can't compare to the #density of people who don't recognize this bill as a simple wage theft scheme.

Okay, so it's wage theft in the private sector, but it's not wage theft in the public sector just because they pay union dues. Got it.

Would you be okay with this practice in the private sector if it was offered as proposed to a similarly unionized workforce?