Posted on 05/03/2017 9:41:41 AM PDT by Ferndina
The House passed H.R. 1180, it is supposed to give private sector employees the option to take comp time in leiu of overtime pay. All but 6 GOP voted in favor, all Dems voted against, what's some of your thoughts. I don't know the rules on citing sources and who we can and cannot quote, sorry about that. Check it out, could be a big deal. Amends the Fair Lanor Standards Act of 1938
H.R. 1180 – Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017 (Rep. Roby, R-AL, and 17 cosponsors)
May 2, 2017
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 1180 – Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017
(Rep. Roby, R-AL, and 17 cosponsors)
The Administration supports H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017. H.R. 1180 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow private-sector employers to give their employees the choice to receive paid time off instead of cash payments for each hour of time for which overtime compensation would otherwise be required. The bill would extend to private-sector workers a choice that public-sector employees have long enjoyed.
H.R. 1180 would help American workers balance the competing demands of family and work by giving them flexibility to earn paid time off—time they can later use for any reason, including family commitments like attending school appointments and caring for a sick child. In addition, H.R. 1180 contains critical protections to ensure employees can continue to choose overtime pay and to prohibit employers from coercing their employees to accept compensatory time instead of overtime pay.
If H.R. 1180 were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.
Federal laws on overtime were not passed for the benefit of the worker.
They were passed for the benefit of the government.
Overtime is punishment given to a company by the government to force the company to hire more people which improves the government’s employment statistics.
Giving employees comp time does the same thing.
The politicians want you to work 40 hours a week for minimum wage.
There is already Federal Law involved here. Sure, it would be nice if none of the FLS legislation existed, but it does, so this is a fix.
Glad to see they have time to devote to real pressing issues like this one [/s]. But border security? Nada, amigo.
Why in the hell was the government involved in this issue in the first place?
Notice all the Rats and 6 rinos wanted to remove the choice from the employee.
Or in other words..banking hours. A very common practice and one that I used to offer as a employer. It was/is an agreement between employer and employee, and nobody else, in my view.
If I could collect pay for all the comp time I was promised then lost out on, I would be a millionaire many times over.
My take is that given the existing system that we have (over 40 hours and you have to give 1.5X pay) I think this is an improvement. It gives people the option to choose which is a good thing. Keep in mind gov’t gets to do comp time without 1.5X pay. And guess what they know they require people to do take the comp time and not the extra pay, so that’s why they are against it for private sector. They don’t want people time shifting work and shifting extra money which means extra taxes.
As HokieMom has indicated, while lawmaker’s hearts may be in the right place (or are they just trying to win votes?), it remains that the states have never expressly constitutonally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate labor issues.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In other words, while the bill is arguably a good idea, low-information lawmakers are unthinkingly attempting to steal state powers with this bill.
In fact, Congress has the constitutional Article V power to propose new amendments to the Constitution to the states which, if the states chose to ratify such amendments, would give the feds the new powers that they need to make such bills.
But why should Congress work within the Constitution when they know that it’s so easy to steal state powers? /sarc
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.