Posted on 09/10/2001 6:08:02 AM PDT by N00dleN0gg1n
Remaining flexible: Overtime choices shouldn't be limited As the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, Sen. Judd Gregg is working on a bill that would give employees and employers the right to make such an agreement — a right many people don't have. We congratulate him for sponsoring the Workplace Flexibility Bill. This would amend the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act that has backfired in some of the cases where it has been applied. For example, an employer might want to give her employee an extra day off rather than pay him time and a half for overtime. The employee in question might want very badly to take the employer up on her offer. Perhaps there is an afternoon soccer game or morning doctor's appointment that employee wants to attend with his son or daughter. Maybe the employee wants to take a long weekend with his spouse or girlfriend. But the 1938 law — originally designed to protect workers from stingy bosses who don't want to pay overtime at all — instead limits workers' choices. Employers and employees can't contract with each other to reach a mutually beneficial decision because of this law. That's a shame. If "flex-time" is what both parties want, why shouldn't they have it? According to Sen. Gregg, families are spending close to 40 percent less time together than they were in the 1960s. All the "time-and-a-half" in the world can't fix that problem. The Worker Flexibility Bill can.
ALL OF US can use the extra money overtime pays. But wouldn't it be nice if we had the option to choose between "time-and-a-half" and an extra day off? As anyone with children can attest, all the money in the world can't buy more time spent on family.
Why is this a "Right"?
. . . "But the 1938 law - originally designed to protect workers from stingy bosses who don't want to pay overtime at all - instead limits workers' choices. Employers and employees can't contract with each other to reach a mutually beneficial decision because of this law." . . .
Hell, with the feds legislating workers' (rights? ? ?) and benefits . . . just why do we need unions?
There's a lot of manufacturing in this state, which means hourly emplpyees, which means the act in question affects them.
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.