Morning in America: Butthurt Achieved

[Gilgamesh]

$60,000 for the ultimate Gil boner.

The real sin here is that they didn't even use the correct uniforms.

Billions of dollars lost in Iraq, but this $60K is a prime example of government waste.  Great logic.

[Wheezer]

$60,000 for the ultimate Gil boner.

The real sin here is that they didn't even use the correct uniforms.

Admit it, you favor the wrap-around tunic.

[Gilgamesh]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

[morpheus]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

[CubFaninHydePark]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/02/house-gop-comp-time-legislation-roby/2047715/

Roby's bill would make it legal for a private-sector employer and an employee to agree in writing that the employee will take an hour-and-a-half of comp time for every hour of overtime worked. For those in a union, the option would be available only as allowed by the collective-bargaining agreement.

...

She said employers could not force employees to use comp time, and employees could change their minds and cash out their accrued comp time.

I can't say I see anything to hate there.

[morpheus]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

Right now it's *illegal*.  I see no reason for it to be illegal. 

As for the profitability aspect, I can quite easily envision a situation in which an employer uses such a perk to attract more productive workers and comes out ahead on a net basis versus not offering the perk.  It depends more on the particular segment of the labor force used by the employer, and that segment's indifference curves.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

Right now it's *illegal*.  I see no reason for it to be illegal. 

As for the profitability aspect, I can quite easily envision a situation in which an employer uses such a perk to attract more productive workers and comes out ahead on a net basis versus not offering the perk.  It depends more on the particular segment of the labor force used by the employer, and that segment's indifference curves.

I think CFiHP's phrasing was confusing. On first read, I thought he was saying that comp time is a bad deal for employers, i.e. that 15 regular wage hours lost is somehow a greater cost than 15 extra hours paid at time and a half.

But that seemed so crazy that I felt compelled re-read it several times and ultimately decided that he meant that comp time is a bad deal for employees and that it therefore makes sense to prevent employers from using comp time abusively as an end-run around overtime laws.

From all the descriptions I've read, though, this bill wouldn't allow employers to force employees to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay, but would rather just open it up as an option for employees to choose.

[Yeti]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

Right now it's *illegal*.  I see no reason for it to be illegal. 

As for the profitability aspect, I can quite easily envision a situation in which an employer uses such a perk to attract more productive workers and comes out ahead on a net basis versus not offering the perk.  It depends more on the particular segment of the labor force used by the employer, and that segment's indifference curves.

I think CFiHP's phrasing was confusing. On first read, I thought he was saying that comp time is a bad deal for employers, i.e. that 15 regular wage hours lost is somehow a greater cost than 15 extra hours paid at time and a half.

But that seemed so crazy that I felt compelled re-read it several times and ultimately decided that he meant that comp time is a bad deal for employees and that it therefore makes sense to prevent employers from using comp time abusively as an end-run around overtime laws.

From all the descriptions I've read, though, this bill wouldn't allow employers to force employees to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay, but would rather just open it up as an option for employees to choose.

Employees to chose or the Employers to choose to offer it?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

Right now it's *illegal*.  I see no reason for it to be illegal. 

As for the profitability aspect, I can quite easily envision a situation in which an employer uses such a perk to attract more productive workers and comes out ahead on a net basis versus not offering the perk.  It depends more on the particular segment of the labor force used by the employer, and that segment's indifference curves.

I think CFiHP's phrasing was confusing. On first read, I thought he was saying that comp time is a bad deal for employers, i.e. that 15 regular wage hours lost is somehow a greater cost than 15 extra hours paid at time and a half.

But that seemed so crazy that I felt compelled re-read it several times and ultimately decided that he meant that comp time is a bad deal for employees and that it therefore makes sense to prevent employers from using comp time abusively as an end-run around overtime laws.

From all the descriptions I've read, though, this bill wouldn't allow employers to force employees to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay, but would rather just open it up as an option for employees to choose.

Employees to chose or the Employers to choose to offer it?

According to what I've read, both.

It would allow employers to offer their employees a choice.

Employers may choose not to offer comp time. And, if comp time is offered, employees may still choose not to accept comp time in place of overtime pay.

[Gilgamesh]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

Right now it's *illegal*.  I see no reason for it to be illegal. 

As for the profitability aspect, I can quite easily envision a situation in which an employer uses such a perk to attract more productive workers and comes out ahead on a net basis versus not offering the perk.  It depends more on the particular segment of the labor force used by the employer, and that segment's indifference curves.

I think CFiHP's phrasing was confusing. On first read, I thought he was saying that comp time is a bad deal for employers, i.e. that 15 regular wage hours lost is somehow a greater cost than 15 extra hours paid at time and a half.

But that seemed so crazy that I felt compelled re-read it several times and ultimately decided that he meant that comp time is a bad deal for employees and that it therefore makes sense to prevent employers from using comp time abusively as an end-run around overtime laws.

From all the descriptions I've read, though, this bill wouldn't allow employers to force employees to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay, but would rather just open it up as an option for employees to choose.

Employees to chose or the Employers to choose to offer it?

According to what I've read, both.

It would allow employers to offer their employees a choice.

Employers may choose not to offer comp time. And, if comp time is offered, employees may still choose not to accept comp time in place of overtime pay.

In my experience, many employees, especially in large plants, work overtime as a matter of course.  They don't necessarily need the extra money, mind you, but work it because their boss orders them to or because their name was next on an overtime list.

Allowing employees (at their own discretion, which I think is critical for this bill to pass) to allocate their 1.5 hours into regular vacation and/or sick hours is not such a bad thing, i.e. converting 10 hours of OT into 15 hours of PTO.

Liberals will probably balk because they'd probably prefer that employers be mandated to provide paid time off, but this is a fine start towards achieving those ends.

Incidentally, my only suggestion to the bill would amend the FLSA to make overtime become 2x the hourly rate, as opposed to 1.5.  Overtime regulations were designed to increase employment by incentivizing employers to hire new employees at straight-time rather than pay more costly workers the increased OT rate.  Though, I suppose the objection to that would be that employers would have to expend more resources in training and preparing a new employee than just paying the increased rate (and that you shouldn't penalize an employer when they refuse to hire new, and potentially, inexperienced employees).

[CBStew]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

Right now it's *illegal*.  I see no reason for it to be illegal. 

As for the profitability aspect, I can quite easily envision a situation in which an employer uses such a perk to attract more productive workers and comes out ahead on a net basis versus not offering the perk.  It depends more on the particular segment of the labor force used by the employer, and that segment's indifference curves.

I think CFiHP's phrasing was confusing. On first read, I thought he was saying that comp time is a bad deal for employers, i.e. that 15 regular wage hours lost is somehow a greater cost than 15 extra hours paid at time and a half.

But that seemed so crazy that I felt compelled re-read it several times and ultimately decided that he meant that comp time is a bad deal for employees and that it therefore makes sense to prevent employers from using comp time abusively as an end-run around overtime laws.

From all the descriptions I've read, though, this bill wouldn't allow employers to force employees to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay, but would rather just open it up as an option for employees to choose.

Employees to chose or the Employers to choose to offer it?

According to what I've read, both.

It would allow employers to offer their employees a choice.

Employers may choose not to offer comp time. And, if comp time is offered, employees may still choose not to accept comp time in place of overtime pay.

In my experience, many employees, especially in large plants, work overtime as a matter of course.  They don't necessarily need the extra money, mind you, but work it because their boss orders them to or because their name was next on an overtime list.

Allowing employees (at their own discretion, which I think is critical for this bill to pass) to allocate their 1.5 hours into regular vacation and/or sick hours is not such a bad thing, i.e. converting 10 hours of OT into 15 hours of PTO.

Liberals will probably balk because they'd probably prefer that employers be mandated to provide paid time off, but this is a fine start towards achieving those ends.

Incidentally, my only suggestion to the bill would amend the FLSA to make overtime become 2x the hourly rate, as opposed to 1.5.  Overtime regulations were designed to increase employment by incentivizing employers to hire new employees at straight-time rather than pay more costly workers the increased OT rate.  Though, I suppose the objection to that would be that employers would have to expend more resources in training and preparing a new employee than just paying the increased rate (and that you shouldn't penalize an employer when they refuse to hire new, and potentially, inexperienced employees).

My experience is that where it is the employee's option in a non-union situation the employee is afraid to not choose whatever the employer wants him to choose.  We file dozens of FLSA suits annually to collect for meal and rest breaks where the employers claim that they didn't know that the employees were working through their breaks.

[CubFaninHydePark]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

Right now it's *illegal*.  I see no reason for it to be illegal. 

As for the profitability aspect, I can quite easily envision a situation in which an employer uses such a perk to attract more productive workers and comes out ahead on a net basis versus not offering the perk.  It depends more on the particular segment of the labor force used by the employer, and that segment's indifference curves.

I think CFiHP's phrasing was confusing. On first read, I thought he was saying that comp time is a bad deal for employers, i.e. that 15 regular wage hours lost is somehow a greater cost than 15 extra hours paid at time and a half.

But that seemed so crazy that I felt compelled re-read it several times and ultimately decided that he meant that comp time is a bad deal for employees and that it therefore makes sense to prevent employers from using comp time abusively as an end-run around overtime laws.

From all the descriptions I've read, though, this bill wouldn't allow employers to force employees to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay, but would rather just open it up as an option for employees to choose.

No, I meant it was probably a bad deal for most employers.  If someone is working overtime, it's because they're still adding value at time and a half.  Presumably you don't have people work overtime to lower the bottom line.

I don't think many employers would choose to allow time and a half to convert to additional time off at a future time, because that's a total loss of productivity at that future point. 

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

[Yeti]

The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

Proof?

[morpheus]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

Right now it's *illegal*.  I see no reason for it to be illegal. 

As for the profitability aspect, I can quite easily envision a situation in which an employer uses such a perk to attract more productive workers and comes out ahead on a net basis versus not offering the perk.  It depends more on the particular segment of the labor force used by the employer, and that segment's indifference curves.

I think CFiHP's phrasing was confusing. On first read, I thought he was saying that comp time is a bad deal for employers, i.e. that 15 regular wage hours lost is somehow a greater cost than 15 extra hours paid at time and a half.

But that seemed so crazy that I felt compelled re-read it several times and ultimately decided that he meant that comp time is a bad deal for employees and that it therefore makes sense to prevent employers from using comp time abusively as an end-run around overtime laws.

From all the descriptions I've read, though, this bill wouldn't allow employers to force employees to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay, but would rather just open it up as an option for employees to choose.

No, I meant it was probably a bad deal for most employers.  If someone is working overtime, it's because they're still adding value at time and a half.  Presumably you don't have people work overtime to lower the bottom line.

I don't think many employers would choose to allow time and a half to convert to additional time off at a future time, because that's a total loss of productivity at that future point. 

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

As long as we've agreed that it shouldn't be *illegal* then we can start talking about economically optimal activity.