I just saw on my news feed that Congress has passed a bill that allows companies to offer compensatory time to employees rather than pay overtime. I haven't seen any details of the bill. Normally, I am a fiscal conservative, and I am for legislation that increases choice and flexibility, and this law may in fact do that. The Commonwealth of Kentucky offers its employees compensatory time, if one works more than one's normal work week. This, in effect avoids paying overtime that must be approved (and wouldn't be in most cases), and many employees use this to flex their week, but even compensatory time must be approved as it is required to be paid out after a certain amount is accumulated.

 

I am concerned, however, that some employers could only allow for compensatory time, then run out of business and never pay the liability to employees. I am wondering what kind of controls and/or assurances are included to ensure that the bill is in fact family-friendly as it is intended.

I think those concerns are definitely justified. I'm a part-time state employee and have racked up that comp time but I have no doubt that the state is a stable enough entity to ultimately make good on it.

 

I'd like to actually read the text of this thing before I say much more about it.

Text - H.R.118 - 115th Congress (217-218): Working Families Flexibility Act of

2017 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

Seems pretty solid on its face. It's an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has been in effect since 1938. The gist is that it allows employers to offer comp time to employees otherwise eligible for overtime pay. Looks like employees can always opt for normal OT under the act but can choose to get comp instead.

 

Seems good but I see a couple potential problems that could lead to long, expensive litigation down the road.

 

The first is what @doomer already brought up: company offers comp time, employee takes what amounts to deferred pay. Company goes under. What are its obligations to pay that debt. Does it fit like unpaid employee wages in the priority as far as a bankruptcy proceeding is concerned?

 

The second is trickier. While the program will appear to be optional in all cases, what happens if a company offering OT in general wants to start forcing employees into this program because it's cheaper for them. OT starts going to people enrolled in the comp time program while the regular hourly folks start losing OT. What's the recourse? The answer is a really difficult lawsuit alleging that the company has made the program effectively not optional. No idea how that would go.

I had friends that worked in the same industry with two different employers.

 

Buddy #1 worked at a place where they earned "Comp Time" at a 1 and 1/2 times rate and their employer was pretty liberal about letting them take time off and use "Comp Time" any time they wanted.

 

Buddy #2 worked at a place that paid "Over Time" pay at the same rate and he many times was forced to work overtime due to his profession.

 

Buddy #1 was upset and wanted more $$$ that comes with "Over Time" pay, not extra days/weeks off. While Buddy #2 was upset getting paid "Over Time" and would have rather earned "Comp Time" so he could get some time off away from work.

 

Just thought that it was interesting how different people view it differently.

I value my time more than money so this is a great option and one that my employer has already started offering.