The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY TIME FLEXIBILITY ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E401-E402 on March 7, 2003.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY TIME FLEXIBILITY ACT
______
HON. JUDY BIGGERT
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 6, 2003
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce The Family Time Flexibility Act, which allows employers to offer American workers the option of voluntarily taking compensatory time off in lieu of receiving overtime pay. I am pleased that 67 of my colleagues have joined me as original cosponsors of this pro-family, pro-worker, pro-women legislation.
One would think that providing working men and women with more control over their work schedules is a ``no brainer'', but private sector employees and employers alike are bound by the Fair Labor Standards Act of FLSA, which does not permit such flexibility. I think it's fair to say that this law, enacted during the depression, was designed for a very different workforce with very different needs.
Over the past 60-plus years, the American workplace has undergone a dramatic change in composition, character, and demands. What once was a static, agriculture- and manufacturing-based economy with a primarily male workforce has evolved into a fast-paced working environment based on global services and high technology with nearly equal numbers of women and men in the workforce.
Workers today, more than ever before, face a difficult dilemma: how to balance the demands of a job while having adequate time for family, friends and outside commitments. This situation has become even more pronounced because many American families now rely on two incomes to survive. And while this conflict weighs most heavily on women, all workers--regardless of gender--experience conflict between work and family, between watching their child's baseball game or going through that stack of papers on their desk.
The Family Time Flexibility Act will help to ease these pressures by providing the flexibility that working parents need to spend quality time with their families. This legislation amends the FLSA to allow private sector employees to access something that their colleagues working in federal, state and local governments have had for many years--the option of choosing either cash wages or paid time off as compensation for working overtime hours.
Before I go any further, I want to stress that nothing in this legislation would require employees to take comp time instead of overtime pay. Nor could employers force employees to take comp time. Rather they now can be given the choice of compensatory time or overtime. This bill does not relieve employers of any obligation to pay overtime.
As a matter of fact, my bill contains explicit penalties if an employer ``directly or indirectly intimidates, threatens or coerces'' an employee into taking comp time in lieu of overtime, and the penalties are more severe than under current law. Employers who engage in such behavior will be liable for double damages plus attorney's fees and costs. In addition, the other remedies included under the FLSA--
including civil and criminal penalties and injunctive relief--still will apply. The employee may respond through a private right of action, or the Labor Department may sue on behalf of the employee. I also want to stress that this bill in no way affects or changes the standard 40-
hour workweek.
Here's how the bill works. If the employer and the employee agree--or in union shops, the union and the employer agree through their collective bargaining agreement--to allow the employee to start accruing overtime hours as compensatory or family time, the employee may bank overtime hours and use them at a later time as paid time off.
As is currently the case with overtime pay, comp time hours would accrue at a rate of one and one-half hours of comp time for each hour of overtime worked. Employees could accrue up to 160 hours of comp time within a 12-month period.
This legislation contains numerous safeguards to protect employees. Let me reiterate that employers are explicitly prohibited, under threat of civil and criminal penalties, from attempting to directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee to take comp-
time instead of cash pay as pay for overtime.
In addition, employers must obtain prior written approval from each employee who chooses comp-time in lieu of cash pay for overtime. And employees can withdraw their request to receive comp-time and go back to receiving cash pay at any time.
The legislation requires an employer to annually pay cash wages for any unused comp time accrued by the employee. Employees may withdraw from a comp time agreement at any time and request a cash-out of any or all of his or her accrued, unused comp time. The employer has 30 days in which to comply with the request. The legislation also requires an employer to provide the employee with at least 30 days notice prior to cashing out any accrued time in excess of 80 hours or prior to discontinuing a policy of offering comp time.
Employees are able to use their accrued comp time at any time, so long as its use does not unduly disrupt the operations of the business--this is the same standard used in the public sector and under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Employers also would be prohibited from requiring employees to take accrued time solely at the convenience of the employer.
Again, I want to reiterate that this legislation has no effect on the traditional 40-hour workweek or the way in which overtime is calculated.
Mr. Speaker, comp time makes for good policy and it also has another benefit--it makes employees happy. There always will be working men and women who want and need the extra pay that comes from working overtime hours. But for many workers, having the additional time off is a far more attractive option, and that's an option they should have.
Comp time also is good for business because smart companies know how flexibility can help efforts to recruit and retain top-notch employees. Concerns over the well-being of the family often force parents to leave jobs that do not fit their family needs or forego jobs that would put stress on home lives.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, The Family Time Flexibility Act is good for workers, it is good for women, and it is especially good for families. The bill updates an outdated law designed for the 1930s workplace and makes it relevant for today's workforce.
Today's working men and women want increased flexibility and choices regarding scheduling and compensation, yet federal law prevents them from having such options. I trust my colleagues agree that employees and employers should not be prevented from making mutually agreeable arrangements that meet both personal and business needs.
I think the time and circumstances are right for us to pass this much-needed legislation. I urge my colleagues to join this effort to pass a strong ``family time'' bill that will be good for workers, businesses, the economy, and America's families.
In closing, let me take a moment to recognize Congressman Cass Ballenger for his dedicated and untiring work on the comp time issue and to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Representative Charlie Norwood, for his strong commitment to this issue. Finally, let me thank the Chairman of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce, John Boehner, for his support of America's working men and women.
I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Family Time Flexibility Act.
____________________
