The Working Families Flexibility Act. Win?

posted at 9:31 am on May 12, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

This weekend, Andrew Malcolm brings us the full text of the Republican Party’s weekly remarks, this time delivered by Representative Martha Roby (R-AL2). In addition to Mothers Day, she spends some time discussing the passage this week in the House of the bill she authored, The Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. ( Lest you think I’m burying the lede here… BREAKING: The House Actually Did Something.)

A more flexible workplace isn’t a new concept. In fact, many employees in the public sector enjoy this benefit right now. That’s because in 1985 Congress passed a law allowing local and state governments to offer their employees the option of comp time.

So, why should the rules be different for employees in the private sector? Why should government workers have more freedom in the workplace than everybody else? And why is Washington restricting employers from offering certain benefits that government itself is free to offer?

Our message to the American people is this: we want to get Washington out of the way of how you use your time. I am proud to champion the Working Families Flexibility Act on behalf of working moms and dads throughout the country.

The short version of what the bill does (full text here) is to make it legal for private employers to offer workers the option of putting in extra hours and, rather than getting paid for it that week, bank the hours to take paid time off later – providing it doesn’t cause undue stress to the work schedule – without having to use up their vacation days. Currently companies are mostly prohibited from offering this option because of provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

This is one of those cases where I can understand opponents having hesitation or questions about the bill, and it deserved the fair debate it received. Those protections were put in place to prevent employers from abusing the system and avoiding paying overtime to workers putting in more than 40 hours per week. But the bill has put in provisions to protect against that, and only offers the workers a chance to opt for the extra time off if that’s what they want.

I’ve run into similar situations in years past. One place I worked when I was younger always had extra seasonal work in late winter where plenty of overtime was available. But I always wanted to go fishing in the spring, and went so far as to ask if I could bank up some time. I was informed that I could not because of legal reasons, so I can see where this type of flexibility would benefit some workers.

So if those concerns have been addressed, where would anyone find grounds to oppose the idea? Never fear. The Washington Post will find something, I’m sure.

Yet the National Partnership for Women & Families opposes the measure. Judith L. Lichtman, the organization’s senior advisor, testified against the bill before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, saying, “it would leave workers with neither pay nor time” and “magnifies the power imbalance between employer and employee.”

She argued that H.R. 1406 “offers a false, flawed choice that would make times even tougher for workers and their families.”

No real explanation is offered as to why she’s describing something which seems to be the opposite of the bill as written, but we might get a hint from the fact that the unions and in general and the AFL-CIO in particular hate this bill with a vengeance. While one might wonder why unions representing workers wouldn’t want workers to have more options, (assuming you’ve been asleep for the last 30 years) it’s really not much of a mystery. Unions live off the dues they collect from their members. The more they work and the more they earn, the more money goes into the unions’ coffers. Little things like extra paid time off to go fishing don’t do anything to stack up the cash they need to pump into the next round of elections.

Will the Senate take up this or a companion bill so it can go to the President? And would Barack Obama sign it if they did? Stay tuned.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Surprise surprise, another government law that robs the childless to pay the childed in the name of ‘fairness’…and easy votes…that is an absolute disaster that will only hurt people.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 9:34 AM

SEC. 6. SUNSET.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall expire 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

Ah, if only everything Congress did had that provision.

On the surface, it returns local control to private employers for agreements between them and employees. I’m all for local control.

And if unions don’t like like it, I say, ‘Sure. Go for it.’

locomotivebreath1901 on May 12, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Clicking on

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

got me this:

MEMBER LOGIN
Login ID:
Forgot?
Terms of Use
MAY NEW MEMBER SPECIAL
Discounted Dues & a SHRM Tote Bag
Get access to member-exclusive sample policies, legal and compliance resources, HR news, free webcasts, HR Magazine, Ask an HR Advisor service and more.

Did you think we were all members, Jazz?

Akzed on May 12, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Surprise surprise, another government law that robs the childless to pay the childed in the name of ‘fairness’…and easy votes…that is an absolute disaster that will only hurt people.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 9:34 AM

I think a bachelor could bank time in the winter and use it in the summer to take days off to go fishing, and not have to take regular vacation days. Or to take time off to go to a sports event in a distant city.

Wethal on May 12, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Sounds like the government is trying to finetune the workplace.

Government, just get out of my life.

davidk on May 12, 2013 at 9:47 AM

I wanted this to go through back with the contract with America. My only provision is that it is the employee’s choice. Employers should not be able to force it on them.

Corsair on May 12, 2013 at 9:47 AM

DKos is apoplectic – they sent out an action petition e-mail yesterday. They pretty much parrot what their betters tell them.

Jeff Weimer on May 12, 2013 at 9:48 AM

As an “exempt” employee, I am frequently required to work more than 80 hours (biweekly) without compensation. And when they do offer compensation — to induce employees to work still harder — the compensation comes into effect only if you work more than 16 hours extra during that two week period.

Theoretically, because I am salaried, I ought to be able to work less than my 80 hours biweekly, but, in practice, those who attempt to do this will find themselves out of a job quickly.

And it’s gotten worse since the economic downturn and Obamacare. There’s a hiring freeze and a significant number of people who leave are not being replaced. You can guess what that does to the workload placed upon the remainder.

And I can’t fault my employer in the least — the profit in my industry, by law, is less than 5%.

If this law is passed, it will be very interesting — my company, which is employed by the Government, will be required to bank my excess hours. That of course will lower the work done per dollar paid by the Government.

Heh.

unclesmrgol on May 12, 2013 at 9:50 AM

The Fair Labor Standards Act:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/FairLaborStandAct.pdf‎

unclesmrgol on May 12, 2013 at 9:57 AM

I think a bachelor could bank time in the winter and use it in the summer to take days off to go fishing, and not have to take regular vacation days. Or to take time off to go to a sports event in a distant city.

Wethal on May 12, 2013 at 9:46 AM

*sigh*

You’re missing the point.

Every single liberal-advanced bill that they claim will help the childed has ended in massive cost overruns at best to major social damage at worst. The “War on Poverty” being a major example of the latter.

unclesmrgol is only one of tens of thousands who will suffer.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Worked for Govt..had comp time..(I enjoyed the option)
Private sector..no..salaried..work 60 hrs for a week to meet a deadline..just your duty.

Not sure what to think of this yet..
Just my own experiences.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I have a better idea. Get rid of all of these labor boards, cut taxes significantly to get the economy growing again, and then there won’t be these government problems. Let the private sector make their own rules so that they can bestow their own perks and leave the rest of us alone.

BetseyRoss on May 12, 2013 at 10:03 AM

to make it legal for private employers to offer workers the option of putting in extra hours and, rather than getting paid for it that week, bank the hours to take paid time off later

My employer has been doing this for years. Why is a law necessary? We all work on salary so maybe this law applies only to non-exempt, hourly workers.

Odysseus on May 12, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Many companies already have this in place for their exempt (i.e, non-hourly) employees. My company allows this, but you can only bank hours into the following week. If you don’t use them the following week, they are lost. That prevents the accumulation of a liability on the part of the company. I think the government program is similar.

AZfederalist on May 12, 2013 at 10:06 AM

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 9:57 AM

I usually start with the assumption that if the unions hate it, it must have some merit.

Wethal on May 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Why doesn’t the government get out of the way of the employer-employee relationship. If the employer wants to offer OT pay for 40+ hours, let them. If they employer doesn’t let them. If they want to do this comp time thing, let them. The free market will sort everything out. If employees don’t like the policy, they can just work for someone else.

Competition is always better, government interference always stifles freedom.

nazo311 on May 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I have a better idea, too. Why doesn’t the govt get the heck out of the private sector. It’s called private for a reason. Let private business manage how they treat their employees. A lot of what this does will have to be negotiated with a union if one is involved anyway. I’m sure Ms. Roby has good intentions and will feel much better about herself for doing this, but it’s none of her business.

Kissmygrits on May 12, 2013 at 10:09 AM

That would mean I would get a lot of time off if my OT can be banked. Salaried workers would benefit, but at what cost? If unions hate it that’s a plus, but it would affect corporate profitability for sure. Every salaried worker I know, including me, works overtime every day.

Would this mean a forced lunch break to control the amount of OT a salaried worker can claim? I never have time for lunch. A few minutes to eat a sandwich, that’s about it. It sounds great on the surface, but will it cost the nation more full-time salaried jobs?

Why do I smell some type of Obamacare-enhancing ploy in this? Contract workers, who would typically not be offered employer insurance plans (or a plan that is prohibitively expensive), would benefit because employers would be less likely to hire a full-time salaried worker in favor of a contractor. Contractors are less likely to accumulate a significant amount of overtime because they bill by the hour. Staffing firms would benefit.

Many questions, few answers.

Philly on May 12, 2013 at 10:09 AM

My employer has been doing this for years. Why is a law necessary? We all work on salary so maybe this law applies only to non-exempt, hourly workers.

Odysseus on May 12, 2013 at 10:05 AM

I think that last bit is the issue. Hourly employees cannot do this because the Fair Labor Act prevents employers from having employees work more than 40 hours without paying overtime. That only applies to hourly workers. Not sure that having the government mandate that comp time is a requirement is a good idea, but since the Fair Labor Act mandates compensation for 40 hour work weeks, this seems like a reasonable amendment to the FLA.

AZfederalist on May 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM

AZfederalist on May 12, 2013 at 10:06 AM

I think the concern is that workers would have a huge amount of time banked when they want to retire, and then would take all the banked time at full salary before they went on retirement.

Of course, there are probably people who bank all their regular vacation time this way and go on paid vacation for weeks or months before they retire.

Wethal on May 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Odysseus on May 12, 2013 at 10:05 AM

That’s correct. These rules apply to hourly wage earners who are supposed to be compensated for hours logged above and beyond 40 per week.

Jazz Shaw on May 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM

As if there’s any overtime or opportunity to bank time in this economy. Lucky to get forty hours.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Wethal on May 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM

That would depend upon how the policy is implemented. As mentioned, my employer only allows comp time a one week lifespan, you can’t bank it beyond that. As far as vacation time, many employers have a “use it or lose it” policy that limits the amount of time off one can bank. Unused vacation time is a liability on the company’s books, therefore by limiting the amount of carry-over, they make their books look better.

AZfederalist on May 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Yet the National Partnership for Women & Families opposes the measure

…war on women!

KOOLAID2 on May 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM

This has been done by the Federal Gov for decades – Law or no Law.

E.G. 1989-1992 I was the only Enlisted at USDAO Copenhagen with 2 DIA US Civs and 3 LN Civs. They were not authorized overtime so they got comptime.

I just worked longer since I was USN…

DJ Elliott on May 12, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Yet the National Partnership for Women & Families…

…wishes you a…
H A P P Y
M O T H E R S
D A Y !

KOOLAID2 on May 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM

That’s correct. These rules apply to hourly wage earners who are supposed to be compensated for hours logged above and beyond 40 per week.

Jazz Shaw on May 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM

A Ha- thx for clarifying.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 10:26 AM

“She argued that H.R. 1406 “offers a false, flawed choice that would make times even tougher for workers and their families.”

“No real explanation is offered as to why she’s describing something which seems to be the opposite of the bill as written, but we might get a hint from the fact that the unions and in general and the AFL-CIO in particular hate this bill with a vengeance.”

Umm..yeah..I was waiting her the argument to back that statement up. Unions, says it all.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Happy Mother effer Day!
To HAL and company.

To the ladies and moms here..
Happy Mother’s Day!

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Comp time is permitted for salaried employees if an employer so chooses. The Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits comp time for hourly employees which I assume is what this law would change. I’m ok with the bill if it still leaves the option of whether to offer it or not up to the employer — comp time will not work in every work environment. If this turns out to be another government mandate, though, count me against it.

natasha333 on May 12, 2013 at 10:33 AM

comp time will not work in every work environment.

natasha333 on May 12, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Nice point.
Neither does fmla.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Prediction: Senate strips the House bill of all current language, and inserts language making it a “Union Preservation Act”.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 12, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Some employees are paid monthly, so if hours can be banked by pay period, this would mean a lot of time off per month. An employer who issues payroll monthly might consider using at least a semimonthly or biweekly pay schedule to reduce the hours that could be claimed and banked within a pay period.

The time-banking scheme could prompt complaints of discrimination between full-time hourly and salaried employees. Only by hiring contractors or temps would this threat be eliminated, because I don’t see my employer, or anyone else’s, letting so many workers bank a lot of overtime.

Philly on May 12, 2013 at 10:43 AM

As far as vacation time, many employers have a “use it or lose it” policy that limits the amount of time off one can bank. Unused vacation time is a liability on the company’s books, therefore by limiting the amount of carry-over, they make their books look better.

AZfederalist on May 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM

From my experience..and my friends in the private sector…true.
Use it or loose it- and how much PTO can even be rolled over, calendar year. They cap it.
Most companies I am familiar with switched to PTO instead of paid sick days, vacay days.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 10:44 AM

The time-banking scheme could prompt complaints of discrimination between full-time hourly and salaried employees. Only by hiring contractors or temps would this threat be eliminated, because I don’t see my employer, or anyone else’s, letting so many workers bank a lot of overtime.

Philly on May 12, 2013 at 10:43 AM

There are already disparities between how salaried and hourly workers are treated. That is not considered discriminatory because the rules under which the hourly workers are treated was ostensibly agree to by the unions that represent them. The employees’ beef is with the union then. As far as salaried professional workers, they already know that hourly rules are different and most don’t want anything to do with them.

This hasn’t been an issue in places where comp time is already offered.

AZfederalist on May 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Then we have odd duck (California-of course)
Who pays as we call..(very un-PC) Chinese overtime.
You get paid over time if you work more then 8 hrs a day..for that day. It isn’t based on a 40 hr week and exceeding the 40. Based on each day and hours worked.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM

More band aids trying to fix what the Govt effed up in the 1st place.

Why doesn’t the government get out of the way of the employer-employee relationship. If the employer wants to offer OT pay for 40+ hours, let them. If they employer doesn’t let them. If they want to do this comp time thing, let them. The free market will sort everything out. If employees don’t like the policy, they can just work for someone else.

Competition is always better, government interference always stifles freedom.

nazo311 on May 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM

See, nobody is making slaves of employees anymore. You don’t like the contract you have with an employer, then don’t TAKE it. Go work somewhere else.
No I know the whining that ensues with that last statement. Something like: “But there aren’t any other places/jobs to find!”
To that I say one of 2 things, get another skill set or MOVE.
And then a different set of whining occurs to that statement. Something like: “Well my family lives here & I own a house & my ancestors settled here” blah blah blah.
To which I say, “SO?”
This notion that people are slaves to their employers in America right now is ridiculous.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Lots of Lefties using this bill to appeal to the Low Information Voters by saying that Eric Cantor and the GOP want to abolish overtime pay.

I like the bill so long as it contains the employee option of cash vs. time. There have been many times when I have worked hella hours, didn’t really need the extra cash, but would have loved to have been able to have a few days off instead.

myrenovations on May 12, 2013 at 10:53 AM

AZfederalist on May 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM

I want nothing to do with more government mandates, but I don’t know that salaried employees wouldn’t want the same type of benefit.

Philly on May 12, 2013 at 10:55 AM

This reminds me of the salaried position concept.
Which I am as a HS teacher.
I get a generous salary + generous benefits for working 182 days per year.
Now many teachers whine & complain they are underpaid & overworked & that they do the job for the chirrun.
See, I am a teacher who thinks I got a pretty decent gig here.
10 sick days & 3 personal days per year.
I can rack up something like 80+ sick days & up 5 personal days.
If you are taking school work home & working hours upon hours at night & on the weekends to grade papers & craft lessons, you really need to CHANGE what you’re doing.
That’s ridiculous.
I NEVER take work home. And on occasion I do stay after my contracted time. But see, I actually use my time effectively at work & don’t eff around gossiping in the office & I actually work through my lunch most of the time instead of visiting.
I also am available during lunch for my students which all of the other teachers are not.
That’s usually when I get them coming in for help.
I realize some other lines of work, like my daughter’s as a business manager at an accounting firm, require long extended seasonal hours.
But the rest of the year they are flexible to her time off.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 10:59 AM

We get a law where the government allows us to make our own choice, and we cheer the government for allowing us to make our own choice. How about repealing the 1938 law. I’ll cheer that.

tdarrington on May 12, 2013 at 11:00 AM

comp time will not work in every work environment.

natasha333 on May 12, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Nice point.
Neither does fmla.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 10:37 AM

AMEN!

natasha333 on May 12, 2013 at 11:08 AM

This notion that people are slaves to their employers in America right now is ridiculous.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 10:48 AM

You are badly overoptimistic as well as a haughty Galtian.

Try finding somewhere that doesn’t require years of experience…and since nowhere will hire you so you can GET experience, you’re screwed. And businesses are sinking out from under employees who are lucky enough to land jobs.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I usually start with the assumption that if the unions hate it, it must have some merit.

Wethal on May 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM

A fair argument. Not always true but certainly usually.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 11:10 AM

The more they work and the more they earn, the more money goes into the unions’ coffers “and the more is sent into Democrat campaign coffers.”

FIFY.

I also agree with those who say govt should not be dictating any of these rules for private businesses. That’s how the whole health insurance mess started, for one thing.

PattyJ on May 12, 2013 at 11:13 AM

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM

heh..
I enjoyed the teacher’s lecture.
Her world is pretty simple…
although, she does recognize other industries..
Narrow lens. A discussion isn’t whining..but So! Just shut up.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Seems that full time work may someday fairly soon be a thing of the past for most Americans?

With a glut in the workforce employers don’t have to be flexible on their own. However, with more government interference they stand to suffer decreased profits and increased aggravation. So they will probably hire fewer people, cut hours or just say the hell with it.

This is the kind of stuff we’re seeing with Obamacare.

Most major corporations are managing to show huge profits recently even with fewer workers and amazingly with Americans spending less money and being less productive.

Redistribute the wealth with higher taxes-but exempt your buddies. Enforce Obamacare-but exempt your buddies. Dream up tougher EPA regulations-but exempt your buddies. Enforce tougher labor laws here, but ignore them for their overseas workers.

It’s almost as if the government were in cahoots with major corporations and banks to permanently drive out small/medium businesses and weaker large competitors (like JC Penneys and Sears Holdings)…while at the same time playing the Keynesian-Socialist redistribution game.

And it’s almost as if the middle class is purposely being made weaker through economic attrition in order to cow it as a group that will stand up to them and demand true free enterprise, and the opportunity to seek whatever measure of wealth we dream of on our own.

Hmmmmm.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I’ve got a great story. It’s also about how naive I was, so it’s even better.

When I first acquired my jewelry store, I’d never had employees before. It was a mall store. We had long hours. 12 hour days Monday through Saturday and 8 more on Sundays. Scheduling staff was a problem with operating hours like that. Then, we hit on the perfect solution. We just divided the staff into ‘A’ and ‘B’ teams. The ‘A’ staff came in and worked the whole day on Thursday-Saturday. They opened Sunday and left about 1 pm when the ‘B’ staff came in. The ‘B’ staff closed Sunday and worked Monday-Wednesday. Of course we presented this idea to them all at a meeting. I thought maybe they wouldn’t be happy about the 12 hour days. Not true. They were all thrilled to have full time and only be working 3 1/2 days a week.

This worked perfectly for two weeks. Then, I turned all the time sheets into my accountant so he could do my payroll. “Are you crazy? You can’t do this. It’s against the law.”

We went back to doing things the old, stupid way. I had a lot of disappointed employees. It was one of my many educational experiences about dealing with the government.

I’ll never create a business again that would require me to employ people.

trigon on May 12, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Most major corporations are managing to show huge profits recently even with fewer workers and amazingly with Americans spending less money and being less productive.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Because the workers they have (the professional field) are working more hours and doing twice the work they use to for the same pay.
Thankful to still be employed as they watched the lay offs go down.

I am a self employed 1099 contractor..but I work with major corps and their employees. The feed back i get daily..also the service I receive from them daily..not what it use to be..they are overloaded and it shows. Many have become friends of mine..I see what impact it has taken.
Couple that with those going out on maternity leave, fmla, ect..they have to pick up the work. Grateful for work but burned out and low morale.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM

You are badly overoptimistic as well as a haughty Galtian.

Try finding somewhere that doesn’t require years of experience…and since nowhere will hire you so you can GET experience, you’re screwed. And businesses are sinking out from under employees who are lucky enough to land jobs.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I’m not being haughty.
Come work for a farmer. They need combine help all over the US. There’s one opportunity I know of.
Did I say life was easy?
You know, I have never starved. And I was on public assistance for 3 monthst in my life once. Never again.
And I have never lived well, but I always had food & shelter. Did I always like life? No. But you know, sometimes $hit just sucks & you have to do the best you can.
No one owes you a damned living. There IS work if you are willing to do it. This nonsense you are spewing is pretty haughty actually.
It’s a bunch of fracking whiney baby $hit. LAst I checked, this is still America where even though the Fed Govt has made things very hard, you can STILL make an opportunity for yourself if you are motivated enough.
My father taught himself how to design websites & he makes a comfortable living doing it.
He found the opportunity & he went for it.
Instead of whining, why don’t you do the same?

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Hey, if it give “Human Resources” something to do, I’m for it. Talk about an anchor on a company..

SouthernGent on May 12, 2013 at 11:44 AM

I enjoyed the teacher’s lecture.
Her world is pretty simple
although, she does recognize other industries..
Narrow lens. A discussion isn’t whining..but So! Just shut up.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Suck my lily white a$$ you cretin.
Did I accuse YOU of whining? No I did not. Some people whine.
I guess if you’re one of them, GFY.
I don’t have a narrow lens on life. I have lived in my car in tents during the summer, went to college & got a BS in geology & a teaching certification. I’m even paying back my student loans.
And I am a teacher who thinks that the salary we get is a good thing & not something to complain about.
I’ve done landscaping work & worked my a$$ off, collected cans in ditches for extra cash, etc.
When I needed $$ to feed myself & my child before I was getting child support, I found a way to make it happen.
This notion that employers somehow own employees whatever the eff they want is a sense of entitlement.
I know many professionals in many different areas. I know engineers that can’t find a job & I know engineers that are being fought over.
Those who talk about the lack of options out there are a professional in whatever they’re doing for a living need to start thinknig aboiut how the change things.
Bcs no one is going to do it for you.
Now I DO call that sort of thing whining.
This is my opinion & if you don’t like, kindly go frack yourself.
Or you know what’s an even more novel concept?
Ignore me!
Your choice.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM

own = owe

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM

.I see what impact it has taken.
Couple that with those going out on maternity leave, fmla, ect..they have to pick up the work. Grateful for work but burned out and low morale.

bazil9 on May 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM

This is not everywhere. There have always been companies that treat their employees like this & would continue to do so even in a good economy.
Grateful for work. You know, I am always grateful for my job, but I won’t stay somewhere that causes me more headaches than benefits.
If you don’t like your station in life, whatever it is, make a fracking decision to change it. No one said $hit was easy.
You get the Federal Govt out of the business of how people employ other people & leave this to the states & the workers seeking employment themselves.
Smaller govt will benefit everyone.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I’ll never create a business again that would require me to employ people.

trigon on May 12, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Yet more evidence to show Fed govt interference hurts businesses.
We will not ever employ anyone on our ranch or in our trucking business.
I see what our farmer & rancher friends go through & we want no part of it.
We have a friend with a small boiler repair business.
He could expand to employ dozens of people or more, there’s that much business available to him. Hell, they’re calling him from several states away. It’s often unpleasant work. But it’s a good living.
He refuses to expand to employ anyone beyond himself, his father, & the occasional temp worker bcs of Fed govt regulations & tax laws.
It is simply not worth it to him.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 11:56 AM

I’ll never create a business again that would require me to employ people.

trigon on May 12, 2013 at 11:21 AM

We will not ever employ anyone on our ranch or in our trucking business.
I see what our farmer & rancher friends go through & we want no part of it.
We have a friend with a small boiler repair business.
He refuses to expand to employ anyone beyond himself, his father, & the occasional temp worker bcs of Fed govt regulations & tax laws.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Whatever else is said, let me say right now I understand that it’s very hard for small businesses to employ people officially. Things really are INSANE in that manner.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I’ll never create a business again that would require me to employ people.

trigon on May 12, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Your story once again proves the hypocrisy of the ‘freedom of choice’ crowd.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Whatever else is said, let me say right now I understand that it’s very hard for small businesses to employ people officially. Things really are INSANE in that manner.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM

It’s true. But the same can hold true for large companies. None of these Federal regulations are really helping anyone in the end.
Bcs we are free to pursue liberty & happiness, there should be no meddling in this stuff.
I hear the same things about farmers & ranchers who hire people.
The work is haaaard! The hours are too lonnnng!
I want benefits!
Etc.
So don’t work there. Seriously, this $hit is just another arm of the entitlement issue Americans have for themselves.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 12:17 PM

I walked down a street in Red China today. Street level was nothing but private businesses. Seems they can be started and made to prosper with a little work.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:18 PM

I wanted to open a small portrait studio business, brick & mortar.
But I would be forced to carry a $5000+ per year insurance policy.
So I can’t.
Therefore, I will just do side jobs.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 12:18 PM

I usually start with the assumption that if the unions hate it, it must have some merit.

Wethal on May 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Slick like.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I walked down a street in Red China today. Street level was nothing but private businesses. Seems they can be started and made to prosper with a little work.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:18 PM

The difference which you have deliberately ignored is that in China it’s pretty clear whose pinky rings you have to kiss and who you have to bribe in order to hang out your shingle.

By contrast, American laws for setting up a small business are such a tangled morass that you need an expert or even several experts just to make sure you don’t trip over some inane liberal-inspired regulation or law or license requirement.

Oh yes, and there’s also the fact that China goes after those who try to “go Galt” with a lot worse than fines, and they aren’t shy about doing so.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM

I hear the same things about farmers & ranchers who hire people.
The work is haaaard! The hours are too lonnnng!
I want benefits!
Etc.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Long hours are back to stay, probably forever. Hard, boring work probably is too. I accept both of those…comes with taking a job is a dial-up abuse receptacle for almost 10 hour shifts.

But I need the medical benefits, mostly for my GF. Like, a whole lot. I can’t do self-pay unless I make a God-blessed boatload.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Why doesn’t the government get out of the way of the employer-employee relationship. If the employer wants to offer OT pay for 40+ hours, let them. If they employer doesn’t let them. If they want to do this comp time thing, let them. The free market will sort everything out. If employees don’t like the policy, they can just work for someone else.

Competition is always better, government interference always stifles freedom.

nazo311 on May 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Right now, the employer does not have the choice. That bill is to provide the employer as well as the employee a choice.

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 12:33 PM

The difference which you have deliberately ignored is that in China it’s pretty clear whose pinky rings you have to kiss and who you have to bribe in order to hang out your shingle.

By contrast, American laws for setting up a small business are such a tangled morass that you need an expert or even several experts just to make sure you don’t trip over some inane liberal-inspired regulation or law or license requirement.

Oh yes, and there’s also the fact that China goes after those who try to “go Galt” with a lot worse than fines, and they aren’t shy about doing so.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM

So, in other words, China more friendly to small business.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM

By contrast, American laws for setting up a small business are such a tangled morass that you need an expert or even several experts just to make sure you don’t trip over some inane liberal-inspired regulation or law or license requirement.

Oh yes, and there’s also the fact that China goes after those who try to “go Galt” with a lot worse than fines, and they aren’t shy about doing so.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM

I actually have no clue if any of what you assert is true. I must leave it to DarkCurrent to address.
But when it comes to bribery, I assure you the same goes true for many places in America.
You want your building permit approved in some places in the US, you might have to grease a few palms.
You want to keep that Forest Service lease your cows are on in order to keep making a living off of your ranch? Good luck unless you suck up to the USFS, BLM, etc.
The abuse by those agencies I personally DO know about.
Consider the struggle & the ‘win’, if you want to call it a win, that Wayne Hage & his wife & their family went through.
I’ll wager the govt bullies people here in US just as much as China probably does it’s own people. You just don’t hear about it.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM

But I need the medical benefits, mostly for my GF. Like, a whole lot. I can’t do self-pay unless I make a God-blessed boatload.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:30 PM

You get health benefits for your GF? Consider yourself lucky. My company makes you prove familial relationships. BTW, IMHO, that is how it should be.

My employer pays me to work hard, and yes long hours. I knew that going in. I have good pay, great benefits, and a great work environment and supervisor.

If I get to the point where the pay and bennies aren’t worth the workload, I’ll leave. Otherwise, I do my job. I even worked today from home.

In case y’all hadn’t noticed, slavery was abolished. We all work by choice now…

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM

But I need the medical benefits, mostly for my GF. Like, a whole lot. I can’t do self-pay unless I make a God-blessed boatload.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Really, I think medical benefits are overrated. Especially now with Obamacare.
But before I had real medical insurance, we simply did not go to the Dr. And if we had to, we paid cash. We actually also had catastrophic accident insurance, i.e. AFLAC, which I do have no in addition.
I realize people have conditions which can rack up huge medical bills.
And of course, our govt has made it now impossible for those kinds of people. But it is life. It sucks. And more rules aren’t going to help anyone.
It’s a sad day when you feel yourself a slave to your job bcs of medical benefits.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 12:43 PM

I encourage MelonCollie to get a passport and try some new cooking

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM

I encourage MelonCollie to get a passport and try some new cooking

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM

I encourage you to quit being a Communist kapo.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:46 PM

So, in other words, China more friendly to small business.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM

You sound so Chinese! ;)

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 12:47 PM

You get health benefits for your GF? Consider yourself lucky.

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM

I meant when I marry her. Whups.

If I get to the point where the pay and bennies aren’t worth the workload, I’ll leave. Otherwise, I do my job. I even worked today from home.

In case y’all hadn’t noticed, slavery was abolished. We all work by choice now…

Ayeah, the choice to work or be homeless and starving. Good grief. As if you had to have someone standing behind you with a whip to be forced to work at a job.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:48 PM

I wanted to open a small portrait studio business, brick & mortar.
But I would be forced to carry a $5000+ per year insurance policy.
So I can’t.
Therefore, I will just do side jobs.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 12:18 PM

So you’re scabbing work away from some guy that does pay for their insurance and taxes, all while living off the taxpayer on your teaching job?
Nothing pisses me off worse then scab teachers.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM

I encourage you to quit being a Communist kapo.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Get a passport and see the world kid.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM

I suppose it will surprise you

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM

You sound so Chinese! ;)

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 12:47 PM

That he does. Prosperity on the surface (it really is clearer who you have to pay off), but under the surface? Forced abortions, state-based religious persecution, limits on how many kids you can have. An attractive deal if you’re a childless lemming who loves Communism, for the rest of us, not so much.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Ayeah, the choice to work or be homeless and starving. Good grief. As if you had to have someone standing behind you with a whip to be forced to work at a job.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:48 PM

I’d go to work at McDonald’s (where I have worked before) if I had to in order to feed myself. Too many American’s think they are too “good” for work…

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM

So you’re scabbing work away from some guy that does pay for their insurance and taxes, all while living off the taxpayer on your teaching job?
Nothing pisses me off worse then scab teachers.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM

What’s a ‘scab teacher’?

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM

So, in other words, China more friendly to small business.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM

50 cents well earned.

lorien1973 on May 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Get a passport kid. The world shouldn’t just be seen on TV.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM

50 cents well earned.

lorien1973 on May 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM

I’ll contribute it to your fund.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Nothing pisses me off worse then scab teachers.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Are you effing kidding me? Badger is a great teacher, and puts up with a lot of BS from ineffective leadership, lazy kids and their whiny parents who think little Johnny should get straight A’s without doing the work…the same as members of my family that are teachers. I certainly don’t agree with tenure, as I don’t have it, but I don’t resent anything else they receive.

However, Badger also has a working cattle ranch, that she works daily after teaching all day. She and her husband don’t get to vacation because the ranch has to be worked. They can’t find qualified help, even in ND.

So before you attempt to insult or belittle someone because of your cursory review of their life, get to know them.

Idiot.

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM

What’s a ‘scab teacher’?

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Slang for a government worker that does side work for cash. Mostly teachers that use their three month vacation undercutting legitimate businesses.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM

50 cents well earned.

lorien1973 on May 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Notice how he forgot to mention what the average oh-so-fortunate Chinese worker earns (a pittance)…or how he/she is treated (worse than a burger slinger)…or the working conditions (bad to nightmarish depending on where you are).

None of those would fit with his promotion of Communism as the superior system, after all.

I’d go to work at McDonald’s (where I have worked before) if I had to in order to feed myself. Too many American’s think they are too “good” for work…

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM

The economy was so bad I was continually not hired for fast-food work because they could just wait until some poor sap came along with 24/7/365 availability. And one privately-owned FF joint I worked at went out of business…the poor owner simply could not make any money in the local economy. (but thanks for hiring me anyway, boss, you were arrow-straight and a great example)

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:57 PM

So you’re scabbing work away from some guy that does pay for their insurance and taxes, all while living off the taxpayer on your teaching job?
Nothing pisses me off worse then scab teachers.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Uh, no. I just don’t have a brick & mortar place for my photography.
My insurance is actually coming off of my RANCH BUSINESS POLICY bcs I’m working at HOME instead of opening a place in TOWN.
And I never said I wasn’t going to pay any taxes on my income.
So you can also suck my lily white a$$.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Idiot.

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 12:56 PMShe wasn’t taking about a cattle ranch, she was talking about doing side photography jobs. A side job she can do undercutting someone else, so screw her.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Slang for a government worker that does side work for cash. Mostly teachers that use their three month vacation undercutting legitimate businesses.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM

You mean with illegitimate business?

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Working on the SIDE does not equate evading TAXES.
Check before you read into $hit 1st lowandslow.
Altho I guess than moniker is appropriate.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Slang for a government worker that does side work for cash. Mostly teachers that use their three month vacation undercutting legitimate businesses.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM

She has a legitimate business. She’s a cattle rancher after teaching all day and every weekend.

Photography is a hobby she’d like to grow into a business. And hey, that is capitalism, isn’t it? If she can do the same quality job for less cost to the customer, if you are a true conservative, you would encourage her.

How is that not a “legitimate” business?

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 1:00 PM

And I never said I wasn’t going to pay any taxes on my income.
So you can also suck my lily white a$$.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Sure you are. Typical f*cking government worker. I don’t care what you vote, you’re part of the problem.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 1:00 PM

You mean with illegitimate business?

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 12:59 PM

I think the intention was “Undercutting legitimate business WITH illegitimate business”.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Slang for a government worker that does side work for cash. Mostly teachers that use their three month vacation undercutting legitimate businesses.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM

I’m contracted for work 182 days per year.
So are you telling me bcs I’m a teacher I don’t have a right to other employment the rest of the year?
You are seriously living up to your chosen handle dude.
And BTW, there are no legitimate portrait studios where I live.
I have people in the community COME to me & my father (who was a professional photog for many years, including in the Navy) to do their photography work bcs they can’t find anyone who will come to them.
Due, you really suck. You have no idea who I am.
And when did I ever advocated undercutting businesses by doing business illegally?
That’s right.
NOWHERE.

Badger40 on May 12, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Unions don’t like it for a simple reason:
Currently, Unions can collectively bargain to allow employees choose between comp time and overtime. If you are not represented by a Union you don’t have that choice – you must get overtime. This law, however, would allow all employees to have that choice. This means one less reason for employees to feel the need to join a union (and thus less union dues).

Publius24 on May 12, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Notice how he forgot to mention what the average oh-so-fortunate Chinese worker earns (a pittance)…

The economy was so bad I was continually not hired for fast-food work

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Still better than you it sounds

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Due, you really suck. You have no idea who I am.

No, I know exactly who you are.

lowandslow on May 12, 2013 at 1:05 PM

I think the intention was “Undercutting legitimate business WITH illegitimate business”.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I was wondering how the distinction was made.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

“lowandslow” has to be one of the most appropriate troll handles ever.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Still better than you it sounds

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 1:04 PM

LOL. Yeah, so much better they can save up 3 paychecks to buy a bottle of soda…

I was wondering how the distinction was made.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I admit I’m trying to figure it out myself.

Though it sounds like those two would benefit from meeting in a secluded room and settling their differences with something besides words.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 1:09 PM

I think the intention was “Undercutting legitimate business WITH illegitimate business”.

MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I was wondering how the distinction was made.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

…seems like he’s saying anyone who works from home, self employed, is taking work away from someone who works for a company…

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 1:09 PM

“lowandslow” has to be one of the most appropriate troll handles ever.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 1:08 PM

^^^^THIS^^^^

ladyingray on May 12, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2