[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S653-S654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

            IN SUPPORT OF THE FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE ACT

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Ashcroft 
as an original cosponsor of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act.
  S. 4 will update the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] to better 
reflect the needs of today's workers. It will provide the kind of 
flexibility that workers and employers need in an age in which more and 
more of us are balancing roles as both parent and wage earner.
  The current FLSA does not provide enough flexibility. S. 4 will allow 
employers and employees together to decide whether the employee should 
receive overtime pay or compensatory

[[Page S654]]

time off for working more than a 40-hour workweek. Under current law, 
an employer cannot allow an employee to work 45 hours one week in 
exchange for 35 hours the next week so the worker can attend, for 
example, a child's baseball game, a parent-teacher conference, or 
doctor's appointment. S. 4 will change this rigid interpretation of the 
FLSA. It will allow workers the ability to arrange biweekly work 
schedules--the employee could work any combination of 80 hours over 2 
weeks, if agreed to by the employer. Someone could work a long week and 
then a short week to best fit the needs of his or her family.
  The Family Friendly Workplace Act also provides, if agreed to by both 
employer and employee, a way for employees to ``bank'' overtime hours--
up to 6 weeks of paid time--so that, when needed, employees will have a 
way to take extended leave and still have a paycheck. In contrast, 
President Clinton is proposing that Congress mandate to employers that 
an employee be granted extra--that is, unpaid--time off to attend to 
family needs.
  As a safeguard against abuse, S. 4 requires that any flexible work 
arrangement or banked overtime hours be agreed upon by both the 
employer and the employee, without coercion. In addition, the amount of 
time an employee could accumulate would be limited to 240 hours. 
Moreover, at the end of the year, employers must ``cash out'' by paying 
the employee for the unused accumulated hours--The employee must be 
able to ``cash out'' his or her accumulated leave within 30 days. 
Collective bargaining agreements would remain unaffected, but the 
revised work schedule could be worked into a collective bargaining 
agreement.
  Families today are looking for ways to better manage work and child-
rearing. Without imposing additional Government mandates on employers, 
S. 4 will provide employers and employees the flexibility to better 
juggle the responsibilities of work and family. According to Lynn 
Hayes, author of ``The Best Jobs in America for Parents,'' when working 
parents are asked what they desire most in a job, a majority answer 
``flexibility in scheduling.'' And, according to a study commissioned a 
few years ago by Arizona's Salt River Project of the Southwest region, 
a majority of parents with children under 13 are willing to trade 
salary increases for flexible time, leave, and dependent-care benefits.
  There are other studies showing that Americans want flexibility in 
the workplace. In a work/family study conducted by Johnson & Johnson, 
for example, the company expected a need for child care to surface. 
Instead, ``the big issue that popped out was that of all the things 
that we would do as a corporation in support of parents, the biggest 
factor was that they wanted a flexible work schedule.''

  Mr. President, the Family Friendly Workplace Act will update labor 
law to allow for increased flexibility in the workplace and to better 
reflect the needs of today's families. As we all know, today's parents 
are under a great deal of pressure--to provide for their children 
financially and provide the time needed to raise a healthy child, 
capable of contributing positively to society. We in Congress should 
respond by correcting the law, when possible and without mandate, to 
improve the ability of parents to provide for their children.
  Reforming both tax and labor law will go a long way toward improving 
the quality of life of the American family. In 1950, the average family 
paid one dollar in taxes to the Federal Government for every $50 
earned. Today, it pays almost $1 out of every $3 earned. That is why I 
am introducing the Tax Limitation Amendment, a proposed amendment to 
the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate 
to increase taxes--reducing taxes could be achieved by a simple 
majority--and why I support such initiatives as a $500 tax cut for 
families with children under 18.
  Today's increased tax burden has kept parents working more hours to 
keep more of their own hard-earned dollars. High taxes are more than a 
strain on our pocketbooks--they are allowing us to spend less time with 
our children, or with others who may be dependent upon us. In concert 
with tax relief, the hours that the Family Friendly Workplace Act can 
provide a working mother or father to spend with growing children will 
begin to remove some of the financial and scheduling headaches 
presented by so many jobs today.
  Once the public learns about the Family Friendly Workplace Act, and 
what it has to offer the American family, I believe there will be a 
groundswell of support that will be heard around the Capitol. I urge my 
colleagues in both the House and the Senate to quickly pass this bill 
and send it to the President, so that he will be given an early 
opportunity to, as he has said, ``pass a flex-time law that allows 
employees to take their overtime pay in money, or in time off, 
depending on what's better for their family.''

                          ____________________