[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 38 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. EARL POMEROY

                            of north dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 19, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) to amend 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory 
     time for employees in the private sector:

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my opposition to the so-
called Working Families Flexibility Act, H.R. 1. While skillfully 
titled, this legislation will not, in fact, help today's working 
families cope with the struggles they face. Instead, this legislation 
will make life harder for those who toil each week to provide for their 
families. Perhaps it is unintentional, but unfortunately this bill 
represents yet another proposal put forth by the majority which will 
increase the strain on working families and jeopardize our Nation's 
basic workplace protections. The Democratic substitute that I support, 
on the other hand, offers employees the work schedule flexibility they 
desire while ensuring that the choice for compensatory time off rather 
than overtime pay is truly voluntary.
  H.R. I attempts to offer workers a choice between overtime pay and 
compensatory time off when they work more than 40 hours per week, a 
goal which many of us would agree is reasonable. However, the bill does 
not assure that the employer-employee agreements on this subject will 
be truly voluntary. Under the bill, employers who wish to offer 
compensatory time rather than overtime retain authority to impose this 
choice on their employees. Today's workers, who face a climate of 
reduced job security and corporate downsizing, will find it difficult 
to reject their employers stated preference for time off rather than 
overtime pay. For example, employers could screen job applicants or 
assign overtime to employees according to their willingness to accept 
comptime.
  Another flaw with H.R. 1 is that it gives employers too much 
authority over when an employee could take the comptime he or she has 
earned. Employers would have the power to deny an employee's request 
for comptime on the grounds that it unduly disrupts their business 
operations, or they could deny the request for the day requested and 
instead offer another day which suits the employer's schedule. With 
employees thus having insufficient say over when their earned comptime 
can be used, the goal of providing flexibility for workers to attend to 
family matters has not been achieved.
  By reducing opportunities for overtime pay, H.R. 1 is particularly 
damaging to the many workers in today's economy who depend on overtime 
to maintain a decent standard of living for themselves and their 
families. Fully two-thirds of the workers who earned overtime in 1994 
had a total family income of less than $40,000. For these many workers 
at the low end of the wage scale, the extra dollars earned from 
overtime can mean the difference between family self-sufficiency and 
government dependence. At a time when we are rightly demanding that 
people move from welfare to work, we must not remove a basic 
safeguard--overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week--that 
has allowed low-wage workers to stand on their own.
  Unlike the majority's bill, the Democratic substitute ensures that 
the choice for comptime will be exclusively the employee's so that 
those who depend on overtime pay to make ends meet will not be forced 
to abandon this important source of income. In addition to requiring 
that it be the employee who requests comptime, the Democratic 
substitute also requires employers to offer comptime to all employees 
who are similarly situated. The majority's bill, on the other hand, 
would allow employers to pick and choose which employees will be 
offered comptime. The Democratic substitute also exempts from the 
comptime provisions certain segments of the work force that are 
particularly dependent on overtime wages, including part-time, 
temporary, and seasonal workers, and those in the garment, 
construction, and agriculture trades.
  Mr. Chairman, the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
have served this Nation well. They protect workers from demands for 
excessive work, reward--in a financially meaningful way--those who put 
in extra time for their employer, and--by requiring premium pay for 
overtime--provide an incentive for businesses to create additional 
jobs. Thus, we must proceed carefully when enacting legislation which 
makes changes to our overtime laws, even for the laudable goal of 
giving employees greater flexibility with respect to their work 
schedules. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 does not demonstrate the requisite 
legislative caution. It weakens the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime 
provisions while giving employers additional authority over the work 
schedules of their employees. This is not the way to help today's 
working families. Instead, we should pursue the course laid out in the 
Democratic substitute--offer flexibility to employees while protecting 
absolutely their ability to choose overtime rather than comptime.

                          ____________________