[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 40 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ

                             of california

                    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. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller 
substitute.
  Mr. Miller has worked to meet the Republicans halfway in this effort 
to provide flexibility for working families.
  I contend that H.R. 1 does not provide the flexibility that its 
sponsors claim it does.
  Members on the other side of the aisle, trying to appeal to working 
mothers, claim that under H.R. 1, workers would work overtime and then 
take comptime whenever they need it--to take a child on a class trip, 
to tend to a sick parent, to volunteer time at their child's school. 
However, H.R. 1 also provides that an employer can deny comptime if 
taking that time would unduly disrupt that business. What good does it 
do to accrue comptime if your employer can prevent you from taking it 
when you want it?
  Say Mrs. Smith wants to volunteer to be a chaperon for her daughter's 
class trip to the natural history museum next Tuesday. The employer 
says that taking leave Tuesday will unduly disrupt the business, but 
Mrs. Smith can take the time next Friday. What good does that do Mrs. 
Smith? Is that really choice?
  Members on the other side of the aisle will claim that the bill does 
state that the employee has a choice, and that there are steps he or 
she can take if the employer wrongfully denies comptime. But if we are 
talking about the majority of workers today--who make less than 2\1/2\ 
times the minimum wage--we cannot truly state that these individuals 
have the resources to challenge their employer in court. Many need 
these jobs and would never consider threatening them even if they were 
in the right. Others who are bold enough to consider filing suit 
against their employer do not have the resources to hire an attorney 
and go to court.
  Proponents of H.R. 1 point to the public sector, stating that 
comptime works well there. Let me tell you, I know of some Federal 
employees who opt for paid overtime, because they know they'll never 
get the opportunity to use their comptime when they want to. The public 
sector is not a business. We offer comptime there because it saves 
taxpayer dollars. The only reason private businesses will even consider 
offering comptime is that it saves money and will give employers the 
opportunity to have employees work longer hours.
  Comptime is really a no-interest loan that employees give to their 
employers. Employees work the overtime, and then get paid later in 
comptime--if they get a chance to use it at all. Mandated overtime pay 
has been the law to penalize employers who make their employees work 
longer than the 40-hour workweek. That is why overtime is paid in time-
and-a-half. This also provides a benefit to employees who choose to 
work longer hours for more pay. But employees get their compensation as 
overtime pay in the next paycheck--not a week later or a month later, 
when it is convenient for the employer.
  During the markup, it greatly concerned me that Members on the other 
side of the aisle referred to comptime as a benefit. Comptime is 
compensation for time that the employee has worked. The employee has a 
right to that compensation--it is not something that the employer 
should have the power to delay or to alter.
  Many workers in my district need that overtime pay--they count on it 
being in every paycheck. Comptime will not help them keep a roof over 
their heads, food on the table, or clothes on their backs. I don't hear 
the small businesses in the 31st District clamoring for the option of 
comptime--many cannot afford to have employees on leave at irregular 
times. So the only protection to ensure that employees are paid for the 
time they work is to have overtime pay protections.
  Nevertheless, I support Mr. Miller's substitute so that those 
businesses and those employees who want comptime can fairly participate 
in such a program. The substitute ensures that comptime is truly 
flexible, and that employees have true choice.
  Mr. Miller's substitute puts teeth into the penalties for employers 
who coerce their employees into taking comptime and who wrongly deny an 
employee's right to take comptime when he or she wishes.
  This measure also prohibits employers from discriminating among 
employees when offering comptime. It mandates that when an employer 
chooses to implement a comptime program, he or she must offer that 
comptime to all similarly situated employees. Therefore, if an employer 
offers comptime to a particular employee, he or she must also offer it 
to all the other employees who are doing the same work, on the same 
schedule, at the same site.
  Another very important provision in this substitute is that it allows 
the Secretary of Labor to require employers to post a bond to assure 
funds to pay for unused comptime. Thus, employees would be guaranteed 
to receive their comptime if an employer declared bankruptcy.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1 and adopt the Miller 
substitute.

                          ____________________