[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 66 (Monday, May 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4665-S4668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE ACT

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families in America are facing a 
challenge raising children--especially since in most cases --if there 
are two parents, they both are in the workplace. Certainly for single 
parents being in the workplace makes raising children even more 
difficult. For these single parents, if their children have to go to 
the doctor--they take them. If their children are having trouble at 
school or get sick during the day, the single parent does not have 
anyone else to rely on.
  The single parent must take care of the problem themselves. As 
difficult as that may be, if that single parent is a salaried worker, 
she can work with her employer to arrange her work schedule to 
accommodate these needs. However, if that single parent is an hourly 
worker, she must find a way to meet her child's needs and work all of 
the required hours during a 7-day period or lose part of her pay.
  Demographics have changed significantly since the passage of our 
major employment laws. In 1938, when the Fair Labor Standards Act was 
enacted, only 2 out of 12 mothers with school-age children were in the 
workplace. Today only 3 out of 12 mothers of school-age children are 
not in the workplace--obviously, the statistics have taken a real flip. 
People have gone into the workplace in order to tackle the incredible 
tax burden and the cost of living. It has been said that in some 
families, in most families, one parent works to pay the Government and 
the other parent works to provide for the family.
  It is very difficult for families to make ends meet unless you have 
both

[[Page S4666]]

parents working to provide financial resources for the family. 
Therefore, we have a high level of involvement of the parents of 
America in the workplace--this stresses our families. Regardless of why 
we have this kind of stress in our lives, it exists. It is real as any 
other societal problem that we are dealing with today. We need a 
solution.
  Parents need to be available to their children to go to award 
ceremonies, to see them play soccer or football, and to confer with the 
teacher. Parents need to be able to care for a sick child or a child 
that becomes sick or ill at school without worrying that they will have 
to miss time away from work--and the income that goes with it.
  We have proposed and will continue to debate--and I think we will 
enact--what is called the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is a way of 
saying to parents you should be able to make agreements with your 
employer about flexible working arrangements, that you should be able 
to save up some time off that comes when you work overtime. Instead of 
being paid time-and-one-half, if you want to--at your option and at 
your request--you should be able to take time-and-one-half in time off 
with pay. You can use that time later so that when the need arises you 
will be able to meet the needs of your family.
  Those who have been opposed to providing this option for America's 
workers have their own solution to the problem--they think that 
providing the American worker with more unpaid leave will somehow help 
already financially strapped workers. They want to expand Family and 
Medical Leave to allow for 24 hours of unpaid leave to attend a child's 
event.
  I think the Family Friendly Workplace Act is a superior option. This 
would allow you--at your option--instead of being paid time-and-one-
half for overtime to take time-and-one-half with pay some other time to 
meet the needs of your family. The Family Friendly Workplace Act does 
not say to the moms and dads of America, in order to be a good mom and 
dad, you have to take a pay cut. It says if you can work something out 
with your employer to put some time-and-one-half hours in the bank and 
take time off later, you still will be paid for them because you have 
hours in the bank.

  There is more social tension, there is more financial tension, and we 
need to have the flexibility for families to spend more time with each 
other to resolve those tensions. It is simply true that moms and dads 
in America should not have to take a pay cut in order to be good 
parents.
  Experience has shown us that pilot programs--or experiments--help us 
understand whether a program should be permanently authorized or more 
broadly adopted. It will tell us whether there are bugs in it that need 
to be worked out or whether it is a program that will work well and can 
succeed.
  The Family Friendly Workplace Act is modeled off of one such pilot 
program. Since 1978, Federal Government workers have been able to work 
flexible work schedules as provided for in the Federal Employees 
Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act. That is, we have had 
flexible working arrangements. We have had compensatory time off for 
overtime that has been used at the option of the worker. I believe it 
has been a model that we can follow to provide for American laborers 
who work by the hour.
  As a matter of fact, in 1994 in an Executive order, President Clinton 
directed more broad use of these flexible scheduling programs 
throughout the Federal Government. So what we have here is a system 
which is working for Federal employees that should be allowed for the 
men and women of America who work by the hour.
  I should just take a moment to indicate that all the people who are 
salaried workers have flextime potentials--the people in the board 
rooms, the presidents and the owners of the companies, the supervisors 
and managers generally. As a matter of fact, the great majority of 
workers in the country, especially when you put in governmental 
workers, have comptime and flextime options, but the average hourly 
worker in America does not. It is time to give the hourly workers, the 
laboring people what the great majority of workers have and that is 
flexible working arrangements.
  Now, one of the things that opponents of this bill constantly say is 
that this proposal destroys the 40-hour week, that it somehow would 
force people to work overtime without pay. Nothing is further from the 
truth. Taking compensatory time off in the bill is totally--
completely--voluntary. The Family Friendly Workplace Act provides for 
new, voluntary choices for workers. Section 3 provides, under 
compensatory time off, that it is voluntary participation. It says, No 
employee may be required to receive compensatory time in lieu of 
monetary compensation.
  That basically says no one can be required, instead of taking time-
and-one-half pay, to take time-and-one-half off later with pay. It is a 
system that says we want to give workers the choice. As a matter of 
fact, so committed are we to choice, even if you decided you wanted to 
take compensatory time off when you work the overtime hours but later 
change your mind, the bill says you have an absolute right to get paid 
the cash.
  Comptime provides some flexibility for those workers who get paid 
overtime. However, many workers never earn overtime compensation. The 
biweekly work programs and flexible credit hour programs provide 
flexibility for those workers. Participation in these programs also are 
completely voluntary. ``No employee may be required to participate in a 
program described in this section.'' This is all voluntary. Those who 
say there are not employee choices in this matter simply have not read 
this legislation.
  There are protections for workers to make sure that voluntary means 
voluntary. The protections that are involved in this bill for workers 
exceed those protections that are involved in the Federal law for State 
and local government workers. ``Section (d). Prohibition of Coercion. 
An employer shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten or 
coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee.'' 
And ``the penalties for abuse are doubled in the current law.'' We have 
taken great steps here to make sure that this is totally voluntary and 
that any coercion, direct or indirect, is impermissible and would be 
punished substantially with higher penalties than we have under current 
law.

  As a matter of fact, the situation we are recommending in the Family 
Friendly Workplace Act has far more guarantees and protections for 
workers than are currently involved in the law for State and local 
government workers. The Federal law allowing State and local government 
workers to have comptime says that workers can be required to be 
involved in comptime as a condition of employment. That is not so under 
the law we are proposing for private workers. It is strictly voluntary. 
It cannot be required. It is up to the worker. No worker can be 
required to participate.
  Under the law which now applies to State and local government 
workers, management can decide when a worker must use comptime. Under 
the Family Friendly Workplace Act, workers cannot be coerced into using 
their comptime. Penalties would be doubled for any direct or indirect 
coercion. There is another significant difference. There is no cash-out 
provision under the system for State and local government workers, 
comptime only is paid in cash when the employee is either terminated or 
quits. In other words, if a State or local government worker wants to 
get his overtime in cash, you can only get the cash out of the system 
when you leave your job. You have to quit your job to get your money.
  Under the Family Friendly Workplace Act, you do not have to quit to 
get your money. Any time you change your mind, comptime must be cashed 
out on request. It must be cashed out at the end of each year. So that 
the Family Friendly Workplace Act is totally voluntary--and there are 
these structural guarantees--with doubled penalties. These arrangements 
are strictly voluntary. They cannot be required, they cannot be 
coerced, penalties are doubled, and comptime must be cashed out on 
request. This is a system which basically allows workers to make 
choices. It allows them to make meaningful choices. These are choices 
about spending time with their families.
  We have talked about just one of these choices--the choice that 
relates to comptime which you get when you work overtime. But the truth 
of the matter is, many American workers seldom if ever get overtime. As 
a matter

[[Page S4667]]

of fact, in 1996, our census data indicates that only 4.5 percent of 
working women in the private sector get regular overtime.
  If we were just to leave this bill at the comptime level and not do 
anything about flexible working arrangements, we would not be providing 
much relief to women who work by the hour and never get overtime so 
they could take comptime instead of time-and-one-half in pay. In order 
to meet the real needs of American workers--the broad workforce--we 
need to have the kind of breadth of options in the program that is in 
the program for Federal workers. Federal workers have more than just 
comptime as an option for flexibility. They have the potential for 
flexible working arrangements so individuals who never get overtime 
still have the ability to have flexible working arrangements and spend 
time with their families.
  If only 4.5 percent of the 28.9 million women who work by the hour in 
this country--if only 4.5 of percent of them get overtime--really, if 
we only do comptime, we are not going to help the vast majority of the 
women. We have to give the private sector workers the same range of 
options that exist for the Federal employees. And that includes 
flextime arrangements; the ability to schedule work flexibly and the 
ability 1 week to work an hour extra so the next week you can take an 
hour off.
  Right now, it is shocking, but our legal framework makes it illegal 
for an employer to say to you, I'll let you work an extra hour on 
Friday so you can take an hour off on Monday. Most Americans are 
shocked by that. They also are shocked by the fact that it is not 
illegal for a Government employee to do it, but it is illegal for an 
average citizen to do it. They know it is not illegal for the boss to 
do it or for the boardroom guys to do it or the managers or the 
supervisors to do it. They know it is not illegal for the salaried 
people to do it. They ought to have some reservations about a system 
that has sort of second-class citizenship for hourly paid persons and 
it is illegal for them to work an extra hour on Friday and take an hour 
off on Monday, even when their employer agrees with it. We need to stop 
that illegality.

  The point is simply this. Since very few working women who work by 
the hour get overtime, very few will benefit from a comptime only 
option. We need to provide a framework for these women to have the 
ability to be with their families, and we have to have flextime in 
order to get that done.
  Mr. President, this is a great opportunity for us to say to American 
families, We are with you. We are not against you. This is a great 
opportunity for us to say to the working people of the country, You 
deserve the same chance for flexibility that the Federal Government 
employees have. You deserve the same chance to be with your children 
that the salaried workers have--the managers, the supervisors, and 
CEO's or the company Presidents. As a matter of fact, they are a 
minority of workers who do not have these options. We understand that. 
Hourly workers are a minority of workers in this country when compared 
to the Government and the salaried and other workers. But they should 
not be treated as second-class citizens.
  The soccer game is just as important to the hourly worker's child as 
it is to the boss' child. It is just as important to go to the school 
doctor to confer about your child's health if you are an hourly worker 
as it is if you are a Federal Government employee. It is just as 
important for your family to operate as a family, to be able to shape 
the values and to provide the framing, the development of the next 
generation if you are an hourly worker as if you are paid in some other 
way. The Family Friendly Workplace Act is simply a means of getting 
that done.
  It is a means we have designed with protections that are strong. The 
protections are superior to the protections that are there for State/
local government workers. I am a little bit befuddled because the 
individuals who argue most aggressively against providing this for 
hourly private sector workers across this country sponsored the 
legislation for State and local government workers. Not only did they 
sponsor the legislation for the State and local government workers, but 
that legislation --that they cosponsored--has fewer protections than 
does the legislation we are proposing for private workers. Yet those 
who sponsored the fewer protections for State and local government 
workers are criticizing the proposal in the private sector because they 
say enough protections do not exist in the measure. That is difficult 
to understand. Those individuals, I think, should reevaluate their 
position.
  When organized labor leaders of this country oppose laboring people 
getting the opportunity to spend time with their families and flexible 
working arrangements, we ought to ask them to come to the table to help 
us, to help us assure an opportunity for America's working people, not 
stand aside and hurt us and criticize a system which is far superior to 
the one that has been endorsed and for which they negotiate when they 
are representing State and local government workers.
  Mr. President, the opportunity to pass flexible working arrangements 
to help parents be better parents, to have more time to spend with 
their families, to be able to take the time off with pay by using 
compensatory time and flexible working arrangements is what the future 
of America will be all about. Those who suggest we have to have more 
unpaid leave so parents will have to choose between taking a pay cut 
and helping their child are on the wrong track. People are not working 
because they can afford to take a pay cut. They are working because 
they need the money, and we should never ask them to sacrifice their 
child in order to make more money or to sacrifice the money they need 
to help their child in order to spend time with their child.
  The last time I checked, when my children had to go to the dentist 
and I needed to take them there, that is not the time I could do with 
less money. That's the time I needed more money, when there was a 
crisis, when I needed to go to school to see what was happening with my 
child, take the child to the doctor or to the dentist. I didn't want to 
take a pay cut. I didn't want to have my salary reduced. Of course I 
wouldn't. I am a Member of the Senate, I am a Government employee. I 
have flexible working arrangements. But I do know this, for us to say 
to the working people of America: When you have a special need in your 
family, you should take a pay cut and you should take leave without 
pay, we are asking them to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
  As a matter of fact, family and medical leave has been the occasion 
for a lot of people to find themselves in real financial distress. When 
the Commission on Family and Medical Leave met, it found that over 10 
percent of all people who took that unpaid leave to meet the needs of 
their family had to go on welfare because of the loss of salary. 
Wouldn't it have been better to have flexible working arrangements and 
some comptime in the bank so you could do that? Ten percent went on 
welfare, over 40 percent said they had to defer the payment of bills. 
They just had to stop paying their bills. About 20 percent said they 
had to borrow money. We have a great opportunity to say to families, 
``If you work together, cooperate with your employer in a framework of 
solid protections in a voluntary system, you will be able to be better 
parents and you will not have to take a pay cut to do it.''
  I call upon my colleagues to enact this legislation as a matter of 
great service to the people of the United States.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction of S. 763 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HELMS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S4668]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________