[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 74 (Monday, May 19, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4207-H4208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE FAMILY TIME FLEXIBILITY ACT

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest challenges working men 
and women face today is balancing the needs of family with demands of 
work schedules. This conflict may weigh most heavily on women; but all 
workers, regardless of gender, experience conflict between work and 
family, watching their child's soccer game or going through the stack 
of papers on their desk.
  To address this problem, I introduced the Family Time Flexibility 
Act, legislation that would provide hourly workers the option of taking 
paid time and a half off in lieu of time and a half pay for hours 
worked overtime. This concept is a very simple one. If workers have to 
work overtime, they should be allowed to choose how they are 
compensated, with more money or paid time off.
  The editorial page of the Detroit News recently weighed in on this 
important topic by saying: ``Having more flexible hours is among the 
top wishes of working parents in this country. But an archaic Federal 
law has become a big impediment to parents and other workers in getting 
their wish.''
  Mr. Speaker, this ``archaic'' law, the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, 
has been frozen for more than 60 years, locked in a time when women 
worked in the home, most families had only one wage earner, and nobody 
went to their kids' soccer games. Times have changed. Families have 
changed, and the workforce has changed. Yet the law has not changed. We 
know that workers in Federal, State, and local governments are 
permitted to choose time and a half off for working overtime hours and 
thus enjoy a great deal more flexibility than their private sector 
counterparts. Federal workers use it and like it. Police officers use 
it and like it. Park district workers use it and like it. In fact, one 
employee back in my district in suburban Chicago told me that he banks 
plenty of overtime hours plowing the snow during the long winter months 
and that allows him to take a longer vacation or spend more time with 
his family later during the few months when the weather is actually 
nice in Chicago.
  For some employees, time can be more valuable than money, 
particularly if they have been putting in a lot of overtime hours. 
Their spouses begin to wonder if they are married to their job. Their 
children begin to forget what they look like. Their paychecks are 
growing, but they really would rather have just a little more time and 
a little more money. Most workers just want the freedom to make that 
choice for themselves, and many employers would like to offer them that 
choice. That is what this bill does. It gives employees choice and 
flexibility, and it gives employers another option to offer those 
employees who want it.
  That is what the bill does. Here is what the bill does not do: this 
bill in no way affects the sanctity, the primacy, or the inviolability 
of the 40-hour work week. Let me repeat. The 40-hour work week is the 
law. Under this bill, an employee would earn overtime in the very same 
way that he or she currently does, by working more than 40 hours in a 
7-day period. The bill does not alter the way that overtime is 
calculated. What this bill does not do is require employees to take 
compensatory time or require employers to offer it. In fact, this bill 
contains numerous safeguards to protect the employee and to ensure that 
the choice and selection of compensatory time is truly voluntary on the 
part of the employee.
  This bill does not give employers all the choices. Where necessary, 
there are effective sanctions under the bill and the Fair Labor 
Standards Act for employers who violate the employee protections and 
other provisions of this

[[Page H4208]]

legislation. For example, the bill expressly prohibits an employer from 
directly or indirectly intimidating; threatening; coercing, or 
attempting to coerce, any employee for the purposes of interfering with 
an employee's right to take or not to take comp time or to use accrued 
comp time. The bill creates a new remedy under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act for employers who violate the anticoercion language just described.
  Let me note that this bill is not mandatory for anyone. The employer 
need not opt to offer family time, and the employee need not opt to 
take family time. It is all about choices. The employer chooses whether 
to offer the option, and the employee chooses whether to use the 
option; and if an employee changes his or her mind, he or she can at 
any time choose to cash out, and the employer must make the payout 
within 30 days.
  H.R. 1119 is a comprehensive, balanced bill that gives more choices 
for employees and more opportunities for employers to keep their 
employees happy. This bill is not a mandate on employers or employees. 
It simply gives both parties the opportunity to agree to these 
arrangements, an opportunity which is now denied to them by law.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Family Time 
Flexibility Act.

                          ____________________