Family Time Flexibility Act

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.R. 1119, the Family Time Flexibility Act. Cosponsored by more than 80 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this bill will give working men and women more choice and more flexibility in balancing work and family.

H.R. 1119 allows hourly workers the option of choosing time-and-a- half wages for overtime hours worked or paid time-and-a-half hours off for overtime hours worked.

The important point about H.R. 1119 is that it is completely optional. Employers may offer it to their employees or choose not to offer it. Employees may choose to take the option or not take it. Unions may choose to include it in their collective bargaining agreements so employees have the option to use it or unions may choose not to include it.

This bill protects and preserves the sanctity of the 40-hour work week. Overtime hours are counted on the basis of a 40-hour work week. Any hour worked over 40 hours in a 7-day period is considered overtime, and overtime hours must be paid in time-and-a-half pay or time-and-a- half time off.

Here is how H.R. 1119 works. Beth is a single mom of two school age boys. She makes $10 an hour at a print shop that offers the comp time option. Beth has worked at the shop for 6 months, and she decided to take the comp time option in the event she needs time off to take care of the boys when they are sick or off from school. So Beth signs her company's comp time option agreement.

In week A, she works 50 hours, 10 hours overtime. She gets paid for 40 hours and banks the 10 overtime hours.

In week B, the boys must be picked up at 2 p.m. each day. So Beth checks with her employer and leaves 3 hours early each day during the week. She decides to use her 10 banked overtime hours, which become 15 hours off at the time-and-a-half rate. Beth takes 15 hours off for the work, working only 25 hours, but Beth receives her regular paycheck of $400 or 40 hours times $10 an hour, even though she only worked 25 hours. On an hourly basis, her employer has paid her $400 for 25 hours of work or $16 per hour.

Let us say that before she uses her banked overtime hours Beth changes her mind. She decides she prefers to be paid in overtime dollars instead of overtime off. Under the bill, an employee can change his or her mind at any time and cash out any overtime hours he or she has banked.

So Beth tells her employer that she wishes to cancel her comp time agreement and cash out for the hours she has banked. Within 30 days, her employer issues her a check, in addition to her regular weekly pay of $400, for the $10 overtime hours worked in week A at her overtime pay rate of $15. So Beth receives a payment of $550 which includes her regular pay for 40 hours and her $10 banked overtime hours at the time- and-a-half rate of $15 an hour, just as she would have had she never signed the comp time request.

Let us use another example. Let us say it is the end of the year and Beth has not used her banked overtime hours. Her employer issues her a check for the 10 overtime hours worked in week A at her time-and-a-half rate of $15 per hour. This is in addition to her regular paycheck of $400.

Under the bill, the employer must cash out any unused, banked overtime hours at the end of each year, but our bill has another attractive feature for the employee. Beth's employer must cash out these hours at the highest rate of pay that Beth has earned during the period she accumulated the banked hours.

It turns out Beth received a raise in October. She now makes $12.50 an hour. At the end of the year, she still has not used her banked hours. So her employer issues her a check for the unused hours at the highest rate of pay; $12.50 an hour at time-and-a-half is $18.75 an hour or $187.50 for the 10 banked hours. This is in addition to Beth's regular paycheck.

Under H.R. 1119, Beth and other working members will have the flexibility to turn their overtime hours into time-and-a-half wages or paid time-and-a-half off. They will have the peace of mind that comes with knowing they can pick up a sick child from school, make it to the soccer tournament or take time off without using up their vacation days.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1119, the Family Time Flexibility Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet later this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1119, the Family Time Flexibility Act. The Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered the bill reported on April 9, 2003, and filed its report with the House on May 22, 2003.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 4. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a sponsor of H.R. 1119. It was an error that my name was added to the bill, since I did not authorize the action.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1119.