# I Pit the (Continuing) Republican attempts to screw labor: overtime edition **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 8, 2013, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774 "2013-05-08T08:39:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/1 "2013-05-08T08:39:13Z")
[http://news.yahoo.com/gop-seeks-alternative-overtime-pay-074228556.html](http://news.yahoo.com/gop-seeks-alternative-overtime-pay-074228556.html) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON (AP) — It seems like a simple proposition: give employees who work more than 40 hours a week the option of taking paid time off instead of overtime pay. > > The choice already exists in the public sector. Federal and state workers can save earned time off and use it weeks or even months later to attend a parent-teacher conference, care for an elderly parent or deal with home repairs. > > Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that would extend that option to the private sector. They say that would bring more flexibility to the workplace and help workers better balance family and career. > > The push is part of a broader Republican agenda undertaken by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., to expand the party’s political appeal to working families. The House is expected to vote on the measure this week, but the Democratic-controlled Senate isn’t likely to take it up. > > “For some people, time is more valuable than the cash that would be accrued in overtime,” said Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., the bill’s chief sponsor. “Why should public-sector employees be given a benefit and the private sector be left out?” > > […] So… Apparently, we have the _republicans_ pushing a piece of legislature that’s pro-labor. Huh. Whodathunkit? I mean, they have a fairly extensive track record of deciding to fuck the little guy. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with more choice? > [@](#): > > But the idea Republicans promote as “pro-worker” is vigorously opposed by worker advocacy groups, labor unions and most Democrats, who claim it’s really a backdoor way for businesses to skimp on overtime pay. > > The White House on Monday issued a veto threat, saying the bill undermines the right to overtime pay and doesn’t offer enough protection for workers who may not want to receive compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay. …Oh. Right. “Choice” is all too often solely on the side of the employer. But it gets better. This bill was tried before, in 2003, and didn’t get off the ground. From the text of that version: > [@](#): > > Requires the employer to permit use of comp-time accrued under such an option program within a reasonable time after the employee’s request if such use does not unduly disrupt the employer’s operations. That is what we in the know call “a loophole you could drive a semi truck through”. Taking it from [TIME magazine](http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/03/when-flex-time-means-ripping-off-workers/), this is a terrible idea: > [@](#): > > For low-wage workers, however, flexibility all too often means being at the beck and call of employers. These workers can be — and often are — sent home on a moment’s notice (and without pay) when business is slow. They are told to cancel long-scheduled personal days if business picks up, and are sometimes threatened with immediate firing if they can’t stay late at work for last-minute overtime because they need to get home to their families. > [@](#): > > “The flexibility in this comp-time bill would have employees working unpaid overtime hours beyond the 40-hour workweek and accruing as many as 160 hours of compensatory time,” Appelbaum explained recently in the Huffington Post. “A low-paid worker making $10 an hour who accrued that much comp time in lieu of overtime pay would effectively give his or her employer an interest-free loan of $1,600 — equal to a month’s pay. That’s a lot to ask of a worker making about $20,000 a year. Indeed, any worker who accrues 160 hours of comp time will in effect have loaned his or her employer a month’s pay. This same arithmetic provides employers with a powerful incentive to increase workers’ overtime hours. Instead of having to pay time-and-a-half wages when an hourly-paid employee works longer than the standard 40-hour workweek, the employer incurs no financial cost at the time the extra hours are worked.” > [@](#): > > And as far as that much vaunted time for family goes, the employer holds all the cards about when and how an employee takes it. Employees have the right to their free time within a “reasonable period after making a request” and are allowed to take it only if their use of the time does not “unduly disrupt” the operations of the employers. In other words, they can have “their” time when and if the employer feels like granting it — and not, necessarily, when the employee wants and needs it. It gets even better when you consider that this “pro-family, pro-labor” deregulation was implemented by the government _not_ for the sake of the workers, but for the sake of cutting costs. Remember republicans bitching constantly about government workers taking so much paid time off? But back in the 60s, there was a court case about how much influence the government could have. The result? Our interpretation of §207( o )(5)—one that does not prohibit employers from forcing employees to use compensatory time—finds support in two other features of the FLSA. First, employers remain free under the FLSA to decrease the number of hours that employees work. An employer may tell the employee to take off an afternoon, a day, or even an entire week. Cf. Barrentine v. Arkansas- Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U. S. 728,739 (1981) (“[T]he FLSA was designed … to ensure that each employee covered by the Act … would be protected from the evil of overwork …” (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)). Second, the FLSA explicitly permits an employer to cash out accumulated compensatory time by paying the employee his regular hourly wage for each hour accrued. §207( o )(3)(B); 29 CFR §553.27(a) (1999). Thus, under the FLSA an employer is free to require an employee to take time off work, and an employer is also free to use the money it would have paid in wages to cash out accrued compensatory time. The compelled use of compensatory time challenged in this case merely involves doing both of these steps at once. It would make little sense to interpret §207( o )(5) to make the combination of the two steps unlawful when each independently is lawful. Or, in non-legalese: > [@](#): > > However, the Supreme Court disagrees. In Christensen, the Court held that public entities can actually compel an employee to use CTO, if they so choose. Id. at 585, 120 S.Ct. 1655(recognizing that the FLSA amendments regarding compensation time were passed to mitigate the effects of applying the FLSA to states and their political subdivisions). Indeed, the Supreme Court held that the employer can choose the specific dates that an employee must use forced CTO. Look, let’s be frank. If the republicans advocate what they call pro-labor legislation, something is fishy. If republicans advocate pro-labor legislation and the response from the unions and labor groups is to cry foul, while the legislation is supported by business lobbies, _something is very wrong_. So fuck you, republican party, for trying to dishonestly and underhandedly end a workplace regulation that has not only been in place for over half a century but has been extremely popular for its entire existence. A workplace regulation that many of the most vulnerable in this country rely on to get by. And all for the sake of lining the pockets of business-owners. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/2 "2013-05-08T09:36:11Z")
I’m a conservative and I wrote to my own representative explaining why this isn’t a good idea. In practice, employers will tell employees which option to choose. In an ideal world, a person can take time off instead of getting overtime. I live in such an ideal world with my job already. If I work overtime, I can take a day off instead of getting the overtime pay. Others are stricter schedules. Still others do have flexibility, but the employer will decide when the compensatory time comes, thus denying the employee both the convenience and the extra money. Part of being conservative means accepting that some progressive changes are here to stay. Overtime has been with us a long time and it hasn’t done any serious harm to business or employees. No reason to change it, and that goes for shortening the work week as well. 40 hours as good, that’s what it should be forever. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/3 "2013-05-08T13:42:45Z")
Let me see if I have this right. As things stand now, workers who work overtime are compensated with a commensurate amount of extra pay. Okay. But with this proposal, they would still have that option on the table, _plus_ they would have the option of taking days off instead, with the condition that it not interrupt the employer’s business. Which I take to mean things like not taking the time off during the busy season. So, I’m not seeing the problem here. Why isn’t it a good thing. The workers are getting an option they don’t have now, without giving anything up. Right? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/4 "2013-05-08T13:47:26Z")
Only if we assume employers won’t pressure employees to take the option they prefer. In practice this would be an employer option rather than an employee option. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/5 "2013-05-08T13:55:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Only if we assume employers won’t pressure employees to take the option they prefer. In practice this would be an employer option rather than an employee option. Oh, I see. So the fear is that the employer would pressure someone to take the time off, maybe at a time not particularly helpful to the employee, instead of paying him for the work. I didn’t consider that. It does make it more complicated. But I wonder if there’s a way to ameliorate the problem. Maybe make the pay option the default or something. I do, however, understand why the employer would have to approve the time off. I mean, every job I’ve ever had I had to put in a request for vacation time. And if it was going to be when things were really busy, I would,as I expected, be told, “Sorry, bad time. Let’s try some other dates.” My point is that there are probably plenty of times when a workers preference for the time off would be perfectly fine with the employer. So, trying to build a framework where that can happen seems like a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/6 "2013-05-08T13:57:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The workers are getting an option they don’t have now, without giving anything up. Right? Until they start exercising the wrong version of that option, and their overtime opportunities dry up. On the plus side, they’ll get to spend their regular 40/wk doing the extra work to cover people taking PTO. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/7 "2013-05-08T14:05:54Z")
Under this proposal would employees be able to take the equivalent of time-and-a-half? Like, for example, if they work five hours over, would they be able to take seven-and-a-half hours off later on? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/8 "2013-05-08T16:36:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let me see if I have this right. As things stand now, workers who work overtime are compensated with a commensurate amount of extra pay. Okay. But with this proposal, they would still have that option on the table, _plus_ they would have the option of taking days off instead, with the condition that it not interrupt the employer’s business. Which I take to mean things like not taking the time off during the busy season. > > So, I’m not seeing the problem here. Why isn’t it a good thing. The workers are getting an option they don’t have now, without giving anything up. Right? …Did you read the first post? Serious question - I’m not convinced you did. > [@joebuck20](#): > > Under this proposal would employees be able to take the equivalent of time-and-a-half? Like, for example, if they work five hours over, would they be able to take seven-and-a-half hours off later on? As far as I can tell, it’s 1:1. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/9 "2013-05-08T16:58:13Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Under this proposal would employees be able to take the equivalent of time-and-a-half? Like, for example, if they work five hours over, would they be able to take seven-and-a-half hours off later on? It’s 1:1. It’s not the same as government employees have, which is a sweet deal. Under that deal one can choose any combination of time and a half or time off. For instance, I usually averaged at least 4 hours a week OT, 8 hours per pay period. I always elected to take 4 hours time and a half and 4 hours comp. That way when I took the unpaid comp time I already had made up the money from the 4 hours time and a half. I was able to extend my vacations with it. If we were scheduled to work on a holiday we would get time and a half for working, which we could either take as pay or comp, and then we would get 12 hours of holiday (8 hours if we didn’t work that day) which could also be time and a half or comp. In other words, if I worked 1 shift on labor Day I could get paid for 24 hours instead of 8. Work just a few hours overtime, along with the banked holidays, and a guy could add an additional 6 weeks a year to his vacation time. I don’t think taxpayers fully grasp what a gravy train some government employees are on. And I don’t know why anyone would bring up a law like this in the first place. The operations/benefits of private employers is not the business of the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/10 "2013-05-08T17:32:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Under that deal one can choose any combination of time and a half or time off. For instance, I usually averaged at least 4 hours a week OT, 8 hours per pay period. I always elected to take 4 hours time and a half and 4 hours comp. That way when I took the unpaid comp time I already had made up the money from the 4 hours time and a half. Morbo Says: Arithmetic Does Not Work That Way. Obviously, if you take overtime pay for only 4 of 8 hours of overtime worked during Pay Period 1 and then do the same thing during Pay Period 2, your actual income falls further behind your possible income, rather than “making up” the gap. > [@](#): > > If we were scheduled to work on a holiday we would get time and a half for working, which we could either take as pay or comp, and then we would get 12 hours of holiday (8 hours if we didn’t work that day) which could also be time and a half or comp. In other words, if I worked 1 shift on labor Day I could get paid for 24 hours instead of 8. This is a variation on the old “proof” that you don’t have time to go to school because weekends plus holidays plus sleeping plus summer adds up to the entire year. As in the above statement, the fallacy is one of double-counting (or triple-counting, for the case of sleeping on a summer weekend). > [@](#): > > I don’t think taxpayers fully grasp what a gravy train some government employees are on. The teabrain types for whom the above quoted argument is convincing certainly hold that notion, but it is an abuse of language to say that they “fully grasp” anything pertaining to the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/11 "2013-05-08T17:38:50Z")
I still don’t see how Republicans are screwing anybody with this proposal. Some employees might prefer time off to money. But they cannot be allowed that choice, because employers might pressure them to take time off instead of money, or vice versa. I don’t see how that is much different from “you can’t take the week between Christmas and New Year off, because everyone else requested it and we need someone in the office”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/12 "2013-05-08T18:08:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I still don’t see how Republicans are screwing anybody with this proposal. > > Some employees might prefer time off to money. But they cannot be allowed that choice, because employers might pressure them to take time off instead of money, or vice versa. > > I don’t see how that is much different from “you can’t take the week between Christmas and New Year off, because everyone else requested it and we need someone in the office”. > > Regards, > Shodan No, the way it will work in practice is, the employer will say, “I need you to work another day this week, and I won’t pay you overtime. Maybe some other time when business is slow, I’ll send you home for the day, and that will be your payback for this extra time. And of course, you can request the day off any time you want, but I’ll only grant it if it’s convenient for me.” ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/13 "2013-05-08T18:22:12Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > No, the way it will work in practice is, the employer will say, “I need you to work another day this week, and I won’t pay you overtime. Maybe some other time when business is slow, I’ll send you home for the day, and that will be your payback for this extra time. And of course, you can request the day off any time you want, but I’ll only grant it if it’s convenient for me.” Predicted Conservative/Libertarian Response: “Well then, that employee should just get another job. Problem solved!” ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/14 "2013-05-08T18:40:08Z")
Recently, hourly employees were given the option as to how to take OT (as comp time or paid OT) here at my huge, international, private company. I’ve never heard ANYONE complain of feeling pressure to use one method over another. In fact, I’d imagine most people are happy to have the flexibility to choose, especially new employees who only have 2 weeks of paid vacation. So I applaud the proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/15 "2013-05-08T18:47:43Z")
> [@PunditLisa](#): > > Recently, hourly employees were given the option as to how to take OT (as comp time or paid OT) here at my huge, international, private company. I’ve never heard ANYONE complain of feeling pressure to use one method over another. In fact, I’d imagine most people are happy to have the flexibility to choose, especially new employees who only have 2 weeks of paid vacation. > > So I applaud the proposal. The real question is – whose option is it? Nothing in the proposed law says the employees get to choose whether to take overtime or comp time. The choice is all on the employer side. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/16 "2013-05-08T18:51:19Z")
> [@PunditLisa](#): > > Recently, hourly employees were given the option as to how to take OT (as comp time or paid OT) here at my huge, international, private company. I’ve never heard ANYONE complain of feeling pressure to use one method over another. In fact, I’d imagine most people are happy to have the flexibility to choose, especially new employees who only have 2 weeks of paid vacation. > > So I applaud the proposal. Overtime pays 1.5 : 1. Flex time is 1 :1. Taking the time off instead of the OT pay is basically giving the company money. Unless an employee is desperate for time off (which is taken at the employer’s discretion), I can’t imagine anyone who would think this is a good deal. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/17 "2013-05-08T18:54:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I still don’t see how Republicans are screwing anybody with this proposal. You can’t tell the difference between 1:1 and 3:2? OK. You and me and this coin. And a pile of money. And many bets, where I pay you $2 every time you win and you pay me $3 every time I win… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/18 "2013-05-08T18:55:15Z")
I agree with Boyo Jim & Budget Player Cadet. This is nothing but an attempt to screw employees. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/19 "2013-05-08T19:00:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I still don’t see how Republicans are screwing anybody with this proposal. > > Some employees might prefer time off to money. But they cannot be allowed that choice, because employers might pressure them to take time off instead of money, or vice versa. > > I don’t see how that is much different from “you can’t take the week between Christmas and New Year off, because everyone else requested it and we need someone in the office”. > > Regards, > Shodan At the very least, I can see employees that are willing to take the comp time (i.e. willing to give an interest free loan to the employer) getting more overtime hours than those that want to be paid the time and a half. While the law states the employee will have the choice, in reality the choice will be easily influenced by the employer. Hourly workers are already pretty screwed in this economy and are becoming a greater and greater burden for government assistance programs (cite on request), this is only going to be exacerbated by Obamacare. Meanwhile most measures of corporate profits are at record highs. It makes me wonder what problem they trying to solve with this bill. Do you, **Shodan** or **magellan01** , really think this bill is going to help solve issues in our society, and if so what? Or is it purely for ideological reasons that this bill should be passed? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774/20 "2013-05-08T19:05:19Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Overtime pays 1.5 : 1. Flex time is 1 :1. Taking the time off instead of the OT pay is basically giving the company money. Right. I can take comp time at my job instead of cash as well ( up to a limit and it has to be used in that calender year ). But it is 1.5:1 no matter which option I take - for working that extra 8 hours I can either get 12 hours pay or 12 hours off. If the option allowed by this law is either 12 hours pay or 8 hours off you’re getting screwed out of a portion of your overtime if you take the latter. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-continuing-republican-attempts-to-screw-labor-overtime-edition/657774.md?page=2)