OK. I am confused. This is how I understand the new law:
Bob works six hours of overtime this week. If he opts for pay, he will get paid for 9 * his wage in his next check.
If, on the other hand, he opts for comp time, he won’t get paid at all for those 6 hours–his paycheck will look the same as it would in another 40 hour week–but he can take 9 hours off one day in the future and still get his usual 40 hour check.
I could see how retail would really like this: there would be a real tendency to work people 80 hours a week during the xmas season, and then send them home when it’s dead in January and February, a time when they basically are costing you money sitting at work idle, so they might as well cost you money sitting at home idle. That would save money for the firm. I really don’t know how the average retail worker would feel about the swap: that Christmas overtime money can be a significant bump that people have come to rely on, but real paid time off could be pretty valuable too.
I also wonder if there would be macroeconomic effects: workers paid in comp time instead of overtime would have less money to spend at Christmas. Also, right now retailers really like to hire temps for the Xmas season to avoid paying overtime: assuming that assigning comp time and only letting workers take it when they aren’t generating revenue anyway is cheaper, companies would be more willing to have people work overtime and less willing to hire seasonal workers.
In theory at least, assuming employers obey the law, the workers can cash in this leave at any time and have the same amount of money they otherwise would have if they’d taken time and a half in the first place.
But, yes, your post and another earlier one of mine suggests the same thing – that employers may use this as a kind of “layoff bank”, and send employees home when things are slow. The major difference being that the employees would remain on the payroll until their comp time ran out.
As far as I know, employers can lay people off now, without pay, any time they choose. It might get them some bad press, and they may lose some people who find other work while they’re gone. So, this one is a mixed bag for me. Better to be laid off with pay than without, but if I knew my employer planned to use my comp time this way, I’d be looking for another job.
This last exchange led me to think of another complication – unemployment compensation. A worker who’s laid off is entitled to unemployment benefits. One who’s on paid leave isn’t. Another thing I don’t know is whether it cost the company something more in terms of a bill from the state if numbers of their employees put in unemployment claims.
These things could make a big difference to a business that plans to force workers to take this comp time during seasonal slow periods.