PTO instead of paid OT?

[J.E.D]

anyways the point I was trying to make flew right over your head. If legally I could save up comp time and use it would hurt the small companys in the U.S. because they hired me to do a job and need my skills and not farting off some where for weeks.

Maybe.

It could be limited to businesses with more than 50 employees, and to your point, probably should.

But there is nothing wrong with the concept that employees are not thrall and corporations/ employers are not tin gods.

My corporation, a Fortune 100 annually rated among the best run corporations on earth, has ZERO comp time policy. The meek salaried employee is expected to work 45 hrs minimum and 50 when needed. It tickles the hell out of me seeing boy wonders across my desk too chickenshit to ask for the time. Not that I'd give it to some of them, but I do give it to some mediocre women (better than listening to bullshit sob stories) and all top producers.

And there you go. That's why this probably isn't such a great idea.

Really, though, when you think about it, if Republicans are pushing for this, then you know it's more beneficial to employers than employees.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As long as the employee can cash in his or her PTO at ANY time they wish, and that right is guaranteed in the law, then maybe it's not a bad idea. But if employers are able to deny PTO for days requested for staffing reasons for example, then it sounds like more of a win for the employer. They get to save money by paying no overtime, and get to basically dictate to the employee when they can use the PTO.

Typically employees are not allowed to "cash out" their PTO banks. Typically the bank continues to accrue during the companies fiscal year.

PTO is carried as a liability on a companies books because once earned it becomes something that the employee is owed. Employees can't "cash out" their vacation days, however companies will usually have a maximum number of days that can be carried over to the next fiscal year as a means of controlling that liability. Therefore accumulated PTO/Vacation in excess of the maximum allowed amount is paid out at the end of the year.


>>>>

 

[AmazonTania]

Sounds like a great option to me. There's times when I don't need the extra money and times when I really NEED some time off. Being a divorced dad, I miss out on a lot so I think this is a great idea.

You?

Sounds like employees and employers negotiating the terms of their employment contract to me (The Free Market).

I approve.

 

[AmazonTania]

It's Republicans wanting to make us more like China.

Anything to cut worker's pay.

This is a voluntary agreement between an employee and employer. People in China also do things voluntarily.

So you are not wrong, for once.

 

[earlycuyler]

GOP seeks alternative to overtime pay

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.


Sounds like a great option to me. There's times when I don't need the extra money and times when I really NEED some time off. Being a divorced dad, I miss out on a lot so I think this is a great idea.

You?

I looooove PTO. Especially now that I am on a time clock again, and back here in Colorado. Sometimes I even use the PTO day to go stain a trim pack or two for extra $$.

 

[Ravi]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

 

[Wyatt earp]

anyways the point I was trying to make flew right over your head. If legally I could save up comp time and use it would hurt the small companys in the U.S. because they hired me to do a job and need my skills and not farting off some where for weeks.

Maybe.

It could be limited to businesses with more than 50 employees, and to your point, probably should.

But there is nothing wrong with the concept that employees are not thrall and corporations/ employers are not tin gods.

My corporation, a Fortune 100 annually rated among the best run corporations on earth, has ZERO comp time policy. The meek salaried employee is expected to work 45 hrs minimum and 50 when needed. It tickles the hell out of me seeing boy wonders across my desk too chickenshit to ask for the time. Not that I'd give it to some of them, but I do give it to some mediocre women (better than listening to bullshit sob stories) and all top producers.

Say that last bit out loud in your office, or you are chicken shit.

Lmao....... I would dare him to say that? nice point, secratarys would spit in this fakes coffee. drink up dumb ass!

 

[AmazonTania]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

When you take personal days, you are paid at an hourly rate. What makes you believe you are entitled to 1.5 hours?

 

[Ravi]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

When you take personal days, you are paid at an hourly rate. What makes you believe you are entitled to 1.5 hours?

Why not just answer the question?

 

[earlycuyler]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

We do 1 for 1, but if I do an odd job as a painter I get paid to go get paid. If I am working OT its for goofy cash so I dont mind the 1 for 1. It could suck if you are making a living on OT, but that's not really a responsible way to budget in my opinion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

If the plan is to simulate what is already available to public sector employees it would be at a 1.5 rate.

However the article does say that there is a change proposed to the current system which does not exist under the current law (United States Code, Title 29, Chapter 8) and that is that the employee would have to option of cashing out accumulated Comp Time.


(The article also says it caps Comp Time at 160 hours).



>>>>

 

[AmazonTania]

Why not just answer the question?

I can't answer a question I don't know the answer to. I'm not part of Congress.

 

[Ravi]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

We do 1 for 1, but if I do an odd job as a painter I get paid to go get paid. If I am working OT its for goofy cash so I dont mind the 1 for 1. It could suck if you are making a living on OT, but that's not really a responsible way to budget in my opinion.

If you are doing odd jobs you aren't an employee.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

We do 1 for 1, but if I do an odd job as a painter I get paid to go get paid. If I am working OT its for goofy cash so I dont mind the 1 for 1. It could suck if you are making a living on OT, but that's not really a responsible way to budget in my opinion.

Sounds like your employer is breaking the law. If you are in an non-exempt job and working over 40 hours per week they have to pay overtime and comp time is not a legal option - if of course they are private sector. If public sector, they are still required to provide Comp Time at the rate of 1.5 hours.



>>>>

 

[earlycuyler]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

If the plan is to simulate what is already available to public sector employees it would be at a 1.5 rate.

However the article does say that there is a change proposed to the current system which does not exist under the current law (United States Code, Title 29, Chapter 8) and that is that the employee would have to option of cashing out accumulated Comp Time.


(The article also says it caps Comp Time at 160 hours).



>>>>

Ours is capped at less then 160, and we do have a cash out as well. Cant say how it works though because I never cashed it out.

 

[Ravi]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

If the plan is to simulate what is already available to public sector employees it would be at a 1.5 rate.

However the article does say that there is a change proposed to the current system which does not exist under the current law (United States Code, Title 29, Chapter 8) and that is that the employee would have to option of cashing out accumulated Comp Time.


(The article also says it caps Comp Time at 160 hours).



>>>>

That was a little hard to understand, so please tell me: are they proposing giving hour for hour comp time in lieu of paid @ 1.5 OT?

 

[earlycuyler]

Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.

We do 1 for 1, but if I do an odd job as a painter I get paid to go get paid. If I am working OT its for goofy cash so I dont mind the 1 for 1. It could suck if you are making a living on OT, but that's not really a responsible way to budget in my opinion.

Sounds like your employer is breaking the law. If you are in an non-exempt job and working over 40 hours per week they have to pay overtime and comp time is not a legal option - if of course they are private sector. If public sector, they are still required to provide Comp Time at the rate of 1.5 hours.



>>>>

Nope, we are private, and I may have it wrong. I just know its an option I like.

 

[Ravi]

Why not just answer the question?

I can't answer a question I don't know the answer to. I'm not part of Congress.

Okie dokie.

 

[Ravi]

We do 1 for 1, but if I do an odd job as a painter I get paid to go get paid. If I am working OT its for goofy cash so I dont mind the 1 for 1. It could suck if you are making a living on OT, but that's not really a responsible way to budget in my opinion.

Sounds like your employer is breaking the law. If you are in an non-exempt job and working over 40 hours per week they have to pay overtime and comp time is not a legal option - if of course they are private sector. If public sector, they are still required to provide Comp Time at the rate of 1.5 hours.



>>>>

Nope, we are private, and I may have it wrong. I just know its an option I like.

Not sure of the details, but avoiding paying OT by jimmying the system in the private sector is a big fat no-no.

 

[earlycuyler]

Sounds like your employer is breaking the law. If you are in an non-exempt job and working over 40 hours per week they have to pay overtime and comp time is not a legal option - if of course they are private sector. If public sector, they are still required to provide Comp Time at the rate of 1.5 hours.



>>>>

Nope, we are private, and I may have it wrong. I just know its an option I like.

Not sure of the details, but avoiding paying OT by jimmying the system in the private sector is a big fat no-no.

Still trying to get to the article, but if it was an option, I could see it being pretty popular. Paid time off ? Whats not to like ?