Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007

FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - January 25, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 203 TO AMENDMENT NO. 100
(Purpose: To enable employees to use employee option time)

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to this legislation which is extraordinarily relevant to the legislation. It is called the employee option time amendment. It basically gives people who work, especially working mothers, the opportunity to adjust their work schedule so they can do things they need to do for their family by allowing them to move the work schedule around so that if they have an issue where one of their children may have to go in the hospital or needs attention or a child has a soccer tournament or maybe there is a recital or maybe there is a family event they want to go to, a wedding, or they want to take a 3-day weekend to enjoy some event, such as a NASCAR race or something they need to get to, this amendment allows that working mother and that working family, or any worker for that matter, the opportunity to have that chance.

In the past, it has been called flextime. We changed the title of it primarily because we changed the language to make it absolutely clear that this opportunity to move your work hours around is totally at the discretion of the employee, that the employer cannot force the employee to do this, the employer cannot require the employee to do this but, rather, the employee has the option of choosing to do this in a manner which they think is appropriate to their lifestyle.

This is not a radical idea. It is not some conservative idea. It is just a basic idea of giving fairness and options to working people but people who are working a 40-hour week, especially to working single parents or parents generally.

It is so unradical and so reasonable that Federal employees--Federal employees--have actually had this right to move their schedule around since 1978. But every time we have tried to give it to the rest of the folks who work in this country, it has been blocked. It has been blocked because some people felt it was inappropriate from a collective bargaining standpoint or they felt it would affect overtime or they felt the employee would be at a disadvantage relative to the employer.

What we have done in this amendment is make it clear that none of those things could happen. This doesn't affect collective bargaining agreements. Overtime cannot be affected. If a person works more hours in a period, if a person exceeds the hours they are allowed to work without getting overtime, overtime must be paid.

As I said earlier, the decision as to whether an employee pursues this course of action, of choosing to move their hours around, is left with the employee.

The way it works technically is like this. This is the way it works at the Federal level with Federal employees, and this is the way it would work in this amendment when it is applied to the general population, especially people working 40-hour weeks.

If you as a working mother, for example, know you have an event coming up for which you are going to need to take time off, for example, as I said earlier, such as your child has to go into the hospital for an operation--hopefully not, but if that is the case--or there is a big event in your family life, such as a recital or major athletic event, you want to know there are going to be 3 days you need for a wedding or for something that is significant, you can adjust your schedule so that one week you work up to 50 hours and in the next week you only have to work 30 hours or anything in between. You can work 45 hours in one week and 35 hours in the following week, whatever works relative to your schedule and your time.

One can see the advantage of this, especially for people who have families and so much going on in their life that they do need to have more flexibility in their capacity to structure their hours.

Today they can't do that. Today an employee simply can't do that unless they are a Federal employee. If they are a Federal employee, they can do that.

This amendment, which we have taken up before in a different form, accomplishes the goal of giving parents especially, but all working people who work a 40-hour week, more capacity to make that schedule fit their lifestyle rather than having an arbitrary 40-hour work week schedule.

The changes, as I have mentioned, which we made in this amendment so that it addresses the concerns which have been expressed on this floor before when we brought forth this idea--and this idea received a majority at least once--are, as I mentioned, to make it very clear, voluntary.

On page 2 of the amendment, it states no employee may be required to participate in such a plan.

On page 3 (2)(ii) states that the program may be carried out only if the agreement was entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and was not a condition of employment.

On page 4, it states in subsection (b) that if such an employee has affirmed in writing, in a written statement that is made, kept, and preserved, that the employee has voluntarily chosen to participate in the program.

There are significant penalties in this bill for an employer who violates that voluntary aspect of an employee making a choice to go forward. So we have addressed that concern.

As I mentioned earlier, we make it very clear that in no way does this abrogate the obligation to pay overtime if somebody exceeds the 80 hours in that 2-week period. So if you work 81 hours, you get overtime, just as you would if you were under the usual agreement of 40 hours a week.

In addition, it makes it very clear this in no way abrogates any collective bargaining agreements. Most of the resistance of this amendment has come from the leadership of organized labor which, for some reason I don't understand, quite honestly, views this as some sort of a threat or potential threat to the collective bargaining process. It is not. We make it clear it is not.

This is simply an attempt to put all Americans on the same footing as all Federal employees by giving them flextime. We call it employee option time to make it absolutely clear it is the employee who has the choice.

The amendment in the past was linked also--and this is another reason it was resisted--to something called comptime. Comptime is something more controversial, I admit to that. Comptime is not in this amendment. Comptime isn't going to be offered as an amendment, I don't believe.

Rather, we are sticking purely with what has traditionally been known as flextime and what has been given to Federal employees for over 20 years, almost 30 years.

It is a very reasoned approach. When one thinks about it, yes, the minimum wage is going to help some people, but as a practical matter, this idea of giving people more capacity to manage their schedule is going to have a much greater impact on the quality of life of people than raising the minimum wage. Literally millions of people are going to have this authority and find it will increase their quality of life.

Most of the people who will receive this new opportunity to adjust their schedule to fit what their family needs are not making minimum wage. They may be wage earners and they may be hourly paid, but they are certainly not making minimum wage. So this is going to benefit literally millions of people beyond the minimum wage earners, and it is especially, as I mentioned, going to benefit those people who have families, and especially benefit those people who are single parents trying to raise families and being in the workplace at the same time, which is one of the most difficult things anybody does in our country. This gives them more flexibility to manage their schedule so they can do things that are important to their families.

It is a reasonable amendment. It is so reasonable, as I have mentioned, that the Federal employees have accepted it. It has been accepted by the Federal employees.

I ask that the amendment be called up.

http://thomas.loc.gov/