The U.S. House of Representatives will consider amending the federal Fair Labor Standards Act to permit private-sector employers to offer compensatory time off in lieu of monetary overtime compensation.  The fast-tracked "Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013" (H.R. 1406) was approved by a House committee only eight days after its introduction.

Under the proposal, eligible non-union employees could agree to a comp-time arrangement "in writing or [in an] otherwise verifiable record."  The policy could be implemented for eligible unionized employees via a collective bargaining agreement.  Participating employees would then receive at least 1.5 hours of comp time for each overtime hour worked.

The Devil Is In The Details

Private-sector employers are understandably cheered by such news – comp time has been a long-sought goal.  But the bill contains a number of impact-diluting, unclear, or complicating provisions, including these examples:

♦   No more than 160 hours of comp time could be accrued at any time (representing approximately 106 overtime hours worked).  An employee who works 10 overtime hours each workweek would reach that cap in about 10 workweeks.

♦   Employers would be required to cash-out unused comp time annually and when a worker's employment ends.  The payment would be calculated at the higher of (i) the employee's regular rate at the time the comp time was earned, or (ii) the employee's final regular rate.  But the "regular rate" is not necessarily just the employee's stated hourly rate.  Typically, it also includes remuneration such as bonuses, commissions, incentive payments, and compensation of many other kinds.  Figuring the "regular rate" for cashing-out purposes could therefore be a complex and daunting process as to employees who received such supplemental compensation over a period of time.

♦   On 30 days' notice, an employer could cash-out a worker's accrued comp time exceeding 80 hours.  But this too must be based upon the "regular rate" and entails the same potential complications.  Maybe the payment would normally be based upon the regular rate when the comp time was earned, unless the alternative "final regular rate" is later read to have some broader-than-apparent meaning.

♦   The employer would have to (i) determine and monitor each employee's eligibility to "agree to receive" or to "receive" comp time, which apparently could change over time; (ii) compute and record the hours accrued and keep up with when the balance must be (and perhaps may be) cashed-out; and (iii) administer both employees' cash-out requests and any notices that a non-union employee opts-out of the policy (including keeping up with who's "in" and who's "out").

♦   The employee would be entitled to use comp time "within a reasonable period" after requesting it, unless this would "unduly disrupt" the employer's operations.  By contrast, the employer could not so much as "attempt to" require employees to use comp time. 

The proposal would neither instruct nor even authorize the U.S. Labor Department to issue any regulations.  Nevertheless, employers should also anticipate extensive, convoluted USDOL interpretative provisions.

Is It Better Than Nothing?

We are not convinced that it is.  Many employers will see this as being more trouble than it is worth, especially if (as the bill currently provides) it would expire in five years anyway.  Some who implement such a policy might later find themselves embroiled in litigation over its pitfalls and complexities.

Perhaps there is still time to simplify and refine the measure before it becomes the latest ineffectual minimum-wage tradeoff.

UPDATE 05/09/13:  H.R. 1406 was passed by the House of Representatives on May 8 by a vote of 223 to 204.  The Obama Administration has expressed opposition to the proposal, so one may question whether the bill will even be considered by the Senate.  On the other hand, there is still reason to surmise that the atypical speed with which H.R. 1406 has moved along means that proponents want to make it part of a bargain involving a minimum-wage increase.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Now that the election is behind us, employers should consider what they might anticipate in the field of wage-hour law, which is already one of the largest sources of employment-law claims.  While the nature and number of the possible developments are practically unlimited, some of the foreseeable ones include these:

♦   The push to increase the minimum wage under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which was at fever-pitch before going dormant as the election season approached, will now re-emerge.  There will be similar efforts under many analogous state and local laws and ordinances.

This will probably include proposals to increase the FLSA's cash-wage requirement for tipped employees for whom employers take that law's tip-credit.  The public-relations approach will be that this increases "the minimum wage for tipped workers", despite the fact that the FLSA minimum wage for tipped employees is already the same as it is for everyone else.

 ♦   Analogous moves might well seek to increase the salary amount required for some of the FLSA's exemptions from minimum-wage and overtime, as well as to impose paid-leave requirements.  Recall the March bill introduced by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin which proposed both, including requiring most employers of at least 15 employees to accrue an hour of paid "sick time" for every 30 hours an employee works, up to at least 56 hours each calendar year.

Another possible measure might involve an attempt to raise the FLSA overtime-pay multiple from its current 1.5 times the regular rate to 2.0 times that rate.  This might be joined with reducing the threshold number of hours for FLSA overtime from 40 hours in a workweek to, say, 35 hours.  Similar FLSA amendments were proposed in the late 70s and early 80s, during another period of high unemployment and persistent economic stagnation.  A further impetus this time around might be the already-burgeoning rates of part-time employment, taken in conjunction with what could be a further trend toward part-time work driven by looming Affordable Care Act requirements.

 ♦   Aggressive government enforcement at federal and state levels is likely to expand.  There will be an even-more-intensified focus upon whether workers treated as independent contractors should instead be viewed as employees.  Employers should expect further national or regional enforcement initiatives undertaken with respect to entire industries.  These initiatives will include (among others) those directed at what the U.S. Labor Department has called "low wage" sectors, such as hospitality businesses and food retailing, retailing in general, some healthcare segments, landscaping, some construction segments, temporary-help agencies, daycare/homecare, agriculture, janitorial services, garment manufacturing, and guard services.

 ♦   Following a noisy notice-and-comment period that ended in March, proposals that would essentially spell the end of the FLSA exemptions for companions and live-in domestic-service workers suddenly dropped from view as the election season commenced.  These provisions will probably be released in their final form in the not-too-distant future.

Another distinct possibility is the revival of the so-called "Right to Know" regulations, which USDOL said would require "notification of workers' status as employees or some other status such as independent contractors, and whether that worker is entitled to the protections of the FLSA."  USDOL further said that the proposal would "also explore requiring employers to provide a wage statement each pay period to their employees," apparently so as to convey to employees "how their pay is computed."  The reach of these provisions would likely be even broader than USDOL has so far disclosed.

 ♦   The "wage theft" movement toward increasingly-draconian penalties and punishments will move forward with renewed energy, especially at the state and local levels.  For proponents of these measures, wage-law violations are unrelated to the multi-jurisdiction, patchwork nature of differing, obscure, sometimes-conflicting, ambiguous and ill-defined, rapidly-changing requirements that are proliferating across the nation.  No, as this publication [Editor's Note:  Link Apparently Taken Down] illustrates, in their eyes employers are instead "dishonest", unscrupulous scofflaws who are "stealing" money from workers.  Employers who remain disengaged on this front and who acquiesce in these pejorative campaigns do so at their peril.

It has never been more important for employers to remain vigilant, informed, and assertive about all of these matters.  It is also essential that each employer ensure right now that it is in compliance with all applicable wage-hour requirements.

◊ Have a comment or something else to add? Please use our comment feature below.

If a 35% spike in the minimum wage, a $590-per-week increase in the salary amount required for exempt "white collar" workers, an immediate 41% rise in the cash wage required for tipped employees, and a new paid-time-off requirement are prescriptions for an economic upturn, then help might be on the way.  All are provided for in the voluminous "Rebuild America Act", S. 2252, recently introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

The Minimum Wage

Under S. 2252, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage would rise in three steps from the current level of $7.25 per hour to $9.80 per hour about two years after passage.  After that, the rate would be adjusted annually in tandem with the Consumer Price Index.

Experts typically disagree about the negative effects of minimum-wage increases, but many (if not most) acknowledge that at least some jobs and job opportunities are lost to a minimum-wage hike.  Consider this:  The rationales for a minimum wage might suggest that the floor should be, say, $20 per hour, but the hiring cutbacks and layoffs this would provoke are an important reason that few would favor it.

And recent experience counsels even more caution.  We first wrote in 2010 about the larger lessons to be learned from the damaging impact of minimum-wage hikes affecting American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.  Since then, the General Accounting Office has noted the many adverse consequences, and those whose experience with these matters is more than academic continue to seek at least a postponement in further jumps.

Salary Amount For White-Collar Workers

Most workers who otherwise qualify for exemption as executive, administrative, or professional employees (colloquially, the FLSA's "white collar" exemptions) must be paid on a salary basis at a rate of at least $455 per week.  S. 2252 would move this floor to $655, then to $855, and later to $1,045, and would thereafter tie it to the Consumer Price Index.

The U.S. Labor Department developed the salary test decades ago as one way to distinguish those who should be considered exempt from those who should not be.  It was never intended to be a minimum wage for exempt people.  Muddying the test's purpose as S. 2252 proposes would, among other things, risk introducing the same dangers (or worse) presented by raising the hourly minimum wage.

Cash Wage For Tipped Employees

Today, a tipped employee for whom an employer takes the FLSA "tip credit" must be paid a cash wage of at least $2.13 per hour (the tips themselves must make up the difference to $7.25).  S. 2252 would immediately raise this cash minimum to $3.00 per hour and would continue the increases until the level reached 70% of the FLSA minimum wage.

A more-focused bill to similar effect was introduced in the House of Representatives last year.  As we said then, these impulses are driven by flawed or unstated premises, or both.  In any case, good intentions are not guaranteed to produce desirable results.

A Paid-Time-Off Requirement

S. 2252 would also compel most employers of at least 15 employees to accrue an hour of paid "sick time" for every 30 hours an employee works, up to at least 56 hours each calendar year.  Exempt white-collar workers would be presumed to work 40 hours each workweek for these purposes, except for those who worked a "shorter normal workweek".  A host of detailed rights, requirements, permitted uses, limitations, procedures, prohibitions, and other complications would attach to this new paid-leave mandate.

None of this will be enacted in an election year?  Recall that the subject of indexing the FLSA minimum wage has already surfaced in the Republican primary process.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.