In a two-pronged attack on the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Bush administration is seeking “technical changes” that will not only result in millions of Americans losing their right to overtime pay, but also would allow employers to substitute comparable time off for overtime pay.

In the first part of what Rev. Jesse Jackson calls “an employer’s bill of plunder,” the administration is seeking to exclude workers from overtime by reclassifying them as managers, administrative or professional employees. Writing in the June 3, 2003, edition of the Chicago Sun Times, Jackson pointed out that under the proposed changes, a clerk serving the customers at Wal-Mart becomes a manager, not an employee. “Forget about the 40-hour week,” Jackson said.

Another “technical change” would result in the removal of large numbers of workers in aerospace, defense, health care, high tech and other industries from overtime protection. To add to this injury, an income limit of $65,000 above which workers would no longer qualify for overtime is being sought.

The Labor Department’s 90-day comment period on these proposed changes ended June 30. The administration has indicated it wants to issue final regulations before the end of the year.

Meanwhile, a second prong is being engaged in the attack.

The only enforcement mechanism for the 40-hour workweek is the requirement in the Fair Labor Standards Act requiring employers to pay time-and-a-half for all hours over 40 in a week. In other words, the law creates a monetary disincentive for employers to work their employees more than 40 hours a week.

The Family Time Flexibility Act, H.R. 1119, would allow employers to give workers compensatory time off, rather than time-and-a-half pay, for every overtime hour worked. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives justifies H.R. 1119 on the basis that workers need and desire more time off in order to better balance personal and family needs and work.

On the face of it, this sounds like a good idea. Regrettably, however, H.R. 1119 does nothing to encourage greater flexibility for working families in that the employer, not the employee, will decide when the comp time will be taken.

According to Ross Eisenbrey, vice president and policy director of the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, the present system of overtime rules “has struck a successful balance by giving employers a way to get work done at a fair price in times of overload, while protecting employees’ time with their families.”

Eisenbrey analyzed H.R. 1119 and concluded that the bill would “upset that balance by eroding protections for workers’ rights and creating a strong financial incentive for employers to lengthen the workweek. A clear-headed look reveals that there is nothing in the proposed bill for workers but rhetoric and slick marketing. Contrary to what the bill’s proponents say, H.R.1119 doesn’t create employee rights; it takes them away. It does, however, create a dangerous new employer right – the right to delay paying any wages for overtime work for as long as 13 months.”

By delaying the payment of overtime, H.R. 1119 in effect forces employees to give a no-interest loan to their employer until the comp time is taken or payment is made up. Of course, if a company goes belly up – which happened to more than 500,000 businesses last year – employees may never get paid for their overtime.

Further, nothing in H.R. 1119 would prohibit an employer from assigning overtime work exclusively to employees who have chosen comp time. Workers who depend on cash overtime to provide for their families would be left with the short end of the stick.

“If employers genuinely wanted to give people time off for working overtime, they can do it now,” Eisenbrey says, “and at no additional cost. Instead of working overtime for no extra pay and banking the time, a worker can put her overtime pay in a real bank and use it to offset the unpaid time she takes off later. That achieves the same effect,” Eisenbrey argues, “while preserving the sanctity of current overtime laws.”

Is Congress truly seeking shorter work hours and assurances of family-friendly schedules for America’s workers? If so, there are easier ways. They might prohibit mandatory overtime, especially when scheduled on short notice. They might raise the overtime premium from time-and-a-half to double time and increase the number of workers covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act by limiting exemptions.

I do not believe America’s workers are the intended benefactors of H.R. 1119. Once we look past the slick marketing of this bill, the naked truth is revealed: It is nothing more than a scheme to avoid paying overtime, a scheme that will result in longer hours, lower incomes and less predictable workweeks for American workers.

H.R. 1119, was scheduled for a vote on June 5, 2003, but was pulled by House Republicans following protests from union activists, women and family groups. This is the second time in recent weeks that Republicans pulled H.R. 1119. However, business lobbyists say they are not giving up and will try again for a vote.

When our government announces it wants to give us the flexibility to work 60 hours a week with no more pay than when we worked 40, every worker in America ought to shout “Thanks, but no thanks.”

Guy Bourrie has been hauling on the highways for 20 years. He lives in Washington, Maine, and can be reached at [email protected].