New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg made headlines yesterday for his role in new legislation aimed at reducing drug costs.
But he recently introduced a bill that made less of a splash.
Gregg's proposed legislation would allow non-salaries employees to exchange comp time for hours worked overtime.
Supporters say such changes to federal labor law will give working families needed flexibility.
But the bill's critics say Senator Gregg's bill will hurt wage earners more than it will help.
NHPR's Washington correspondent, Judith Smelser, reports.
This is not the first time the so-called "flex-time" legislation has come up in the Senate.
Senator Gregg introduced a similar bill two years ago; and Attorney General John Ashcroft tried twice to push it through when he was in the Senate.
Gregg says this time won't be easy either, but he thinks the concept is worth fighting for.
1:15 (14)
"That sort of flexibilty should be available to people working, I think. Most people place their family at the top of their agenda as to what's important to them in their lives, and having flexibility in their work schedule to deal with family issues is important."
Since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, employers have been requried to pay their non-salaried workers time-and-a-half for time worked above a 40-hours a week.
Gregg?s bill would allow employers to offer workers an alternative.
They?d be able to get one and a half hours of comp time for each overtime hour worked.
The time could also be banked.
AND at the end of 13 months, the employee would be paid time and a half for any unused comp time hours.
Supporters of the measure say it would allow employees more time to spend with their families.
But opponents argue it could actually have the opposite effect.
Ross Eisenbrey is the Vice President of the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank focusing on labor issues.
12:17 (19)
"If we didn't have the fair labor standards act and the rules on overtime, we'd return to what we had in the time of the Great Depression. We'd have employers working people 50, 60, 70 hours a week. The only break on that right now is the requirement that they pay time and a half."
Eisenbrey says if that financial dis-incentive were taken away, employers would be more likely to schedule mandatory overtime.
But supporters of the bill point out that comp time is costly for employers too.
T2 1:24 (20)
"There's the assumption that opponents of this bill make that somehow this bill will save employers money. And we do not see that logic."
Michael Eastman is the Director of Labor Law Policy at the US Chamber of Commerce - a strong supporter of the flex-time proposal.
(CONTINUES)
"First of all, the leave that employees take under the comp time bill is paid leave, so employers are paying for that cost. They're also faced with the cost of either lower productivity while the employee is out taking their comp time or replacement labor cost. (1:50) So we see this, economically, as a wash for employers."
Plus, supporters say, it's all voluntary.
The bill specifically states that employers can't force their workers to sign up for the comp time program and that employees can opt out at any time.
But labor activists are skeptical.
They say bosses have always found subtle ways to pressure their workers.
And they worry that the flex-time option might not be so flexible after all.
Last month, the New Hampshire branch of the AFL-CIO held a press conference to voice its opposition to the bill.
Mark McKenzie is the Federation?s president.
3:45 (27 sec)
For working people who want to use that time, in flex time for instance, to be able to take care of the children or other things, that has to be done at the discretion of the employer and in a case where it does not "duly disrupt" the work operation of employers. So employees don't have the flextime that they need, and compensatory time off does not create the environment that they need to take care of their familes.
Flex-time supporters say the "unduly disrupt" provision is necessary to ensure the smooth running of the business.
For example it would prevent too many workers taking time off at once.
Another concern for organized labor is that workers who depend on overtime pay will be deprived of it.
This bill they say would allow employers to show preference for workers who choose the flex time option over wages.
Senator Gregg says that would constitute illegal discrimination on the employer's part.
But Gregg also believes that organized labor has self-interested reasonS to oppose his bill.
4:55 (21)
"I think organized labor sees it as eroding their ability to be the spokesman for the employee in the marketplace because it gives too much power to the employee as an individual, independent of the union. Because it basically is the right of the employee to make this decision, it's not a union decision."
Organized labor has been a tough opponent OF flex-time in the past.
The House has just pulled its own flex time bill off its agenda.
And Gregg admits that right now, he doesn't have the votes to pass his bill in the Senate.
For NHPR News, this is Judith Smelser in Washington.
