THE SALES INCENTIVE COMPENSATION 

ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 7, 2001 

Serial No. 107-17 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2002

77-672 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 FAX: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia, Chairman

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Vice Chairman MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

RIC KELLER, Florida HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 
iii

Table of Contents 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE......................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MAJOR R. OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE ................................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF J. RANDALL MacDONALD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

HUMAN RESOURCES, IBM CORPORATION, ARMONK, New York........................ 6

STATEMENT OF MARY ENENMOH, TERRITORY RELATIONSHIPS 

REPRESENTATIVE, IBM.com, COPPELL, TX.............................................................. 8

STATEMENT OF RANDY SCHENAUER, PRESIDENT, DELAWARE VALLEY 

WHOLESALE FLORIST, INC., SEWELL, NJ................................................................. 9

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, 

AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C. .................................................................................... 11

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE 

NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

........................................................................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF J. RANDALL MACDONALD, SENIOR 

VICE PRESIDENT, HUMAN RESOURCES, IBM CORPORATION, ARMONK, NEW 

YORK ............................................................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARY ENENMOH, TERRITORY 

RELATIONSHIP REPRESENTATIVE, IBM.COM, COPPELL, TEXAS .................... 49

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RANDY SCHENAUER, PRESIDENT, 

DELAWARE VALLEY WHOLESALE FLORIST, INC., SEWELL, NEW JERSEY .. 53

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE OWENS, DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................... 59

Table of Indexes................................................................................................................ 66
1

HEARING ON 

 THE SALES INCENTIVE COMPENSATION ACT 

____________

Thursday, June 7, 2001 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

 U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn 

House Office Building, Honorable Charlie Norwood, Chairman of the Subcommittee, 

presiding.

 Present: Representatives Norwood, Biggert, Ballenger, Isakson, Keller, Owens, 

Kucinich, Mink, Woolsey, and Sanchez 

 Also present: Representatives Tiberi and Frost 

 Staff Present: Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Professional Staff Member; Victoria 

Lipnic, Professional Staff Member; Kent Talbert, Professional Staff Member; Dave 

Thomas, Legislative Assistant; Peter Gunas, Director of Workforce Policy; Jo-Marie St. 

Martin, General Counsel; Ron Reese, External Affairs Director; Scott Galupo, 

Communications Specialist; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; Michael Reynard, 

Deputy Press Secretary, Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Deborah Samantar, 

Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Peter Rutledge, Senior Legislative Associate, 

Labor; Maria Cuprill, Legislative Associate, Labor; and Brian Compagnone, Staff 

Assistant, Labor. 
2

Chairman Norwood. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections will come to order. 

 The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 2070, the Sales 

Incentive Compensation Act. According to Rule 12B of the Committee rules, any oral 

statements will be limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. This will 

allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules; 

therefore, if other Members have statements, they may be included in the hearing record.

Without objection, all Members' statements and witnesses' written testimony will be 

included in the hearing record. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

 This is our first hearing this Congress on an issue related to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938. I fully expect that the Subcommittee will look at a number of 

other issues under the Act during this session of Congress. This will continue previous 

efforts by the Subcommittee to review a broad range of wage- and hour-related issues, 

and to identify areas that should be updated to reflect changes that have occurred in the 

workplace.

 I would like to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses. Nearly all of you have 

traveled some distance in order to share your expertise and knowledge with us. We very 

much appreciate your willingness to be part of the legislative process. 

 Today's hearing will focus on H.R. 2070, the Sales Incentive Compensation Act. 

This bipartisan bill was introduced yesterday by two of our colleagues on the Full 

Committee, Representatives Tiberi and Andrews. 

 No doubt, many of my colleagues are familiar with the history of this legislation. 

Last Congress, the House considered and passed the bill as part of a package to increase 

the minimum wage and provide tax relief for small businesses. 

 The House also passed similar legislation during the 105th Congress. Both times, 

however, the Senate failed to act on the legislation. I would also note that we have new 

Members on our Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, and so for many of our 

Members, this hearing will be both informative and educational. 

 The Sales Incentive Compensation Act addresses the problem of fitting 21st 

century salespeople into a law crafted for a 1938 workforce. Current law addresses the 

situation of salespeople who travel from customer to customer, referred to as an outside 

salesperson. The law also addresses the situation of salespeople who work in retail 

stores. But the law fails to address the situation of a modern inside sales force that often 

sells very sophisticated and complex products and services. They do so by using the 

tools of modern commerce, telephone, faxes, computers and the Internet. 
3

This is a narrow bill that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide a 

new exemption for minimum wage and overtime for certain types of salespeople. It does 

not exempt all salespeople from the Fair Labor Standards Act. It speaks only to those 

who have, by reason of their specialized and technical knowledge of their products or 

services and their relationship with customers, meet the conditions laid out in this bill. 

 This is not the first time that the Subcommittee has heard from employees 

testifying in favor of changing the law as it relates to inside salespeople. We will hear 

today about how a law that was intended to protect workers now has the effect of denying 

them the opportunity to maximize their sales and income. 

 I want to emphasize that we are hurting salespeople if we do not change this law.

Mr. Tiberi's bill would help salespeople to perform their jobs more effectively by 

allowing them to schedule their work hours in such a way as to maximize sales, and 

thereby increase their own earnings. Surely, increasing flexibility for workers or 

allowing them to maximize their earnings while retaining important protections for them 

ought to be things that we can agree upon for today's workforce. 

 I look forward to hearing the testimony and I appreciate the witnesses taking the 

time to participate in this hearing. I will now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, 

Mr. Owens, for his opening statement. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX A 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MAJOR R. OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE

Thank you, Chairman Norwood. I want to thank all of today's witnesses for 

taking the time to share their views with us. However, this legislation has been 

considered, as you heard before, in previous Congresses, and many of us already are 

quite familiar with it. 

 I strongly opposed this legislation in the 105th and the 106th Congresses. It, 

therefore, should be no surprise that I am still strongly opposed to the legislation. Today, 

as in the past, some will contend that this legislation somehow helps workers. In my 

view, nothing could be further from the truth. 

 The sole effect of this bill is to require workers to work longer hours for less 

money. In fact, the bill can result in workers being required to work overtime for no pay 

at all. Assuming an employee earns a base salary of 1.5 times the minimum wage, which 

is $16,068 a year and earns commissions or bonuses at a rate equal to 40 percent of their 

base salary, then an employer's only obligation to pay an employee for hours worked in 
4

excess of 40 hours per week is to pay an employee such commissions as the employee 

may have earned during that period. If the employee has no commissions, the employer 

is not required to pay the employee anything, not even a base wage for the overtime 

hours the employee worked. 

 The bill is not limited to workers who are wealthy or even earn middle class 

incomes. This bill exempts low-wage workers from overtime. In 1990, when the 

Congress established a wage floor for those in the computer industry to be exempted 

from overtime, and I was the cosponsor of that legislation, we established that floor at 6.5 

times the minimum wage; an annual salary at that time was $57,420. 

 This bill exempts workers making as little as $22,495 a year for overtime 

compensation. A minimum wage worker who is required to work 60 hours a week and 

who also earns $6,427 a year in commissions is not entitled to any overtime pay under 

this legislation. By exempting workers making as little as $22,500, many workers will 

have to work more than 40 hours a week simply to make enough money to support their 

family without public assistance. Frankly, it is outrageous that we would consider taking 

away overtime protection from workers who may be eligible for food stamps. But that is 

what this bill does. 

 Employers have been paying overtime pay to inside sales workers for almost 65 

years. In light of that fact, it can hardly be contended that employers cannot afford to pay 

overtime. On the other hand, a worker who barely earns 2 times the minimum wage 

often depends on overtime in order to make ends meet. Take away overtime from that 

worker, and they may still be able to work enough extra hours to support their family, but 

they will have no time to spend raising their family, I assure you. 

 One hundred years ago, workers typically had to work 10 hours a day, 6 days a 

week, in order to earn enough to house, clothe and feed their families. No one I know 

contends that returning to those days would represent progress. But that is exactly the 

direction that this legislation takes us in. 

 There are many problems with this legislation, but the most serious is that it 

denies overtime protection to workers who are barely earning a living wage. Far from 

enhancing the earning opportunities of workers, the fact of this legislation is to increase 

the income of employers at the expense of workers. 

 This bill robs the poor to pay the rich. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the rich need 

this kind of help. I certainly don't think the poor should be required to provide this kind 

of help. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Owens, for your opening statement. 

 I would now like to introduce our panel of witnesses. But before I do that, I 

would like to welcome one of our colleagues from Texas, Mr. Frost, to the Subcommittee 

today. Mr. Frost has a constituent who is on our witness panel, and I would like to 

extend the courtesy of allowing him to introduce that witness to us. 
5

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for the purpose of introducing his 

constituent.

Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I appreciate the courtesy of being able to present Mary Enenmoh to the 

Committee. Mary is from the Dallas area, and works with IBM in Dallas. I have had the 

chance to visit her and her work site. She has some unique factors involving her 

particular employment that she would like to call the Committee’s attention to and how 

the current law affects her. 

 I understand Major Owens' deep concerns about this legislation. I would only ask 

that Ms. Enenmoh have the opportunity to present her story and talk about how current 

law affects her and how she would like to see the Committee consider changes in current 

law so that she would be better able to perform her particular job. 

 I understand that this is a contested piece of legislation. The Committee 

obviously will do what it feels is best, but I did want to have the opportunity to appear 

with her today so that she could tell her story to this Committee. I thank you very much. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Mr. MacDonald, if you will take your seat 

at the table. 

I would like to introduce J. Randall MacDonald, Senior Vice President of Human 

Resources for IBM Corporation. Next is Ms. Mary Enenmoh, who is a Territory 

Relationships Representative for IBM, followed by Mr. Randy Schenauer, President of 

Delaware Valley Wholesale Florist, Inc. We welcome you, sir. Our final witness is Ms. 

Christine Owens the Deputy Director of Public Policy for AFL-CIO. 

 We would like to thank all of you and welcome you. Before you begin your 

testimony, I want to remind all of our Members that they will be allowed to ask questions 

after all witnesses have completed their testimony. In addition, Committee Rule 12b 

imposes a 5-minute limit on all questions. 

 I also want to remind the panelists that we have you scheduled for 5 minutes each. 

I won't be real firm on that, but try to summarize your testimony. Of course, your full 

statement will be put in the record, but try to keep it in the 5-minute time frame the best 

you can. I see that all the microphones are too far out, so if you want us to hear you, pull 

those microphones to you. 

 Let us start with you, Mr. MacDonald and you may begin your testimony. 
6

STATEMENT OF J. RANDALL MacDONALD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

HUMAN RESOURCES, IBM CORPORATION, ARMONK, New York 

 Thank you, Chairman Norwood, Mr. Owens and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am Randy MacDonald, Senior Vice President of Human Resources for the IBM 

Corporation.

Thank you for inviting me here to talk today about IBM's concerns with how 

inside sales employees are classified. We applaud Mr. Tiberi and Mr. Andrews for their 

leadership in introducing the Sales Incentive Compensation Act, which would amend 

FLSA and extend the sales exemption to cover both inside and outside sales reps. 

 IBM supports this important legislation. We would like to submit that the world 

has changed dramatically in the last 60 years. And we believe that the Fair Labor 

Standards Act needs to be appropriately modernized in certain areas to reflect the world 

we live in. 

 When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938, technology-driven sales 

centers with inside sales reps just didn't exist. At IBM, all sales calls were made face to 

face. By the way, in that same year, the big technological innovation was a ballpoint pen 

and nylon. Similarly, when the Wage and Hour Regulations were written in 1954, the 

minimum wage was $.75 cents. Yet, the first silicon transistor was just introduced, and 

many of today's leading companies were not even around. But things indeed have 

changed.

 Just when we think we have reached the last frontier, yet another appears. We are 

in the midst of a technological transformation that is reshaping the world of work. It is 

evident that the Internet fuels the network world. We already see the visible signs of the 

change and the possibilities are still being explored. 

 Distance doesn't matter so much anymore. The world has gotten smaller. New 

market possibilities continue to emerge in brands in many, many different ways. Going 

to work doesn't have to mean going to bricks and mortar. Work at home can indeed be an 

option as has been proven many times already. Shopping on-line means speed and 

flexibility. Face-to-face contact is no longer the imperative. Virtual companies with 

employees scattered worldwide don't have to be science fiction any longer. 

 So while the world of work has changed, the laws that govern how we have 

worked haven't modernized at the same speed. The FLSA needs to be updated to reflect 

the changes that have taken place since it was enacted in 1938. IBM is committed to 

addressing the emerging needs of our employees, particularly the need for work-life 

balance and the need for controlling one's opportunity and career and pay. 

 It is in IBM's best interest to provide adaptive work environments to employees to 

balance the pressures of work and the demands of their home lives. It can have a 

profound effect on competitiveness and productivity. Inside sales reps don't have the 

same opportunity as employees who are exempt under the law. 
7

It is interesting to note that the FLSA authors in 1938 recognized the difficulty in 

tracking overtime for outside sales reps and made them exempt and not subject to 

overtime requirements. But they didn't envision our network world, our Internet-based 

business operations or the need for inside sales reps. In effect, the law today creates an 

unnecessary and problematic disparity between our inside and our outside sales force.

 In order to comply with the laws, our inside sales reps are required to work in 

more structured office environments with a defined shift of hours than their outside 

counterparts. They are tied to the rigid concept of time and place. Our inside sales 

employees are true professionals, like our outside sales force. They sell the entire IBM 

product line directly to our customers and want the same opportunity for wealth creation. 

They are expected to exercise discretion and are responsible for customer sales and 

satisfaction. They just happen to use the Internet, the telephone and fax to do it. 

 We believe they should have the same opportunity for work-life balance as their 

outside counterparts. For example, we have inside sales employees who would like to be 

able to work from home when they need to, would like to have the afternoon off to see 

their child's ball game and pick up work where they left off in the evening and would like 

to be treated as the conscientious professionals they are. They want it, and IBM would 

like to give it to them, but our hands are tied unless the law is modernized. Just as 

employees’ expectations for workplace responsiveness have emerged, so have the 

expectations of our customers. 

 Customers have seen the power of E-business. The accessibility and broad reach 

of the Internet have forever changed their expectations for support and response.

Accurate, round-the-clock service is now the price of entry for sustainable success in our 

business. IBM.com was created to be a responsive organization that would quickly 

organize to meet increased customer demands. The IBM.com sales center is a cutting 

edge, high performance telephone and Internet based sales organization. At the core of 

our IBM.com operation are our inside sales reps. They have the primary responsibility for 

handling IBM's small- and medium-sized business customers. Those are the very same 

small- and medium-sized businesses that are constituents in your districts. Our ability to 

shift simple transactions to the Web and to continue to modernize our processes increases 

the efficiency and productivity of our sales force. 

 Benefiting from our customers in IBM, the employee benefits I have described 

earlier are hard to argue with, but the business rationale is compelling. The change in the 

Act will increase employee satisfaction, motivation and productivity. It will support the 

needs of our business and be able to respond to customers in this rapidly changing 

environment. We support the legislative effort to modernize the Act and create 

appropriate parity for our IBM sales employees. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF J. RANDALL MACDONALD, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, HUMAN RESOURCES, IBM CORPORATION, ARMONK, NEW 

YORK - SEE APPENDIX B
8

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. MacDonald. 

Ms. Enenmoh, you may begin your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF MARY ENENMOH, TERRITORY RELATIONSHIPS 

REPRESENTATIVE, IBM.com, COPPELL, TX 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Owens and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

allowing me to testify here today. My name is Mary Enenmoh, and I am currently 

employed by the IBM Corporation as an inside sales representative in Coppell, Texas. 

 I was raised in Cincinnati, Ohio, where I attended the University of Cincinnati 

earning a bachelor's degree in marketing in 1981. I currently live in Plano, Texas, which 

is a suburb of Dallas. 

 I have lived in Texas for 20 years and in Plano for 9 years. As an inside sales rep, 

my job is to engage and manage resources to develop and close sales. The entire process 

is done with the use of a telephone, the Internet, FAX machines, mailings, IBM personnel 

on the outside and business partners. The sale can be closed without my ever having a 

face-to-face meeting with my customers. 

 I have specific responsibility for accounts in the media industry, printing, 

publishing and advertising. My territory consists of six companies, The West Group, the 

Tribune Company, Experian, A.C. Nielsen, P. R. Donnelly and Leo Burnett. I work with 

executives, such as chief technology officers, chief information officers, chief marketing 

officers, et cetera, to understand the issues important to them. I view these issues as 

opportunities, and I proceed to coordinate the teams, consisting of various specialists and 

sometimes business partners to help me present the appropriate IBM product and/or 

service. In addition, I may call on any employee in these organizations to continue to 

develop and ultimately close the sale. 

 For this year, my territory quota is $6 million. On IBM large accounts, in 

addition to an inside sales rep, a local outside sales representative is also assigned. The 

responsibilities and job description of the outside sales representative mirrors mine. For 

example, we both have a quota to meet in order to make commissions. We are both 

responsible for calling on customers to sell IBM products. We are both responsible for 

customer satisfaction and so on. The only difference between the two of us is that my 

contact with the customer is not face-to-face. I use modern technology. 

 As an inside sales rep, I am an hourly employee. My teammate, however, is 

salaried. While my teammate and I are both managed by the results we generate as sales 

professionals, as a nonexempt employee, I also have my time managed. The E-business 

tools we work with give my teammate the option to work from home when she needs to 

rearrange her work schedule to accommodate her family life and her travel. In addition, 

my teammate is given a laptop to maximize her efficiency wherever she goes. As a 

nonexempt professional, I do not have that option. While my colleague can use these
9

tools to catch up on making investments in her own development and success during offhours away from work, I cannot. 

 I believe that the current law views the inside sales job differently from the way I 

actually do my job. The law assumes that I need to be protected and frankly, this is 

neither accurate nor fair. 

 I am a sales professional and focused much more on the goals of my job and 

career than in the hours worked in a week. I care much more about the money that I can 

make by working hard and exceeding my quota than I do about working more hours and 

making time and a half. After all, to me, sales is about managing my territory, not about 

managing my overtime. Thank you. 

Chairman Norwood. That was a very thoughtful statement, thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARY ENENMOH, TERRITORY RELATIONSHIPS

REPRESENTATIVE, IBM.com, COPPELL, TX – SEE APPENDIX C 

STATEMENT OF RANDY SCHENAUER, PRESIDENT, DELAWARE VALLEY 

WHOLESALE FLORIST, INC., SEWELL, NJ 

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Norwood, Vice Chairman Biggert, 

Representative Owens and Members of the Committee. My name is Randy Schenauer, I 

am the President of Delaware Valley Wholesale Florists. We are a floral wholesale and 

supplier, and one of the largest in the United States with 480 employees. In addition to 

our corporate facility in Sewell, New Jersey, which is our main operating facility, we 

have distribution centers in Linthicum, Maryland, Edison, New Jersey and Plainview, 

New York. 

 I am both pleased and honored to appear before this esteemed group to discuss the 

treatment of inside sales professionals and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Before I get 

into the details, I would first like to thank Representative Tiberi and Representative 

Andrews for introducing legislation that would overcome a major impediment to our 

Company's growth and compensation to our sales associates.

 My goal this afternoon is to highlight three problems with the antiquated FLSA 

as it relates to inside sales professionals: 

 First, in its current form, the FLSA denies inside sales people the opportunity to 

reach their full income potential, which Mary has very eloquently explained. 

 Second, this Act, which was written over 63 years ago, has not been updated to 

reflect the modern workplace and advances in technology, which have changed the way 

salespeople, do their jobs today. 
10

Finally, it is incredulous that the FSLA does not recognize that these employees 

are highly skilled and professional. 

 Before I get into the FSLA caps on employees' earnings, I think it is very 

important to share some background information and paint a picture for you on how the 

wholesale distribution in flowers and floral supplies work. Unfortunately, unlike many 

other countries where floral buying is a way of life, the flower industry in the United 

States relies very heavily on what we term "floral holidays." The obvious ones are 

Valentine's Day and Mother's Day. Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter play a minor 

role. However, the key point here is that our industry is subject to higher peaks and lower 

valleys than many other industries due to the cyclical nature of our market. 

 The window of opportunity for our sales professionals and our company is very 

limited. Retail florists’ demands have increased substantially because of the hours of 

operations. Stores that were open at 10:00 a.m. are now open at 7:00 a.m. and remain 

open until 10:00 p.m. Stores that were once open on the weekend only on Saturdays are 

now open on Sundays because retail florists feel the need to compete with mass markets. 

This is not a request or a requirement to have our sales people work longer hours, but to 

have our salespeople be more flexible.

Our industry, the floral industry, is highly competitive with both wholesalers 

operating at 1.5 percent to 2-1/2 percent as the bottom line. We compete with over 100 

wholesalers in our market area from Long Island, New York to Washington, D.C. The 

inside sales associate or sales professional and the customer relationship is key because 

of flexibility in developing a relationship. 

 In 1938, it was probably impossible to compete without traveling to meet 

customers face to face. In the floral industry, it was probably easier back then, because 

you might have had only 50 varieties of flowers. Today, Delaware Valley sells over 

1,000 different varieties of flowers, 500 different indoors green plants, 6,000 different 

supplies or hard goods, which are vases and other floral supplies. How did we take that 

type of inventory on the road? If you think that you have congestion here in Washington, 

D.C. today, I would like you to picture Delaware Valley having 10 to 15 53-foot 

refrigerated tractor-trailers rolling down K Street going from store to store. Not a pretty 

picture. 

 One of the key reasons inside sales professionals can do the same jobs as outside 

salespeople can be attributed to the advances in technology. As I mentioned earlier, 

traveling to call on the customers may have been the norm in 1938, but today our inside 

sales professionals are armed with many technological tools that allow them to do 

everything and maybe more than their outside counterparts. 

 In Delaware Valley the sales rep can effectively sell 30 to 40 accounts per day via 

phone, computer or fax, while outside sales professionals see maybe five to six 

customers. Technology has definitely allowed us to move more sales professionals from 

the outside to the inside. I would think that the Committee would view this as a very 

positive move. Why? It takes cars and trucks off the road, reduces congestion, reduces 

pollution and conserves energy. Last, but certainly not least, it is impossible for me to 
11

understand how our sales associates are not considered highly skilled and professional. 

 We sell four different product lines, as I said, fresh flowers, green plants, supplies, 

and we actually sell fruit. Receiving training on cross-selling and sales training from our 

full-time sales professional trainer is just one of the things that we keep our salespeople 

professional.

 In closing, I would just like the Committee to recognize the level of 

responsibility, knowledge, expertise and dedication of these sales professionals. They 

should not be treated differently than their coworkers who are employing the same 

techniques but do their work on the outside. 

 On behalf of Delaware Valley and SAF, I would like to thank Chairman Norwood 

for holding this hearing. This is very important legislation that is critical to our continued 

success and future growth. I fully understand the spirit of the law and what the writers of 

FLSA were looking to accomplish and whom they were looking to protect. However, we 

are neither a company, nor an industry looking to mistreat our inside sales professionals 

or work them to death. Enacting this legislation will allow our inside sales professionals 

to take full advantage of today's technology and cyclical nature of our industry to 

maximize their earnings. There is no doubt that both our highly trained sales 

professionals and our company will benefit from this legislation. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RANDY SCHENAUER, PRESIDENT, DELAWARE 

VALLEY WHOLESALE FLORIST, INC., SEWELL, NJ - SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Schenauer. Ms. Owens, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC 

POLICY, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you very much, Chairman Norwood, Representative Owens and Members 

of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the 13 million working women and men of the AFLCIO, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to address our concerns about the 

proposed Sales Incentive Compensation Act, as we have described more fully in the 

written statement we have submitted for the record. 

 The AFL-CIO opposes this change to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which would 

completely eliminate minimum wage and overtime protections for certain workers who 

have always been covered by the Act. It would take away these protections without any 

new safeguards or guarantees. 

 The affected workers would have no guarantee of added pay, regardless of how 

many overtime hours they worked, and employers would be free to require as much 
12

overtime as they wanted without incurring any mandatory overtime payments. Indeed, 

once freed of minimum wage and overtime requirements, and I think this point is critical; 

employers could extend even the normal workweek beyond 40 hours without raising pay 

above the threshold set in the bill. 

 In short, we think this is a one-sided deal. Without giving up anything, employers 

get the absolute right to lengthen worker's hours, in some cases effectively cut workers 

pay and to avoid any risk associated with sales. 

 For workers, there are no guarantees. Any benefits that some might arguably 

receive are speculative, and we think they are more than outweighed by the risk, the loss 

of protections and the potential loss of earnings for many other affected workers. 

 I would like to focus on two points that we think are central to the discussion: 

First, many supporters of this legislation justify the notion that inside sales 

workers should lose their minimum wage and overtime rights, because outside sales 

employees don't have them, but this argument completely ignores the reason that outside 

sales workers have always been exempt. The exemption for outside sales workers was an 

accommodation for employers. Congress recognized that it was unfair to impose on 

employers a requirement to pay minimum wage and overtime to workers who were away 

from the work site for more than 80 percent of their work hours and, therefore, employers 

could not monitor when those workers were there, how much they were working, when 

they stopped, when they started. The exemption was not for workers it was for 

employers. 

Second, and obviously this rationale does not apply to workers who work on the 

inside.

 The consequences of this legislation are profound. As Major Owens said, the 

workers who would lose their minimum wage and overtime rights are not simply the 

better-paid workers who are represented here today. Instead, they are largely average 

workers who need and depend on minimum wage and overtime protections to support 

themselves and their families. 

 This proposal reaches workers earning as little as $22,500 a year. That is not a 

high wage. It is less than the eligibility threshold for food stamps. It translates into 

hourly wages that are lower than average hourly wages in 1999. And it is even $1,000 

less than the average annual wages in 1998. 

 In all likelihood, many of the workers who would be affected by this legislation 

depend far more on their guaranteed overtime pay to support their families than they do 

on any commissions they may or may not earn if this legislation were to pass. 

Additionally, this legislation eliminates any break on employers’ imposition of 

mandatory overtime or excessive work hours, and it does not guarantee any added 

earnings for longer hours. Indeed, many workers would actually end up working longer 

for less. 
13

As I have noted, employers would be free to impose as many overtime hours as 

they wanted, and because they were no longer subject to the time-and-a-half overtime pay 

requirement, they would not have any incentive not to do so. Although employees would 

earn commissions for overtime hours, they would earn nothing if they made no sales, and 

they would hence be working for free. Moreover, because employers could unilaterally 

extend the normal workweek beyond 40 hours without increasing pay, an affected 

employee could actually experience a pay cut. 

 These are extraordinarily perverse anomalous results completely contrary to the 

purposes of the FSLA. Finally, we believe that the legislation, despite the test it sets out, 

invites manipulation of workers' duties and pay in order to expand its reach. This type of 

jerry-rigging of job descriptions already occurs under other FSLA exemptions, and there 

is no reason to think it would not happen here, especially among the ranks of lower-paid 

sales workers whose employers could reap huge savings if they were no longer required 

to satisfy minimum wage and overtime requirements. 

 The members of the AFL-CIO certainly believe that workers have problems under 

the existing law. But the problem is not that they have the fundamental right to earn the 

minimum wage and overtime pay. It is instead that although the Fair Labor Standards 

Act is more than 60 years old and conferred bedrock protections, violations persist. In 

1999, alone, the Labor Department collected more than $100 million for more than 

220,000 employees who were found to have suffered minimum wage and overtime 

violations.

 We believe that before Congress takes away minimum wage and overtime 

protections from even more workers, we need to do a much better job of ensuring that 

existing rights are fully respected and fully protected. 

 Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 

PUBLIC POLICY, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mrs. Owens, for your comments. There is 

a lot of suggestion that inside professionals don't make a living wage, et cetera, and that 

this would lead to worsening that.

 I would like to ask you, Mr. Schenauer, what does your average inside sales 

representative make on an annual basis in total compensation? What is the percentage of 

total compensation that comes in commissions and in incentives for your inside sales 

representatives? 

Mr. Schenauer. We have 64 inside sales representatives, and four outside sales 

representative. Our inside sales representatives are paid a salary plus commission. And 

right now of the 64 inside salespeople, the average income is $52,500. 

 The percentage of commission versus salary is 70 percent salary and 30 percent of 

their total compensation is made up of commissions. 
14

Chairman Norwood. Seventy percent is commission? 

Mr. Schenauer. Seventy percent is salary, 30 percent is commission. 

Chairman Norwood. Thirty percent is commission. 

Mr. Schenauer. Thirty percent, yes, sir. 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Tiberi, we are delighted that you have joined us and 

appreciate you and Mr. Andrews dropping this bill. As you know, you will be able to 

question the witnesses, however, only after the Subcommittee has questioned them. 

 But I would like to ask you a question, if I may, about this bill. Is there anything 

in this bill that simply requires employees to work pass 40 hours? The implication is that 

if we pass this bill, then everybody is going to have to work for 60 hours. 

Mr. Tiberi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to have 

a hearing today and I also want to thank Mr. Andrews as well. 

 No is the short answer to your question. There is absolutely nothing in this bill 

that would require an employee to work over 40 hours per week. And again, the purpose 

of this bill is to give the flexibility to the highly trained professional, inside salesperson. 

And I am just going to refer back to the comments of the witness who was born in the 

great Buckeye State, in Cincinnati. Her comments, I think go to the heart of the issue. 

This is really an issue that gives the employee more flexibility. 

Chairman Norwood. So this bill allows the employee to work longer than that if they’d 

like.

Mr. Tiberi. Correct. 

Chairman Norwood. In order to make more money; is what it boils down to? 

Mr. Tiberi. Right. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Norwood. Mrs. Enenmoh, do you consider yourself a working American? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Yes, I do. 

Chairman Norwood. I do, too. I sort of suspected that you did. If we were to pass this 

bill, would this help you as a working American? Would you increase your income? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Absolutely. I have been a sales professional for over 12 years, and I 

thrive on commissions. I thrive on being rewarded for my hard work and my 

performance. That would definitely help me. 

Chairman Norwood. Do you work longer than 40 hours now? 
15

Ms. Enenmoh. No, I do not. 

Chairman Norwood. And is that because the time-and-a-half factor comes in and your 

hours are controlled? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Well, partly. And also because as a professional, it really is disturbing to 

me to have to constantly keep track of hours and time and 20 minutes here and 30 

minutes there or wherever. It disturbs me that I can't think of the big picture and be 

available to my customers when they need me to be, and thereby increasing revenue and 

my income. 

Chairman Norwood. Are you confident that when you tell me this, that you are 

speaking for yourself and your colleagues who are in similar situations? If we would just 

pass this bill, would it help all working Americans to do better? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Absolutely. My colleagues are so excited that I am here because we are 

professionals. We went to college. We want to be in this profession because we enjoy 

having that “income tax return” feeling every month or every quarter. 

Chairman Norwood. You get that? 

Ms. Enenmoh. You get that extra check and you wonder what to do with it. Having 

overtime dollars is not something that excites me. It excites me to get a big bonus check. 

Chairman Norwood. Right; to make those sales. 

Ms. Enenmoh. My colleagues feel the same. 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Schenauer, you want to comment? 

Mr. Schenauer. I’d like to comment on Mary's point. This also offers family members 

and particularly, female inside sales representatives, job flexibility. I know at Valentine's 

Day or Mother's Day, that is our window of opportunity to make a killing on the 

commission check. But in the middle of July, when they can complete their sales within 

a 30-hour workweek, the flexibility just isn't there for them. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, sir. I see my time is up. 

 Mr. Owens, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Owens. Mrs. Owens, as a general matter, considering the costs of training, taxes 

and benefits and assuming no overtime protection, would it be cheaper for an employer to 

require a single worker to work 60 hours or would it be cheaper to hire two workers to 

work 30 hours? 

Ms. Owens. As a general matter, it is cheaper to require a single worker to work 60 

hours. And I think your question goes to one of the original purposes of the overtime 

requirement that there were several. One purpose was because workers in this country, I 
16

mean, if we want to talk about flexibility, the maximum flexibility would be to say I am 

not going to work overtime, but unless one is represented by a union, no worker in this 

country has the right to refuse to work overtime, no worker has a protected right to refuse 

to work overtime. The time-and-a-half pay requirement provides the only tool that 

workers have to discourage the imposition of maximum mandatory overtime. 

 And to your question, Mr. Owens, one of the purposes of the overtime 

requirement also is to create additional jobs, rather than overloading the existing numbers 

of workers with more work hours. 

Mr. Owens. Mrs. Enenmoh, you say you support this bill because it would enable you to 

earn more money by working longer hours? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Owens. Would you support the bill if it required to you work longer hours just to 

make the same amount of money that you already make? Would you support the bill if 

that had the effect on other workers; that is, it required them to work longer hours but 

they got no increase in income? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Well, I am concerned about any employee that would have to work for 

no compensation. So I can't speak to all of the employees in different professions. All I 

can do is speak to sales professionals. 

 There is not a sales professional that I know of, and I belong to different 

organizations, who worries about overtime and working 60 hours a week or more than 40 

hours a week. We know that there is flexibility on the days you don't work 8 hours 

because on some days you work more than that. 

 I have been in the field before as a sales professional. It has never been abused. I 

have never had to work 60-hour weeks on a constant basis. If I were working on a big 

deal, it was up to me and I was rewarded for it because I got the money in the end. 

Mr. Owens. You can't foresee a situation where a worker would be working longer 

hours and some of those hours would be for no pay under the commission system? 

Ms. Enenmoh. No, I really can't see that. I have been on both sides. I have been what 

is called a “sales associate.” I was in a retail organization, people walked up to me, they 

asked for product, and I sold it to them. I didn't consider myself a sales professional.

 In my current job, I do research on my customers. I spend a lot of time helping 

them and thinking about how I can help them solve their issues, meet their business 

needs, and in turn how I can make money for myself. 

 That is why I call myself a sales professional versus something like a sales 

associate. And in the case of the sales associate, I have never seen that kind of thing 

abused, and I really wouldn't expect that to be abused. 
17

Mr. Owens. So are you saying you always earn a commission? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Have I always earned commission? 

Mr. Owens. You always earned commission when you were working extra hours, is that 

what you are implying? If you are good at your work, you will always earn a 

commission so there will never be a situation where you are working extra hours and 

didn't earn anything? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Well, when I was a sales associate, of course, I would get compensated 

for overtime if I worked overtime. 

Mr. Owens. Now you also would under present law? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Yes, under the present law. However, I can't see that a company 

currently would have an hourly employee and work them without overtime. And in my 

case, since I thrive on commissions, I prefer the commissions and the bonuses, versus the 

few extra dollars of overtime pay. 

 But I honestly cannot see that being a problem with someone who is an hourly 

sales employee. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. MacDonald, you said it is too difficult for IBM to track the hours 

worked by inside salespeople if they are allowed to work at home. All IBM has to do is 

to require employees to self-report how many hours they work. IBM can tell employees 

don't work overtime and report every hour you work whether or not it is overtime. 

 Is that very hard? Is the problem that you don't trust your workers to make honest 

reports? 

Mr. MacDonald. No. It is quite to the contrary. I think that is what the revision in this 

act is really saying. We want to trust our employees, but the burden of proof right now 

lies with the employer. 

 So if Mary were to go home at night and work without us knowing it we would be 

in violation of the Act. Therefore, the burden of proof is on us, and the way we can 

assure that we meet the letter of the law is by saying you can't do that at home. I would 

suggest that this really takes the monitoring out of the workplace and, empowers a sense 

of trust in the employee, because they can do what they want to do when they want to do 

it.

 This is a networked and global economy. Consequently, we have to think about 

the fact that this is a sales job not a production-type job. It is different. They don't work 

hour to hour. It is built on relationships, and that is what Mr. Tiberi's exemption is about. 

Mr. Owens . Do you favor a bill that increases minimum wage? If this were 

 part of the package, would you support that legislation? 
18

Mr. MacDonald. Well, I will say it this way in the spirit of candor; I am very fortunate 

to work for a corporation that doesn't have an issue about minimum wage, because we 

pay very competitive wages. That seems to me a decision that has to be reached in the 

halls of Congress about what is right for the country. 

Mr. Owens. Thank you. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. MacDonald. 

 I hope we are all very clear about this bill. This bill is calling for an exemption 

for inside sales reps. It is not calling for an exemption of overtime pay across the board. 

This is only about inside sales professionals. 

Mr. Keller, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is to Ms. Enenmoh. 

 I heard in your comments earlier you were excited about receiving your 

commission check in the mail, and I just wanted to tell you something else to be excited 

about. About 3 hours ago President Bush signed the tax law and as a result as a single 

mom, you are going to be getting another check for $500 in a few months. 

 If this law is changed, won't you miss getting overtime? 

Ms. Enenmoh. No, because the overtime is just such a small part of the picture as a 

sales professional. What I really like is making more than those incremental dollars that 

overtime after taxes can bring. Getting a large check, because I have worked hard and I 

have earned it and I put effort into it, far outweighs those few dollars for overtime. I 

wouldn't miss that, no. 

Mr. Keller. All right. How do you respond to those folks that say in your case if you 

work an extra 10 or 15 hours, you are going to make a little more money because you are 

a star professional? What about those folks who aren't as successful? Don't you have 

some concerns that maybe they are not going to get those commission checks? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Well, a part of this is not just working more hours to get my 

commissions. A lot of it is flexibility, such as leaving at 3:00 because not much was 

happening in the office, my kid had a game. I went to the game. 

 But I know that in the evening, there is going to be a conference call with the 

West Coast with my customer, and I am going to miss that opportunity, because I can't 

call him from home. If I can't call him when he wants me to call him, then guess what, 

by the next day, he already has another taker. 

Mr. Keller. The flexibility is a big part. 

Ms. Enenmoh. Exactly. It is not that I worked more than 8 hours that day; I may have 

only worked 8 hours that day. But I found an opportunity that absolutely made money 
19

for me. 

Mr. Keller. Mr. Schenauer, you heard her articulate testimony. How do your employees 

feel about being exempt from overtime? 

Mr. Schenauer. This addresses your last question and Representative Owens' question 

about working more hours and not making a commission. We are talking about 

professional salespeople. I was a sales rep and I will admit to you that I am a different 

breed of person. 

 I was working hours for the sake of working hours. I was there to make a sale, 

and there is nothing like doing the deal at the end. As you just said, 3 hours ago the tax 

bill was signed, and there was a lot of happy people. Why? Because the deal was done. 

 It is the same thing with the sales professional. I am certainly not saying to you 

that with every hour worked the commission meter is going ding, ding, ding, ding. 

Salespeople are a different breed. They are not going to work 50, 60, 65 hours, if they 

are not making the sales. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you.

Mr. MacDonald, you are an executive here at IBM. You have listened to Ms. 

Enenmoh testify. As someone who is a leader in an organization, are her views on this 

issue relatively reflective of views held by those in your organization that share the same 

position as sales professional? 

Mr. MacDonald. Her colleagues would be very proud of her, because I think she is 

clearly representing them. You know this isn't just our company sitting in a room 

deciding that this is a problem. We as a company have found out about this by 

conducting morale surveys at our employee focus groups. For us, 1400 people in this 

particular case were telling us that they didn't feel like sales professionals. They don't 

feel like they work in an environment that is conducive to them. 

 I will tell you some rather proprietary numbers. Our turnover is higher by a factor 

of three for inside sales than outside sales, yet both are still doing the same exact jobs, 

selling the exact same products and services. One of the things that we have been told as 

they leave is that they don't like to be classified in this manner. 

Mr. Keller. Is that part of the reason you testified earlier? The law, as it stands now, 

impacts your ability to attract and retain top talent? 

Mr. MacDonald. I have gotten to know Mary, and she talked about her college degree 

and what her vision is for her children. I think that what we are trying to do is to place 

people in these key jobs and make them feel motivated in the profession, and they are 

telling us that they don't feel that way. 

Mr. Keller. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
20

Chairman Norwood. Thank you. Now I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 

gentlewoman from Hawaii who grows the best pineapples on the planet, Ms. Mink. 

Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I subscribe to the position that is so well articulated by our Ranking Member, 

Congressman Owens. This matter has come before this Committee previously, and we 

have voted on it on the floor as well. And I don't understand. We have inside 

salespeople and outside salespeople. With the changing scene of business technology 

and commerce a good deal of the work can be done outside, in a home, or in an 

environment as has been described. 

 If such a worker undertook, Mr. MacDonald, to become a sales professional for 

your company and chose to work at home making these sales and earning the 

commissions that would come with those sales, would not that individual be considered 

an outside salesperson? 

Mr. MacDonald. Not with the way we set it up. 

Mrs. Mink. How did you set it up, and why wouldn’t that person qualify as an outside 

salesperson? What in the law says that an outside salesperson has to drive a truck? 

Mr. MacDonald. Well, I am not familiar with how it would relate to a truck driver. I 

am familiar with how it would relate internally. When we do our inside sales teams, part 

of what Mary would tell you is the collaboration that goes on, the ability to get technical 

help.

 You have to realize that the customer that she is selling to is a small- and 

medium-sized customer. When we sell to a large customer, we have teams that are 

relatively available all the time directly at that customer site, where Mary has to go out 

and seek out help. So that is the reason that we consolidate our teams in an inside-sales 

approach; the technical expertise and the ability to team on the core are available. 

Mrs. Mink. So the distinction as you just described it is as a matter of supervision. The 

inside salesperson still requires supervision, because they are put together in the team and 

they are directed by a supervisor on how to do their job. You cannot do that if a person is 

truly professional and is allowed to do whatever they can do to earn a commission, but 

they stay at home and pursue this sales activity? 

Mr. MacDonald. I don't recall using supervision. 

Mrs. Mink. That is the way I interpreted your answer. 

Mr. MacDonald. That is fair. I would say to you that the way the work environment is 

today, it is done with a series of technical and sales teams. 

 I would argue that the supervisor seldom is involved in the customer interface 

and/or sale. Mary has a discretionary opportunity. She makes decisions on her own, and 

I think that is the important thing here. When we look at this exemption, this is allowing 
21

people to have to discretion. 

Mrs. Mink. So why can't your company allow discretion for these individuals who are 

dissatisfied with having to punch a clock and work 40 hours, to work from their homes 

and to have this individualized, personalized relationship with these small and large 

businesses and be motivated primarily from the point of view of earning commissions, 

because that is what this is all about, earning more money? 

 And I don't see the difficulty of your company being able to set aside these 

individuals that you think are capable, becoming outside salespersons so that we don't 

need to pass legislation like this which carves out a category of workers and takes them 

outside of the minimum wage and the overtime. I just don't see it. 

Mr. MacDonald. I will yield to my colleague, because she is anxious to answer your 

question.

Mrs. Mink. Absolutely. 

Ms. Enenmoh. Thank you. That is a very good question. I am so glad I will get a 

chance to explain the difference. 

 Yes, inside can go outside. I mentioned West Coast before. My territory is 

Chicago. However, I have a Chicago company, the Chicago Tribune or the Tribune 

Company. They own the Chicago Tribune Newspaper. They also own the LA Times on 

the West Coast. They own the Orlando Sentinel in Florida. I can't be in all three of these 

time zones at one point. 

 Regarding your question on inside versus outside, the inside sales position was 

developed initially to address customers who were smaller. So that makes me someone 

who calls outside of the Dallas, Texas area. I was glad the inside sales positions were 

developed, because it took me off of the street, where I did not want to be. 

 I wanted to eliminate that windshield time. I now have two small kids. They need 

me home at a certain hour. I don't want to be looking across the desk at a customer at 

5:30 or 6:00 in the evening when I know I need to be home helping my kid with his 

homework. 

 So I chose to leave the outside and go inside, and the inside sales position allowed 

me to continue my profession as a sales professional. So all I want is to continue 

working as a sales professional, but have the flexibility to sometimes make a call when I 

am at home, which now is considered overtime. 

Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. Biggert. (Presiding). Thank you. It appears that it is now my time to ask some 

questions. So I yield myself 5 minutes. 

Mr. MacDonald, are you asking or would you like this exemption, for all of your 

hourly employees? What is the distinction here between other hourly employees and
22

those that you are requesting this for? 

Mr. MacDonald. No. The exemption that we are seeking is for a very limited group of 

people called inside sales. We have 320,000 people worldwide, with 150,000 here in the 

States. Many of those people will continue as nonexempt. This is specifically for this 

group, and basically this Act provides us with a criterion of four or five steps that we 

have to go through. 

 There are still people in inside sales that will not be exempted from this, and we 

will continue to keep them as nonexempt. So this is a very small population that we are 

trying to keep working here. 

Mrs. Biggert. Can you give an example of somebody that might be in inside sales that 

would not be included in this group? 

Mr. MacDonald. The Act, as I understand it, or the amendment would be very specific 

that a relationship does not already exist with the customer. Somebody that was making 

a cold call would not be exempt from this Act and, therefore, would have to have a 

nonexempt status. 

Mrs. Biggert. Would this be somebody like a telemarketer? 

Mr. MacDonald. That would be a good example. 

Mrs. Biggert. Ms. Enenmoh, there seems to be some talk about coercing you to work 

more hours or take this rather than an hourly overtime. Have you heard of anybody who 

has ever said, oh, I would have to work more hours, or I am coerced to do this? 

Ms. Enenmoh. No, and I really can't see that being a concern for any of my colleagues.

As professionals we know that there is always the potential. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay.

 Ms. Owens, have you heard from any of your members who don't want to have 

something like this that they would be able to do under this definition of inside sales? 

Ms. Owens. Our affiliates have, Congresswoman, and the Communications Workers, for 

example, represent about 50,000 members who they think would be affected by this 

provision. UNIT, which is the Needle Trade Union, represents about 5,000 workers, the 

Newspaper Guild represents about 10,000 workers, and the Teamsters estimate that they 

represent as many as 90,000 workers who could be unfavorably affected by this 

provision.

 So we have quite a few members who feel like it is not in their interests. And I 

might add that a number of our members who would be affected are not fortunate enough 

to make $50,000. They would be more towards the low end of the threshold that this 

legislation sets. 
23

Mrs. Biggert. Would there be any possibility that working this way they might be able 

to make more money, or do they feel that they are slotted into that amount? 

Ms. Owens. I think that they feel it is a big gamble. I think also that while it is true that 

this legislation does not require anyone to work overtime, the experiences of many of our 

members in the Communications Workers Union especially, has been that in the last 

several years they have had to work many, many hours of involuntary overtime. 

 That has been a significant factor in many of the strikes and other labor actions 

over the last several years. Even with the protections of collective bargaining 

agreements, which impose some limitations, these workers still feel they have to work 

too many hours and the trade-off is just too great. 

Mrs. Biggert. Are these all workers that have had the technical knowledge that is 

required for this bill? 

Ms. Owens. Many of them are. 

Mrs. Biggert. Are these that have had previous sales? 

Ms. Owens. Many of them are, yes, certainly. 

Mrs. Biggert. How about the detailed understanding of the needs? 

Ms. Owens. Many of these are very highly skilled, highly trained sales workers. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. 

 Mr. Schenauer, if the FLSA requirements are such a big problem, why don't you 

use the outside salespeople? Is it for the same reason Ms. Enenmoh gave regarding 

traveling? 

Mr. Schenauer. Absolutely. We have 3,000 customers, and as I mentioned, we have 64 

inside sales reps, and we talk to our customers every day. For us to do that, I couldn't 

even venture a guess as to how many people we would have to put on the road, which 

was my point in the testimony with putting more cars on the road. So for us it would be 

impossible. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, and my time has expired. 

Mr. Kucinich is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is always interesting to do the 

math on these things. 

First of all, to Ms. Enenmoh and to the rest of the witnesses, welcome, we 

certainly have a high degree of respect for people who go into sales. It is a very 

competitive business. There is high pressure. You produce or you are out. I mean the 
24

gentleman stated the fact that turnover is three times, isn't that what you said? 

Mr. MacDonald. Yes. I said voluntary turnover. 

Mr. Kucinich. Involuntary? 

Mr. MacDonald. I said voluntary, you are implying that it is involuntary. 

Mr. Kucinich. You are saying it is voluntary. Okay. It is a high-pressure business, 

wouldn't you agree? 

Mr. MacDonald. Unequivocally. 

Mr. Kucinich. Okay. So sometimes people can't just take it, they have to leave? 

Mr. MacDonald. We agree on that, too. 

Mr. Kucinich. Is there a point at which people don't produce? If they don't sell, are they 

out? 

Mr. MacDonald. Yes. 

Mr. Kucinich. Okay. I understand the logic, which causes IBM to come here and seek 

this change in the law. You must understand the concerns that we have about a condition 

where people would be in a situation where they could be working overtime because they 

want to; let us say, if they don't sell anything, they don't get anything. 

 I mean you must understand that we are concerned about people who could find 

themselves in a condition where they would work overtime and not get compensated for 

it because they don't sell. 

Mr. MacDonald. I do understand the point. I think that Randy said it quite 

appropriately, that a salesperson is a different breed and they are betting on the upside. I 

mean that is what this is all about. 

Mr. Kucinich. If I may, in this case, sir, the employee takes the risk, not the employer. 

Mr. MacDonald. In any sales environment, typically, some compensation is at risk. 

Mr. Kucinich. But in the case of what you are asking for here, the employee takes the 

risk. I did some math here just using the $52,500 you gave as a kind of an example. 

Mr. Schenauer. That was my example. 

Mr. Kucinich. Were you the one that gave the figure $52,500 for sales? I broke it 

down. If that person said that the commission rate was 30 percent is that right? 

Mr. Schenauer. Yes, sir. 
25

Mr. Kucinich. Okay. I broke that down. If the math is right, about $36,550 of that 

would be salary and the rest would be commission. 

Mr. Schenauer. It sounds about right. 

Mr. Kucinich. I took that and I broke it down hourly. I took the salary part and I 

separated it out from the commission, and what I came up with was this. I looked at 40 

hours a week for 52 weeks and it works out to $18 an hour or $720 a week at 40 hours. If 

that person is put into an overtime situation, because sales is high pressure to produceproduce, maybe they want to. 

 Let us get away from coercion for a second. If they were working as some 

people do when they are in sales, they love to work. I love to work, I probably work 60 to 

80 hours a week easy, easy. I don't know what we make an hour. 

Chairman Norwood. You are not making minimum wage then? 

Mr. Kucinich. But because I love to work, I understand what you are saying. You love 

to do it, just go for it. But let us say somebody is working an average of 20 hours a week 

overtime, because it does happen. Under the current law, they would be entitled to time 

and a half, which would be $27 an hour and just doing the math here that equals a week 

with overtime. People would go from $720 a week to $1260 a week with the overtime. 

 Now if you extrapolated that over a year, just talking about salary or salary with 

overtime would equal $64,630 a year with an average of 20 hours a week overtime. 

Salary with commission is 52,500. That is assuming a 30 percent commission. 

 You know, you can cut this anyway you want. I am saying that my concern is 

that under the formula you are offering, assuming 30 percent, which sounds, by the way, 

a pretty generous commission, frankly, and assuming that everyone is selling at that rate, 

the legislation, of course, covers people at $22,500 with minimum wage and a 40 percent, 

$6,000.

 So I just wanted to point that out to you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee, because it does matter whether people get overtime or not, because that 

means they get rewarded for the time they put in whether they sell or not. 

Chairman Norwood. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

It is a pleasure to recognize my good friend. Would you like to respond to that? 

Ms. Enenmoh. Yes. 

Chairman Norwood. Please do. 

Ms. Enenmoh. Well, I wanted to talk about the $22,000 and this kind of thing. The 

lawyers might disagree, I don't know, but to my mind that person who is probably 

making $22,000 a year is not doing what I am doing. 
26

I know some people who work in telecommunications, and they are in sales.

They make cold calls and they do have technical knowledge. They know their product.

But before they make their call into a household, for example, they don't know anything 

about me. That is a telemarketing move. 

 When I do research, I actually do this with the intent of calling this customer and 

building a business case. So I am just saying that I think that there is a difference in the 

different levels of sales and sales professionals. 

Mr. MacDonald. If you are going to make that apples to apples comparison, you have to 

use the 20 hours. Then I have to ask the question if in 20 hours did she take her quota 

from 650,000; for argument's sake, what would be the leverage on that? And so you can 

make an argument for 540 for overtime, but I may make an argument that that is a 

substantial wealth creation that she can create by taking her quota up beyond that. It gives 

her the opportunity to leverage her own hours of work as she sees fit. I think that is the 

apples to apples comparison we have to use. 

Chairman Norwood. It is a pleasure now to recognize my friend and colleague from 

Georgia, Mr. Isakson. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can, I would like to take the liberty of 

answering Mrs. Mink's question, which is the $64,000 question. 

 It is the Internal Revenue Service that would prohibit IBM from allowing that 

inside salesperson to do outside activity. Everybody needs to listen real close because we 

did this in Congress. You can respond in a minute. 

 There is a specific code section for independent contractors, which prohibits 

benefits being paid to the employee, prohibits structured control of the employee, there is 

a 10-point IRS test. So the Fair Labor Standards Act has its impositions, which don't 

allow it. Second, the Internal Revenue Service Code, which allows it, but under very 

narrow parameters, is not good for the worker in terms of this type of situation. Now, I 

would like to ask Mr. MacDonald a question.

 Mr. MacDonald, do you know of any circumstance where a sales organization 

ever increased its profits by lowering what it paid its salespeople? 

Mr. MacDonald. I have been in the business 32 years, and I have never heard of one. 

Mr. Isakson. I was in sales for 10 years and was President of a company for 22 years, 

and I will submit to you no organization, no component of an organization whose job 

description is sales can increase their profits by reducing what they pay their employees. 

It does not work. 

 And when you read the definitions in here, this specifically precludes any 

manufacturing, and any direct service, other than the service of sales, and particularly is 

defined by a very narrow scope of individual. 
27

I really did want to make those two cases, because I know the IRS test very well 

from past experience. I also know from running a company that went through some very 

difficult times, you are often tempted to tell your salespeople I have got good news, we 

are going to pay you less so we can make more. And it doesn't work because they go to 

the next person. 

 I will in my remaining time admit I may appear to have a prejudice, having been 

in a sales organization myself and been the President of one. Further, I represent IBM's 

other sales center like the one that Mary works in, which is located in Highland Office 

Park in Smyrna, and I think I represent the largest retail florist in the United States, or 

one of them, in terms of Carithers Florist as well. 

 I would point out what the gentleman said are the limitations with regard to 

Valentine's Day and Mother's Day and Christmas. The unintended consequence of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act on a person working in the industry that has peak and narrow 

windows of sales opportunity actually restricts the ability for that individual to make the 

most money they can. 

 That in fact is the truth of the matter in retail, is it not Randy? That in retail sales 

you generally have about 30 percent of the year where you make about 90 percent of your 

money and 70 percent of the year where you make the remaining 10 percent, is that not 

correct?

Mr. Schenauer. You hit the nail on the head. 

Mr. Isakson. It is also true in many types of retail sales. The inflexibility of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act really prohibits an individual like Mary, if she were in inside sales, 

to maximize her earnings potential, particularly if you accept what Mr. MacDonald has 

said.

Mr. MacDonald. By the way you can call me Randy, too. 

Mr. Isakson. The last point I would simply suggest to all of us when we consider this, 

because I have great respect for the workers Ms. Owens is representing. None of us are 

in favor of any semblance of a scenario that would allow employees to be taken 

advantage of.

 I would imagine some of the people that she mentioned with the print industry 

are probably the retail, inside salespeople, that sell classified advertising. I used to buy a 

lot of advertising from them and I would guess they would be the first ones that would be 

happy to have this opportunity to make a lot more money. We really should look at this 

because I think it is a win-win situation from everything I can see. 

 The last thing I would observe is that when the Fair Labor Standards Act passed 

in 1938, the Congress of the United States voted by the Clerk calling the roll and each of 

us having to answer individually. Had we not embraced technology and used our “ATM” 

cards to vote instantaneously and publicly for the whole world to see, we would move 

even slower than we do now, Mr. Chairman. So I think part of this is to be able to take
28

advantage of what technology has done to allow inside sales to be even more productive, 

first for the salesman and second for the company. 

 I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. Owens. Would the gentleman allow Ms. Owens to respond? 

Mr. Isakson. Mr. Owens, I would be delighted to. 

Chairman Norwood. You need to ask the Chair, since his time is up. 

Mr. Owens. I thought he was yielding back his time. Will the Chairman please allow 

her to respond? 

Chairman Norwood. Of course, she can. Ms. Owens, do you have a response? 

Ms. Owens. I am not exactly sure what I am responding to. 

 I would like to respond to something else that was said in terms of some of the 

workers who would be covered in response to a question from Congresswoman Biggert. 

Some of the Yellow Page salespeople that the Communications Workers represent, in 

fact, have to do substantial research, have to know a great deal about their customers, 

have to have a lot of technical expertise, and they are very concerned about the impact 

that this legislation would have on them. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Woolsey, you are now recognized for questions for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I would like to respond to Mr. Isakson's comment about independent contractors, 

and be very clear that an independent contractor is not an employee. An independent 

contractor actually has to be available to work for more than one employer. The situation 

is entirely different from inside and outside sales. It isn't even close. I was a human 

resources professional for 20 years. I have been here 10 years now, but things don't 

change that much. 

 One of the questions I have, I think Mr. MacDonald would be the best to answer 

it. With this gray area, it is clear who is an outside salesperson; the “professional 

salesperson?” Why can't there be a situation where you pay overtime and commissions 

and it can be based on how much the person produces as a commission? Why does one 

have to be exclusive of the other? 

Mr. MacDonald. Well, I can answer that question, because we do pay overtime and we 

do pay commissions. We pay a base, what is called variable pay, which is an IBM wide 

incentive system, and Mary has a commission system. What we are saying is that the 

burden on us is that she can't work flexible hours; she can't go beyond the norm. The 
29

norm being the example that she used about being on a West Coast conference call. 

 This exemption gives her the opportunity to earn more because she is not 

structured and she is not disciplined. So we already do what you suggest. What we are 

really giving is an opportunity for her to have more wealth creation. 

Ms. Woolsey. Well, then that leads me to the issue of allows versus forced, because I 

think that is the problem. When is a person allowed to take care of himself or herself and 

when are they forced to do something by the employer? It brings me to looking at the 

Fair Labor Standards Act for nonexempt employees who do get paid overtime, and the 

issue of meal breaks and rest breaks. A nonexempt employee and the employer are 

mandated to provide those breaks for those employees. 

 If the employer sets up a situation where employees waive those breaks because 

they voluntarily think that they are a better employee to the employer that is not their 

right. They can't voluntarily give up their break, and it sets a precedent that looks like the 

employer expects every single employee to give up their breaks. 

 I am afraid that is what you are aiming at here. I mean I know you don't mean to, 

and IBM would never treat their employees unfairly, but there is the idea that they are 

mandated by the employer to do something that they wouldn't want to do themselves. 

Now, Mary, you want to do this, but there are a lot of people who can't afford to do it and 

aren't earning enough to do to it. 

Ms. Owens, I would like you to respond to this point, and then the other 

witnesses.

Ms. Owens. Congresswoman, thank you. I guess I would like to respond to this larger 

point about flexibility that has been raised and to say that, quite honestly, I understand the 

argument that has to do with working more than 40 hours a week better than I do the 

concerns about flexibility. 

 There is nothing under the Fair Labor Standards Act that prevents an employer 

from saying to an employee go ahead and take 3 hours off this afternoon to go watch 

your child's piano recital or elsewhere, and then put in 3 hours tonight. That is perfectly 

legal. Nothing prohibits that. Nothing prohibits an employer from saying if you are 

going to be on this conference call to California tonight, why don't you come in 2 hours 

late this morning. That is perfectly legal. 

 Similarly, there is nothing about the Fair Labor Standards Act that prohibits or 

restricts any employer from allowing employees to work at home. And, in fact, many 

employers do it. In fact, when I ran a business and employed folks I let them do it, and 

we were considerably lower tech than IBM. 

 So there is a lot within the Fair Labor Standards Act already that permits and 

allows flexibility on the part of employers and employees without running afoul of the 

overtime and minimum wage requirements. 
30

Chairman Norwood. I want to thank all of you for your very thoughtful and interesting 

testimony. I thank the Members for being here. I think this has been a good hearing.

I will close the hearing with one question. Mr. MacDonald, if we pass this bill, 

will you and your company pay more to your employees or less? 

Mr. MacDonald. There is no doubt in my mind two things will happen. One is we will 

pay more. We will pay more and we will adjust because the nature of the work will be 

more comparable to outside salespeople. 

 Two, there is no doubt in my mind based on talking to our employees that they 

will have the ability to make customer contacts as they see fit when it is best for the 

customer and for themselves. There is no doubt in my mind this will be more money for 

everybody.

Chairman Norwood. Mary, if we pass this law, will you make more money or less? 

Ms. Enenmoh. I will make more money. 

Chairman Norwood. Randy, if we pass this law, will your company, your industry pay 

more to employees or less? 

Mr. Schenauer. Chairman, our people work 40 hours a week and there hasn't been a 

year where a sales rep has made less money than the previous year. So based on history, 

yes, certainly our salespeople will make more money. 

Chairman Norwood. Ms. Owens, thank you for your testimony. I won't ask you that 

same question, but I will thank you for your observations about flex time, and when we 

get ready to pass that legislation, I want you to come back and testify for us. 

Mr. Kucinich. Would the chairman yield? 

Chairman Norwood. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kucinich. I think the question that you asked each of the panelists is a great 

question and if the Chair in his wisdom could extend the courtesy of that question to the 

last witness, I would feel that this was a complete hearing. 

Chairman Norwood. The best I can tell, Ms. Owens is not an inside sales rep or 

representing a company that is. That is why I didn't ask her. 

Mr. Kucinich. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, and, you know, I have great respect 

for you, I am just wondering. 

Chairman Norwood. I would feel better if you asked it. Go ahead, Dennis. 

Mr. Kucinich. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence. To the witness representing the 

AFL-CIO, if this legislation is passed, will the tens of thousands of workers you represent 
31

in your presence at this table be making more money or less? 

Ms. Owens. Well, I think they fear that they could well make less and work longer for it. 

I would also like to say that as concerned as the AFL-CIO is about the tens of thousands 

of workers we represent who are affected, we are perhaps even more concerned about the 

hundreds of thousands more who make $22-$23,000 and could really be hurt. 

Mr. Kucinich. I thank the witness. I want to thank the Chair for his kindness. Thank 

you so much. 

Chairman Norwood. You are welcome. You are a good friend, thank you. Let us 

conclude by making a couple of observations. 

One, this Act has always done this. It is high time Members on both sides of the 

aisle throw that out. We are in the 21st century. The Fair Labor Standards Act was 

passed in 1934 and we cannot think that way any longer. Just because it worked well 50 

years ago doesn't necessarily mean it works well today. 

 I am going to conclude now if I may. 

Mr. Owens?

Mr. Owens. May I comment? 

Chairman Norwood. Yes, Mr. Owens. 

Mr. Owens . If the same attitude you are applying here to the Fair Labor Standards Act 

could be applied also to the minimum wage, we could work together on this and really 

come up with some productive legislation. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, you will be happy to know that I voted for the minimum 

wage increase that had the tax cuts in it for small businesses and, in fact, gave the inside 

salespeople the opportunity to use their own skills and head in terms of how much they 

work. So there is your answer. 

Mr. Owens. I look forward to working with you. 

Chairman Norwood. I wanted to point out that just because the Act has been this way 

for 50 years, we cannot just continue as if it is the right thing to do today. My major 

problem, frankly, with the Fair Labor Standards Act is that it is simply not flexible. It is 

a situation where one size fits all, and where parts of things in that Act might work very 

well for some groups and work very well for the AFL-CIO and what they are interested 

in. But after all, most of America is not in the AFL-CIO. There are people out there, 

hard-working Americans, trying to make a living. Now I tend to trust them.

Mary, I believe you are the only one here that is a professional inside sales rep.

And I honestly believe that I could trust you to make a decision about how to best 

maximize your income. This is what this is all about. If she wants to go, Mary ought to 

have the opportunity to go to that ballgame without talking to anybody or make that 
32

conference call at 10 o'clock at night if she wishes. And the reason is because it gives her 

an opportunity to maximize her income. 

 I also want to point out that there is a difference for professional people. Now, 

you have to consider that. They are paid according to their production; sometimes they 

work real hard and don't get paid. But these are Americans, working Americans, who 

chose that kind of life, because they know in the end they have a greater opportunity to 

maximize their income. That is why they chose that. Closing the deal is part of it. I sure 

do understand that, Randy. But the other part is they know they give themselves the 

opportunity to hit the homerun. 

 If that life as a professional person doesn't suit them, not to worry, they will find 

something else to do. If you can't make those sales, for whatever reason, you are going to 

quit doing that, because you are not maximizing the income that you would like to 

receive. Give these folks an opportunity to live their lives. They are not asking us to pass 

this bill because it will hurt them, I guarantee you. 

 Look, I have got some great communication workers in my district, and I am 

pretty close to them and I understand that. They are not exactly as hardheaded about this, 

at least mine aren't, as you imply. I think, yeah, maybe they are more nervous perhaps 

than the employees at IBM. That may be true, too, but these people are professionals. 

 If they can make those sales, they need to be turned loose to make them whenever 

they want to. If you don't pass this, this is not going to increase anybody's income, 

because a company can't pay time and a half. They work at not doing that for obvious 

reasons. Randy, I bet you do pay time and a half sometime, but I bet you don't a lot of 

times. Not passing this bill doesn't increase anybody's income. 

 So I encourage the House of Representatives and, in particular, this Committee to 

consider this bill strongly, as we have done the last two Congresses. Pass the bill and 

give working professionals like Mary a chance to run her whole career the way she sees 

fit, and I bet she will do just great. 

 Thank you all for being here. It has been a pleasure. The meeting is adjourned. 

Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned. 
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Norwood, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31 

Mr. Frost, 4, 5 

Mr. Isakson, 26, 27, 28 

Mr. Keller, 18, 19 

Mr. Kucinich, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31 

Mr. Macdonald, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30 

Mr. Owens of New York, 16, 17, 18, 28, 31 

Mr. Schenauer, 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30 

Mr. Tiberi, 14 

Mrs. Biggert, 21, 22, 23 

Mrs. Mink, 20, 21 

Ms. Enenmoh, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 30 

Ms. Owens, 15, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31 

Ms. Woolsey, 28, 29