U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–251 PDF 2013

H.R. 1406, WORKING FAMILIES 

FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 11, 2013 

Serial No. 113–13 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Duncan Hunter, California 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut, 

Ranking Member 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 11, 2013 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Courtney, Hon. Joe, ranking member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ................................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Roby, Hon. Martha, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Alabama ......................................................................................................... 3 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brantley, Andy, president and chief executive officer, College and University Professional Association for Human Resources .................................. 30 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

DeLoach, Karen Steinhauer, bookkeeper, Diamond, Carmichael, Gary, 

Patterson & Duke, P.A. CPAs ...................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Lichtman, Judith L., National Partnership for Women & Families ............ 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Phillips, Juanita, director of human resources, Intuitive Research and 

Technology Corp., on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management ......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

(1) 

H.R. 1406, WORKING FAMILIES 

FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2013 

Thursday, April 11, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walberg, Kline, DesJarlais, Hudson, 

Courtney, Bishop, and Sablan. 

Also present: Representative Roby. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary; 

Owen Caine, Legislative Assistant; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Benjamin Hoog, Legislative Assistant; Donald 

McIntosh, Professional Staff Member; Brian Newell, Deputy Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Molly 

McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Alissa 

Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Alexa 

Turner, Staff Assistant; Aaron Albright, Minority Communications 

Director for Labor; Mary Alfred, Minority Fellow, Labor; Tylease 

Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jody Calemine, 

Minority Staff Director; John D’Elia, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Daniel Foster, Minority Fellow, Labor; Brian Levin, Minority 

Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; Leticia Mederos, 

Minority Senior Policy Advisor; Celine McNicholas, Minority Senior 

Labor Counsel; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel; and Michele 

Varnhagen, Minority Chief Policy Advisor/Labor Policy Director. 

Chairman WALBERG. A quorum being present, the subcommittee 

will come to order. Good morning to everyone here this morning. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being with us and sharing 

their thoughts on the legislation introduced by our distinguished 

colleague from Alabama, Martha Roby. Representative Roby has 

proven to be a strong advocate for America’s workers and we are 

grateful for her leadership. 

Today we will discuss H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. This important legislation would allow privatesector employees to choose paid time off, or ‘‘comp time’’, as compensation for working overtime hours. 
2 

For nearly 30 years public-sector workers have been able to earn 

comp time and it is only fair to extend the same benefit to millions 

of workers in the private sector who would choose that. Today’s 

workplaces are a lot different than they were just a generation ago. 

Technology continues to alter the way goods and services reach 

consumers and cultural changes have transformed the nature of 

America’s workforce. 

According to the Bureau of a Labor Statistics, in 2011 nearly 60 

percent of married families with children were headed by two 

working families—working parents. Roughly 66 percent of single 

moms and 79 percent of single dads were working. 

BLS also reports that for the same year, 44 percent of all families included children under the age of 18. As a result, it has become more difficult for many parents to balance family and work, 

but that is only one part of the American story. 

For one worker, taking home some additional income to pay an 

unexpected car repair bill is important. For another, leaving work 

early to attend a parent-teacher conference is more valuable than 

a few extra dollars in the bank. 

Choice and flexibility will help workers meet the demands of 

their jobs and attend to the needs of their families. That is why I 

am proud to support Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. The 

bill would give private sector employees a choice between cash 

wages and paid time off for working overtime. 

This is a pro-worker, pro-family proposal that is desperately 

needed. With unanimous consent, I would like to yield to Representative Roby to explain the legislation in greater detail. 

I would now like to yield briefly to the sponsor of the bill. Representative Roby, good to have you with us for any comments on 

the legislation she may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Walberg follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Good morning everyone. I want to thank our witnesses for being with us and 

sharing their thoughts on the legislation introduced by our distinguished colleague 

from Alabama, Martha Roby. Representative Roby has proven to be a strong advocate for America’s workers and we are grateful for her leadership. 

Today we will discuss H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. 

This important legislation would allow private-sector employees to choose paid time 

off or ’comp time’ as compensation for working overtime hours. For nearly 30 years, 

public-sector workers have been able to earn comp time and it’s only fair to extend 

the same benefit to millions of workers in the private-sector. 

Today’s workplaces are a lot different than they were just a generation ago. Technology continues to alter the way goods and services reach consumers and cultural 

changes have transformed the nature of America’s workforce. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011 nearly 60 percent of married 

families with children were headed by two working parents; roughly 66 percent of 

single moms and 79 percent of single dads were working. BLS also reports that for 

the same year 44 percent of all families included children under the age of 18. 

As a result, it has become more difficult for many parents to balance family and 

work—but that’s only one part of the American story. Each worker faces a unique 

set of challenges and responsibilities. For one worker, taking home some additional 

income to pay an unexpected car repair bill is important. For another, leaving work 

early to attend a parent-teacher conference is more valuable than a few extra dollars in the bank. Choice and flexibility will help workers meet the demands of their 

jobs and attend to the needs of their families. 

That is why I am proud to support the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. 

The bill would give private-sector employees a choice between cash wages and paid 
3 

time off for working overtime. This is a pro-worker, pro-family proposal that is desperately needed. With unanimous consent, I would like to yield to Representative 

Roby to explain the legislation in greater detail. 

I would now like to yield briefly to the sponsor of the bill, Representative Roby, 

for any comments on the legislation she may have. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and I also would 

like to extend a very warm welcome to all of our witnesses, but especially our two from Alabama. It is great for you to be with us 

today, all of you. 

Talk to just about any working mom or dad and they will tell you 

they need more time. It is one of our most valuable things that we 

have and, you know, one more hour in the day to be able to take 

care of responsibilities outside of work is very valuable. 

Have any of you ever faced a child’s disappointment when you 

couldn’t leave work to attend a T-ball game or a school play? Have 

you ever wished for more time to devote to an aging parent in need 

of care or extra time with a newborn? Do you know what it is like 

to be a military mom preparing for your husband to deploy and 

knowing your kids are going to need that extra attention and support during those months? 

We, here, cannot legislate another hour in the day, but we can 

help working people better balance the demands of family and 

work by removing unnecessary federal restrictions on the utilization of comp time in the private sector. 

The Working Families Flexibility Act does not change the 40- 

hour workweek or how overtime pay is calculated. Those standards 

remain the same. However, for some workers, having extra paid 

time off is actually more valuable than money, and if that is the 

case, why should Washington stand in the way? 

The law should not make it more difficult for working people to 

balance their time so they can see their child hit a home run or 

attend a parent-teacher conference. This bill leaves it up to the employee to decide when to use his or her comp time, so long as reasonable notice is given and the requested time off would not unduly 

disrupt the business—the same standard that is currently used in 

the public sector. The legislation includes numerous employee protections to ensure the use of comp time is truly voluntary. 

For example, there must be a written agreement between the 

employer and the employee from which the employee can withdraw 

at any time. A worker can cash out their accrued comp time and 

instead receive their overtime wages within 30 days. Additionally, 

all existing enforcement remedies in the law are retained in the bill 

as a new remedy to ensure workers are not forced or coerced into 

choosing comp time. 

Does this legislation solve every problem facing working families? 

No, it does not. But it does offer to make life a little easier for 

working Americans by helping them better balance the demands of 

work and family, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support 

the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me be here, and I yield 

back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady and I thank you for 

your passion on this issue. It is an issue whose time has come and 
4 

we look forward to our discussions today as we prepare to move it 

to the full committee. 

I guess I would say that I think a number of us could use comp 

time today in the number of committees we have to be at at the 

same time. And with that leading, I would say my distinguished 

colleague, Joe Courtney, the senior Democratic member of this 

committee will be joining us shortly. He is on committee work already and will be here. We will recognize him for his opening comments, which we do want to hear at the time that he arrives. 

But until then, pursuant to committee Rule 7(c), all members 

will be permitted to submit a written statement to be included in 

the permanent hearing record, and without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions 

for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted into the official record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses and first I will turn to Representative Roby again to introduce our first two witnesses. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am happy to introduce two of our witnesses here with us today 

both of which are from my home state of Alabama. And I would 

like to first introduce Juanita Phillips who is the director of human 

resources in the Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation in 

Huntsville, Alabama. She has over 24 years of experience as an HR 

professional in the publishing and manufacturing industries and 

with several federal contractors. 

Next, I would like to introduce Karen DeLoach. Karen is actually 

from my hometown of Montgomery. We met for the first time last 

week. She is a bookkeeper at a local accounting firm in Montgomery where she has worked since 2006. 

She has a very interesting story to tell and as a working woman 

who like many of us we wear a lot of different hats, and she will 

provide us with a first-hand account as to how the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013 can have a positive impact on her work/ 

life balance. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you ladies for spending 

your time with us today. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. Maybe we will see 

if the Alabama dialect is across the board with three of you in the 

room today. By the end of the day, we may understand it. Okay? 

[Laughter.] 

Also, we have with us this morning Ms. Judith Lichtman who is 

a senior adviser at the National Partnership for Women and Families in Washington, D.C. Welcome. 

And also Mr. Andy Brantley who is the president and chief executive officer at the College and University Professional Association 

for Human Resources in Knoxville, Tennessee. Welcome. 

I appreciate the fact that our ranking member has arrived. I 

don’t know whether you will be staying too long or not. We all have 

multiple committees and subcommittees to be at this morning, but 

we will recognize you now, Mr. Courtney, for your opening comments. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wore black today— 

in recognition of Michigan’s valiant effort the other night and—— 
5 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman WALBERG. Go Blue. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Yes, well, I did wear blue also because of the 

UConn women Huskies who obviously are—— 

Chairman WALBERG. Congratulations. 

Mr. COURTNEY [continuing]. Amazing program and again, thank 

you for the opportunity again to offer some thoughts at the beginning of this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, this Tuesday was Equal Pay Day. I spent the 

afternoon at another institution, higher education in Connecticut, 

Conn College, speaking to the American Association of University 

Women talking about a meaningful economic agenda for women 

and families which by and large are very much deeply intertwined 

with working families and I heard women talk about the need for 

equal pay, better job opportunities, and flexibility at work so that 

they can deal with family issues when they arise. 

I was hopeful that today would be an opportunity to continue 

that discussion and that we would examine legislation that gives 

working families greater flexibility in managing their work and 

family demands. 

Instead, however, we are debating legislation which frankly has 

been recycled through this committee numerous times and never 

prevailed that forces workers to compromise their paycheck in 

order to have more time off from work. What is worse, this legislation, as I said, has been considered several times before and failed 

to gain any traction. 

Why? Because this bill has nothing to do with promoting workplace flexibility. It is not about paying overtime. It is about saying 

to hourly workers already struggling to make ends meet that if you 

need time off to care for a sick child or attend a school concert you 

need to work extra hours, forgo the earned overtime pay, and then 

as long as it is not disruptive to your employer, you may get some 

time off. 

But to be clear, nothing in this bill requires that the worker has 

access to time off when she really needs it. Working families deserve better than a bill that forces them to choose between overtime pay and the family-friendly policies they desire. 

We should be looking at ways to give workers more power over 

their lives, not hand over hard-fought rights won by workers to 

their employers. 

Under H.R. 1406, workers who already work overtime will not 

get paid for hours worked beyond the 40-hour work—40 hours per 

week. Instead, that the compensation will be controlled by the employer. That amounts to an interest-free loan paid for by the worker’s wages. 

The worker will have to wait until the end of the year to be paid 

for that time. In the meantime, if the firm goes out of business or 

declares bankruptcy, nothing in this bill requires that she is paid 

back. 

Nothing in this legislation mandates that a single worker receive 

a single hour of comp time. Under current law, employers are already free to grant paid or unpaid leave to employees, and again, 

my predecessor in this seat, Senator Christopher Dodd, was the 

leader in the Family Leave Act, which, you know, really carved out 
6 

that protection. I am very proud to say that he is one of my constituents. 

This bill just provides a way for employers to pay workers less 

in the name of workplace flexibility. It is a tired discussion. Nothing in this bill prohibits an employer from preferentially assigning 

overtime to workers who select to receive comp time in lieu of overtime, resulting in workers whose families must rely on overtime 

pay being denied access to—to additional hours of work. 

This bill makes it more complicated to enforce overtime protections. Indeed, at a hearing last Congress in this subcommittee we 

heard from the senior vice president of human resources at IBM 

that tracking comp time would be a challenge for businesses. He 

pointed out that it is ‘‘an administrative burden that is cost ineffective.’’ 

Nothing in this bill provides more resources to the Department 

of Labor to enforce the measure or issue compliance assistance to 

businesses like IBM that may have to establish systems accounting 

for comp time. 

Today is unfortunately a wasted opportunity. Instead of building 

on the momentum of the conversation around Equal Pay Day and 

advancing real family-friendly reforms, the majority is recycling a 

policy that does nothing to help working families. 

Numerous proposals already exist that protect workers’ wages 

and promote workplace flexibility. These proposals provide guaranteed family or medical leave and do not take away from critical 

overtime protections. 

I am proud to have joined my colleague, Rosa DeLauro, from 

New Haven, Connecticut, as an original cosponsor of the Healthy 

Families Act legislation which provides paid sick days to nearly 30 

million workers. 

This would make a meaningful difference for working families. I 

look forward to an opportunity to discuss legislation like the 

Healthy Families Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act that make a 

real difference to our nation’s working families. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Courtney follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Courtney, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Mr. Chairman, this Tuesday was Equal Pay Day. I spent the afternoon at Connecticut College speaking to the American Association of University Women talking 

about a meaningful economic agenda for women families. I heard women talk about 

the need for equal pay, better job opportunities, and flexibility at work so that they 

can deal with family issues when they arise. I was hopeful that today would be an 

opportunity to continue that discussion and that we would examine legislation that 

gives working families greater flexibility in managing their work and family demands. Instead, we are wasting Committee time debating legislation that forces 

workers to compromise their paycheck in order to have more time off work. What’s 

worse, this exact legislation has been considered several times before and failed to 

gain any traction. Why—because this bill has nothing to do with promoting workplace flexibility. It is about not paying overtime. It is about saying to hourly workers 

already struggling to make ends meet—if you need time off to care for a sick child 

or attend a school concert, you need to work extra hours, forgo the earned overtime 

pay, and then, as long as it is not disruptive to your employer, you may get some 

time off. But, to be clear, nothing in this bill requires that the worker has access 

to time-off when she really needs it. 

Working families deserve better than a bill that forces them to choose between 

overtime pay and the family-friendly policies they desire. We should be looking at 
7 

ways to give workers more power over their lives, not hand over hard-fought rights 

won by workers to their employers. Under H.R. 1406, workers who work overtime 

will not get paid for hours worked beyond 40 hours per week, instead, that compensation will be controlled by the employer. That amounts to an interest-free loan 

paid for by the workers’ wages. A worker will have to wait until the end of the year 

to be paid for that time. In the meantime, if the firm goes out of business or declares bankruptcy, nothing in this bill requires that she is paid back. 

Nothing in this legislation mandates that a single worker receive a single hour 

of comp time. Under current law, employers are already free to grant paid or unpaid 

leave to employees. This bill just provides a way for employers to pay workers less 

in the name of workplace flexibility. It is a tired discussion. Nothing in this bill prohibits an employer from preferentially assigning overtime to workers who select to 

receive comp time in lieu of overtime, resulting in workers whose families most rely 

on overtime pay being denied access to additional hours of work. 

This bill makes it more complicated to enforce overtime protections. At a hearing 

last Congress in this Subcommittee we heard from the Senior Vice President of 

Human Resources at IBM that tracking comp time would be a challenge for businesses. He pointed out that it is ‘‘an administrative burden that is cost ineffective.’’ 

Nothing in this bill provides more resources to the Department of Labor to enforce 

the measure or issue compliance assistance to businesses like IBM that may have 

to establish systems accounting for comp time. 

Today is a wasted opportunity. Instead of building on the momentum of conversations around Equal Pay Day and advancing real family-friendly reforms, the Republican majority is recycling a policy that does nothing to help working families. Numerous proposals already exist that protect workers’ wages and promote workplace 

flexibility. These proposals provide guaranteed family or medical leave and do not 

take away from critical overtime protections. I am proud to have joined my colleague Rosa DeLauro as an original cosponsor of the Healthy Families Act legislation, which provides paid sick days to nearly 30 million workers. That would make 

a meaningful difference for working families. I look forward to an opportunity to discuss legislation like the Healthy Families Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act that 

make a real difference for our nation’s working families. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman and points out further good reason for us having this discussion today. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. It is like the traffic lights. Fairly simple. When the light in front of you is green, you have 5 minutes of time to present you testimony. We have your written testimonies and if they go longer than the 5 minutes, we have that information. 

When the light turns yellow, you have 1 minute. And when it is 

red, if you have to proceed through that red light, proceed with 

very much caution and finish—finish your thoughts as quickly as 

possible in that 5-minute period of time. 

Following that, your testimonies—each member will have 5 minutes each to ask questions of you to further expand on what your 

testimony was about. 

And so now it is a privilege to recognize Ms. Phillips for 5 minutes of her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JUANITA PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, INTUITIVE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Courtney, and members of the committee. My name is Juanita 

Phillips and I am director of human resources for Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation at our corporate headquarters 

in Huntsville, Alabama. 
8 

I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Society 

for Human Resource Management or SHRM of which I have been 

a member for nearly 20 years. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee 

on H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act, a bill to allow 

private-sector employers the opportunity to provide paid time off in 

lieu of cash payments for overtime if a nonexempt employee chooses this option. 

And your beautiful spring weather is such a wonderful backdrop 

to any conversation about time away from work, so thank you for 

that. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, comp time has been a choice for 

nonexempt employees in the federal government since 1978 and 

public-sector employees have had it since 1985. 

So the concept of giving employees the choice to select paid time 

off in lieu of cash wages is nothing new. By all accounts, comp time 

has worked well for government employees for nearly three decades 

and it is time to extend this benefit to private-sector employers and 

employees. 

The workforce and workplace have undergone significant changes 

since the Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted in the industrial 

era of 1938. Twenty-first century employees face huge challenges 

as they pursue an optimal work/life fit today. 

Consider for example that 60 percent of employees feel they do 

not have enough time for their children, spouses, partners, themselves managing work, personal and family responsibilities, in 

other words, has employees experiencing a time famine. 

We are all juggling ever more responsibilities between work and 

home and public policy should encourage or allow employers to 

offer voluntary options to help employees meet work/life obligations. 

That is why I am pleased to join SHRM in supporting H.R. 1406 

and commend my home state representative, Mrs. Roby, for introducing this commonsense legislation to give employees choice and 

flexibility. 

H.R. 1406 would amend the FLSA to permit the private sector 

to offer employees the voluntary choice of taking overtime and cash 

payments as they do today or in the form of paid time off from 

work. 

Paid time off would accrue at a rate of 1.5 hours for each hour 

of overtime worked to a max of 160 hours of comp time per year. 

An employer however could choose to cash out comp time after 80 

hours after providing the employee 30 days written notice and all 

comp time would have to be cashed out at year-end. The bill also 

includes several important employee protections. 

Compensatory time off as a workplace option gives nonexempt 

employees more control over their time and can improve morale 

and job satisfaction and increase productivity by giving employees 

the option of increased flexibility. 

Mr. Chairman, my company does a lot of federal government contract work, which means I have nonexempt employees working 

side-by-side with federal government nonexempt employees. It is 

incredibly difficult to explain to my employees why they cannot 
9 

take comp time while the government employees they work alongside can. 

They are left wondering why this arrangement is illegal for Intuitive employees and at the same time legal and available to government employees. This defies logic to them and frankly, to me too. 

My company is committed to a workplace culture that supports 

personal development and work/life needs of our employees which 

helped us to achieve a 94 percent employee retention rate in 2012. 

Intuitive has received numerous best-in-class awards which 

speaks to our culture and programs designed to help our people 

navigate home and work demands. 

I am very often told by employees that Intuitive is the best place 

they have ever worked. All of the workplace flexibility practices 

outlined in my written statement are voluntary. We don’t have to 

offer these benefits at Intuitive, but we do because they work well 

for our employees and help us attract and retain the best. 

That is why H.R. 1406’s voluntary approach to comp time for employers and employees is so important. If enacted, this bill would 

give employers the option of offering a comp time program and employees the choice of whether to participate in the comp time arrangement. 

Under current law, private-sector employers and employees are 

without this option and this choice, an option and choice that their 

government counterparts have enjoyed for more than 30 years. 

Would every private-sector employer adopt a comp time program 

if H.R. 1406 were enacted? Given the diversity of private-sector employers, certainly not, but many would. This option is a step in the 

right direction. 

Mr. Chairman, SHRM appreciates this committee’s examination 

of the Working Families Flexibility Act as one important tool employers can offer to help employees address work and family needs; 

however, we would also welcome and encourage a broader conversation on additional ways to facilitate voluntary employer adoption of workplace flexibility programs. 

Thank you again for inviting me here today, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Phillips follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Juanita Phillips, Director of Human Resources, Intuitive Research and Technology Corp., on Behalf of the Society for 

Human Resource Management 

Good morning Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Courtney, and distinguished 

members of the committee. My name is Juanita Phillips, and I am Director of 

Human Resources at Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation (INTUITIVE) 

at our company headquarters in Huntsville, Alabama. I am pleased to appear before 

you today on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), of 

which I have been a member for nearly 20 years. I am also a member of the North 

Alabama SHRM Chapter and the Alabama State Council. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. 

By way of introduction, I have over 25 years of experience in HR at a publishing 

company, engine manufacturing company and several federal government contractors. I’ve served in HR roles in both collective bargaining and non-unionized environments. 

SHRM is the world’s largest association devoted to human resource (HR) management. Representing more than 260,000 members in over 140 countries, the Society 

serves the needs of HR professionals and advances the interests of the HR profes-
10 

1 Company of the Future Study (2010). Society for Human Resource Management and the 

Economist Intelligence Unit. 

sion. Founded in 1948, SHRM has more than 575 affiliated chapters within the 

United States and subsidiary offices in China and India. 

INTUITIVE is an engineering and analytical services firm begun in 1999 with one 

contract and two employees. Our two owners are very active leaders in the company, 

who sit next door and down the hall from me. We have 275 employees; all but about 

a dozen work within Alabama. It is not easy to get a job with INTUITIVE; we put 

a great deal of effort into our hiring processes, as we are not hiring a person for 

a specific job but are choosing someone to be part of our company. We then put a 

great deal of thought and planning into how we will keep those people and are very 

proud of our 94% retention rate. Each full-time employee has a written plan of what 

they would like to accomplish professionally, and I touch base with each manager 

quarterly to talk about progress toward those plans. In the 14 years we have been 

in business, we have not laid off anyone due to lack of work. We are 30% veterans, 

15% disabled, 25% retired from elsewhere, and 10% co-ops, interns and student 

hires. 

I believe our workplace flexibility practices are a major reason why INTUITIVE 

has been recognized with numerous ‘‘best in class’’ awards, which I outline later in 

my testimony. My company’s policies and programs to support employees’ work-life 

needs help improve engagement and morale, increase productivity, retain top performers, and, ultimately, improve business performance at INTUITIVE. As a result, 

we are always looking for additional opportunities to provide employees with flexibility, and the bill we are here to discuss today would do just that. 

In my testimony, I will outline my strong support for H.R. 1406, the Working 

Families Flexibility Act of 2013, share with you some workplace flexibility practices 

at my company, and offer SHRM’s workplace flexibility policy recommendations for 

Congress. 

Background on Compensatory Time 

In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Among the act’s 

provisions was the requirement that hours of work by non-exempt employees beyond 

40 hours in a seven-day period must be compensated at a rate of 11⁄2 times the employee’s regular rate of pay. In 1978, Congress passed a temporary bill, the Federal 

Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act, which changed the FLSA, 

authorizing compensatory (or comp) time for federal employees. In 1985 the Federal 

Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act was reauthorized and 

made permanent. At the same time, Congress amended the FLSA to expand coverage requirements to include state and local agencies and their employees. During 

that same year, the choice to select comp time in lieu of overtime compensation was 

expanded to state and local agencies and their employees. 

As you can see, the concept of giving employees the choice to select paid time off 

in lieu of cash wages is nothing new—it has been an option widely available to federal employees for 35 years and, by all accounts, it has worked well. While the U.S. 

House of Representatives passed comp time legislation during the 106th Congress, 

the bill unfortunately stalled in the U.S. Senate. In 2003, the Committee on Education and the Workforce favorably reported comp time legislation, but the full 

House did not consider the proposal. 

Since comp time has worked well within the public sector at the state and federal 

level for nearly three decades, it is troubling that Congress has not extended this 

same benefit to hardworking private-sector employees who contribute equally to the 

nation’s workforce and economy. Mr. Chairman, the time has come for Congress to 

approve legislation to give private-sector non-exempt employees the opportunity to 

choose for themselves whether to receive cash wages or paid time off for working 

overtime. 

Need for Compensatory Time 

The FLSA was enacted toward the end of the Great Depression and reflects the 

realities of the industrial workplace of the 1930s, not the workplace of the 21st century. Regrettably, the Act itself and its implementing regulations have remained 

relatively unchanged in the 75 years since its enactment, despite the dramatic workforce and workplace transformations that have occurred during this time. 

The increased diversity and complexity within the American workforce—combined 

with global competition in a 24/7 economy—is driving the need for more workplace 

flexibility. C-suite executives, for example, say the biggest threat to their organizations’ success is attracting and retaining top talent.1 Human resource professionals 

believe the best way to attract and retain the best people is to provide workplace 
11 

2 Challenges Facing Organizations and HR in the Next 10 Years (2010). Society for Human 

Resource Management. 3 National Study of the Changing Workforce (2008). Families and Work Institute. 

flexibility.2 Moreover, a large majority of employees—87 percent—report that flexibility in their jobs would be ‘‘extremely’’ or ‘‘very’’ important in deciding whether to 

take a new job.3

Employees in the 21st century workforce face significant challenges as they pursue an optimal work-life fit. For example, a 2011 report from SHRM and the Families and Work Institute found that a growing number of employees report not having enough time for themselves or to spend with loved ones. According to Workplace 

Flexibility in the United States: A Status Report, women’s responsibilities at work 

and men’s responsibilities at home have increased, resulting in more feelings of 

work-family conflict among both male and female employees. More than 60 percent 

of wage and salaried employees feel they do not have enough time to be with their 

children, their spouses/partners, and to spend on themselves. Managing work, along 

with personal and family responsibilities, in other words, has resulted in a ‘‘time 

famine.’’ 

Consider too that four in five of all employees who are married are in dual earner 

households and that one of every five employees currently provides elder care. There 

is no doubt that employees today are juggling ever more responsibilities between 

work and home, which is why many employees are requesting more flexibility at 

work. Therefore, public-policy proposals that encourage or allow employers to offer 

voluntary work-life options are welcomed. 

H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013 

SHRM commends Representative Martha Roby (R-AL) for introducing H.R. 1406, 

the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. On a personal note, I am particularly 

pleased to speak in support of this bill today given its sponsor, Representative Roby, 

is from my home state of Alabama. 

H.R. 1406 would modernize the application of the FLSA to the private sector by 

permitting employers to offer their employees the voluntary choice of taking overtime in cash payments, as they do today, or in the form of paid time off from work. 

Just as with overtime payments, paid time off would accrue at a rate of 11⁄2 hours 

for each hour of overtime worked. Employees would be able to accrue up to 160 

hours of comp time per year, although an employer could choose to ‘‘cash out’’ the 

comp time after 80 hours after providing the employee with 30 days of notice. An 

employer would also be required to cash out any unused comp time at year’s end 

at the higher of the regular time and a half rate at which time was earned or the 

final regular rate. 

The Working Families Flexibility Act also includes important employee protections. For example, employees can choose whether or not to even participate in a 

comp time arrangement, giving employees choice and control. Under the bill, an employee must voluntarily enter into a written comp time arrangement with the employers. Any employer coercion is prohibited as is conditioning employment based 

on participation in a comp time program. These rights may be enforced in the same 

way as other rights and protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is also important to note that this legislation does not affect the 40-hour workweek or change 

the way that overtime is calculated. 

Providing this comp time option would allow employees the opportunity to build 

a bank of time that they can use to take paid time off when they need it, provided 

the time off does not unduly disrupt the business operations of the employer. If the 

employee chooses a comp time arrangement but later prefers to receive cash wages 

for overtime hours worked, the employee can discontinue the comp time program 

by giving the employer written notice. Compensatory time off as a workplace option 

gives non-exempt employees more control over their time and can improve employee 

morale and job satisfaction and increase productivity by giving employees the option 

of increased flexibility. 

On a personal note, as I mentioned previously, my company is a federal government contractor, which means I have non-exempt INTUITIVE employees working 

side-by-side with federal government non-exempt employees. Mr. Chairman, it is incredibly difficult to explain to my employees why they cannot take comp time, while 

the government employees they work alongside can. Why would this arrangement 

be illegal for INTUITIVE’s employees but not only legal but available to government 

employees? This defies logic to them and frankly, to me too. 

Therefore, I am pleased to join SHRM and its 260,000 members in strong support 

of H.R. 1406 and urge this committee to advance this important legislation for consideration by the House of Representatives. 
12 

Workplace Flexibility at INTUITIVE 

As I mentioned above, INTUITIVE is committed to a workplace culture that supports the personal development and work-life needs of its employees, which has 

helped us achieve a 94% retention rate, a rarity in our industry. As a small company (currently 275 employees), we are very creative in providing employee benefits 

and workplace flexibility options. 

We are honored to have been named the #2 Best Small Company to Work for in 

the U.S. in 2011 and 2012 by the Great Place to Work Institute (2⁄3 of scoring based 

on anonymous online employee surveys), and to have been ranked #2 in the Best 

for Vets Award given by the Military Times Edge Magazine for 2012. 

In 2012, INTUITIVE was the only company in North Alabama to be recognized 

for the fifth year in a row as one of the Best Places to Work in Huntsville, Alabama, 

(entirely based on anonymous on-line employee surveys) by the Huntsville/Madison 

County Chamber of Commerce, the North Alabama Society for Human Resource 

Management and the National Children’s Advocacy Center. We also won the Family 

Friendly Award for Huntsville, and we have appeared in AARP’s Top 50 Employers 

in the U.S. for Workers over 50 three years in a row. 

These awards are evidence of the programs and overall approach we take at INTUITIVE to helping our people navigate home and work demands. 

Having the ability to design our workplace practices in ways that support our mission and values, and that develop and fulfill our employees, is critical to us. Employers like ours want to be able to continue to manage our workplace in ways that 

work for us and that provide us these outcomes. It is of utmost importance to us 

to inspire and engage our employees. Our 94% retention rate of employees, and a 

greater than 1,330% increase in the number of applicants in the last few years both 

can be greatly attributed to our employees feeling that their work is more than just 

a job. In fact, the ‘‘wall words’’ on the wall in the HR department read: 

‘‘Nothing sells our company like the stories of engaged workers who take pride in 

where they work.’’ 

Here are some of the components of INTUITIVE’s approach to workplace flexibility: 

Flexibility—One of the key components for helping employees navigate work and 

home is being able to offer flexibility in work hours. Because we serve many customers that have differing approaches to work hours, we are generally able to match 

up candidates and employees with the type of flexibility they need. This can sometimes even be done on a temporary basis, when an employee has such a need. We 

have full-time and part-time positions, and a ‘‘provisional’’ category. This is a category for those who don’t fit the other two—such as those who work full-time for 

periods of time and then part-time for periods of time, those who work on a couple 

of projects per year and don’t work in between, those whose hours are sporadic, and 

are co-ops, interns, and student hires. We also have employees who have compressed workweeks and some who telecommute, and we offer job sharing and 

phased retirement. Our full-time exempt employees just have to get 80 hours in during the two-week pay period, providing them with flexibility for appointments, 

school activities, etc. Our non-exempt employees, even though they are full-time, do 

not currently have this flexibility as it is illegal under the FLSA. Employees can 

work better and live well when such options are available. 

PTO—We offer Paid Time Off (PTO) leave, which is a combination of vacation and 

sick leave. The amount of PTO an employee receives is above the average in our 

area per Chamber of Commerce-sponsored wage and benefit surveys. Under our 

plan, new employees receive 15 PTO days per year accrued per pay period and 

available for use immediately, and employees reach 20 days of PTO at three years 

of service. The PTO approach to providing leave is consistent with treating employees as adults; they manage their time-off balance however they wish without keeping track of multiple banks of leave or needing excuses to suffice requirements for 

certain types of leave. Additionally, there are no issues over whether sick leave covers caring for a child or a relative, etc. PTO can be used for any reason, and no 

documentation is required. In addition, along with our monetary bonus programs, 

we also have the option of rewarding employees with bonuses or providing employees with additional PTO, especially those employees who have circumstances for 

which they may appreciate additional PTO days more than money. Overall, providing our employees PTO leave contributes positively to our professional environment. 

Additional Paid Leave for the Flu—We don’t want flu to be spread among employees, and so we provide unlimited paid leave to any employee who has the flu or if 

anyone in their household has the flu. This leave does not count against their PTO 

balance and we require no documentation. Because of the type of workforce we have 
13 

and because of our company culture, no one in the company abuses this practice; 

it works great. 

Holidays—Another way we provide flexibility to our employees is that INTUITIVE makes all ten of our holidays floatable. If employees prefer to work any particular holiday, they may do so as long as their workplace is open that day and they 

have supervisory approval. All earned holidays simply must be used before the end 

of the calendar year. This approach is valuable to employees in that it provides 

them with flexibility for scheduling time off, and for making their holidays coincide 

or alternate with a working spouse’s holidays, depending on their needs. 

Veterans Programs and VIP Leave—I mentioned that INTUITIVE was named the 

#2 Best for Vets Award winner among employers, according to Military Times’ Edge 

Magazine in 2011. INTUITIVE has a very active veterans’ network within the company, and a very robust veterans program, including each new-hire vet getting to 

meet our VIP (Veterans Information Program) Contact Coordinator on their first 

day and then being connected to a veteran within the company with whom they 

have something in common. We have a VIP site on our employee portal page 

(intranet), which is dedicated entirely to information and resources for our veterans. 

One component of our VIP program is VIP leave, which provides up to three days 

off with pay per year for appointments at a VA hospital or for a family member’s 

mid-tour return visit. Additionally, activated reservists are given the difference between their military pay and their civilian pay for up to 6 months. And we love calling our vets ‘‘VIPs.’’ 

Elder Care Benefit—Employees who are also caregivers are becoming more and 

more common, as some of the generations in our workplace are not only taking care 

of children, but are also taking care of aging loved ones. We are proud to have an 

elder care benefit that provides each employee with a free 45-minute consultation 

each year with experts in the field of elder care, and provides discounts on further 

services. This benefit also includes four Lunch ’n Learns annually on various elder 

care topics, which a spouse or family member may also attend. A Lunch ’n Learn 

is also provided for managers on the topic of supervising caregivers. The information 

shared is excellent; the resources are much appreciated, and it is a further program 

that assists employees with managing their personal or family life and work. 

Parental Leave—Our short-term disability (provided to all full-time employees at 

no cost, and available for purchase by non-FT employees) provides 70% of regular 

pay for up to 11 weeks. That benefit covers moms, and when dads plan time off for 

a birth or adoption, they generally have saved enough leave for the event. When 

moms or dads are short we often find a performance event for which to bonus them 

with additional PTO. We also provide an Adoption Benefit, which is a monetary benefit upon completion of a successful adoption in which neither adopting parent is 

the biological parent. Due to our generous short-term disability policy and bonus 

practices, no one has had to rely on Family and Medical Leave Act coverage in the 

14-year life of the company. 

Disability Insurance—In addition to the short-term disability described above, the 

company provides long-term disability to all full-time employees and makes it available for purchase to non-FT employees. 

Daycare—We are purposely located next door to two daycare facilities. Several of 

our employees use those daycare facilities because of the proximity to our facility, 

making their daily life a bit easier. One employee could for a time look out her window and see her son on the playground. 

Along with enhancing work-life balance for everyone, our work schedule flexibility 

is especially attractive to retirees. We have many employees who have previously 

retired, but come to work for us because they have exactly the skills we need to 

support specific customers and still want to make a difference. Our structure allows 

us to be able to provide the flexibility they often want. In fact, 25% of our employees 

are retired from elsewhere, and 8% are using our phased retirement approach. 

Overall, 30% of our workforce has flexible start and stop times, 10% have a compressed workweek; and 4% work from home. We believe all of these practices contribute to our ability to attract, hire, and retain the best talent. 

Mr. Chairman, all of these practices are voluntary. We don’t have to offer these 

benefits at INTUITIVE, but we do because they work well for our employees and 

help us attract and retain the best people. However, if INTUITIVE’s benefits were 

forced onto another employer in Huntsville, or across the state or the country, these 

benefits might not work as well for them given that every workforce is unique. 

That’s why this bill’s (H.R. 1406) voluntary approach to comp time for employers 

and employees is so important. If enacted, this bill would give employers the option 

of offering a comp time program and employees the choice of whether to participate 

in the comp time arrangement. Under current law, private-sector employers and em-
14 

ployees are without this option and this choice—an option and choice that their government counterparts have enjoyed for more than 30 years. 

SHRM’s Recommendations for a 21st Century Workplace Flexibility Policy 

HR professionals are on the front lines of devising workplace strategies to create 

effective and flexible organizations. As such, SHRM and its members have given 

careful consideration to the role public policy can play in advancing the adoption 

of workplace flexibility. It is our strong belief that public policy must not hinder an 

employer’s ability to provide flexible work options. Rather, public policy should 

incentivize and enhance the voluntary employer adoption of workplace flexibility 

programs. 

We are pleased to support H.R. 1406 because it meets this important threshold. 

The Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013 would provide private-sector employers with an additional flexibility offering for their non-exempt employees. Would 

every private-sector employer adopt a comp time program if H.R. 1406 were enacted? Given the diversity of private-sector employers, certainly not, but many organizations would offer comp time to give employees more flexibility, and HR professionals believe that providing this option is a step in the right direction. 

Allowing comp time in the private sector is only one part of the solution, however. 

SHRM and its members believe the United States must have a 21st Century workplace flexibility policy that reflects the nature of today’s workforce, and that meets 

the needs of both employees and employers. It should enable employees to navigate 

their work and personal needs while providing predictability and stability to employers. Most importantly, such an approach must encourage employers to offer 

greater flexibility, creativity and innovation to meet the needs of their employees 

and their families. While the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013 certainly 

meets these criteria, more needs to be done. 

In 2009, SHRM developed a set of five principles to help guide the creation of a 

new workplace flexibility statute. In essence, SHRM believes that all employers 

should be encouraged to provide paid leave for illness, vacation and personal days 

to accommodate the needs of employees and their family members. In return for 

meeting a minimum eligibility requirement, employers who choose to provide paid 

leave would be considered to have satisfied federal, state and local requirements and 

would qualify for a statutorily defined ‘‘safe harbor.’’ The principles are as follows: 

Shared Needs—SHRM envisions a ‘‘safe harbor’’ standard where employers voluntarily provide a specified number of paid leave days for employees to use for any 

purpose, consistent with the employer’s policies or collective bargaining agreements. 

A federal policy should: 

• Provide certainty, predictability and accountability for employees and employers. 

• Encourage employers to offer paid leave under a uniform and coordinated set 

of rules that would replace and simplify the confusing—and often conflicting—existing patchwork of regulations. 

• Create administrative and compliance incentives for employers who offer paid 

leave by offering them a safe-harbor standard that would facilitate compliance and 

save on administrative costs. 

• Allow for different work environments, union representation, industries and organizational size. 

• Permit employers that voluntarily meet safe harbor leave standards to satisfy 

federal, state and local leave requirements. 

Employee Leave—Employers should be encouraged voluntarily to provide paid 

leave to help employees meet work and personal life obligations through the safeharbor leave standard. A federal policy should: 

• Encourage employers to offer employees some level of paid leave that meets 

minimum eligibility requirements as allowed under the employer’s safe-harbor plan. 

• Allow the employee to use the leave for illness, vacation, personal and family 

needs. 

• Require employers to create a plan document, made available to all eligible employees, that fulfills the requirements of the safe harbor. 

• Require the employer to attest to the U.S. Department of Labor that the plan 

meets the safe-harbor requirements. 

Flexibility—A federal workplace leave policy should encourage maximum flexibility for both employees and employers. A federal policy should: 

• Permit the leave requirement to be satisfied by following the policies and parameters of an employer plan or collective bargaining agreement, where applicable, 

consistent with the safe-harbor provisions. 

• Provide employers with predictability and stability in workforce operations. 
15 

• Provide employees with the predictability and stability necessary to meet personal needs. 

Scalability—A federal workplace leave policy must avoid a mandated one-size-fitsall approach and instead recognize that paid leave offerings should accommodate 

the increasing diversity in workforce needs and environments. A federal policy 

should: • Allow leave benefits to be scaled to the number of employees at an organization; 

the organization’s type of operations; talent and staffing availability; market and 

competitive forces; and collective bargaining arrangements. • Provide pro-rated leave benefits to full- and part-time employees as applicable 

under the employer plan, which is tailored to the specific workforce needs and consistent with the safe harbor. 

Flexible Work Options—Employees and employers can benefit from a public policy 

that meets the diverse needs of the workplace in supporting and encouraging flexible work options such as telecommuting, flexible work arrangements, job sharing 

and compressed or reduced schedules. Federal statutes that impede these offerings 

should be updated to provide employers and employees with maximum flexibility to 

navigate work and personal needs. A federal policy should: • Amend federal law to allow employees to manage work and family needs 

through flexible work options such as telecommuting, comp time, flextime, parttime, job sharing and compressed or reduced schedules. 

• Permit employees to choose either earning compensatory time off for work hours 

beyond the established workweek, or overtime wages. 

• Clarify federal law to strengthen existing leave statutes to ensure they work for 

both employees and employers. 

Conclusion 

In the global, 21st century economy, workplace flexibility policies help both multinational corporations and small businesses meet the needs of their employees. At 

its core, workplace flexibility is about improving business results by providing employees with more control over how, when and where work gets done. H.R. 1406 

would give private-sector non-exempt employees more control by giving them the option of paid time off in lieu of cash wages for overtime hours worked. 

My company and employers across the country would appreciate the option of allowing for comp time as a way to help employees better meet their work-life needs. 

For over 30 years, comp time has had a successful track record for federal employees and it’s time to extend this benefit choice to employees in the private sector. 

SHRM remains committed to working with the Subcommittee and Members of 

Congress to ensure employers can continue to provide workplace flexibility strategies in a manner that does not threaten existing benefits or create unnecessary and 

counterproductive regulations. We believe it’s time to pursue a new approach to this 

issue absent of rigid, unworkable mandates which result in unfavorable unintended 

consequences. It’s time to give employees greater flexibility and to give employers 

more predictability. 

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

Before we introduce the next witness, today is quite a busy day 

for many members, myself included, and I have another committee 

I have to go defend a bill on right now. 

So I ask unanimous consent that Representative Roby, a member 

of the committee and the sponsor of the bill, H.R. 1406, serve as 

the chair at today’s hearing in my absence. 

No objection being heard, I thank Representative Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY [presiding]. I didn’t bang it. 

Next, I would like to recognize Mrs. DeLoach for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN DELOACH, BOOKKEEPER 

Ms. DELOACH. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, 

now Chairwoman Roby and distinguished members of the committee. 

My name is Karen DeLoach. I am very grateful for the opportunity to convey my testimony today. I only hope that it proves 
16 

helpful in your determination about the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. 

It is great to live in a country where our government officials 

want to hear the voice of ‘‘Jane Q. Public,’’ I have friends in parts 

of the world where that is not allowed. With that being said, I will 

move to the heart of my story. 

I was raised with a strong work ethic and a focus on the importance of family. I became a part of the workforce when I was 17 

years old, and I have worked for nearly all of the last 31 years. I 

married in 1984, and we soon moved from Georgia to Alabama. 

I was married for nearly 7 years and had three children in that 

marriage. Due to multiple problems that we could not work out, we 

divorced. I was then a single mother of three for the next 7 years. 

In 1992, my annual income was approximately $18,000.00, and 

by the grace of God, our family of four survived from paycheck to 

paycheck and miracle to miracle. Because I was the only parent 

available for the children, I exhausted my sick and vacation time 

every year. 

Fifteen years ago, I married a wonderful man who had three 

children of his own, two of them were still in college. My husband, 

James, is a professor at a local university. He teaches finance, primarily to adults who want to further their education to attain promotions with pay increases. 

I appreciate that my husband sees this as a way to help entire 

families have better lives, and I respect him for his contribution to 

our community. All of our children are adults now, some with children of their own. We have six grandchildren, and we look forward 

to the time that we get to spend with them. 

So, now I come to mention the Working Families Flexibility Act 

and how I perceive that it could be a positive step for employees 

in the private sector. 

You may wonder why compensatory time could matter to an 

empty-nester who seems to be in pretty good health. Why would I 

need more time off from work than the paid, sick, and vacation 

time that my employer agreed to allow annually? 

Well, I have learned in the last several years that there can still 

be many unforeseen needs in addition to any planned break from 

the routine. One such case involves my youngest sister and her 

family, who live in Montgomery. 

My brother-in-law’s family owns Central Alabama Greenhouse, a 

small business, and 14 years ago yesterday, they were blessed with 

the birth of their first-born child, Katie. My niece is a vivacious 

young lady who was born with special needs. They make numerous 

trips to Children’s Hospital in Birmingham for routine checks and 

sometimes more serious things. 

My sister must have someone who is capable of operating Katie’s 

feeding tube to travel with her for these appointments. Because the 

greenhouse business can have very busy seasons, her husband can’t 

always go with her and I like to be available to go with her anytime that she calls because that is important to me. 

It was actually that sister and brother-in-law who introduced me 

to the accounting firm where I now work. I started working at Diamond, Carmichael, Gary, Patterson and Duke, in September of 
17 

2006. They are a great establishment to work for and willing to be 

flexible about my time, as flexible as the law will allow them. 

I am in hopes that this bill passes and allows my employer to 

offer greater flexibility to the employees. 

In the summer of 2007, after listening to a presentation on missions at my church, I was overwhelmingly compelled to go on and 

participate in international missions. During the summer of 2008, 

I went on my first mission trip to Nicaragua. 

We brought reading glasses as well as some household items to 

families in remote areas. More important than the material things 

that we brought, was the time that we spent with the people there. 

People were free to talk about their problems, and I was able to 

encourage them, pray with them, and tell them how Jesus Christ 

had changed my life. 

I have gone back to Nicaragua each year many times to unfamiliar areas, working with local pastors bringing shoes, clothes, 

and other items to them, and I still see that the time spent playing 

with the children or listening to mothers talk about their concerns 

about their family and the future that they might have matters 

more to them than any objects. 

I am thankful that I have the opportunity to go and serve, even 

if it means taking time off without pay. Working as a bookkeeper 

means that certain times of the year, like tax season are much 

busier than others. 

If I work overtime in April, for example, I would rather take that 

time—that overtim—in time later in July say when I am going to 

be going on a mission trip rather than to have extra money in April 

and then in July to have to go without any pay for a week. 

Mission trips are a wonderful way to serve others and to learn 

about different cultures in the world. I was raised to believe that 

it is important to assist others. In my community, I am a volunteer 

on the Elmore County Juvenile Conference Committee. 

The EJCC was formed to help youth in our community who have 

gotten into trouble with a first offense/non-violent crime. Our district court judge, Maura Culberson, refers eligible cases to the committee. 

We learn specifics about the young people as they come through 

our program and we use those things to—I am sorry—to help them 

and their parents engage in new behaviors that will help change 

the course of their lives for a brighter future. 

The EJCC develops constructive sanctions that are tailored to 

families’ needs. We have an annual luncheon and training session 

which takes half the day in the spring time and this year I wasn’t 

able to stay for the entire day because I didn’t have enough vacation time saved up. 

Right now, committee members, you have the ability to empower 

families across the nation with freedom of choice. You could afford 

me the freedom to choose whether I want to take my overtime pay 

in days or dollars. 

In the last 3 years, my mother, my brother, my father-in-law, 

and one of my sons-in-law have all passed away; some at relatively 

early ages. I am not getting any younger and neither is the rest 

of the world, so time is precious to me. I would greatly appreciate 
18 

the option to work—at work to choose between being compensated 

in the dollars or the days, as I have said. 

In closing, given the public sector has utilized in this plan for 

nearly 30 years and continues to keep it in place leads me to think 

that our government already deems this a viable plan. 

Since the bill includes a provision whereby it would cease to exist 

after 5 years unless Congress extends it or makes itpermanent, I 

believe that comes with its own safety valve of sorts. This bill offers 

flexibility; not a mandate. 

Thank you for your time today and for the freedom to express my 

personal story. 

[The statement of Ms. DeLoach follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Karen Steinhauer DeLoach, Bookkeeper, 

Diamond, Carmichael, Gary, Patterson & Duke, P.A. CPAs 

Good Morning, Chairman Walberg and distinguished members of the committee, 

my name is Karen DeLoach. I am very grateful for the opportunity to convey my 

testimony today. I hope that it proves helpful in your determination about the 

Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. It is great to live in a country where our 

government officials want to hear the voice of ‘‘Jane Q. Public’’, I have friends in 

parts of the world where this is not the case. With that being said, I’ll move to the 

heart of my story. 

I was raised with a strong work ethic and a focus on the importance of family. 

I became a part of the workforce when I was seventeen years old, and I have worked 

for nearly all of the last thirty-one years. I married in 1984, and we soon moved 

from Georgia to Alabama. I was married for nearly seven years and had three children in that marriage. Due to multiple problems that we could not work out, we 

divorced. I was then a single mother of three for the next seven years. In 1992, my 

annual income was approximately $18,000.00 per year. By the grace of God, our 

family of four survived from paycheck to paycheck and miracle to miracle. Because 

I was the only parent available for the children, I exhausted my sick and vacation 

time every year. 

Fifteen years ago, I married a wonderful man who had three children of his own, 

two of them still in college. So we are a blended family, a very well blended family. 

My husband, James, is a professor at a local university. He teaches Finance, primarily to adults who want to further their education to attain promotions with pay 

increases. I appreciate that my husband sees this as a way to help entire families 

have better lives, and I respect him for this contribution to our community. All of 

our children are adults now, some with children of their own. As a matter of fact, 

we have six grandchildren now, and we happily look forward to the time that we 

get to spend with them. 

So, now I come to the mention of the Working Families Flexibility Act and how 

I perceive that it could be a positive step for employees in the private sector. You 

may wonder why compensatory time could matter to an empty-nester who seems to 

be in pretty good health. Why would I need more time off from work than the paid 

sick and vacation time that my employer agreed to allow annually? Well, I’ve 

learned in the last several years that there can still be many unforeseen needs in 

addition to any planned break from the routine. One such case involves my youngest 

sister and her family who live in Montgomery. My brother-in-law’s family owns Central Alabama Greenhouse, which is a small business. Fourteen years ago, yesterday, 

they were blessed with their first-born child, Katie. My niece is a vivacious little 

girl who was born with special needs. They make numerous trips to Children’s Hospital in Birmingham for routine checks and sometimes more serious things. My sister must have someone who is capable of operating Katie’s feeding tube, to travel 

with them for these appointments. Because the Greenhouse business can have very 

busy seasons, her husband cannot go to all of the appointments. I want to be available for those times when my sister asks me for help, because they are so important 

to me. 

It was actually that sister and brother-in-law who introduced me to the accounting firm where I now work. I started working at Diamond, Carmichael, Gary, Patterson and Duke, (then with fewer partners) in September of 2006. They are a great 

establishment to work for and are willing to be flexible about my time, but only as 

flexible as the law allows. I am in hopes that this bill passes and allows my employer to offer greater flexibility to the employees. From August 2011 through Octo-
19 

ber 2012, I worked full time to help my church, East Memorial Baptist, before returning to Diamond, Carmichael where I am still employed. 

In the summer of 2007, after listening to a presentation on missions at church, 

I felt strongly that I must get involved. I was overwhelmingly compelled to go and 

participate in international missions. During the summer of 2008, I went on my 

first mission trip to Nicaragua. We brought reading glasses as well as some household items to families in remote areas. More important than the material things 

that we brought, was the time that we spent with people there. People were free 

to talk about their problems, and I was able to encourage them, pray with them 

and tell them how Jesus Christ has changed my life. I have gone back to Nicaragua 

each year, many times to unfamiliar areas, working with local pastors and bringing 

shoes, clothes, and other items to them. I still see that the time spent playing with 

children, or encouraging mothers who are worried about the futures of their children are more precious to them than objects. I am thankful that I have the opportunity to go and serve, even if it means taking time off without pay. Working as 

a bookkeeper means that certain times of the year, such as the quarterly payroll 

tax return months, are much busier than other times of the year. If I work overtime 

in April, for example, I would like to have the option of choosing to reserve that 

time to be taken off from work as compensatory time rather than making extra 

money in April and then taking leave without pay in June or July, when participating in missions. 

Mission trips are a wonderful way to serve others and to learn about different cultures in the world. I was raised to believe that it is important to assist others. In 

my community, I am a volunteer on the Elmore County Juvenile Conference Committee (or EJCC). The EJCC was formed to help the youth in our community who 

have gotten into trouble with a first offense/non-violent crime. Our District Court 

Judge, Maura Culberson refers eligible cases to the committee. We hope to learn 

something about the young people who come through our program in order to help 

them and their parents engage in new behaviors that will help change the course 

of their lives for a brighter future. The EJCC develops constructive sanctions that 

are tailored to the family’s needs. Although the monthly committee meetings are 

held during the evening, there is an annual luncheon and training session which 

takes one half of a work day each March. This year, I did not attend the full session 

because I had not yet accrued the vacation time needed to do so. 

Now, I come to the part of my testimony that reveals more about what drives this 

issue home for me. In 2009, I got a phone call from my sister-in law in Columbus, 

GA. She told me that there was an emergency at the hospital. My older brother, 

Jay, had respiratory failure while in the E.R. admissions office. While they were 

able to revive him, he had to be intubated * * * that is put on a respirator. He 

was only fifty years old at the time, and through the combination of a congenital 

heart defect and decades of cigarette smoking, his body was rapidly shutting down, 

one system at a time. My sister and I dropped everything and went directly to the 

hospital, an hour and a half away. Our father traveled over five hours to be at his 

side. My brother was in the ICU for one full month. When someone is in ICU, the 

visiting hours are extremely limited and yet I knew that I needed to be there as 

much as possible for my brother. Waking up connected to a respirator was horrifying for him. He was scared and he needed family to be there. His wife was overwrought with emotion and could not handle this on her own. The hospital had called 

for the palliative care specialist to come in because they believed that he would not 

leave that hospital alive. I believe that seeing family present in the room with him, 

praying for him, singing to him and encouraging him all helped turn things around 

for my brother in 2009. At this time, I could not tell you how much time I missed 

from work; I only know that my sister and I alternated days in the hospital with 

Jay and he was able to walk again, breathe again and live at home again. In June 

of 2012, our brother passed away. No amount of money would have been worth 

missing the chance to be there for my brother in his time of need. 

Right now, committee members, you have the ability to empower families across 

the nation with the freedom of choice. You could afford me the freedom to choose 

to use my overtime as leave time, while my coworker can still choose overtime pay, 

if she likes. 

In the last three years, my mother, my brother, my father-in-law and one of my 

sons-in-law have all passed away, some at relatively early ages. I am not getting 

any younger, and neither is the rest of the world so yes, I say again, time is precious 

to me. I would greatly appreciate the option at work to choose between being compensated in dollars or days. 

Given that the public sector has utilized this plan for nearly thirty years and continues to keep it in place leads me to think that our government already deems this 

a viable plan. Since the bill includes a provision whereby it will cease to exist after 
20 

five years unless Congress extends it or makes it permanent, I believe that it comes 

with its own ’safety valve’ of sorts. This bill offers flexibility not a mandate. 

Thank you for your time today and for the freedom to express my personal story. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you. 

Next I recognize Mrs. Lichtman for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH LICHTMAN, SENIOR ADVISOR, 

NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES 

Ms. LICHTMAN. Good morning. I am Judith Lichtman—I am Judith Lichtman, senior advisor at the National Partnership for 

Women and Families, a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group that 

has fought for every major policy advancing and helping women 

and families. 

As you know, people today are struggling to meet the demands 

of job and family and to make ends meet. In most families all 

adults work. Women comprise half of the workforce and our earnings are essential. 

Women also remain the primary caregivers for most families, 

which is why we urgently need lawmakers to take the next step on 

the road to a family-friendly nation, but H.R. 1406 is not the next 

step. It is really a U-turn that would leave us heading in the wrong 

direction. 

Instead of building on the success of FMLA, state and local paid 

sick days laws, and a fair minimum wage, this so-called flexibility 

bill offers forced choices and false promises. 

It pretends to offer time off, but instead gives workers a pay cut 

without a guarantee of time off when they most need it. It sets up 

a false dichotomy between time and money at a time when working 

families urgently need both. 

Proposals identical to 1406 have been introduced before but fortunately have not become law. That is good news because it would 

undermine the Fair Labor Standards Act, which for 75 years has 

required that hourly, nonexempt employees be paid time and a half 

if they work more than 40 hours per week. 

1406 would reduce workers’ control over their time and their 

paychecks. 1406 allows employers to offer comp time in lieu of 

overtime although it requires quote/unquote—‘‘An agreement by an 

employee to accept comp time.’’ An employee could easily feel obligated to agree to comp time. 

An employee who doesn’t accept comp time could be penalized 

with fewer hours, bad shifts, and loss of overtime and because it 

is cheaper to provide comp time than to pay overtime wages, there 

is an incentive for employers to hire fewer people and rely on overtime hours, paid for in future comp time, to get work done. 

As we all well know, you can’t pay the rent or buy groceries with 

comp time. 

1406 would mean fewer jobs. It could mean greater scheduling 

instability, uncertainty, and unpredictability, higher childcare 

costs, and lower wages. 

It would permit employers to defer compensation for unused 

comp time for as long as 13 months, creating an interest-free loan 

for employers and hardship for workers. 
21 

The so-called flexibility offered by 1406 is really a mirage. It 

would give employers, not employees, the flexibility to decide when 

and even if comp time can be used. 

It offers no remedy if an employee is not allowed to use accrued 

comp time except to ask that the time be cashed out. Employees 

simply should not have to put in work beyond a 40-hour workweek 

and forgo pay to earn time to care for themselves and their loved 

ones. 

We ask you to reject 1406. It is deeply flawed and would cause 

real harm to workers at a time when the nation’s working families 

urgently need workplaces that are more fair and family-friendly, 

this bill is an empty promise. 

It is a cruel hoax that would take the country in the wrong direction. We must not require workers to subsidize their own time off 

with lower wages and more time on the job, as H.R. 1406 does. Instead, we should adopt national policy solutions patterned on those 

with a proven record of success in cities and states. 

Instead of wasting time on smoke and mirrors, I urge you to support the Healthy Families Act, which makes earned sick days available to millions;; paid family and medical leave insurance modeled 

on successful campaigns, programs in California and New Jersey;; 

expand access to FMLA for more workers for more reasons, so parents really could take time off to attend parent-teacher conferences; 

The Fair Minimum Wage Act; the Paycheck Fairness Act to help 

those gender-based wage gap measures to encourage fairer and 

more predictable work hours. 

Those are the advances that the nation needs. Those are the initiatives that Americans support. Those are the best next step for 

our nation’s workers and our families, employers, communities, and 

the economy. 

I thank you all very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

We look forward to working with you to adopt policies that are 

truly family-friendly. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Lichtman follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Judith L. Lichtman, 

National Partnership for Women & Families 

Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Courtney, members of the 

Committee and my fellow panelists. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before 

you today on H.R. 1406. 

I am Judith Lichtman, senior advisor at the National Partnership for Women & 

Families, a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization. For four decades, we have 

fought for every major policy advance that has helped women and families. We promote fairness in the workplace, access to quality, affordable health care, and policies 

that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family. Our goal is 

to create a society that is free, fair and just, where nobody has to experience discrimination, all workplaces are family friendly, and every family has access to quality, affordable health care and real economic security. 

Formerly the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, the National Partnership for Women 

& Families is proud to have drafted the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and 

led the coalition that fought to make it law. Since 1993, women and men have used 

the FMLA more than 100 million times to care for themselves or their loved ones. 

It is an historic law that has had a tremendous impact, and a shining example of 

what can be accomplished when lawmakers work together to address the nation’s 

needs. The FMLA was intended as a first step toward a nation with public policies 

that truly value families. 
22 

It Is Time to Update Our Nation’s Family Friendly Laws, But H.R. 1406 Offers a 

False Choice Between Time and Pay 

As lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged, people today are 

struggling to meet the demands of job and family, as well as to make ends meet. 

In most families, all adults work. Women comprise half of the workforce and women’s earnings are essential to their families. Women also remain primary caregivers 

in most families. 

We all know these are tough times. Across the nation, women—and men—are 

struggling to get by on less, and to meet both the demands of their employers and 

the needs of their families. They are worrying about whether their jobs are secure, 

and trying to hold onto them without the time off they need. Many also contend 

with work schedules that are unpredictable, inflexible and unstable. 

So it should be no surprise that, in a survey commissioned by the National Partnership in November 2012, 80 percent of working women and 72 percent of working 

men said they, their neighbors or their friends face hardships when managing work, 

family and personal responsibilities.1

There is no question that Americans need lawmakers to take the next step on the 

road to a family friendly nation. But H.R. 1406 is not what the nation needs. It is, 

at best, an empty promise. In truth, it would cause considerably more harm than 

good. 

Quite simply, H.R. 1406 would be a step in the wrong direction. Instead of building on the success of policies such as the FMLA, paid sick days standards and a 

fair minimum wage—which provide workers and their families with the time off and 

the financial stability they need—this ‘‘flexibility’’ bill offers forced choices and false 

promises. 

This legislation is based on smoke and mirrors. It pretends to offer the time off 

people need when they need it, but in fact, it is a pay cut for workers without any 

attendant guarantee of time. It also sets up a dangerous, false dichotomy between 

time and money when, in fact, working families need both. 

H.R. 1406 has been introduced multiple times, in identical form, since the late 

1990s. Fortunately for the nation’s workers, it has not become law. That is good 

news because this bill would undermine the very purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which for 75 years has helped protect the working hours and paychecks of covered employees. The FLSA’s requirement that hourly, non-exempt employees be paid time-and-a-half for every hour of work in excess of 40 hours per 

week was intended to spread job opportunities to more workers and create disincentives for overwork, giving working women and men the ability to spend time with 

their loved ones. 

H.R. 1406 would leave workers with neither pay nor time. Let me tell you about 

a woman the National Partnership and our colleague organization, Family Values 

@ Work, met in 2011 when we convened discussion groups to examine the challenges facing workers to inform the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Dialogue 

on Workplace Flexibility. 

In Los Angeles, we met a widowed clerical aide we’ll call Susannah who has a 

20-year-old son, a 19-year-old daughter, a 5-year-old daughter, and a 73-year-old 

mother with health problems.2 This hourly worker said her hours had been cut from 

40 per week to 30, but her workload had not decreased. ‘‘We put in a lot of ’voluntary’ time,’’ she explained. ‘‘We get told things like, ’If you can’t handle it or it’s 

too much work for you, maybe we can find someone else.’’’ Despite family obligations 

that required her to be home in the evenings, Susannah felt constant pressure from 

her supervisor to work extra hours on short notice. ‘‘If I need to work overtime, I 

do it to keep my job,’’ she explained, even though those extra hours often created 

child- or elder-care problems and extra expenses. At the same time, Susannah said 

her employer treated her with suspicion when she needed to take a day off to care 

for her sick child. She said she sometimes goes to work sick for fear that taking 

a day off would mean losing her job. 

Susannah is just one of the many workers whose experiences put a face on data 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and major national surveys that show declines 

in the value of workers’ wages, declines in workers’ control over their work hours 

and schedules, and growing fears of termination that prevent workers from asserting their rights. It also illustrates the family demands that workers face, and how 

hard it can be to care for children and parents at the same time, especially without 

guaranteed time off and enough income to cover unexpected expenses. 

We heard from workers with similar stories all over the country, and their experiences shine a bright light on why H.R. 1406 is so deeply flawed. It would give workers less control over both their time and their paychecks. It does not guarantee the 

time off that workers need, regardless of their opportunity or ability to work overtime hours. And for the growing segment of workers whose challenges stem from 
23 

the opposite problem—working too few hours involuntarily with too little predictability—this proposal would do absolutely nothing to assure access to either the pay 

or the paid time off they need to meet their family responsibilities.3

Comp time, accepted freely and fairly and available on demand for non-vulnerable 

workers, may have a place in a suite of policy solutions to help workers and families. But H.R. 1406’s brand of comp time is designed to benefit employers only. It 

does not offer any of the protections workers need. It is tone-deaf to what workers 

are experiencing right now. 

The following are our specific concerns about H.R. 1406. 

H.R. 1406 Magnifies the Power Imbalance between Employees and Employers 

H.R. 1406 places significant power in the hands of employers, while limiting the 

ability of employees to earn the wages they need to support their families. It permits employers to offer comp time in lieu of overtime to one, some or all eligible 

workers. And although it requires an ‘‘agreement’’ between employers and employees, it does not give an employee wishing to remain in her or his employer’s good 

graces any true ‘‘choice.’’ As a worker said recently in a focus group commissioned 

by the National Council of La Raza, ‘‘[T]he employer can abuse you, can use you 

because you’re scared to lose your job. You lose your job, they fire you, they’ll get 

somebody else or two other people.’’ 4

Few hourly workers—and almost none without union representation—have real 

bargaining power in the workplace. These low-wage workers tend to rely on overtime pay to make ends meet. They also are at high risk for wage theft, where wages 

are withheld or reduced by unscrupulous or thinly capitalized employers.5

In the current climate, in which Americans are deeply concerned about losing jobs 

or being unable to work enough hours to make ends meet,6 employees will be coerced into accepting comp time instead of pay, for fear of losing their livelihoods altogether. And, as I’ll discuss in a moment, the comp time offered here may not even 

be available when workers need it, rendering this proposal a true wolf in sheep’s 

clothing. 

This legislation would put workers at very real risk. An employee who does not 

accept comp time could find himself or herself penalized with fewer hours, non-preferred shifts and loss of overtime work. The employee’s ‘‘choice,’’ then, would be to 

accept comp time instead of needed pay or, if he or she reasonably asks for pay for 

overtime work and faces retaliation, try to fight it in court. That is an unrealistic 

expectation for workers who fear losing their jobs and have no resources with which 

to litigate. 

H.R. 1406 Would Mean Less Work for Some and More Work—and Extra Expenses— 

for Others 

H.R. 1406 undermines the central tenets of Section 7 of the FLSA: creating reasonable work hours for all, and work and job opportunities for many. Because it is 

cheaper for employers to provide comp time than to pay overtime wages, there is 

a significant incentive for employers to hire fewer people and rely on overtime hours 

paid for in future comp time—to get work done. H.R. 1406 could translate into fewer 

jobs at a time when the economy needs more people working. And it would mean 

greater scheduling instability, uncertainty and unpredictability for workers who are 

asked to work overtime hours; potentially greater childcare and transportation expenses; and yet fewer dollars in workers’ pockets to meet the additional costs and 

inconveniences that more overtime work would bring. 

H.R. 1406 Means Less Paycheck Security for Employees and an Interest-Free Loan 

for Employers 

H.R. 1406 would permit employers to defer compensation—in money or time—to 

employees for as many as 13 months. In essence, comp time creates an interest-free 

loan for employers because employees who work overtime today may not see the 

value of that overtime for more than a year. 

The legislation allows employers to retain and earn interest on the wages they 

would otherwise have been obligated to pay. Although it is true that an employee 

can trade banked comp time for overtime pay, employers have a full 30 days to 

grant the request. That means that an employee who needs the overtime pay to 

make ends meet may have to wait a full month for it. 

H.R. 1406 Fails to Provide the Time that Working People Need 

The worker flexibility offered by H.R. 1406 is nothing more than a mirage. That’s 

because this proposal gives the employer, not the employee, the ‘‘flexibility’’ to decide when and even if comp time can be used. The plain language of the bill requires an employee to make a request in advance, gives the employer a ‘‘reasonable 

period’’ after the request is made to allow the employee to use the time, and permits 
24 

the employer to deny the request entirely if the employee’s use of comp time would 

‘‘unduly disrupt’’ operations. 

This means that a mother who asks to take comp time to stay home with her toddler because her child care provider is sick has no guarantee that she’ll be able to 

use the time she’s earned and banked. And there is no guarantee that a son’s request to use a week of comp time to help his aging parent relocate to a nursing 

home will be granted. Just as workers like Rosa, a hotel housekeeper, are denied 

the use of vacation leave they have earned for important family events like a daughter’s communion,7 so too will workers be denied the use of the comp time they have 

earned through long hours on the job. 

If an employee’s request is arbitrarily or unfairly delayed or denied, H.R. 1406 

provides no recourse. There is no remedy under this proposal for an employee who 

is unable to use accrued comp time, except to ask that the time be cashed out. This 

is far from the kind of family friendly policies workers need. 

H.R. 1406 Jeopardizes Employees’ Wages When Firms Die 

All of this assumes the employer remains in business and employees can eventually use the time they’ve banked, or receive the cash equivalent when banked time 

is paid out. But H.R. 1406 provides no protections to employees when firms collapse 

or go bankrupt. As a result, a worker could lose the value of unused comp time— 

up to 160 hours per employee, or more than $2,200 for a typical worker.8 The receipt of comp time in lieu of overtime could also have repercussions for employees 

seeking unemployment compensation. 

This significant loss of income would affect not just individual employees but— 

when large employers close their doors—whole communities. On average, more than 

three million employees lose their jobs each year when businesses close. Even at the 

peak of the last business cycle, about 600,000 firms employing 3.4 million workers 

went out of business in one year.9 And during the most recent recession, firm deaths 

outnumbered firm births across all sectors.10

H.R. 1406 Fails to Provide Affordable Remedies to Workers or Resources to the Department of Labor 

Even under current wage and overtime law, unscrupulous employers regularly 

violate employees’ rights to earn overtime payments because the benefits of noncompliance outweigh the financial liabilities. H.R. 1406 would increase employers’ 

incentives to ignore the FLSA’s wage and overtime provisions. It does not provide 

administrative remedies for employees who have been coerced into accepting comp 

time or whose rights to freely choose comp time versus overtime payments have 

been violated. Instead, employees’ only recourse is through the courts. But few lowwage workers have the resources to sue. And, as noted above, employees have no 

right at all to use the comp time they have accrued when they need it. 

In addition, H.R. 1406 adds significant new provisions to the FLSA and creates 

a new imperative for employee and employer outreach, but provides no additional 

funds for the education and enforcement efforts its new provisions will require. The 

U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division already struggles to enforce 

the FLSA with too few investigators and too small a budget; recent fiscal pressures 

will only stretch DOL’s resources even more. 

For each of these reasons—and because employees simply should not have to put 

in extra time beyond a 40-hour week and forgo pay simply to earn time to care for 

themselves or their loved ones—we ask you to reject H.R. 1406. It is a deeply flawed 

proposal that would cause massive harm to workers. It offers a false, flawed choice 

that would make times even tougher for workers and their families. It would be a 

giant step in the wrong direction for the country. We can do better. 

Toward a More Family Friendly and Prosperous Nation: Public Policy Solutions 

That Workers and Families Need Most 

We commend the committee for recognizing the important role that public policies 

can play in setting our nation’s course. Too often, work-family conflicts are seen as 

individual struggles to be managed privately rather than as a common thread that 

connects virtually every working parent or adult child and that binds the interests 

of employees, employers and communities. 

False Assumptions Have Impeded Our Progress 

For too long, a number of false assumptions have stood in the way of progress. 

The organized business lobby and other opponents have perpetuated the idea that 

family friendly policies are zero-sum, expensive and marginal to working families’ 

economic stability and well-being. The opposite is true. Employees, families, businesses, taxpayers and government all have a stake in creating more family friendly 

workplaces and increasing the economic security of working families. I want to re-
25 

fute these false assumptions so we can move beyond them and consider the policy 

solutions working people need. 

The most egregious myth perpetuated by the organized business lobby is that expanding work-family policies harms employers. Done right, these policies can benefit 

business. Research confirms what working families and responsible employers already know: When businesses take care of their workers, they are better able to retain them. Workers paid fair wages have more ability to support local businesses. 

And workers with the security of paid time off and flexibility increase their commitment, productivity and morale—and employers reap the benefits of lower turnover 

and reduced training costs.11

Studies show that the costs of losing an employee, including advertising for, interviewing and training a replacement, are often much greater than the cost of providing short-term leave to retain an existing worker. The average cost of turnover 

can range from 25 percent to 200 percent of an employee’s annual compensation.12

This is why the Council of Economic Advisors in 2010 recognized the imperative for 

more flexible, family friendly workplaces. And this is why a growing number of businesses are supporting increases in the minimum wage and the establishment of paid 

sick days and paid family leave laws. 

A second, related myth is that humane leave policies are too costly for taxpayers. 

In reality, these policies provide cost-savings to governments as well as businesses. 

A recent study shows that if all workers had paid sick days, 1.3 million emergency 

room visits could be prevented each year in the United States, saving $1.1 billion 

annually. More than half of these savings—$517 million—would accrue to taxpayerfunded health insurance programs such as Medicare and the State Children’s 

Health Insurance Program.13 In addition, both women and men who take paid leave 

after a child’s birth are significantly less likely to rely on public assistance or food 

stamps in the following year.14 And women who take paid leave are more likely to 

be working nine to 12 months after a child’s birth and to have higher earnings.15

Like other policies that promote higher wages and economic opportunity, paid leave 

helps grow the economy and the tax base while reducing reliance on public services. 

A third myth is that only women care about family friendly policies, which are 

marginal to families’ economic security. Women remain our families’ primary caregivers to children and elders. However, women are nearly half the workforce, men 

increasingly manage responsibilities at home as well as in the workplace, and both 

genders feel intense work-family conflict and need better ways to manage job and 

family responsibilities. Regardless of the gender of family caregivers, the absence of 

family friendly policies harms families financially. 

It is time to reject these absurd myths, which have been disproven time and 

again, and instead work together to adopt innovations that are long overdue. We 

do not need to require workers to subsidize their own time off with lower wages and 

more time on the job, as H.R. 1406 does. Instead, we need to adopt national policy 

solutions patterned on those working well in states and cities across the country. 

Paid sick days and paid family and medical leave would boost incomes and the 

economy and would, in many cases, lead to cost-savings over time for employers. 

The policies I’ll discuss have strong popular support across the political spectrum. 

In a poll commissioned by the National Partnership last November, 86 percent of 

voters said it is important for Congress and the President to consider new laws to 

help keep working families economically secure, including ensuring workers the 

right to earn paid sick days and creating a system of paid family and medical leave 

insurance. Policies that would provide wage protections in the form of a higher minimum wage and fair pay for women have nearly universal support. Policies that 

would promote more flexibility and predictability for workers while recognizing the 

needs of business are overwhelmingly popular as well. 

Families, Businesses and the Economy Will Benefit When Workers Are Paid Fair 

Wages 

It is a huge problem for our country that the value of workers’ wages has declined. That makes overtime pay even more important for workers who are able to 

work overtime. While H.R. 1406 would literally take money out of workers’ paychecks, an increase in the minimum wage would promote greater financial stability. 

The Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R. 377/S. 84) would increase wages for 30 million 

workers, most of them women. Nearly 28 percent of those who would see a wage 

increase are parents; more than 17 million children have a parent who would benefit. A rise in the minimum wage would increase consumer spending, stimulating 

the economy. By the third year, when the minimum wage reaches $10.10 per hour, 

the Fair Minimum Wage Act would generate more than $32 billion in additional 

economic activity and approximately 140,000 jobs.16
26 

It is also a huge problem for the country that the gender-based wage gap is pervasive and unrelenting. Families headed by women pay an especially high price. Over 

the course of a year, wages paid to women with full-time, year round jobs average 

$11,000 less than the wages paid to men with full-time, year round jobs. That 

money could buy 89 weeks of food or pay more than a year of rent.17 The disparity 

for African American women and Latinas is even greater than for white women. 

For many women who experience gender discrimination in wages, and whose families suffer as a result, overtime pay is key to financial stability. H.R. 1406 would 

further diminish their earnings by threatening these women’s ability to earn overtime pay. 

In contrast, the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377/S. 84) would increase women’s 

financial stability by promoting fair pay practices. It would help women challenge 

and eliminate discriminatory pay practices, help train women and girls in salary negotiation, support government collection of critical wage data, and reward employers 

that have good pay practices. If you want to help women and their families and level 

the playing field, you will pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

Employees Must be Able to Earn Paid Sick Days to Protect Their Health and Economic Security 

Everyone gets sick or needs medical care, for themselves or their families, at some 

point. While H.R. 1406 does nothing to assure that workers will have sick days 

when they need them, the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1286/S. 631) would allow 90 

percent of the private sector workforce to earn paid sick time to use when they need 

it.18 The Healthy Families Act would ensure that most of the 43 million workers 

who do not have any paid sick time could start to accrue it.19 It would allow workers 

to earn up to seven paid sick days annually to use to recover from short-term illness, care for a sick family member, seek routine medical care or obtain assistance 

related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Employers that already provide this type of leave would not have to provide additional sick time, and small 

businesses with fewer than 15 employees would be exempt. 

Families suffer when workers cannot earn paid sick time. For the average family 

without paid sick days, just a few days of lost income due to illness can jeopardize 

the families’ grocery budget for an entire month.20 Nearly one in four adults nationwide has lost a job or been threatened with job loss for needing time away from 

work to address a personal or family illness.21

The Healthy Families Act is a much more effective solution than H.R. 1406 in 

providing workers with the time they need to care for their loved ones and themselves. It guarantees employees the ability to use that time off while respecting employers’ needs for stability in their business operations. For restaurant workers who 

cook our food, childcare workers who tend to our children and care workers who 

support the frail elderly, the Healthy Families Act would be a step forward while 

H.R. 1406 would be a step in the wrong direction. At a time when more than half 

of parents do not have even a few paid sick days they can use to care for an ill 

child 22 and tens of millions of workers have family eldercare responsibilities,23 we 

need the real solutions the Healthy Families Act would provide. 

Paid sick days laws are working well around the country. San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle have successfully implemented paid sick days standards, 

as has Connecticut. Portland, Oregon, and New York City will have paid sick days 

standards in place next year. San Francisco’s paid sick days law has been in place 

since 2007 and the number of businesses and jobs in the city has increased relative 

to the surrounding five counties.24 Workers and their families have benefitted with 

little to no burden on employers. In fact, two-thirds of San Francisco employers now 

support the city’s paid sick days law.25

But illness knows no geographic boundaries. Access to paid sick days should not 

depend on your zip code. We need a national standard. A working mother in Alabama and a working father in Virginia should have the same right as workers in 

Connecticut to take a day away from work to care for a feverish child, a parent with 

a broken hip, or to get medical care. The Healthy Families Act would guarantee that 

time. H.R. 1406 would not. 

Workers Need Paid Family and Medical Leave and Expanded FMLA Protections 

During the Best and Worst of Times 

In addition to paid sick days to cover short-term needs, nearly all working men 

and women will need time away from their jobs at some point to care for a new 

child or seriously ill loved one or to address their own serious health condition. Tens 

of millions of workers cannot afford to take the time they need without some wage 

replacement,26 and H.R 1406 would do nothing to address this urgent need. It does 

not even offer a guarantee that an expecting parent who planned carefully for time 
27 

away from work to welcome a new child to the family—or a sister who wants to 

help a sibling through cancer treatment—would be able to take banked comp time 

to meet those needs. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, H.R. 1406 would not even ensure that a parent who wanted to use banked comp time to attend a parent-teacher 

conference would have that leave request granted. 

As prominent current and former lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle 

have noted recently in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the Family and 

Medical Leave Act, it is time for the United States to adopt a national system of 

paid family and medical leave insurance and to expand unpaid, job-protected FMLA 

leave to cover more workers who need leave for more reasons. 

Only 11 percent of private sector workers have designated paid family leave 

through their employers,27 and fewer than 40 percent have personal short-term disability insurance through an employer-sponsored plan.28 Only about 50 percent of 

first-time mothers can cobble together any form of paid leave, whether sick or vacation days, disability insurance, or something else. That number has been stagnant 

for a decade. Fewer than 20 percent of women with low levels of formal education 

have access to paid leave—and that number has not increased since 1961.29

Adopting a national paid family and medical leave insurance program, similar to 

successful state programs, would: increase families’ financial stability; promote better health outcomes for children, elders and caregivers; generate new tax revenues; 

and reduce burdens on the social safety net. In the year following a birth, new 

mothers who take paid leave are 54 percent more likely to report wage increases 

and 39 percent less likely to need public assistance than mothers who do not. Fathers who take paid leave are also less likely to need public assistance.30 Paid leave 

also safeguards the income and retirement security of workers with eldercare responsibilities who might otherwise have to drop out of the workforce. On average, 

a worker who is 50 years of age or older who leaves the workforce to take care of 

a parent will lose more than $300,000 in wages and retirement income.31

To better understand the need for—and the potential power of—a national paid 

leave policy solution, we can look to the two states that have created paid leave insurance systems. California created the nation’s first statewide paid family leave insurance program in 2002, and New Jersey followed in 2008. These programs were 

built upon those states’ much older and well-established temporary disability insurance systems, which workers have been using for decades to take leave from work 

to address their own serious health conditions. Women who use California’s paid 

family leave program are better able to arrange child care and to breastfeed their 

children for longer, both of which are associated with improved child well-being.32

Men are more likely to take leave now, sharing more equally in caregiving responsibilities with women.33 And California employers have been able to implement the 

program smoothly. About 60 percent have been able to coordinate their own benefits 

with the state program, which has likely led to cost savings.34 We believe this provides a model for a national paid family leave program.35

For 20 years, the Family and Medical Leave Act has been an unqualified success, 

helping mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and husbands and wives to take 

leave more than 100 million times. But according to the most recent Department 

of Labor data, slightly less than 60 percent of the workforce is eligible for FMLA 

leave, leaving tens of millions of workers vulnerable to job loss when family or personal needs arise.36 The comp time offered by H.R. 1406 would not fill this gap for 

workers who are not covered by the FMLA, despite rhetoric to the contrary. 

The FMLA should be updated. We need to extend its protections to employees in 

smaller businesses and to those who work part-time. The definition of ‘‘family member’’ should be updated to allow workers to take FMLA leave to care for a domestic 

partner, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, grandchild or grandparent. Such an expansion would have allowed Anne-Marie Pearson, a conscientious worker in Pennsylvania, to have cared for her dying sister without having to leave her job. Similarly, it would help countless others care for close relatives in their final days. 

Expanding the FMLA in this way would not unduly burden employers. The vast 

majority of businesses report that complying with the FMLA has had a positive effect or no noticeable effect on employees and their business. In fact, 37 percent of 

worksites covered by the FMLA reported that compliance has had a ‘‘positive effect’’ 

on ‘‘employee productivity, absenteeism, turnover, career advancement and morale, 

as well as the business’ profitability.’’ Half (54 percent) said compliance has had ‘‘no 

noticeable effect.’’ Many businesses are voluntarily making FMLA leave available to 

workers who are not covered.37

The FMLA’s promise of job protection should also be extended to address more 

circumstances. For example, H.R. 1406’s sponsor and others have talked about comp 

time as the solution to a parent’s need to attend a parent-teacher conference. A 

much more useful policy solution, and one that would help many more parents and 
28 

children, is a ‘‘small necessities’’ expansion of the FMLA so that workers could take 

up to 24 hours per year to attend school meetings, parent-teacher conferences and 

other essential educational activities. Separately, victims of domestic violence should 

be able to use FMLA leave to seek legal, medical and relocation services. 

True Flexibility Would Reflect Employees’ Needs for Predictability, Notice and Fluidity in Scheduling as Well as the Right to Refuse Overtime 

H.R. 1406 has the word ‘‘flexibility’’ in its title, but the flexibility it offers workers 

is an empty promise. A growing body of research shows that true flexibility and predictability—the ability to vary start and ending times, to work split shifts, and to 

have advance notice of scheduling—provides benefits for workers and cost-savings 

for employers. Nothing in the FLSA prohibits these best practices. 

It should be a priority to educate employers about the flexibility available under 

the FLSA and the benefits that flexibility provides. We should create disincentives 

for scheduling practices such as ‘‘just in time’’ scheduling and call-in shifts, which 

hold workers back, impede their productivity on the job, interfere with their 

caregiving responsibilities at home and create extra child care and transportation 

expenses. Public policies should protect workers who cannot work mandatory overtime and should offer protections to those who report to work or put other job opportunities on hold only to find out that they are not needed when they arrive at the 

job site. Policies that encourage predictability and advance notice, and discourage 

rigidity, are also needed. 

Conclusion 

At a time when our nation’s working families urgently need public policies that 

make our workplaces more fair and family friendly, H.R. 1406 is an empty promise—a cruel hoax that would take the country in the wrong direction. It would make 

life appreciably harder for families that are already struggling, and no amount of 

misleading or deceptive rhetoric can soften the blow. For many workers, H.R. 1406 

would bring less pay, less flexibility and workplaces that are even less family friendly. 

Instead of wasting time on smoke and mirrors to try to hide the real impact of 

this bill, I urge you instead to support the Healthy Families Act, paid family and 

medical leave insurance, expanded access to the FMLA, the Fair Minimum Wage 

Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act and proposals to encourage fairer, more predictable 

and more flexible work hours. These are the advances the nation needs. These are 

and the initiatives that would help our nation’s workers and their families, employers, communities and our economy. 

Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Courtney and members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. With our many allies, and on 

behalf of America’s workers, the National Partnership for Women & Families looks 

forward to working with you to adopt policies that are truly family friendly. 

ENDNOTES

1Lake Research Partners and the Tarrance Group. (2012, November). National survey of 1220 

voters. (Unpublished data) 2 National Partnership for Women & Families and Family Values @ Work. (2011, February). 

Los Angeles Workers Speak: The Employee Case for Flexibility in Hourly, Lower-Wage Jobs. 

Retrieved 5 April 2013, from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/W—F— 

Workflex—LA—Workers—Voice.pdf?docID=8241 3On the rise of part-time and contingent work, see Greenhouse, S. (2012, October 27). A PartTime Life, as Hours Shrink and Shift. The New York Times. Retrieved 5 April 2013, from 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/business/a-part-time-life-as-hours-shrink-and-shift-foramerican-workers.html 4Lake Research Partners. (21 September, 2012). Focus Groups among Lower-Income Latinos 

in Florida. 5For worker stories of overtime and wage theft violations, see National Council of La Raza. 

(2011). We Needed the Work: Latino Worker Voices in the New Economy. Retrieved 3 April 

2013, from http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/JobQuality.pdf; Labor Council 

for Latin American Advancement. (2012). Trabajadoras: Challenges and Conditions of Latina 

Workers in the United States. Retrieved 3 April 2013, from http://www.lclaa.org/images/pdf/ 

Trabajadoras—Report.pdf 6Lake Research Partners. (2010). Community Voices on the Economy: Report from a Nationwide Survey of 1004 Adults. Retrieved 5 April 2013, from http://www.lakeresearch.com/news/ 

cv/CV—Report.pdf 7 National Council of La Raza. (2011). We Needed the Work: Latino Worker Voices in the New 

Economy. Retrieved 3 April 2013, from http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/ 

JobQuality.pdf 8 Based on the median hourly wage of $14.12 for an hourly worker aged 25+ in 2011, as reported in U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, October). Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 

2011, p. 46. Retrieved 5 April 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2011.pdf 
29 

9 U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Firm Births and Deaths by Employment Size of Enterprise: 

1990—2007 (Table 765). Retrieved 5 April 2013, from http://www.census.gov/compendia/ 

statab/2012/tables/12s0765.pdf 10 U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Establishment Births, Deaths, and Employment by Sector and 

Firm Type—Startups, Young, and Mature Firms: 2009 (Table 764). Retrieved 5 April 2013, from 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0764.pdf 11 National Partnership for Women & Families. (2011, March). Taking Care of Business: The 

Business Benefits of Paid Leave. Retrieved 5 April 2013, from http:// 

www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/ W—F—Taking—Care—of—Business—March— 

Update.pdf?docID=8721 12Sasha Corporation. (2007). Compilation of Turnover Cost Studies. Retrieved 5 April 2013, 

from http://www.sashacorp.com/turnframe.html 13Miller, K., Williams, C., & Yi, Y. (2011, October 31). Paid Sick Days and Health: Cost Savings from Reduced Emergency Department Visits. Institute for Women’s Policy Research publication. Retrieved 5 April 2013, from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/paid-sick-daysand-health-cost-savings-from-reduced-emergency-department-visits 14 Houser, L., &Varatanian, T. (2012, January). Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impacts 

of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public. Rutgers Center for Women and 

Work Publication. Retrieved 5 April 2013, from http://smlr.rutgers.edu/paymatters-cwwreportjanuary2012 15 Ibid. 16 National Women’s Law Center. (2013, 20 March). Fair Pay for Women Requires Increasing 

the Minimum Wage and Tipped Minimum Wage. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http:// 

www.nwlc.org/resource/fair-pay-women-requires-increasing-minimum-wage-and-tipped-minimum-wage 17 National Partnership for Women & Families. (2013, April). America’s Women and the Wage 

Gap. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Wage— 

Gap—National.pdf?docID=12421 18 U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. (2010, March). Expanding Access to Paid Sick 

Leave: The Impact of the Healthy Families Act on America’s Workers. Retrieved 8 April 2013, 

from http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File—id=abf8aca7-6b94-4152- 

b720-2d8d04b81ed6 19 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, March). Leave benefits: Access, private industry 

workers, National Compensation Survey (Table 32). Retrieved 3 April 2013, from http:// 

www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2012/ownership/private/table21a.pdf 20Gould, E., Filion, K., & Green, A. (2011, June). The need for paid sick days: The lack of 

a federal policy further erodes family economic security. Economic Policy Institute publication. 

Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http://www.epi.org/publication/the—need—for—paid—sick— 

days/ 21Smith, T. and Kim, J. (2010, June). Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences. National 

Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago for the Public Welfare Foundation publication. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http://www.publicwelfare.org/resources/DocFiles/ 

psd2010final.pdf 22Smith, K., & Schaefer, A. (2012, June). Who Cares for the Sick Kids? Parents’ Access to 

Paid Time to Care for a Sick Child. Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire publication. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/sites/ 

carseyinstitute.unh.edu/files/publications/IB-Smith-Paid-Sick-Leave-2012.pdf 23 National Alliance for Caregiving. (2009, November). Caregiving in the U.S. National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP publication. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http:// 

www.caregiving.org/data/Caregiving—in—the—US—2009—full—report.pdf 24Petro, J. (2010, March). Paid Sick Leave Does Not Harm Business Growth or Job Growth. 

Drum Major Institute for Public Policy publication. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http:// 

paidsickdays.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Petro—DMI—Paid—Sick—Leave—Does— 

Not—Harm—2010—Unabbr—.pdf?docID=7721 25Drago, R. & Lovell, V. (2011, February). San Francisco’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance: Outcomes for Employers and Employees. Institute for Women’s Policy Research publication. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/San-Fran-PSD 26 Abt Associates Inc. (2012, September 6). Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Technical Report. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/ 

FMLATechnicalReport.pdf 27See note 19. 28 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, March). Insurance benefits: Access, participation, 

and take-up rates, private industry workers, National Compensation Survey (Table 16). Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2012/ownership/private/ 

table12a.pdf 29Laughlin, L. (2011, October). Maternity Leave and Employment: Patterns of First-Time 

Mothers 1961-2008. U.S. Census Bureau publication. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http:// 

www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-128.pdf 30See note 14. 31MetLife Mature Market Institute. (2011, June). The MetLife Study of Caregiving Costs to 

Working Caregivers: Double Jeopardy for Baby Boomers Caring for Their Parents. Retrieved 8 

April 2013, from https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmicaregiving-costs-working-caregivers.pdf 32 Appelbaum, E., & Milkman, R. (2011). Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker Experiences 

with Paid Family Leave in California. Center for Economic and Public Research publication. Retrieved 8 April 2013, from http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-family-leave-1- 

2011.pdf 33 Ibid. 
30 

34 Ibid. 35 National Partnership for Women & Families. (2013, February). The Case for a National 

Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program (The FAMILY Act). Retrieved 9 April 2013, from 

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/FAMILY—Act—Fact— 

Sheet.pdf?docID=11821 36See note 26. 37 Ibid. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mrs. Lichtman. I apologize for mispronouncing your name before. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. That is okay. Not a problem. 

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Brantley, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANDY BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR 

HUMAN RESOURCES 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Good morning, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding the hearing today and for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. 

I am privileged to be the president and chief executive officer of 

the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, otherwise known as CUPA-HR. 

Prior to joining CUPA-HR, I led HR organizations for the University of Georgia, Davidson College, and the University of North 

Carolina at Asheville. 

CUPA-HR serves as a voice of higher education human resources 

professionals representing more than 16,000 HR professionals 

across the country at over 1,900 colleges and universities both private and public. Higher education employs, over 3.7 million workers nationwide. 

We applaud the chairman and the subcommittee for holding this 

hearing and the leadership of Representative Martha Roby of Alabama for introducing the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. 

As an entity, higher education institutions are extremely complex. They may be comprised of teaching hospitals, research facilities, agricultural operations and more, all of which compliment extensive academic program offerings. 

As a result, colleges and universities are often not only the largest employers in many communities, but also the largest employers 

in their state; employing a very skilled, very diverse workforce of 

faculty and staff. 

Colleges and universities strive to offer competitive benefits for 

employees and to sponsor work/family and work/life programs that 

support employee needs away from the workplace. 

I have several examples from my past that illustrate this point. 

To meet the needs of the University of Georgia employees we provided a wide range of paid leave policies for all of our employees. 

Additionally, we offered employees the choice of receiving compensatory time or overtime pay for working in excess of 40 hours. 

Based on my conversations with the University staff, compensatory time was an important and valued option at UGA. I am sure 

that is still the case and I have heard the sentiment echoed by 

many of my CUPA-HR members and colleagues who work at public 

universities. 

While some employees used compensatory time to deal with catastrophic occurrences or family crises, more often than not, non-
31 

exempt employees at UGA used compensatory time to meet the everyday work/family and work/life challenges. 

One employee from our college of veterinary medicine used compensatory time to run the little errands that often needed to get 

done in balancing work and family challenges including visits to 

the doctor for her children. 

By using accumulated compensatory time, this employee was 

able to allow sick leave to accumulate to be used for those times 

when her children really were sick and were not able to go to 

daycare. 

In 1996, the city of Atlanta hosted the Summer Olympics. Several of the Olympic events were held in and around Athens, which 

required the campus to be closed. In the months preceding the 

Olympics, our nonexempt staff accumulated comp time to offset the 

time there that they would be unable to work because of the 

games. 

This allowed employees to keep their accrued leave intact and, 

in some cases, prevented staff from having to go on leave without 

pay because they did not have enough accumulated leave time. 

While neither of these examples is extraordinary in its application, each clearly demonstrates the flexibility that is provided 

through a compensatory time program. I can recall several examples from Davidson College where the use of comp time would have 

been extremely helpful to employees. Here is one example: 

During the 2000 calendar year an extremely hard-working catering assistant who typically worked overtime on a weekly basis was 

diagnosed with cancer. Time off for chemotherapy and then radiation treatments quickly consumed all of his accrued vacation and 

sick leave and forced this employee into long-term disability status. 

If Davidson had been permitted to offer this employee the choice 

of receiving pay or comp time, this particular individual while still 

able to work, may have chosen to receive comp time to extend the 

period of time he was able to remain in a full pay status with the 

college. 

This is just an example of the kinds of situations that arrive on 

private campuses each week. I am not saying that comp time is the 

answer for everyone, but the use of comp time can provide needed 

flexibility. 

During a conversation just last week, the chief HR officers at two 

private universities echoed the sentiment I have just shared with 

you; HR regularly receives requests for greater flexibility that cannot be granted due to the FLSA. 

Based on my personal experience leading HR organizations and 

my conversations with CUPA-HR members, the requests for comp 

time frequently come from single parents and those dealing with 

catastrophic illness. Comp time is just one more way for us to assist those employees during tough times when they need a little 

more flexibility. 

From my perspective, having worked in both public and private 

university human resources operations and as president of the association representing HR in higher ed, I believe employees at private campuses should be afforded the same flexibility that their 

public-sector counterparts enjoy. 
32 

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the opportunity to comment and to offer CUPA-HR support for the Working Families 

Flexibility Act. I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank 

you. 

[The statement of Mr. Brantley follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Andy Brantley, President and Chief Executive Officer, College and University Professional Association for Human Resources 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for holding this hearing today and for the opportunity to testify on this 

important issue. I am Andy Brantley, president and chief executive officer of the 

College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, known as 

CUPA-HR. Prior to joining CUPA-HR seven years ago, I was associate vice president for human resources for the University of Georgia (UGA) in Athens, Georgia. 

Before my arrival at UGA in January 2001, I served as the assistant vice president 

for business administration and director of human resources at Davidson College, 

a private college in Davidson, North Carolina. 

CUPA-HR serves as the voice of human resources in higher education, representing more than 16,000 human resources professionals at over 1,900 colleges 

and universities across the country, including 92 percent of all United States doctoral institutions, 77 percent of all master’s institutions, 57 percent of all bachelor’s 

institutions, and nearly 600 two-year and specialized institutions. Higher education 

employs over 3.7 million workers nationwide, with colleges and universities in all 

50 states. 

Representing both public and private colleges and universities, CUPA-HR is well 

positioned to discuss the use of compensatory time in the public sector and its possible application to the private sector. We applaud the Chairmen and the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and the leadership of Representatives Martha 

Roby of Alabama for introducing the ‘‘Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.’’ As 

I understand it, the act would give private employers, including private colleges and 

universities, the opportunity to offer non-exempt employees the choice of compensatory time off instead of overtime pay in situations where the employee is eligible 

for overtime. 

As an entity, higher education institutions are extremely complex organizations. 

They may be comprised of teaching hospitals, research facilities, agricultural operations and more, all of which compliment extensive academic program offerings. As 

a result, colleges and universities are often not only the largest employers in many 

communities, but also the largest employer within a state; employing a very skilled, 

very diverse workforce of faculty and staff. Most colleges and universities strive to 

be progressive employers, offering or attempting to offer generous benefits packages 

and innovative policies that make our campuses desirable places to work. In fact, 

they are often considered to be an employer of choice in a community. 

To meet the diverse needs of our faculty and staff, colleges and universities strive 

to offer competitive welfare and healthcare benefits to employees and to sponsor 

work-family/life programs that support employee needs away from the workplace. 

Educational institutions offer these work-family/life policies and welfare benefits as 

a way to recruit and retain a highly skilled, quality workforce. These policies and 

benefits constitute our leading, competitive edge over the for-profit sector for employees, since higher education institutions typically offer a lower compensation 

package than for-profit organizations. However, being very comprehensive organizations, colleges and universities realize that flexibility in the workplace is fundamental in trying to meet the needs of the employee and mission of the institution. 

This is especially true as employees try to balance the competing pressures of work, 

family and personal needs. 

I have several examples from my own past that illustrate this point. The University of Georgia has an enrollment of more than 32,000 students. As a comprehensive 

land-grant and sea-grant institution, UGA offers baccalaureate, master’s, doctoral 

and professional degrees in the arts, humanities, social sciences, biological sciences, 

physical sciences, agricultural and environmental sciences, business, environmental 

design, family and consumer sciences, engineering, forest resources, journalism and 

mass communication, education, law, medicine, pharmacy, social work, and veterinary medicine. At the time of my employment at UGA, we had more than 17,000 

faculty, staff and students on the payroll each month to operate our programs and 

achieve our educational mission. Our workforce was diverse as were the needs of 
33 

our employees. UGA was and still is the largest employer in Athens and one of the 

largest in the state. 

To meet the needs of our employees, UGA provided a wide range of paid leave 

policies to all our employees. These policies included sick and vacation leave, as well 

as short- and long-term disability leave policies with pay. We also offered a number 

of unpaid leave policies that enabled the employee to substitute accrued paid leave 

for unpaid leave. The university also offered its employees several alternative work 

arrangements including flextime, compressed workweek, job sharing, 9- or 10-month 

work schedules and telecommuting arrangements. 

Additionally, we offered employees the choice of receiving compensatory time or 

overtime pay for working in excess of 40 hours. As you are well aware, under the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, known as the FLSA, public employers, including colleges 

and universities, have the ability to choose compensatory time or overtime pay to 

compensate employees for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Each time 

an employee at UGA worked more than 40 hours in a week, he or she had the option of receiving overtime pay, or with supervisor’s approval, compensatory time off. 

Based on my conversations with university staff, compensatory time was an important and valued option at UGA. I am sure that is still the case and have heard the 

same sentiment echoed over the years by the many CUPA-HR members who work 

in public universities that offer employees the option of compensatory time off. 

While some employees used compensatory time to deal with catastrophic occurrences or family crises, more often than not, non-exempt employees at UGA used 

compensatory time to meet the everyday challenges presented in balancing workfamily issues. One employee on our campus at the College of Veterinary Medicine 

used compensatory time to do the ‘‘little errands’’ that often need to get done in balancing work-family, including visits to the doctor for her children. Although a visit 

to the doctor can be brief, to a parent who is working it requires picking the child 

up from daycare, taking the child to the doctor’s office, getting a prescription filled 

at the pharmacy, returning the child to daycare, and then returning to the office. 

By using accumulated compensatory time, this employee is able to allow sick leave 

to accumulate and be used for those times when her children are not well enough 

to go daycare. 

In 1996, the city of Atlanta hosted the Summer Olympics. Several of the Olympic 

events were held in and around Athens, which required the campus to be closed. 

With UGA closed, faculty and staff were unable to work and were forced to use their 

accrued leave time to avoid being in a leave-without-pay status. In the months preceding the Olympics, our non-exempt staff accumulated compensatory time to offset 

the time they would be unable to work because of the games. This allowed employees to keep their accrued leave intact and in some cases, prevented staff from having to go on leave without pay because they did not have much accumulated annual 

leave. 

While neither of these examples is extraordinary in its application, each clearly 

demonstrates the flexibility that is provided through a compensatory time program. 

Unfortunately, only public sector colleges and universities can offer these programs. 

Private colleges and universities are prohibited from offering these programs to 

their employees. While private institutions offer a variety of work-life policies, situations arise on a campus in which the employee would benefit if the institution had 

the ability to offer compensatory time off instead of pay in overtime situations. I 

can recall several examples while at Davidson College where the use of compensatory time would have been extremely helpful to employees. Let me provide you 

with two examples: 

The Davidson College admissions office staff work long hours during December 

and January, earning overtime pay. On several occasions, non-exempt employees in 

the admissions office have asked about the possibility of receiving compensatory 

time instead of overtime pay. Several members of the staff wished to accumulate 

compensatory time to use later during the spring—after the completion of the 

stressful admission process. As Davidson’s director of human resources, I had no option but to instruct the vice president of admissions to continue the payment of 

overtime. 

During the 2000 calendar year, an extremely hard-working catering assistant who 

worked overtime on a weekly basis at the college was diagnosed with cancer. Time 

off for chemotherapy and then radiation treatments quickly consumed all of this employee’s vacation and sick leave and forced the employee into a long-term disability 

status. If Davidson College had been permitted under the FLSA to offer this employee the choice of receiving pay or compensatory time for hours worked beyond 

40, this particular individual, while still able to work, may have chosen to receive 

compensatory time to extend the period of time he was able to stay in a full pay 

status with the college. 
34 

This is just a sampling of the kinds of situations that arise on private campuses 

each week, cases in which the ability of someone to accumulate compensatory time 

would be beneficial to employees. I am not saying compensatory time will be the 

answer for everyone. But while I was at Davidson, employees regularly requested 

greater flexibility in work arrangements to better cope with pressing family, personal and professional development needs. The use of compensatory time can provide that flexibility. 

Recently, a senior HR officer at another private university relayed to me that: 

We regularly get requests from our hourly wage staff or their managers responding to staff questions to consider comp time in lieu of overtime pay, often in the 

context of workplace flexibility. Work schedule flexibility can be a challenge for 

hourly staff, in that their work is frequently more dependent on workplace presence 

with particular schedules. So in times when excess time is worked, the option to 

provide comp time when schedules can be flexed gives the wage earner more flexibility. It can make a difference in the work-life balance, in ways such as, ‘‘I have 

an hour of overtime this week, can I take time off later in the next week to leave 

work early or take time during the day to take care of personal tasks?’’ It may mean 

that the employee uses less of his or her sick leave or personal days if some flexibility for comp time is provided within a pay period rather than a pay week. 

Similarly, another CUPA-HR member, who is also a senior HR officer at a private 

university, told me: 

Private institutions would appreciate the same comp time benefit as that offered 

to public entities. Because we do not have this flexibility, we often find ourselves 

unable to accommodate special requests when an employee knows they need to be 

out a few hours one week and would like to make up the hours another time so 

as not to have to use hours from a paid leave account that they are saving for something else. For our university, there are annual events such as commencement 

where the workload is heavy the week of commencement and very light in the 

weeks following. The availability of comp time in these situations could work to the 

benefit of employees and employer alike. While we have a generous paid leave plan, 

it just makes sense to give employees compensable work flexibility depending upon 

their needs and the needs of the institution. Managed responsibly, it is a win-win. 

Based on my personal experience as an HR officer and my conversations with 

CUPA-HR members, the request for comp time frequently comes from single parents. Second in frequency is from those who are dealing with catastrophic illness. 

Higher education institutions generally have very generous paid leave benefits. But 

comp time is one more way to assist and support employees during a tough time 

in their personal lives when they want to work but require a little more flexibility. 

As the associate vice president for human resources at UGA, offering employees 

the choice of compensatory time or pay for overtime situations meant some extra 

administrative duties for my staff and other departments of the university—keeping 

track of time earned, explaining to employees their option of choosing compensatory 

time versus overtime pay, and scheduling the time off. Even with the additional recordkeeping requirements and paperwork burden placed on the university’s administrative staff, I was pleased that UGA provided employees the option to choose between accruing compensatory time or receiving overtime pay. We offered this choice 

not only for altruistic reasons, but it helped UGA meet its academic mission. CUPAHR members from public universities have similar sentiment, regularly informing 

me that, while tracking and paperwork poses challenges, they are pleased to be able 

to offer compensatory time to their employees. 

From my perspective, having worked for both a public and a private university 

in human resources and as the president of an association representing HR in higher education, I believe employees at private universities should be afforded the same 

flexibility that their public sector counterparts enjoy to help meet their own workfamily needs by allowing all employees the opportunity to have the choice between 

compensatory time and overtime pay. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to comment and offer CUPAHR’s support to the Working Families Flexibility Act. I will be happy to answer any 

questions from you or other members of the Committee. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you very much. 

We will now go to Mr. Hudson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And I thank you all for being here today. It is a very enlightening testimony. A special hello to our friends at Davidson College. 
35 

I live right down the road. My alma mater UNC-Charlotte plays 

them in a lot of sports, so I appreciate that. 

I would love to direct my question to Ms. DeLoach. I am interested in sort of the employer perspective on this. Do you think employers will see this as a benefit that can be used to attract employees to a business that can offer this type of flexibility? 

Ms. DELOACH. Yes, I do. I think that it would be another perk 

that they could offer. Employers now—my employers offer a certain 

amount of vacation and sick time. That is at their discretion to 

make that available to anyone they employ. 

If they could add the comp time, I just think it would make it 

that much more attractive. It is an option, just another option for 

them, and I think that in all fairness, I think they should be allowed to offer that. 

Mr. HUDSON. So, in your opinion you think employers would like 

to have this as something they could offer. 

Ms. DELOACH. Yes I do. I actually have spoken with my employer about it. I had a situation come up, specifically with the mission trip. We nearly butted heads about it because I didn’t even realize that—when this came up I didn’t realize it was illegal and I 

asked, ‘‘can I work ahead before I go? Can I work some more when 

I get back?’’ 

‘‘Yes, you can, but we are going to pay you overtime if you go 

over 40 hours in that week and if you don’t have any available 

leave time’’ They couldn’t change it in midstream and say will now 

we are going to award you 3 weeks’ vacation. 

It was already policy that was set in motion and so I didn’t get 

to do it the way that I thought sounded logical. I have friends that 

work for the state and I knew that they talked about comp time 

and I just thought it would be nice to be able to do something like 

that, having no idea that it could be illegal. 

So I think they would love to be able to offer that. They have got 

more than one employee there who would enjoy that. We have got 

people who have family members they need to take care of, not just 

their children, one who has a sibling that she is the guardian for. 

Things may arise. 

She has just started working there and she couldn’t have accrued 

vacation time yet to be able to take that time, and these things 

don’t always arise where you could say it is going to happen within 

the same week. If it doesn’t happen within the same week, then 

you can’t just work it out and have your pay stay the same. 

Mr. HUDSON. That makes sense. What other conversations have 

you had with your other coworkers? Are there other examples of 

some of your coworkers who had similar experiences where they 

would have benefited from this? 

Ms. DELOACH. Well, yes. And actually, this particular coworker 

came to me when we were talking about this bill with a concern 

about it. She has a daughter and, you know, would love to be able 

to use that time that way but then she had a concern that her husband is an electrician and the overtime that he makes, in dollars, 

is important to their family and it is kind of a regular thing so they 

depend on it. 

She wanted to know if this comes into play is it going to limit 

his overtime pay that he gets and I said, ‘‘read the bill.’’ It is the 
36 

option of the employee. He can say whether he wants to have pay 

for that or hours for that. She could still have her hours and he 

could still have the dollars and that would work for that family in 

particular. 

Mr. HUDSON. Great. Well, thank you so much for your testimony. 

And Madam Chair, I appreciate your work on this bill and I am 

proud to be a supporter of this legislation. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Hudson. 

Mr. Courtney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman and you look pretty good with a gavel up there. I am sure Judge Roby, your father, 

would be proud to see you in that position. 

Ms. Lichtman, again, when we are talking about—as someone 

who was an employer for 27 years and had a workforce that had 

issues, you know, that requiredtime off, again, if an employee goes 

to employer and says you know, ‘‘I have got X, Y, Z issue that I 

need to spend some time away from work,’’ I, as an employer, had 

those conversations. There is nothing that is illegal about having— 

as an employer giving that person that time off as a matter of law. 

I mean, that really is existing law that permits employers to do 

that. It may—there may be policies within a specific firm, but that 

is certainly nothing that is dictated by federal law that says, ‘‘No, 

I am sorry I can’t give you that time off.’’ 

Ms. LICHTMAN. That is absolutely right. The Fair Labor Standards Act today would allow employers and employees to negotiate 

for exactly that kind of flexibility and there is nothing illegal about 

it. 

Mr. COURTNEY. So the only legal issue here is really whether or 

not at that same employee who, you know, the following week 

maybe works 45 hours, you know, whether I can go back and say, 

‘‘Well, remember that day you took off last week? You know, I am 

not going to pay you time and half for the extra hours you worked 

this week.’’ 

And I mean, that is really the issue here about whether or not 

that request for comp time should be traded off in terms of denying 

people their time and a half that the Fair Labor Standards Act 

presently protects. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. LICHTMAN. I think that is absolutely right, Congressman. 

And like a lot in life, the question is who decides and under 1406, 

the employer decides and that directly undermines the 75-year-old 

Fair Labor Standards Act, which gives both employers and employees the kind of flexibility so that they can—and especially the employee—can figure out what is it that they need at any given time, 

the time or the money. 1406 undermines that very flexibility that 

the Fair Labor Standards Act intended. 

Mr. COURTNEY. So moving forward, I mean, and again, we just 

celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Family Medical Leave Act, 

again, Senator Dodd’s hallmark bill—— 

Ms. LICHTMAN. We did. 

Mr. COURTNEY [continuing]. Again, bipartisan lawmakers have 

come together and talked about ways that we can sort of build on 

that success. Again, there is a lot of good ideas out there to try and 
37 

accommodate issues like we just heard, you know, where employees 

are doing good things and, you know, want to have that flexibility. 

What are some of those ideas which would get there without sacrificing people’s overtime? 

Ms. LICHTMAN. There are some tried and now true public policies 

that have worked. I talked about the Healthy Families Act, paid 

sick days, which exists in your state of Connecticut and many cities 

across this country. 

Certainly expanding family and medical leave so that more people could take it for more reasons, including taking it off so that 

parents could go to parent-teacher conferences or to help a family 

member; expanding it to more family members like siblings, so that 

a worker could help a sibling or a grandparent or a grandchild. 

Certainly increasing the minimum wage, passing the Paycheck 

Fairness Act, we have begun a very important discussion about 

paid family leave insurance to the extent that family and medical 

leave in these past 20 years have been used 100 million times, and 

when people don’t use it they say they don’t use it because they say 

they can’t afford to take it. 

So looking at states like New Jersey and California and building 

in a system of insurance so that employers could—employees could 

actually earn the time for paid leave is a very, very important public policy that we know works. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. I mean, again, that really I think is 

really where this discussion ought to be, because you know as the 

Equal Pay Act celebration or commemoration—I couldn’t call it 

celebration,—observance the other day clearly showed women still 

are earning roughly about 75 percent of their male counterparts in 

equivalent work, and this bill does nothing to narrow that gap. 

I would argue that in fact you are almost putting at risk ofgoing 

backwards, and so we—flexibility is a critical item. Again, as somebody who was an employer for 27 years, I have first-hand experience with that, but there is a better way to get there than this 

measure. 

And with that, I yield back, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. ROBY. Dr. DesJarlais, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and certainly I 

commend you on your work on this important issue in this age of 

ever-expanding federal government that seems to intrude more and 

more into our lives. 

I think that there is a real frustration among the private sector 

when the federal government tells them what is best for them yet 

doesn’t live by the same rules. 

Mr. Brantley, I am happy to welcome a fellow Tennessean to the 

panel today and I think you have a real unique perspective and are 

very familiar with the use of comp time in the public sector. 

Is there any reason why private-sector universities and colleges 

should be treated differently than their public-sector counterparts 

for the purpose of comp time? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Thank you, Representative DesJarlais. There absolutely should be no distinction whatsoever and the examples that 

I provided in my testimony comparing both the experience at Da-
38 

vidson College, a private employer, versus the University of Georgia, clearly emphasize that there really should be no difference. 

The examples that some of my colleagues at the table here also 

provided in terms of the difference in the public sector whether it 

be federal government or whether it be state entities being allowed 

to provide comp time when their colleagues and friends at private 

institutions and private employers are not able to do so. So absolutely no difference whatsoever. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Opponents of legislation often suggest 

that it is a no-cost way for employers to avoid paying overtime. Do 

you agree? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. I do not agree that it is a no-cost way to not pay 

overtime as an employer. 

If you think about it from the standpoint of public institutions, 

public employers, there is truly a cost every time someone is not 

at work whether that person is not at work due to comp time or 

whether that person is not at work due to illness, vacation, 

etcetera. 

There is also clearly an administrative burden that is required 

of employers. Our opinion on this is that it is another tool in the 

toolbox. It is another way for us to emphasize to our employees our 

flexibility, our concern for them and their unique needs, and our 

ability to help them meet unique needs on an ongoing basis. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. In the—in past debates on this issue, concerns 

have been raised with the bill’s provision that an employee may 

take paid time off so long as it does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer. In your experience, has this been any significant problem? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Absolutely not, and if you think about employers 

such as Mr. Courtney, my hope would be that most employers 

would have the same approach that he would have in terms of 

working collaboratively with their employees to find times that 

were amenable for both an employee and the employer. 

In my experience also, employees are committed to their organizations so they know the ebb and flow of the work and are going 

to work with their employer in terms of requesting that time off, 

in terms of meeting their unique needs, but also clearly understanding the challenges faced by their employers. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Ms. Lichtman’s testimony states that H.R. 1406 

brand of comp time is designed to benefit employers only. I am assuming that you don’t agree with that? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Absolutely not, and I think some of the examples 

that I just provided clearly emphasize that this is definitely not 

something that benefits employers as much as it benefits employees and our ability to provide more flexibility for their unique 

needs. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Do you think that this legislation would undermine the 40-hour workweek? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Absolutely not. In fact, there are examples now 

in the private sector where employers who offer overtime then 

come to their employees weeks later and say your workweek is 

shorter this week because we paid more overtime and we are at the 

limit for our budget for compensation so your workweek this week 

is less than it was a few weeks ago. 
39 

Our contention with this is very clearly that nonexempt employees want the same opportunity to have a level paycheck that their 

exempt counterparts have on a weekly basis. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you. 

That is all I have. I yield back. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for holding this hearing. 

And thank you to our panel for their testimony. I have to confess 

that I have a very hard time being objective about this issue. It is 

a very personal issue for me because I believe that I sit here today 

as a result of paid overtime. 

My father worked 70, 80, 90 hours a week—I am not exaggerating—week in and week out because he wanted his five kids 

to have an opportunity that he never had, which was to go to college. 

And he didn’t work overtime because he didn’t love his family, 

didn’t work overtime because he didn’t love spending his time with 

his family, he worked overtime because the way he wanted to express his love was, as I say, to give us an opportunity that he never 

had, and he had that opportunity because the law provided him 

with that opportunity. 

And so I worry about something that would undermine a practice 

that is, was vital not just to my family but to tens of thousands 

of families in terms of getting ahead in providing a decent life. 

Mr. Brantley, not to make you work overtime, you just answered 

a lot of questions, but I want to pose for you a potential circumstance that is one of the things that gives me pause about this 

legislation and very candidly, what gives me pause about this legislation, among other things, is that if an employer has overtime 

needs and has multiple employees who wish to address that overtime, it would seem to me the temptation for the employer to assign the overtime to that employee who is willing to take compensatory time as opposed to cash is pretty pronounced. 

So let’s take Davidson College. Now I know Davidson College is 

pretty well-endowed, but I would imagine that they have to worry 

about every dime that they spend. 

Let’s say graduation is on a Sunday. Let’s say that you need 10 

custodians to work graduation and let’s say 15 custodians say that 

they are willing to put in the overtime; 10 of them say they are 

willing to do it for compensatory time, five of them say they are 

willing to do it, but they want cash payment. 

Now I would think that the temptation for the director of physical plant or the VP for administrative affairs or financial affairs 

would be to give the overtime to the 10 who are willing to do it 

for compensatory time as opposed to cash. Am I right? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. No? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. I disagree. I think one of the things with this legislation that I think is really important is that first of all, I come 

from a family that lived paycheck to paycheck. So I have a father 

that also worked significant overtime and part of that allowed me 
40 

to be able to attend college and allowed me to have some of the 

benefits that I have today. 

If we take the Davidson College example, thinking about what 

is happening on campus at that point in time, having the opportunity to pay overtime to employees that want to have the overtime 

because you do need staffing the following week versus that group 

of employees that would prefer to have the comp time when you 

might not need to have—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Stop right there. You do need employees the following week and there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that 

would allow the person who is taking compensatory time to say, ‘‘I 

am taking next week off,’’ because the employer schedules when 

the compensatory time takes place. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. And look, I used to run a college, okay? We were 

very, very good at being not-for-profit, okay? And if we had had to 

make that decision, it would have been incredibly tempting for us 

to schedule the overtime for the custodian who says I am willing 

to take time and a half as opposed to the custodian who says I 

want my time and a half in cash. 

So—and so my concern is that we are going to discriminate— 

given how tight choices are and how much every dollar has to be 

watched, we are going to discriminate against employees who want 

what they have earned. They want cash. 

And my further concern is that when those who are willing to 

take the compensatory time want to take it, the employer may say, 

‘‘awful sorry, we have got a big order this month. We got to get 

that order out and you can’t go.’’ 

You know, Ms. DeLoach, I think what you do—and I say this 

with all sincerity—admirable and—and the missions that you go 

on, I mean I think that is truly admirable and I say this with all 

sincerity, but there is nothing in the bill that would require your 

employer to say that if you need the second week of July off to go 

on your mission that they are going to schedule that. 

So, I mean, again, it takes the control—one thing that an employee has—I am sorry, I know I am running out of time—one 

thing the employee has is he knows if he works he is going to get 

paid. 

Whereas in this circumstance, he or she may work and they may 

not get paid when they want to get paid. That is the concern that 

I have and if we can build in some protections, maybe I am willing 

to have a little more of an open mind about this. 

But anyway, I thank you all very much for your testimony. 

And Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging me. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG [presiding]. Thank you. It was worth it 

hearing that you might have some openness to that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. I withdraw that statement. [Laughter.] 

Chairman WALBERG. I should have left it well enough alone. 

Let me recognize Mr. Sablan, for 5 minutes of questioning as I 

get back into the flow here. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And good morning, everyone. 

Let me just ask some questions—let me—under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, a person, an employee gets paid time and a half. 
41 

Ms. Lichtman, may I ask you this. You get paid time and a half 

for overtime. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. That is right. 

Mr. SABLAN. And I am assuming that when a company needs an 

employee to work overtime, and the employer decides, ‘‘Hey, I need 

for you to stay an extra few hours’’—— 

Ms. LICHTMAN. That is right. 

Mr. SABLAN [continuing]. And you get paid time and a half. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. Time and a half, over your regular order of work 

be at 40 hours. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, yes I understand. Now under the bill, under 

H.R. 1406, where an employee would work overtime and in lieu of 

that get an hour for every hour worked. That is the proposal under 

1406. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. What I understand is that it would be at time 

and a half but it would be for the hours you worked. 

Mr. SABLAN. Okay, so it is—— 

Ms. LICHTMAN. But it would be comp time and not paid. 

Mr. SABLAN. It would be comp time. All right. So let me get this. 

A company, an employer needs for an employee to stay back and 

do extra work for some big order or something and that employer, 

employee is expected to do that. That is their job, I mean working 

for a good company. But then when they need to take time off they 

need permission also from that same employer. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. They do indeed. As to the timing and how long 

they can take and it is not necessarily, as Congressman Bishop was 

suggesting a minute ago, based on the employee’s needs at all but 

as to the interest of the employer. 

So the very flexibility to the employee that this 1406 holds out 

is not a real promise because it is not up to the employee to say 

when they need it, can they take it. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. And under—for public sector employees 

and now they take the leave the following week, the following pay 

period. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. Well, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said 

that it is reasonable for an employer in the public sector to say that 

you have up to a year—and the employer decides—and the Ninth 

Circuit said that was fine flexibility in the public sector. 

I think we should remember about the public sector as long as 

we want to talk about equity between the private and public sector 

that the whole reason that public-sector comp time was put in 

place was because public sector employers said they didn’t have the 

money, and as a cost-saving, the very thing we don’t want to do 

here, as a cost-savings to employers to state and local governments 

they should be allowed to provide comp time. So the whole notion 

of public-sector comp time was to save public-sector employers 

money. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right, but—so—let me then ask, employers may 

already provide work hour flexibility to employees—— 

Ms. LICHTMAN. They certainly may. 

Mr. SABLAN [continuing]. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. They certainly may, you are right. 

Mr. SABLAN. So we don’t really need another piece of legislation 

to tell employers that they could do this. 
42 

Ms. LICHTMAN. Well, I think—— 

Mr. SABLAN. Good employers would obviously want to work well 

with their employees, right? I mean, that is how you get employees 

to produce more. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. It is why I characterize this in rather stark terms 

as a sheep in—as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, because I think 

indeedthe purpose of it gives employers a great deal more flexibility, both about the time that an employee can have and when 

they can take it. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, and at a time when we want government off 

everybody’s back, we really don’t need legislation like this to put 

in another layer of government regulation on employees and employers. 

Ms. LICHTMAN. Well, there is a very little enforcement here so 

if an employee either has been denied comp time, there is very little in this legislation that would allow the Labor Department to enforce H.R. 1406. It is a major problem in here in that it is missing 

any kind of enforcement mechanism except it allows individual employees, salariedsalary-workers workers to go to court and sue. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right, thank you. 

And, you know, as a delegate, Mr. Chairman, the smart way for 

us delegates from the territories is to keep silent actually on as 

many issues as we have to but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LICHTMAN. I hope not. 

Mr. SABLAN. No, but I feel strong enough—strongly enough about 

this that I remain behind and ask questions. If employees were 

given the right to take that time when they want to, because employers require them to work those extra hours, if they are also, 

employees, are given the right to decide when they want to take 

that time off before having to need permission, then like Mr. 

Bishop said, maybe I will be open to a little bit more conversation 

also, but right now, the way it is written, I don’t think it is fair. 

Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. It is not fair to not 

take involvement and make expressions of ideas. We are glad that 

you do. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. I have a meeting with you later and I 

want to be pleasant to you right now. [Laughter.] 

Chairman WALBERG. I am always pleasant accept after the U of 

M game the other night. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Brantley, those opposed to this legislation argue it would undermine the 40-hour workweek. Based on your experience with 

comp time at the public institutions, do you agree? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I disagree. Based on my experience working at two different public institutions, there was never 

a circumstance where comp time could in any way have been construed as undermining of the 40-hour workweek. 

Chairman WALBERG. Nothing was undermined in the work—in 

the employee worker relationship—— 

Mr. BRANTLEY. No. 

Chairman WALBERG [continuing]. As a result of this. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Absolutely not. 
43 

Chairman WALBERG. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Phillips, your company seems to be doing all of the right 

things, at least that is what you have told us and I am trusting 

you on that one. 

When it comes to workplace flexibility practices, by and large, I 

think most employers are trying to do the right thing; not all, but 

most. You were pretty clear about the need for providing employers 

with options and flexibility and having a voluntary approach to 

comp time. 

Could you elaborate on why it is so important for policymakers 

to avoid a one-size-fits-all requirement or set of requirements for 

employers with respect to flexible work options? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Well, I think that in my experience over the years 

of working in a lot of different industries and with different companies, what works well in one workplace/workforce does not always 

work well in another, and I think that the success of a—especially 

small company such as mine, and many small companies that I 

have been around—is being able to design the workplace to have 

the benefits and the programs that matter a lot to those employees. 

That is how we attract people. That is how we keep them. They 

find a place to work that they love and we are able to help them 

develop themselves and be paid well and have good benefits and it 

is a—you know, it is a great arrangement for all of us. 

An example of how something won’t fit one place when it does 

another is for example we do unlimited leave if you have the flu. 

It does not count against your leave balance. We do not require any 

documentation. 

Chairman WALBERG. Please stay away, right? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Please stay away. That is right or if anybody in 

your household, anybody you are around has the flu, don’t come to 

work. It doesn’t come out of your balance or anything and you get 

paid. 

Nobody abuses that. That doesn’t work in every environment. I 

have been in the manufacturing environment before, in a publishing environment. That would not work everywhere, but that 

works really well in my environment. 

So I think companies need the ability to do what works well for 

them and not have a piece of legislation that says you have to do 

it this way because then in order for us to comply we have got to 

meet those specific details and that makes us bring down what we 

do when the effort is to bring up companies that are not doing well 

at those things. 

I think that if we tout the ways this works well and other companies try to do those things, we would all be a lot further down the 

road toward providing a flexible workplace for our workforces. 

Chairman WALBERG. Okay. Your testimony also highlights the 

many ways that your company helps employees navigate home and 

work demands. I am especially interested to hear your experience 

with scheduling issues. Do you often find it necessary to refuse requests for time off, whether paid or unpaid? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Never. The work that we do is more designed 

around the individual and what they do for a customer. So that is 

very different from a workplace that has an assembly line to run. 
44 

In our world, scheduling is pretty much in a personal way and 

we have customers that work an alternate workweek. We have customers that may take every Friday off and do four 10s. 

We have people that have altered schedules. We have people that 

go back and forth between schedules as it works for them. All of 

that works for us as long as it is well communicated, well-planned, 

works with the customer because of all of the variety we have, we 

can arrange all sorts of things like that. 

On the—— 

Chairman WALBERG. Do you find though in a context with certain employees it is a source of disruption? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I am sorry, say that again. 

Chairman WALBERG. In the context of your sphere of reference 

as well as well as your personal situation, do you find that it is a 

source of disruption with certain employees of though at times? A 

disruption of the operations? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. No, because it is so individually-based. We are engineers, we are analysts. We are taking care of a project or a design and they are able to manage their work around that and we 

don’t want to interfere with that. So no, what we don’t find any disruptions with that. 

You know, in terms of amount of time that people work, we don’t 

honor people that work a lot of hours. You know, I have worked 

places where people talked in the hall about so-and-so was here till 

midnight like that is the most of loyal, wonderful person and we 

see that as not good at all. 

If people turn in too many hours then our managers are called 

in and asked why because it could mean a lot of things. It could 

mean their manager isn’t managing them.It could mean they are 

busy in too many meetings all day and having to do their work in 

the evening. It could mean now we are doing something that was 

not in the statement of work in our contract with that customer. 

We need to know about that. It could mean we need an additional 

person. It ususally means something not good. 

We don’t think it is in the best interest of the person to work too 

much. We don’t think it is in the best interests of their family for 

them to work all the time or the customer or the company. So if 

people work too many hours, you know, we have got questions as 

to why because it is built around an individual work. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

My time is expired. I now recognize Mrs. Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you. 

And I want to thank all of the witnesses today for your time 

spent here with us to weigh in on all of the issues surrounding the 

proposed bill. I think we have learned a lot from each of you today 

and so again, I appreciate that. 

I want to talk about one thing because it has come up several 

times and I think it is something that is important about this bill. 

This bill is completely voluntary on the part of the employee. 

The employee can either take comp time and I know it has been 

suggested that the employer would then use that and reward the 

comp time employees that have the voluntary written agreement in 

lieu of the employee who wishes to receive cash payments and that 

this accrued sick time is a better idea. 
45 

But I want to ask you, Mrs. DeLoach, in your, in your current 

position as a nonexempt employee, do you get to just demand from 

your employee or excuse me, your employer when you take vacation time? 

Ms. DELOACH. No, I do not. 

Mrs. ROBY. Right. 

Ms. DELOACH. I fill out a request and they have to—the partners 

have to review it and make sure that it is going to work with the 

schedule. 

Mrs. ROBY. Right. So if you were to—you have to request from 

your employer—and that goes to my point exactly is that this idea 

of unduly disrupt is not a new idea in the workforce. 

In fact, it is the same standard that is applied and I want Ms. 

Phillips to weigh in on this—that is the same standard that is applied it to the public employees that already enjoy the ability to use 

compensatory time. Is that not correct? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. That is correct. 

Mrs. ROBY. And so this idea that this is going to be, you know, 

some coercive device is actually incorrect because the way that it 

works currently in working environments whether it is private employees that seek to use vacation days per their agreement with 

their employer or in the public sector where the Fair Labor Standards Act currently allows for compensatory time and Mr. Brantley, 

I would love for you to weigh in on this notion just once again that 

the employer is going to deny it every time and only allow it when 

it works for them because that is not necessarily true with vacation 

days or sick leave. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. I couldn’t agree more and reflecting back on a 

comment that I shared earlier, most employees have the sense of 

what their employer is trying to achieve, what the goals of the employer are. 

Same thing from the employer perspective is that the employer 

does acknowledge those employees and their diverse needs, the 

things that happen every single day, the catastrophic things that 

go beyond what a leave balance might give that employee the opportunity to partake in or to participate in that continues their salary. 

It is all about balance. It is all about flexibility. It is all about 

choice and the bottom line is, at the end of today, it is about our 

commitment as employers to our employees and meeting them 

where they are. 

Mrs. ROBY. Right, and I will go back again to Ms. DeLoach, you 

were asked a question, ‘‘is this a benefit to you?’’ The employer 

wants to provide opportunities to keep their employees happy. 

It keeps up morale and productivity and to suggest that this is 

construed more in a negative sense than it is in the positive, again, 

this already happens to the public sector. 

It is not like this is some new thing and in fact, the protections 

in this bill far exceed those for the public employee and even providing time and a half in hours versus the 1 hour allowed in the 

law currently for the public sector. So if you want to expand on 

that, and then Ms. Phillips I will give you an opportunity as well. 
46 

Ms. DELOACH. I do. I would like to say that one of the reasons 

is that I have remained where I am working is that the people that 

I work for have integrity and that means a lot to me. 

And whether an employer does or doesn’t have integrity right 

now they could be taking advantage of employees in other ways. 

What is going to keep them from doing that? Their conscience? 

That would be a good one. And if not that, then fines, penalties, 

audits, lawsuits. 

The same measures that employees who are upset about being 

taken advantage of in other areas would be available to someone 

who feels like their employer is abusing the issue of comp time. 

I just don’t see—I don’t see why this is creating problems particularly when it has been running for nearly 30 years in another 

sector. If it is a big bad monster I don’t understand why it hasn’t 

already been—had its head chopped off. 

Mrs. ROBY. If it is good for one, why is it not good for another? 

Ms. DELOACH. Exactly. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you. 

My time is expired. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank you for 

introducing this legislation. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. I wish I could 

have heard your testimonies. I did have the opportunity to read all 

of them and I appreciate that. It is a discussion that certainly is 

worth undertaking. 

I understand that the ranking member does not have a closing 

comment, and I will just keep mine very brief as well. To say that 

again, this is a proposal with the best intentions, and I am glad 

that Chairman Kline has asked us to bring it up for hearing today 

to begin our discussions because frankly, we need to do all we can 

to foster a workplace and a work environment that gives credit to 

good employers and good employees and offer more opportunities 

for flexibility to say not only do we work together, but we respect 

each other and we will provide opportunities that meet specific 

needs of yourself, your family, your health, your society, your 

school, whatever. 

And again, as it has worked in the public sector, this is written 

in such a way that it is even more voluntary with greater protections and enhancements as well, and so I hope that we can come 

to agreement on this and make it work in the private sector as well 

because frankly, we have too much disruption and we need more 

coming together. 

Having said that, I will now relinquish my time for closing remarks, the remainder, to the sponsor of this bill, Mrs. Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this very important hearing today. You know, one thing 

that hadn’t been mentioned as much today is the long history that 

this notion has in the House of Representatives. 

It has been introduced in many congresses and I think what we 

can take from that is what we have gained. All of the concerns that 

you heard from my Democratic colleagues, we have addressed to 

those in this bill, and I want to take a moment to run through a 

few of those that are worth noting because our greatest challenge 

in moving forward with this is the misinformation associated with 
47 

this bill having been introduced in past conferences and the 

changes and protections that are included in this current piece of 

legislation that do provide the employee those protections. 

It has been suggested that this bill is unnecessary because current law already offers some flexibility in the employees’ work 

schedule and while there are a number of available options, workers aren’t able to work additional hours in one week and accrue 

paid time off, paid time off to be used at a later date. 

And even if an employee and an employer agree, the employer— 

if the employer were to agree to such a request, he or she could 

be sued and fined by the Department of Labor if there is a problem 

and that certainly is not what we want. 

We have heard the bill fails to adequately protect employees despite the fact that it includes numerous employee protections. For 

example, the decision to receive comp time is completely voluntary. 

Workers can withdraw from a comp time agreement whenever 

they choose and as I noted earlier, all existing protections in the 

Fair Labor Standards Act are maintained. All of them. Including 

the 40-hour workweek and how overtime is currently calculated. 

Additionally, paid overtime. It is up to the employee to decide 

when to use his or her comp time as long as he or she provides reasonable notice—and we—we have heard this concern numerous 

times—and the request time does not unduly disrupt the business. 

Again, not a new notion in current bodies of law. 

I would note that this is the same standard that is used in the 

public sector as well and I haven’t heard today our colleagues suggest that this doesn’t work for government employees. 

This bill also ensures all existent enforcement remedies including 

action by the Department of Labor. I know it was stated earlier 

that it was just to file a lawsuit but this actually includes action 

by the Department of Labor. 

They are available to workers if an employee fails to pay cash 

wages or unreasonably refuses to allow the employee to use the 

comp time, which again is a concern that we have heard. 

It is time that we take a law that was written during the Great 

Depression and bring it into this century. We have to trust workers 

to make decisions for themselves. The federal government should 

not stand between a worker and the flexibility needed to care for 

a family. 

And I appreciate all of the concerns stated today by my colleagues and these concerns, like I mentioned at the beginning, 

have been expressed for years in opposition to the bill. And this 

legislation recognizes those concerns and includes specific provisions. 

So our colleagues that we heard, if these certain protections were 

included in the bill that they might be willing to work with us, 

well, we should take them at their word because we have provided 

adequate protections for the arguments of the past. 

And as I noted in my opening remarks, we don’t necessarily believe that this is a perfect solution to all of the challenges facing 

working families. Will it allow every individual to balance family 

and work? 
48 

Probably not, but the Working Families Flexibility Act is simply 

one step that we here in the House of Representatives in this committee can take to help families thrive in today’s economy. 

And I want to just again thank all of the witnesses for being here 

today. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including me in this important hearing. 

I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

I thank each of the members of the committee, those who were 

here and those that are gone, as well as those are still here. 

It has been a busy day, but I am glad we have taken attention 

to this issue, and I sincerely thank each of the witnesses for being 

involved in this morning with us. You have been a great help. 

There being no further business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ