HR-2870-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 422.
Sponsored by Mary Miller (R-IL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to let private-sector employers offer employees compensatory time off (at 1.5 hours per overtime hour worked) instead of cash overtime pay, if agreed to in advance by the employee or a union contract. Employees could accrue up to 160 hours of comp time, must be paid out unused time under certain conditions, and could withdraw from the arrangement or request cash payout at any time; the provision would apply for a 5-year period after enactment.
Who benefits
Private-sector employees who prefer flexible time off over immediate overtime pay, particularly those balancing childcare, caregiving, or other scheduling needs; employers who gain flexibility in managing labor costs and scheduling; employers in industries with variable workloads (e.g., seasonal or project-based work).
Who is hurt
Employees who may feel pressured to accept comp time instead of cash despite the bill's voluntariness requirement, especially those in weaker bargaining positions or non-union workplaces; workers who rely on overtime pay for immediate income needs; unions may see reduced ability to negotiate straightforward overtime terms; the Department of Labor and courts would bear added enforcement and dispute-resolution burdens.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the bill gives workers more control over their own time, letting them choose banked hours for family obligations, medical appointments, or vacation instead of cash, mirroring flexibility already available to public-sector employees under existing law. They contend the voluntary, written-agreement structure, 160-hour cap, and payout guarantees protect workers from coercion while expanding options that many employees say they want, citing that public employees have used similar comp-time provisions for decades without widespread abuse.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that despite formal voluntariness requirements, workers—particularly those without union representation—may face subtle pressure to accept comp time instead of needed cash wages, especially in industries with high turnover or weak bargaining power. They contend that comp time delays compensation employees have already earned, exposes workers to the risk of losing accrued time if an employer becomes insolvent, and could effectively lower real wages by substituting time off for money that workers might urgently need for rent, medical bills, or debt payments.
Constitutional context
Congress is regulating wages and hours in private employment under the Commerce Clause power, consistent with the FLSA's original basis upheld in cases like United States v. Darby (1941); this bill raises no novel constitutional question beyond that established authority to regulate employer-employee compensation practices affecting interstate commerce.
Checks and balances
Congress would set the statutory framework directly, the Department of Labor would issue implementing notice materials and enforce violations, and courts would resolve disputes over compliance and liquidated damages, leaving no significant shift in inter-branch power.
Historical precedent
Public-sector employees have been permitted to receive compensatory time off instead of overtime pay under a 1985 FLSA amendment; this bill would extend a similar mechanism, with additional safeguards, to private-sector employees for the first time.