On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: > The Wall Street Journal had a piece about comp time vs. overtime yesterday, > a fight that is "dividing the labor movement." Clinton & Congress look to > be moving toward some kind of deal, making a longtime Republican dream a > reality, to amend labor law to allow for compensatory time off rather in > place of overtime. The article said that unions are internally divided - > with "working women" showing preference for comp time, reversing > traditional union preferences. > > Any thoughts on this? Are conservative unionists speaking on behalf of > "working women," or is this a real feminist position? I don't think it's fair to divide the issue in this way -- conservative unionists v. feminists. The issue is more complex than a simple one of a time v. money tradeoff. It also includes issues of job control. If you have ever worked under a comp time system, taking that banked comp time becomes a real problem. The mere fact that you have accumulated comp time means that you are working too many hours. It is likely that this condition of more work for the hours available is not a short term one. This means that the hours may have to be carried on the books for a long time. Then there will be disputes about the totals and conditions under which they can be taken. One issue in dispute is the notice an employer must give before terminating the program. The Republican time is so short that it may not be possible to take the hours. This all turns into potentially grievable issues for workers. Just getting the OT in the next paycheck is so much simpler and - to return to the original goal of OT legislation - may act as a stronger deterrent on employers to its overuse than banking comp time. There are ways the legislation can address each of these problems, but it may be that the eventual law will not be drafted in a way that makes the unionists' lives easier. Ellen Dannin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
