Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act is a misnomer, but it certainly clearly defines what the majority thinks about the struggle working families face. H.R. 1 does not help workers balance their work and family obligations. Instead, it lets employers dictate how workers will balance their working family. H.R. 1 allows employers to use comp time to deny workers overtime pay and then gives the employers the ultimate control over the use of the comp time. Employers can force workers to take time off when it is convenient for the company rather than for the workers and their families. H.R. 1, the Republican plan, is masked in profamily and proflexibility rhetoric, but in reality this bill is antiworker and antifamily. It denies access to overtime and thereby reduces the living standards of working families. Families depend on overtime to put food on the table, clothe the kids, and pay the mortgage. For too many Americans overtime is simply the difference between making ends meet and falling behind. Now, there is no dispute. Working Americans want and need and deserve more time with their families. But this bill does not provide it. If we are serious about making the workplace favor working Americans, we should enhance family and medical leave and improve wages. We should expand the health care coverage and make pensions portable.
John W. Olver: “Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act is a misnomer, but it certainly clearly defines what the majority…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing the Working Families Flexibility Act during a House floor debate.
Share
More from John W. Olver
Now at this point we have--I think this is the last of this group of amendments that have been proposed in this area, in essence. And when you put them together, because one was for $6.5 million, one was for about $5 million, then there…
I will be very brief. I serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee for Appropriations, and I don't think that the Homeland Security authorizers have done anything along these lines, and that's where it really ought to be dealt with, I…
Well, that can be established if they actually have a referendum that repeals what they have done. But there has been--as we know, California has received about $4 billion of moneys from the Federal Government from earlier funds in earlier…
Reclaiming my time, the language of the amendment, as I have it before me, says none of the funds made available by this Act may be used for high-speed rail in the State of California, or for the California High-Speed Rail Authority.





