Thursday, March 20, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.
The bill would give employees the choice of taking time off instead of being paid for overtime. The House voted largely along party lines to pass the measure 222-210.
Republicans said the bill would give workers the flexibility to spend more time attending to family matters. But Democrats and unions argued it would allow employers to coerce workers to take time off instead of overtime pay.
President Clinton vowed to veto the bill, saying it does not protect against employer abuse.
"I can see the scenario in Nevada where someone builds up all this comp time, and the employer decides it's simpler to replace the worker instead of giving that person time off," said Danny Thompson, political director of the Nevada AFL-CIO.
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said Thompson's complaint is a gross distortion of the bill.
"First, employers are not cruel and inhumane," Gibbons said. "Unions are opposing this because we are allowing employers and employees to reach an agreement without them, and this dilutes their power."
Rep. John Ensign, R-Nev., agreed, saying the bill would make unions less relevant.
"The reason this bill is so good is that employees have 100 percent veto power over it," he said.
"If they don't want comp time, they can still get paid for overtime. It helps employers, too, because workers want more time off these days, and this provides a way to do that."
archive
