Search

On May 25, 2007, the President signed into law changes in the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): P.L. 110-28. Although the wage issue may now have been momentary settled, the act includes other provisions that have been subject to legislation through the years and may again become the focus of legislative consideration. Examples include the following issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) requires, among other things, that not less than the locally prevailing wage be paid to workers employed, under contract, on federal construction work "to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party." Congress has added DBA prevailing wage provisions to more than 50 separate program statutes. In 1961, a DBA prevailing wage requirement was added to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 87-88), now known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), which assists in construction of municipal wastewater treatment works. In 1987, Congress moved from a program of federal grants for municipal pollution abatement facilities to a state revolving loan fund (SRF) arrangement in which states would be expected to contribute an amount equal to at least 20% of SRF capitalization funding. The SRFs were expected to remain as a continuing and stable source of funds for construction of treatment facilities. And, Congress specified that certain administrative and policy requirements (including Davis-Bacon) were to be annexed from the core statute and would apply to treatment works "constructed in whole or in part before fiscal year 1995" with SRF assistance. By October 1994, under the 1987 amendments, it was expected that federal appropriations for SRFs would end....... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American agricultural employers have long utilized foreign workers on a temporary basis, regarding them as an important labor resource. At the same time,the relatively low wages and acceptance of often difficult working conditions by such workers have caused them to be viewed as an economic threat to domestic American workers. To mitigate any 舠adverse effect舡 for the domestic workforce, a system of wage floors has been developed that applies, variously, both to alien and citizen workers – i.e., the adverse effect wage rate (AEWR). Under this system, a guest worker must be paid either the AEWR, the state or federal minimum wage, or the locally prevailing wage for his or her occupation – whichever is higher. An H-2A worker is identified under 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a nonimmigrant alien seeking temporary employment in the United States. Wages paid to H-2A and related workers are one aspect of broader immigration questions. Here, however, the issue is limited to domestic economic concerns. Use of guest workers has evolved from a relatively simple exchange of labor along the frontier between Mexico and the United States, responding to the requirements of local employers, into a far more complicated structure that has expanded nationwide and involved several thousand workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report discusses the tip system under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), its application under state standards, and the status of the related sub-minimum wage worker. Given the history of the act, it seems likely that some further discussion of these issues will take place. As that discussion develops, the report will be revised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (as amended) requires that not less than the locally prevailing wage be paid to workers engaged in federal contract construction. A higher rate may be required, under the market, in order to secure a qualified workforce. During the last week of August 2005, Hurricane Katrina gathered strength in the Atlantic and moved against the gulf states. On September 8, 2005, amid the devastation left in Katrina's wake, President George W. Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act as it applies to certain jurisdictions in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Although the President has the authority, under Section 6 of the Act, to render such suspensions during a national emergency, that authority has rarely been utilized.1 This report analyzes the legislative aftermath of the suspension. It will be updated as conditions warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Davis-Bacon Act is one of several statutes that deals with federal government procurement. (See also the Walsh-Healey Act of 1936 and the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965.) Enacted in 1931, Davis-Bacon requires, inter alia, that not less than the locally prevailing wage be paid to workers engaged in federal contract construction. The act does not deal directly with nonfederal construction. In addition to the act, per se, the prevailing wage principle has been incorporated within a series of federal program statutes through the years. And, many states have enacted "little Davis-Bacon" acts of their own. The act of 1931, as amended, provides that the President "may suspend the provisions of this subchapter during a national emergency." (With slight variation, that provision has been a part of the statute since it was enacted.) The act has been suspended explicitly on four separate occasions. (a) In 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt suspended the act in what appears to have been for administrative convenience associated with New Deal legislation. It was restored to full strength in less than 30 days with few people, seemingly, aware of the suspension. (b) In 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the act as part of a campaign intended to quell inflationary pressures that affected the construction industry. In just over four weeks, the act was reinstated, the President moving on to different approaches to the problem. (c) In 1992, in the wake of Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki, President George H. W. Bush suspended the act in order to render reconstruction and clean-up in Florida and the Gulf Coast and in Hawaii more efficient. The impact of the suspension is unclear for the act was suspended on October 14, 1992, just days prior to the 1992 election. President William Clinton restored the Act on March 6, 1993. And, (d) on September 8, 2005, President George W. Bush suspended the act in order to render more efficient reconstruction and cleanup of Florida and the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The act may also have been suspended during World War II as part of the generalized emergency. In the suspensions of 1934 and 1971, the suspension applied to the entire country -- possibly with the understanding that it would be restored once the immediate emergency was over. In 1992 and in 2005, only portions of the country were involved. In 1992, it remains unclear how long the suspension might have lasted -- if George H. W. Bush had been re-elected. Similarly, the suspension under George W. Bush is, in the short-term, open-ended -- i.e., "until otherwise provided." The suspensions are also separated by the definition of "national emergency" used to invoke them: administrative convenience in 1934, inflationary pressures in the construction industry in 1971, and issues associated with hurricane damages in 1992 and in 2005. This report reviews the several cases during which the Davis-Bacon Act was suspended and will likely be updated as developments make necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as amended, is the primary federal statute in the area of minimum wages and overtime pay. Section 13(a)(1) provides, inter alia, that the Act's wage and hour (overtime pay) requirements will not apply to "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity ...." Through administrative rulemaking, the Secretary of Labor has established two tests through which to define eligibility under the Section 13(a)(1) exemption: a duties test and an earnings test. The Department of Labor (DOL), through many years, had defined a professional as one who has undergone "a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a general academic education and from an apprenticeship." After a review of then-current practice in the field, DOL (in a series of decisions beginning in the 1960s) decided that it was not able to determine that computer services workers were "professional" for Section 13(a)(1) purposes. Thus, such workers continued to be fully covered by the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA. In 1990, Congress adopted free-standing legislation directing DOL to promulgate regulations defining the status of computer services workers and to include in that definition an earnings test: not less than 6 and one half times the federal minimum wage. Although DOL proceeded as directed, Congress revisited the issue in 1996. It removed the computer services exemption from Section 13(a)(1), creating a new categorical exemption in Section 13(a)(17). Here, unburdened by the issue of defining professional, Congress set its own standard. It also froze the earnings test at $27.63 per hour -- decoupling it from the general minimum wage. With the increase in the general wage floor, part of the 1996 amendments, that came to equal 5.4 times the minimum wage. Some might argue that the rationale for exemption of computer services personnel, in the absence of a significant hearings record, may not be entirely clear. Further, given the broad definition of a computer services professional in the legislation, for example, some may question which workers in the industry would not be exempt. Still, legislation continued to be introduced that would have broadened the exemption further. None, however, was enacted. However, in the spring of 2004, the Administration's revision of Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA, dealing with compensation for executives, administrators, or professionals, provided yet another option for employers of computer professionals. The new rate, under Section 13(a)(1) would provide a new reduced rate for such workers. This paper explores treatment of computer professionals under the FLSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On August 23, 2004, the Department of Labor (DOL) placed in effect a new regulation for implementation of Section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): an exemption from the Act's overtime pay requirements for employers of bona fide executive, administrative, and professional workers, outside salespersons, and certain others. This report sketches the evolution of that initiative and suggests where additional information about it might be found. It will not be updated unless there are significant new administrative or legislative actions in this area. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. '' 201-219), as amended, is the primary federal law governing minimum wages, overtime pay, and closely related labor standards. Section 6 provides for a minimum wage; Section 7, a workweek of 40 hours after which overtime pay (1= times a worker's regular rate of pay) is due. Section 13 sets out exemptions from the act's wage and hour standards. Section 13(a)(1) of the act provides that Section 6 and Section 7 will not apply to "... any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity" or in the capacity of outside salesman. To it was subsequently added language exempting certain "academic administrative personnel" and teachers "in elementary or secondary schools...." Congress did not define the several terms but, rather, left them to be "defined and delimited from time to time" by the Department of Labor. In October 1938, the first federal Wage and Hour Administrator, Elmer F. Andrews, provided the original regulation governing the Section 13(a)(1) exemption and, in it, defined the concept of "bona fide executive, administrative or professional" workers. The "Andrews Rule" took up two-thirds of one page in the Federal Register.1 Through the years, Andrews' successors have modified that original rule by administrative action, adding qualifying standards and tests for exemption and defining applicable concepts. As the regulation has [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is the primary federal statute in the fields of minimum wages, overtime pay, and child labor. In the 108th Congress, legislation has been introduced that would modify the Act in each of these areas and that would extend the Act's minimum wage protections to workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Some of these proposals are broad and sweeping; others concern technical and narrowly focused issues. This report deals only with the minimum wage aspects of the Act. Other components of the FLSA are considered in separate CRS products. Following several decades of discussion and research in academic and policy circles, Congress adopted the FLSA in 1938. However, the Act is a living statute which Congress has variously modified through the years in response to altered public policy and workplace realities. It has undergone major amendment on eight separate occasions, in addition to periodic less extensive adjustments. Currently, the general minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. There are, however, a number of specialized minima: for example, a sub-minimum wage for youth, special calculation of the rate as it affects tipped employees, a reduced wage structure for persons with disabilities, etc. Early in the 108th Congress, concern with the wage aspects of the Act seem to have focused, largely, upon an increase in the base rate. The most common target seems to be an increase to $6.65 per hour -- usually with a series of step increases. Several bills would extend federal minimum wage protection to the CNMI -- currently covered only by insular wage standards. Section 13(a) of the FLSA defines a series of exemptions from the Act's otherwise applicable minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. Several proposals of the 108th Congress would amend Section 13(a) to alter the wage/hour treatment of specialized groups of workers: e.g., licensed funeral directors and embalmers, certain engineering consultants, computer services workers, retail sales workers who deal in fireworks and who are employed on a seasonal basis -- with other changes in coverage. While minimum wage legislation may be narrowly focused, dealing simply with an increase in the federal wage rate, it could also be combined with legislation affecting overtime pay child labor -- and, possibly, with other issues such as tax reduction or other questions of interest to workers or employers. There are no time constraints built into the Act. Therefore, Congress is not required to take up wage/hour legislation at all -- though social and economic pressure (and other policy concerns) could argue for some action with respect to the minimum wage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 108th Congress, two workhours flexibility bills have been introduced: S. 317 by Senator Gregg and H.R. 1119 by Representative Biggert. Both bills deal with a compensatory time off option (comp time) -- though the Gregg proposal is somewhat broader, projecting other changes in the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well. This report is limited to consideration of the issue of comp time. Since the mid-1980s, certain employer-oriented groups and individuals have urged amendment of the FLSA to alter current overtime pay requirements in order to broaden the opportunities for private sector employers to offer to their employees workhours flexibility. Legislation to effect this end was introduced at least as early as the 99th Congress and has been reintroduced in various forms up to and including the 108th Congress. The legislation has been contentious. Presented as an option especially attractive to working women, it has been opposed by organized labor and by some women's groups such as "9to5: National Association of Working Women." Conversely, it has been supported by some industry and employer-oriented groups. Individuals and other organizations have spoken out both for and against the proposed legislation -- and have testified during the several hearings on the issue both in the House and Senate. Under the FLSA, the standard work week is normally 40 hours. After 40 hours of work in a single week, payment for additional hours of work is at the rate of timeand-a-half (i.e., 1= times a worker's regular rate of pay). Within a single work week, any combination of hours can be worked. However, once the total hours of work exceed 40 in a single week, the premium rate (time-and-a-half) must be paid. As proposed, the Gregg/Biggert legislation would allow an employer to offer to his or her employees the option of trading time off (compensatory time off, or comp time) for cash payment for overtime hours worked. Instead of being paid in cash for the extra hours of work, the employee would be allowed to take time off with pay on the basis of 1= hours of paid leave for each hour of overtime worked. The legislation provides that the arrangement would be voluntary for each of the parties: each could opt out of the program and, if a worker so desired, the accrued (and unused) comp time could later be converted to cash earnings. Through the years, a number of questions have been (and continue to be) raised with respect to these proposals. For example: How flexible is current law where private sector workhours practices are concerned? What level of choice would workers have under the proposal? What impact would it have on the basic wage/hour protections of the FLSA? At large, would comp time assist (or hinder) working parents as they attempt to meet their dual responsibilities of home and work? This report will be updated as developments may require. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as amended, is the primary federal statute in the area of minimum wages and overtime pay. Section 13(a)(1) provides, inter alia, that the Act's wage and hour (overtime pay) requirements will not apply to "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity ...." Through administrative rulemaking, the Secretary of Labor has established two tests through which to define eligibility under the Section 13(a)(1) exemption: a duties test and an earnings test. The Department of Labor (DOL) has defined a professional as one who has undergone "a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a general academic education and from an apprenticeship." After a review of then-current practice in the field, the Department (in a series of decisions beginning in the 1960s) decided that it was not able to determine that computer services workers were "professional" for Section 13(a)(1) purposes. Thus, such workers remained under the protection of the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Act. In 1990, Congress adopted free-standing legislation directing DOL to promulgate regulations defining the status of computer services workers and to include in that definition an earnings test: not less than 6= times the federal minimum wage. Although DOL proceeded as directed, Congress revisited the issue in 1996. It moved the computer services exemption from Section 13(a)(1), creating a new categorical exemption in Section 13(a)(17). Here, unburdened by the issue of defining professional, Congress set its own standard. It also froze the earnings test at $27.63 per hour. With the increase in the general wage floor, part of the 1996 amendments, that came to equal 5.4 times the minimum wage. Some might argue that the rationale for exemption of computer services personnel, in the absence of a significant hearings record, may not be entirely clear. Given the broad definition of a computer services professional in the legislation, for example, some may question which workers in the industry would not be covered by the exemption. In the 106th Congress, legislation was introduced by Representatives Andrews and Lazio that would have increased the scope of the exemption: first, by expanding the range of exempt job titles, and then, through a relative reduction in the value of the earnings threshold or test. For example, were the minimum wage increased to $6.15 per hour, as pending proposals would do, the value of the computer services exemption threshold would be 4.5 times the federal minimum wage. Ultimately, neither bill was enacted, but the issue re-emerged in the 107th Congress: H.R. 1545 (Andrews) and H.R. 546 (Quinn). The new proposals died at the close of the 107th Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is the basic federal statute dealing with minimum wages, overtime pay, and child labor. First enacted in 1938, it has been amended through the years to take into account changing workplace trends and to meet new worker and employer concerns. In the 107th Congress, a wide range of changes in the FLSA has been proposed -- some to strengthen the Act; others, arguably, to reduce the level of worker protection. This report provides a quick overview of the status of FLSA-related legislation at the close of the 107th Congress.1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summarizes the new work hours proposals by U.S. Representative Cass Ballenger and U.S. Senator John Ashcroft to the 105th U.S. Congress. Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; Overview of how the of the workday and workweek has been a matter of contention at least since the early nineteenth century; Details of the legislators' proposals.

In each Congress since 1938, when the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was enacted, proposals have been introduced that would, in some manner, have amended the statute. The 106th Congress was no exception. Bills introduced in the 106th Congress dealt with minimum wage, overtime pay and related issues. Three general proposals to raise the federal minimum wage (and to make other adjustments in the Act) moved forward in the legislative process. H.R. 3081, a tax bill to which a package of FLSA provisions was added, was passed by the House on March 9, 2000. H.R. 833, bankruptcy legislation, was passed by the House but then, in the Senate, was amended to include certain additional tax and FLSA provisions -- prior to its adoption by the Senate on February 2, 2000. Merging of the two bills was rendered difficult because of their somewhat different content. Both H.R. 3081 and H.R. 833 proposed to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $6.15 per hour: the first through 2 years; the latter, over 3 years. Each had other labor-related provisions as well. H.R. 3081 would have (a) exempted licensed funeral directors and embalmers from minimum wage and overtime pay protection, (b) altered and expanded the current exemption of certain computer services workers from such protections, and (c) created a new minimum wage/overtime pay exemption for certain inside sales workers. H.R. 833 would have altered the definition of ''regular rate'' for calculation of overtime pay (1_ times a worker's regular rate of pay). In late October, a 2-year increase in the minimum wage (with no other FLSA provisions) was added to the conference report on H.R. 2614, general small business and tax legislation, and passed by the House on October 26, 2000. No immediate action followed: a veto had been threatened. Several elements, often associated with changes in the minimum wage, were addressed neither in H.R. 3081 nor in H.R. 833. First, the threshold for exemption of computer services personnel, originally fixed at 6_ times the minimum wage, was converted in 1996 to a flat dollar amount: i.e., $27.63 an hour. If unchanged in the context of a rate increase to $6.15 per hour, the threshold would have-been reduced to 4_ times the minimum wage. Second, the cash wage employers must pay to regularly tipped employees (previously a percentage of the federal minimum wage), was set in 1996 at $2.13 an hour -- assuming the worker earns at least the minimum wage in combined tips and cash wages. The $2.13 threshold remains unchanged until Congress alters it. Third, a sub-minimum wage for youth (certain persons under 20 years of age) was set at $4.25 per hour in 1996. Unless changed by the Congress, such youth workers will not be affected by an increase in the federal minimum wage. Fourth, it has been proposed to allow states, under various arrangements, to opt out of the federal minimum wage structure. A part of neither bill, the ''state flexibility'' option has the support of certain industry and/or conservative groups. Ultimately, none of these FLSA-related proposals was approved. Should the 107th Congress take up the FLSA/minimum wage issue, it will do so with a fresh starting point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]