2017: Schweikert Voted To Revise Time And A Half Overtime Rules To Allow Employees To Receive Compensatory Time Instead. In May 2017, Schweikert voted for the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would "allow private-sector employers to provide non-exempt employees compensatory time off at a rate of 1.5 hours per hour of overtime work. To be eligible, employees would be required to have worked at least 1,000 hours in a 12-month period. Employees would be limited to 160 hours of compensatory time and employers would be required to provide monetary compensation by Jan. 31, for any unused compensatory time accrued during the preceding year. The bill's provisions would sunset five years after enactment." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 229 to 197. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 244, 5/2/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/2/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1180]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting Federal Contracts For Contractors Who Have "Willfully Or Repeatedly" Violated The FLSA. In September 2017, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funding appropriated by the bill from being used to enter into contracts with federal contractors who have willfully or repeatedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 191 to 226. [House Vote 514, 9/13/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/13/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 427; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Prohibit Federal Funds From Going To Contractors Who Had Violated The Fair Labor Standards Act. In June 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would prohibit funds from the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill from going to contractors who had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would "bar the use of funds made available by the bill to award contracts to contractors who have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act." The larger bill was HR 2578, the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science and related agencies appropriations for fiscal year 2016. The vote was on agreeing to the amendment and the House rejected the amendment 184 to 244. The larger legislation passed the House on June 3, 2015 on a 242 to 183 vote, but died in the Senate after an attempt at becoming a vehicle for a different appropriations bill. [House Vote 281, 6/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/27/15; House Vote 297, 6/3/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 321; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN): Amendment "Only Applies To Contractors Who Have Been Found In Violation." In a floor speech, Rep. Ellison (D-MN) said, "Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment which says that the moneys appropriated by the U.S. Congress should go to contractors who deal fairly with workers and who do not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. This particular amendment is not an allegation; it only applies to contractors who have been found in violation, who have been forced to disclose those violations based on the requirements of law and their violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from using funds in this bill to hire contractors with wage theft violations." [Congress.gov, 6/3/15]
Rep. John Culberson (R-TX): The Amendment Was Too Broadly Written And Would Have Adverse Impacts Beyond The Author's Intentions. In a floor speech, Rep. Culberson said, "Madam Chairman, I share the gentleman's concerns, but I think his amendment is written so broadly that it is going to have an impact far beyond anything he actually intended. For example, if a very large company like Boeing ever failed to pay somebody overtime on one occasion, the way his amendment is drafted, this would bar Boeing from ever doing any business with the Federal Government. It would bar Lockheed, which is responsible for building the Orion spacecraft for NASA, and they are doing an extraordinarily good job in doing so. It is almost inevitable. None of us are perfect. Everybody, somewhere or somehow, is going to make a mistake. It is just inevitable. In the way the gentleman's amendment is drafted, the Federal Government could not hire any company that was ever dealt with in a proceeding that included the term 'Fair Labor Standards Act.' It essentially blackballs any contractor who has ever had any violation of any kind, anywhere, anytime. It is too broad. This is not the right place for it. You are going to do great damage to a lot of very good companies that have had very minor, one-time violations a number of years ago. I know that is not the gentleman's intent, but the language before the House that he has drafted is very broad and has implications far beyond what I know he has laid out here tonight." [Congress.gov, 6/3/15]
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN): No Matter The Size Or Prestige Of The Company, They Should Obey The Fair Labor Standards Act If They Do Business With The Federal Government. In a floor speech, Rep. Ellison said, "Madam Chair, I just want to point out that the companies that the gentleman has identified ought to obey the Fair Labor Standards Act. Every company that does business with the United States Government ought to pay its workers fairly. Federal contracts are lucrative, and Federal contracts make people rich. At the very least, those companies and those individuals who benefit from those contracts ought to make sure that their workers get paid properly. The fact of the matter is that this is an appropriation from this year. It doesn't bar them in the future from applying for Federal contracts again, and if they should prove to have really cleaned up their acts, we can have a conversation about that." [Congress.gov, 6/3/15]