FLEXIBLE WORK PROVIDES RELIEF FOR U.S. FAMILIES

Our view is (a minimum wage increase) needs to be packaged with other things that'll keep workers ... comp time, flex time, things that (employees) have in the federal government for example.

-- Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole on "Face the Nation" April 21

Dual-income families have become the norm in American society. Today, parents face severe time shortages attempting to fit all work and family responsibilities into an inflexible and demanding workweek. Often the opportunity cost of additional take-home pay is not worth the loss of time spent with family -- time to take the kids to the dentist, or a grandparent to a school play.

Yet as Mr. Dole stated recently, only federal government workers have been granted flexible work arrangements which enable them to balance work and family responsibilities. For decades, they have had the option of taking time off in lieu of overtime pay, as well as the ability to schedule 80 hours of work over two weeks in any combination. Meanwhile, private sector workers have struggled under the 40 hour workweek as mandated by the 60-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 1978, Congress passed experimental flexible work schedules for federal government employees. It was so successful that the program was permanently enacted in 1983. And federal workers have had the choice of compensatory time off instead of overtime pay since 1945. In 1994, President Clinton re-emphasized the benefits, directing federal agency heads to establish branch alternative work schedules for all executive branch employees.

But in the midst of such great concern for the needs of federal workers, private-sector workers have been precluded from compensatory time off and flexible work schedules under the archaic FLSA. If such flexibility have proven beneficial for federal workers (three-quarters of whom stated they have more opportunities to spend time with their families and an improved morale), should we not provide private sector workers the same benefits?

In 1938, the FLSA was enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It established the basic 40-hour workweek and a minimum wage. Yet, in today's society the rigid and inflexible provisions of the FLSA have paralyzed those it was meant to help -- in Roosevelt's words, "those who toil in factory and on farm to obtain a fair day's work."

Since then, the American economy has changed dramatically. We are far less dependent on assembly-line jobs and labor intensive agricultural work. High-tech advancements could allow the American worker an enormous degree of flexibility in working arrangements, alternative work schedules and home-based businesses.

Furthermore, the American family itself has changed. When the FLSA was enacted, fewer than 16 percent of married women worked outside the home. Although working mothers are now pervasive in the work force, they are still America's principal care-givers. Children, and often elderly parents, are dependent on the female breadwinner to provide trips to the doctor and attend parent-teacher conferences. If a working mother is employed in the private sector and is unable to make up missed hours, time off is deducted from her paycheck or taken as sick leave or vacation time. There is simply no other legal option.

Last August, I introduced the Work and Family Integration Act to address the stresses which job constraints impose on today's families. This bill grants private sector employees the option of substituting time-and-a-half for overtime pay. At a worker's request, the bill also permits employers to depart form strict 40-hour work weeks. Employees could opt for varying work weeks within the framework of a 40-hour week averaged over a four-week period. Employers would still be liable for overtime compensations for all hours worked in excess of 160 hours over a four-week period, or for any unscheduled hours that they request for an employee to work in a single week.

Republicans in Congress recognize the anxiety and challenges confronting today's working families. The family-friendly provisions of the Work and Family Integration Act are gaining currency as the Senate prepares to consider proposals involving the minimum wage and measures to improve opportunities for America's workers. In fact, these flexibility and "comp time" provisions are likely to appear in any labor reforms introduced in the Senate.

As these ideas emerge, it is clear that the unions will be the loudest voice of opposition. They generally view any improvement to the FLSA as a threat and charge that employers will exploit any reforms. Their objections are nothing more than scare-mongering. the Work and Family Integration Act maintains all worker protections and employer penalties available under current law, and explicitly prohibits employers from coercing employees into flexible work schedules. Simply put, all alternatives work agreements between employee and employer must be voluntary under threat of law.

Why unions are the main opposition to this bill is an interesting question. Perhaps they realize that a satisfied employee is unlikely to join a union; and without increased union membership and the accompanying dues, unions will have difficulty raising their $35 million war chest to campaign for Democrats this year.

The needs of American families should be above the fray of partisan politics. The Work and Family Integration Act would empower every family with choices in workplace scheduling and overtime compensation that federal employees have enjoyed for decades. If flexible work arrangements were deemed a necessity for executive branch workers by Mr. Clinton, do not all American families deserve the same consideration?

John Ashcroft is a U.S. senator from Missouri.