Flex time law sensible work reform

Wednesday, June 26, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

REGARDLESS which political party thought of it, the time has come to give employees and employers more flexible work rules.

President Clinton Monday proposed federal legislation to allow workers to accumulate up to 80 hours of "flex time" for overtime or time off. The employee would have to give his employer at least two weeks notice before taking the vacation.

Former Sen. Bob Dole, the Republican presidential candidate, proposed similar legislation in April, and this week accused the president to stealing ideas from the GOP.

Flex time has become just another political football to be kicked around between now and the November election. But, no matter who takes credit for it, flex time would be an asset to employers and employees. The encouraging thing is both parties agree on the concept.

Squabbling over the copyright should not sidetrack legislation that should have been passed years ago. Many employers would profit from flex time, since their business often is cyclical. It's not cost-effective to pay people overtime one week and be overstaffed the next. Businesses would prefer more flexible work standards. Many employees also would prefer to work longer periods and have more usable time off.

The present federal work laws were written in the heyday of factory production and union organizing and, at the time, fit in well with the nation's work habits. Strict overtime laws also prevented exploitation of workers that was common in the 19th century. Today, jobs as well as families have changed. When both parents are breadwinners, many time they would work longer hours in exchange for larger blocks of time off to care for their homes and children.

It really doesn't matter whether the law is called the Clinton or Dole Labor Reform Act as long as it is enacted. Labor laws should assist, not impede, the changing marketplace and this law would be a step in the right direction.