Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Comp Time topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves twice‑annual payout option for unused comp time for state and local employees
Summary
The House Labor, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee approved a committee substitute for House Bill 438 that would require state agencies and political subdivisions to offer employees the opportunity to exchange unused compensatory time for pay at least twice a year; the measure passed the committee 7‑3.
The House Labor, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee approved a committee substitute for House Bill 438, which would require state agencies and political subdivisions to provide employees an opportunity to exchange unused compensatory time for compensation at least twice a year. The committee voted 7‑3 in favor of the committee substitute.
Supporters told the committee the change is intended to prevent employees who cover persistent vacancies from permanently losing pay for hours worked. Catherine Clark, an expert witness for the bill, said some divisions ask employees to “zero out” their compensatory-time banks rather than pay them, and described that practice as “a form of wage theft.”
The substitute changes the bill’s opening language to permit political subdivisions to offer a biannual cash‑out option instead of a single year‑end payout. Proponents argued that splitting payouts reduces year‑end budgetary pressure on agencies while ensuring employees who cannot take leave because of staffing shortages receive compensation.
Workers’ representatives testified in support. Lindsey Hurst, executive vice president of CWA Local 7076, and a state employee, told the committee her union represents about 2,700 positions across 13 state agencies and said roughly 27 percent of those positions are vacant. Hurst described a case in which a retiring employee had accrued more than 600 hours of compensatory time but was paid for only 240 hours, saying the unpaid hours reflected work done with supervisory approval to meet program needs.
Carter Bundy of AFSCME said the change would “offer state employees flexibility to be recognized for the extra work that they do” and urged the committee to pass the bill.
During committee discussion members asked whether comp time must be approved by supervisors and whether comp time must be used before other leave; witnesses said approval and usage rules vary by political subdivision and that the proposal is aimed at employees who are unable to take leave because of staffing shortages.
On procedural motions the committee moved a “do not pass” on the original House Bill 438 and a “do pass” on the committee substitute. The roll call recorded these votes: Representative Anaya — yes; Representative Garcia — yes; Representative Hall — no; Representative Johnson — yes; Representative Mejia — no; Representative Ortiz — yes; Representative Reeb — no; Representative Torres Velasquez — yes; Vice Chair Chavez — yes; Chairwoman Roybal Caballero — yes. The committee reported the committee substitute as passed, 7‑3.
No implementation date or subsequent referral appeared in the portion of the transcript provided.
