Overtime is a relatively new term—at least as new as the standardization of the eight-hour workday and the 40-hour workweek.

Neal Bolton

By Neal Bolton

In our industry, as in many others, opinions on overtime vary depending on which side of the fence you happen to be on—paying overtime or working it. In most cases, overtime hours are paid at a higher rate than regular hours, but this doesn't mean that managers hate overtime and workers love it.

It's true that some landfills have a management policy that limits overtime. But other landfills allow—even expect—the crew to work overtime on a regular basis.

Similarly, while some workers want to work overtime, others avoid it, because from a worker's perspective, overtime can mean extra money to buy that fishing boat … or less time to use it.

The decision of whether to encourage or limit overtime is often based on economics. And in terms of economics it's a fairly simple process to determine if overtime makes sense or not. Here's an example:

To meet the landfill's cover soil requirements, the scraper must work 11 hours per day. In this case, the manager has a choice to either hire one person and pay him 11 hours per day (including three hours of overtime) or hire a second person and pay them both eight hours at the regular rate. It would be fairly simple to determine which option was most economical. If the regular rate was $10 per hour, Option 1 would cost $125 a day (eight hours x $10 plus three hours x $15). Option 2 would cost $160 a day (16 hours x $10). So, unless the second person could do some other productive work, Option 1 would be the most economical choice.

But while overtime decisions are often based on this kind of simple economic evaluation, it's a mistake to not also consider the human factor. And in a very real way, the human factor impacts the economics.

The example given above mistakenly assumes that a worker's 11th hour is as productive as his first. But is it?

Studies have shown that workers who work overtime on a continual basis will gradually become less productive due to fatigue.

In 1980, the Business Roundtable Cost Effectiveness Study Report C-3 determined that after just one 60-hour workweek, worker production was equivalent to 54 hours. Over time, production continued to fall off until after approximately nine weeks of continuous 50- or 60-hour workweeks, productivity was actually less than a normal 40-hour week.

Is the decrease in productivity due to physical fatigue? Or is it more of an emotional issue perhaps rooted in an attitude that because of continued overtime, the worker is entitled to a more leisurely pace?

Either way, the fact is continued overtime actually results in less work getting done.

So, from the standpoint of production and economics, regularly scheduled overtime doesn't make much sense—at least not on a long-term basis.

Taking this even one step further, consider how excessive overtime might affect a worker's ability to be safe. Obviously, when workers are mentally or physically fatigued, efficiency will decrease and accident potential will increase.

Overtime may occasionally be necessary. However, if your crew has "standardized" overtime into a regular part of the workweek, it may be time to step back and consider that the true cost of overtime may be much more than time and a half.

Neal Bolton is a consultant specializing in landfill operations and management. He is principal of Blue Ridge Services in Atascadero, CA, and author of The Handbook of Landfill Operations.

MSW - November/December 2004