Dangerous Staffing Practice

Dramatic increase in the use of mandatory overtime as a staffing tool, is a dangerous staffing practice. This dangerous staffing practice, in part due to a nursing shortages is having a negative impact on patient care, fostering medical errors, and driving nurses away from the bedside. The main law dealing with wage and hour limits is the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or FSLA, passed in 1938. Although the FSLA establishes the 40-hour work per week, it does not put an upper limit on the number of hours my boss can ask me to work. However, it does require that any worker covered by the statute who works more than 40 hours per week must get paid time-and-a-half for any hours worked above that number. Federal law does not limit the amount
of overtime an employer can require, so long as employees are paid in accordance with the law and the mandatory overtime does not create a safety risk. An employee that refuses to work overtime when requested to do so will likely be subject to discipline. Refusal to work overtime may even result in termination. However, if some aspect of the required overtime is illegal – if the mandatory overtime violates a contract, creates a safety or health hazard, or is not compensated in accordance with state and federal law – the overtime may be challenged. In the United States, employment is “at will,” meaning that the employer can dismiss an employee for any reason or for no reason – except gender, race, age, or disability. Thus, employees who refuse to work overtime can lose their jobs or face other reprisals such as demotion or assignment to unattractive work or to less desirable shift times such as nights or weekends. The growth in overtime work, while helping to drive the healthy growth in output in the U.S., has unhealthy social costs. It is taking its toll not only on workers, but on their families, communities, and, ultimately in many cases, patients, customers, and employers. Families burdened by longer work hours are more likely to find it difficult to balance the conflicting demands of work and family. More hours spent at work mean less time with the family, less time to help a child with homework, less time for play, less time for housework, and less time for sleep. These sacrifices can translate into increased risk for accidents and injuries; greater chronic fatigue, stress, and related diseases; reduced parenting and family time; and diminished quality of goods and services – a serious public concern particularly in the health care sector. The social costs associated with the growth in work hours and persistent overtime are particularly worrisome when the long hours are involuntary.
It is generally accepted that management has the right to require employees to work overtime when business conditions make such scheduling necessary. In exercising this right, employers should be reasonable and fair, ensuring that mandatory overtime is used only for legitimate business needs. Employees should be advised and regularly reminded of the company’s policy on mandatory overtime. It is important that they understand the conditions for its use and the consequences of not complying with the policy. Refusal to work overtime should be treated as any other rule violation, and appropriate discipline should be applied. In turn, employers should make every attempt to provide reasonable notice of the need for overtime. Be sensitive to the needs of your employees and consider legitimate excuses fairly and consistently. Consider seeking volunteers for overtime before initiating mandatory overtime.
With the rise in household work hours and overtime, there is a growing need for limits on involuntary overtime.
Labor laws such as the FLSA need to be amended to protect workers against excessive work hours and mandatory overtime and to protect the public from the dangers of an overburdened, stressed workforce. Employees should have the legal right to refuse overtime after having worked a certain number of hours – without fear of job loss or other sanctions. Furthermore, an employee should be asked to work beyond some legislated upper limit only during exceptional circumstances such as a temporary health or public safety emergency. Amendment of the FLSA can preserve the right of workers to work long hours if they choose to do so, but ensure workers the right to refuse mandatory
overtime.
Long hours can detrimentally affect workers, their co-workers, their families, consumers, and the public. Indeed, there is evidence that, despite the short-term benefits that make overtime attractive to employers (Easton and Rossin 1997), it may in the longer term create offsetting harm to an organization by decreasing quality, increasing mistakes (Babbar and Aspelin 1998; Hirschman 2000), and reducing productivity (Shepard and Clifton 2000). In the U.S., job stress is estimated to cost industry $150 billion per year in absenteeism, health insurance premiums, diminished productivity, compensation claims, and direct medical costs (Donatelle and Hawkins 1989). Longer work hours can only contribute further to this drain. A study by Northwestern National Life (1991), which investigated employee burnout, found that seven out of 10 employees experiencing job stress said they frequently suffered health ailments. Frequent mandatory overtime was one of the leading five factors that caused increased stress. Employees who worked overtime on a regular basis were twice as likely to report that they found their jobs to be highly stressful. Recognizing that different workers have different preferences for work hours, and that much overtime work is voluntary, one sensible solution to the problem of mandatory overtime would include: upper limits on overtime hours per week, unless there is an agreement between the employer and employee on overtime beyond the established limits; the right of employees to refuse mandatory overtime, with the exception of certain essential personnel, such as firefighters, police officers, and doctors, and except in cases of natural disasters or other emergencies; sanctions under employment discrimination law against employers who take any actions against or otherwise discriminate against employees who refuse to work more than the maximum number of hours per day or week.
Refusal by any employee to accept such overtimes work should not be a grounds for employment discrimination, dismissal, or discharge or any other penalty. This proposal attempts to strike a balance between the needs of both employers and employees. It recognizes that employers’ demand for labor may fluctuate from day to day and week to week. Unexpected labor shortages may arise due to an increase in business activity, sick leave, or other unexpected circumstances, and employers surely need to have some discretion to vary employees’
hours.