2-3-2 Shift ??'s
6376819
1 Post
So, I'm looking for some insight and hoping someof you might be able to provide some. I'm an HR Manager for a facility of about 150 people. Being a smaller facility, it doesn't take much absenteeism and/or vacations for us to notice people are missing. In fact, last month, we had right around 60% of our posted OT for coverage go unfilled. From talking with employees, the majority make the claim that they'd come in for OT if they got paid more for doing so. But based on the actions we see, this has nothing to do with money ... they're paid well and they really do know it. If it were truly about money, I can't imagine people would call in on Fri/Sat of their long week and give up the built-in OT pay. What their actions tell me is that most value the time off more than the money. We currently operate on a 2-3-2 schedule ... their long week consisting of M/T - on, W/R - off, F/S/S - on. One suggestion that has come up is shifting the workdays by one, meaning that the long "weekend" worked would consist of Sat/Sun/Mon. The thought behind this being that mentally, it'd be a shift in knowing that on any given week, you're going to be off either Friday or Saturday, giving the perception of a more "normal" work schedule.
Have any of you dealt with this? I can handle 20-30% unfilled OT, but 60% is just too much. The prospect of forced OT has come up, but I'd much rather get creative and come up with some other way. I think as soon as you get to the point of "You're going to do this because I said so" ... you've lost.
Comments
I'd think twice about forced OT with shiftworkers. When shiftworkers are overtired, they make mistakes, productivity goes down, and absenteeism goes up.
You didn't say when the OT is scheduled. Are you tacking it on to the end of the shift or are you bringing in workers on scheduled days off?
I read that a good OT limit for shiftworkers is 300 to 350 hours per year, although some facilities run over 500 hours of OT per year per person.
I'm thinking more than twice about the forced OT. Hence, the reason I'm looking for another option.
To answer your questions, though, any ot coverage would be on scheduled days off. They already work 12 hour shifts, there's no way I'd consider extending that. I've also read those same stats on average OT limits. Again, I'm looking more for something different to do with the shifts in order to decrease the need for OT. Or at the very least, come up with some out-of-box approach to getting the OT covered without having to go to a forced plan.
Just a thought off the top of my head - if you have that much OT that needs to be filled, wouldn't it make sense to look at hiring a couple more people? I agree with the poster that said the more OT people work then productivity goes down, mistakes are made and then safety becomes an even bigger issue. People need down time to rest and regroup. Always working OT can drain a person.
Could you schedule the OT in smaller hour increments versus the 12 hours of the shift? Possibly do 4 or 6 hours of OT and that way people don't feel they are working as much.
We have looked at the possibility of adding headcount, but truth be told, I don't believe it will solve the issue. So we bring in a few extra people, but where do we put them? When fully staffed, we're just fine. So by bringing in even 2 additional people, what department do we put them in? What machines do we train them on? There is no way of knowing where the ebbs/flows of the department in need is going to be and it isn't feasible to train someone new on all machines. Then, on the majority of days that we are fully staffed ... what do we do with them? There is just no way I can justify paying additional people to then try and "find them work" on the majority of days they aren't needed.
In response to the smaller increments ... they already have the option of signing up for 6-hour increments of OT. In fact, once the "posting" is closed, if it's unfilled, they can come in for as little as 1 hour.
Another thought in forced OT is liability and workers' comp.
Have you considered simply staffing up? Depending on your benefits costs, given that you are willing to fork for OT, it may be cost efficient to simply add head count to work the additional hours. You'll need to talk to operational people because staff changeover in some environments is costly (e.g., bring the boat to shore, take the boat back out; shut the machine down, wind it back up; etc.) and you'll need to consider that as well.
Not knowing your business and industry here are a couple of things that come to mind:
1. Take one of your more tenured employees and make him and her a floater. This way they will be able to cover different machines, stations to cover for absences (sick, vacation, etc.) and then you can put new hires into this person(s) position.
2. If you have that much work that is requiring you to have that much OT then maybe it is time to look at ordering more machines. What is the cost of a couple more machines and the new hires, versus the OT you are paying each month as well as the product you are not able to get out (orders unfulfilled) because you can't get employees to work the OT shifts? It is all a numbers game.
As I mentioned before, continuing to have employees work lots of OT is going to end up costing you more in the long run then some of the other options you may be considering.
I've thrown #1 out there as an option and that's being considered. Have you taken this approach before? Was it successful?
It'd be a fairly drastic change in approach for us here, but I like the possibilities it could open up.
Yes I have done this before. We did this to cover absences because we had gaps and no one to fill the role when someone was out. Basically we sat down with some of our more senior people and talked to them about being cross trained on every job on that shift. We changed their title to Shift Lead (still hourly, not a supervisor, but it basically upped their importance on the shift). We also gave them a $1 hour raise for doing this. We had some interested and some not, but those that were really got into it. They could do any job in the facility on that shift. It really made things easier. If you had every person at work on a particular shift this lead would watch the flow of things and if something was getting behind, this person stepped in to get it back on track.
I really think this is an option that you could look at doing.
The key to cross training is job rotation.
If you cross train senior employees and then ask them to run a machine they haven't touched in 6 months, it won't work as planned.