I just finished designing a set of 8-hour shift schedules for a client. They wanted 8-hour shifts because their HR Department is requiring them to abandon their current 12-hour shift schedule and start working 8-hour shifts. I assumed that this was to avoid the overtime in the 12-hour schedule. Was I surprised when I learned that wasn't the case!

HR decided to convert the company's paid time-off policies to days instead of hours. The handful of employees working 12-hour shifts used to get 120 hours of vacation each year. With the policy change, they were now getting 15 days off. It was simply costing the organization too much money.

Rather than change the policy back to hours or reduce the number of days for people on 12s, HR said no more 12-hour shifts. So now the employees are facing some really ugly schedules with a limited number of weekends off. They still get 15 days of vacation, but they are 8-hour days.

The company will save money by offering less paid time-off, but they likely will have higher costs:

Increased employee turnover.

Increased absences.

Lower productivity.

More complaints and grievances.

Usually I see this in reverse. A company has 8-hour shifts and wants to adopt 12-hour shifts. If they fail to change the paid time-off policies to be stated in hours off instead of days off, they will spend a lot more money needlessly. Changing schedules should always be accompanied by a review of the policies. In this case, a change in the policies forced the organization to change schedules. What a shame!