In my last blog, I started a discussion of schedule predictability and its impact on employee morale. In that first of a series of five articles, I addressed chronic understaffing. In this blog, I will talk about a second cause of schedule unpredictability: lax absenteeism policies. The worst example I've seen is a manufacturer that allowed employees to call in a vacation day 30 minutes after the shift had started with no penalty. They also allowed employees to take their vacation in 15 minute increments. The result was chaos. Your problem may not be as bad as that, but if your employees are frequently called-in on short notice to cover for other absent employees, you have a problem with your time-off policies. The best solution is to require employees to sign up in advance for most vacation. Assign a limit to the number of employees on vacation or other paid time off at the same time and stick to that limit. If absenteeism due to illness is a problem, ask for a doctor's note after the 2nd or 3rd occurrence of sickness in a year. Employees tire of covering for others on short notice and often want lax policies fixed even more than management does.

When companies expand from working 5 days a week to 7 days a week, they start by having the current employees work overtime on the weekend. Over time, however, management faces a tough choice: Continue to rely on weekend overtime. To avoid alienating the current workforce, management can continue relying on weekend overtime to meet demand. Unfortunately, the situation will eventually become worse with excessive costs, lower productivity, quality and safety issues, and personnel problems such as increased absenteeism and turnover. By the time management realizes this, employees will have become addicted to the overtime and it will be difficult to change anything.   Hire a weekend crew. The company can keep the current employees on their Monday through Friday schedule and hire new employees for a weekend crew. Because it's difficult to find and retain good part-time employees, companies usually hire a full-time weekend crew that works 12-hour shifts on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Double coverage every Friday is expensive. So is the common practice of paying the weekend crew for 40 hours instead of the 36 hours they actually work. Less experience on the weekend crew results in lower productivity. Personnel that work weekends often do so to get their foot in the door. After a year or more of waiting to be hired, they may get frustrated, leading to increased turnover and absenteeism. You can read more here: https://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Blog?m8:post=weekend-crews.   Adopt a 24/7 schedule. While the two options discussed above minimize the impact on the current workforce, they have some serious disadvantages. They might be safe from a labor relations perspective, but the cost can be considerable. The best way to avoid those costs is to adopt a 24/7 schedule. I've previously recommended a process to follow:  https://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Schedule_Selection_Process. I've also discussed incremental steps to take: https://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Expand_from_5_to_7_Days. For examples of different 24/7 schedules, please check this out: https://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Schedule_Examples.

When changing to a 24/7 schedule, companies often face a number of issues they didn't anticipate. They knew they'd need a new day-on-day-off pattern. And they probably knew they'd have to hire more staff. However, they may not have known about issues related to skill distribution or the need to revise pay policies to match the new schedule. The more a company digs into this type of project, the more complicated it becomes. Questions such as: “Can we run an 8-hour schedule on one line and a 12-hour schedule on another?” Or, “What should we do with the new schedule if demand drops?” Eventually, the project manager or team will get around to the broad question of “What about supervision?” This is often left to the very end. There are several reasons for this. First of all, number-wise, there are far fewer supervisors than hourly shift workers to worry about scheduling, so they should be easy to deal with. Additionally, supervisors are managers, so they should be considered “team players” that will do whatever they are called upon to do. And finally, companies simply underestimate the impact of supervision on their operation. This is not to say that companies think their supervisors are unimportant. They just often fail to realize just how important that position is. Here are a few key points that we think are important when it comes to your supervisors: Supervisors are managers AND shiftworkers. They must straddle the wall between the needs of the company and the needs of the people they supervise. When the company needs to get something done, it is the supervisor who sees to its accomplishment on the shop floor. If the workforce has an issue with something, the supervisor is seen as their advocate to get them the help they need. This is a complicated dance, and it takes a special talent to pull it off well. If a supervisor is weak, his or her crew will under-perform. This sounds obvious but it's often quite difficult to detect. A poor supervisor will do at least one of the following: (a) blame upper management for difficult decisions instead of taking on the responsibility himself, (b) direct the workforce with an authoritarian fist rather than leading them through coaching and encouragement. The result will be a workforce that is anti-company. This will show up in small ways such as higher than expected absenteeism, periodic quality issues and safety problems. An employee who feels he or she is not part of the company will perform at a level below that which they are capable of. A good supervisor will bring out the best in his people while a poor supervisor will bring out the worst. Supervisors need to be on the same schedule as the people they supervise. This will cause a two-way ownership that is important to the smooth operation of your facility. This perfect matching of schedules will enable a supervisor to say “those are my people”. At the same time, the employees will be able to say, “that is my supervisor.” Each knows the other. The supervisor understands his workers' abilities and weaknesses. The workers understand expectations. Communications between the two are consistent. Feedback, both ways, is more readily understood and accepted. When we go to plants where supervisors are on a different schedule from the people they supervise, we know there will be big problems. There will be a lack of accountability, poor communications, duplication of efforts and important projects left unattended because “someone else was supposed to do it.” The more supervision is included in the decision process, the more they will support it. All too often, I'll ask a supervisor, “Why is this being done this way?” only to get the response, “I don't know. No one tells me anything.” Do not miss any opportunity to empower your supervisors. Keep them informed and when possible, let them help to make the decision. If they are left out of this loop, expect them to become more “hourly” oriented and less management focused. A shift schedule change represents an ideal opportunity to get your supervisors involved. Let them know what is going on and invite them to participate in resolving issues; there will be plenty to go around.

Surveys of shift workers show that schedule predictability is the most important schedule feature (see graph below). Employees want their time off to be predictable so they can plan their lives outside of work.     What are the most common causes of schedule unpredictability?   Chronic understaffing Lax absenteeism policies Incorrect schedule Lack of skill balance/cross training Unpredictable product demand For each cause of unpredictability there is a solution. I will discuss each of these separately in the next few blogs. We'll start today with the first cause: chronic understaffing.   Chronic Understaffing Three common indicators of understanding are: If your overtime hours are consistently higher than 15% of straight-time hours If you have a 5-day work schedule, but end up working a lot of the weekends If you are frequently using employees to cover open positions that have yet to be filled The solution is to hire more employees or fill the open positions faster. If you are frequently working employees on the weekends, consider changing schedules. You might find the discussion of expanding to a 7-day operation on my website at: 5 to 7 Days informative about the multiple ways to expand your 5-day schedule to accomodate higher work volumes. If you have the work (which you've proven through high overtime), the new employees will pay for themselves. To avoid overstaffing, aim for a goal of between 5% to 15% overtime. Going below 5% is not advisable as it suggests overstaffing and the likelihood of unproductive, idle time.

When organizations expand from working 5 days a week to 7 days a week, there will always be someone who suggests hiring a weekend crew. The current employees don't want to work weekends, so why not bring in someone else to do it? That would make the existing workforce happy. Besides, there are plenty of people who would do anything to get a job, even if it means working every weekend. It's a way to get their foot in the door. So everyone wins, right? Unfortunately, no! There is a big loser, and it's the organization itself. Here are the things we typically hear about weekend crews that have been in place for a year or more: The weekend crew has a high turnover since the employees are continuously leaving for jobs with better hours (especially on the night shift). The weekend crew has high absenteeism. The weekend job is typically their second job. When they go on vacation from their "main" job, they simply call in sick for their weekend job. The weekend crew is out of touch with the rest of the plant. The weekend crew personnel move to the weekday crews as soon as there is an opening, which keeps the weekend crew staffed with the newest and least-skilled employees. The weekend crew typically performs at about 60% of the rate expected of weekday employees. If the weekend crew is also given weekday shifts (to bring them closer to 40 hours/week), the plant becomes overstaffed on the extra days they are scheduled to work. The weekend crew often gets a full benefits package. This means a 50% burden rate on the weekday employees equates to a 60-85% burden rate on the weekend crew's hours. But it gets worse. The weekend crew will continue to under-perform unless the company over-pays. Some companies, in an attempt to improve retention and performance of the weekend crews, may pay 40 hours for 24 hours of work. This can raise the hourly cost of the weekend work to as much as double that of a weekday crew when the cost of benefits is factored in. Once this becomes apparent (usually within the first 18 months) it's too late. Changing to a true 24/7 schedule will seem like a take-away and the workforce will fight it - tooth and nail. So before you jump at this tempting solution, please read this post one more time.

When organizations struggle to make ends meet, overtime often becomes a target in their budget reduction plans. Although reducing overtime may be financially prudent for most departments, it is a poor choice for those that operate around-the-clock. Here's why. The simplest and most common way to provide 24/7 coverage is with four crews. If the crews work 40 hours a week, that provides 160 hours of coverage (4 crews * 40 hours = 160 hours). The problem is that there are 168 hours in a week (24 hours * 7 days = 168 hours). The easiest way to close the 8-hour gap is to have the four crews work a small amount of overtime (an average of two hours per employee every week). With 8-hour shift schedules, that requires three hours extra pay for each employee, or a 7.5 percent increase.  With 12-hour shift schedules, that requires four hours of additional pay for each employee, or a 10 percent increase. If an organization is prohibited from using overtime, it must choose one of the following approaches to avoid gaps in coverage: 1. Use part-time employees. Some smaller organizations can do this, though it can be a challenge to find and retain good part-time employees. With larger groups, it can be difficult to fit part-time employees into the schedule without having one shift staffed solely with part-timers. This approach will increase costs by 5 percent. Although slightly less expensive than using overtime, it has limited applicability. 2. Use more than four crews. A schedule that uses more than four crews requires a larger headcount. If an organization does this, they usually allocate some of the extra work hours to training, relief, maintenance or special projects. Even if you ignore the cost of benefits for the additional employees (usually anywhere from 40 percent to 50 percent of the wages), this approach will increase costs by at least 25 percent. 3. Use a crewless schedule. Instead of scheduling groups of personnel (i.e. crews), you could develop a schedule for each individual employee. This approach also will require more employees than a typical four-crew schedule. The number depends on: (a) the shift length, (b) whether the shifts are rotating or fixed, and (c) the number of job categories/positions involved. This can increase costs anywhere from 7.7 percent to 50 percent if you ignore the cost of benefits. In most cases, this approach will cost more than using a four-crew schedule with built-in overtime. Although overtime is often perceived as something to be avoided (because it requires a time-and-a-half pay premium), it is not the most expensive approach for providing 24/7 coverage. Using part-time employees to supplement four full-time crews is the least expensive solution, but this is only feasible in smaller groups. So, before banning overtime, it is important to recognize that the policy will force groups that operate around-the-clock to adopt schedules that are actually more expensive. When organizations view overtime as an expense rather than a strategic tool, they often make three major mistakes: They staff for peak demand. In order to have enough resources on hand to respond to short-term fluctuations in demand, they over-staff instead of using overtime. Usually this is the most expensive approach. They sacrifice customer service. Without overtime, they are unable to respond to fluctuations in demand. In short, they sacrifice customer service to avoid overtime. They build up an inventory of excess product to have a cushion for demand variations. The cost of this inventory must be passed on to customers. Here are three more articles on overtime. Reasons for using overtime. Four valid reasons for using overtime are: (1) 24/7 coverage, (2) workload fluctuations, (3) staff variations, and (4) labor market considerations. Overtime problems. High overtime, especially when it continues for an extended time period, has several potential drawbacks: (1) an overtime-dependent workforce, (2) safety and quality issues, (3) absenteeism, and (4) lower productivity. Correcting overtime problems. To avoid overtime problems, you should regularly monitor overtime and absences. You also should understand the workload variations and take steps to improve the accuracy of your demand forecasts. Periodically, you should review your organization's overtime distribution policies to make sure they are working properly.

When managers explain why they're searching for a new shift schedule, it usually boils down to one of these three reasons:     Resource Changes Either the staff size or the group's budget is changing. If the group is getting bigger, there may be opportunities to use the extra capacity to reduce the average weekly hours, boost coverage on one or more shifts, or build relief coverage into the schedule to cover some of the absences. If the group is getting smaller, the average weekly hours of work may have to be increased to maintain the minimum coverage requirements.   Sometimes upper management wants to cut costs but not change the headcount. The group will have to do a cost analysis of overtime in the schedule vs. overtime outside the schedule to determine the best approach. You can read about this here:  http://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Overtime_Issues. The group may also be forced to consider other schedule changes that will lower costs as discussed here:  http://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Cost_Reduction.     New Business Requirements When the demand for an organization's products or services changes (usually by increasing), this may require them to hire more employees or make more effective use of their current employees. In either case, it's a good time to align the coverage with the workload. We start the schedule design process by evaluating work volumes and the associated coverage requirements by time of day and day of the week. We also consider absence coverage if the resources are adequate.     Employee Satisfaction When employees search for a new schedule, they are primarily looking for ways to increase the days off and weekends off. When managers cite employee satisfaction as a reason for changing schedules, they hope that the change will reduce absenteeism and employee turnover, or improve productivity and morale issues. Once business requirements are satisfied, we will evaluate solutions that maximize days off and weekends off and, if possible, reduce the need for mandatory overtime.