California is one of the few states with overtime laws that differ from the federal guidelines. Companies in California are required to pay overtime when employees work more than 8 hours a day. This is why 12-hour shifts are rarely used in that state.

I have never attempted to understand this state's complex requirements and exceptions. I always advise prospective clients to have their legal representative research this before having me design schedules with anything other than 8-hour shifts.

Recently, I was contacted by Cindy Opeka of O'Peka HR Consulting who stated that she might be able to help. I don't have first-hand experience with her expertise, but thought I would share her comments with you. Here's what she said:

"I'm currently working with a client who is dealing with the Department of Labor. They are up against thousands of dollars in fines. If you work with CA customers, I'd be happy to share info at no charge. I just want to help small employers avoid penalties."

If you would like to reach her, the website is https://hrsolutions-oc.com/. Her email address is: copeka@comcast.net and her phone number is:  (916) 337-4719.

In the U.S., most non-salaried employees are eligible for overtime after working more than 40 hours in a week. Usually this is based on the hours worked during the pay week.

Some pay weeks are better than others when it comes to 7-day work schedules. For example, with 8-hour shifts, the best days to start the pay week are Sat, Sun, or Mon. That's because employees can occasionally get a 3 or 4-day weekend off. If the pay week begins any other day of the week, employees can never get more than a 2-day weekend off since they would be working less than 40 hours in that week.

Some schedule patterns work fine with a pay period that begins any day of the week. Others only work if they start on a certain day. Trying to make one of those patterns start on a different day would compromise weekends off or create highly uneven work weeks such as 60 hours one week and 24 hours the next.

Pay weeks that begin at Midnight can create overtime unnecessarily. For instance, on a 12-hour shift schedule with shifts that begin at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., the night shift at the end of the pay week will have 5 hours in one pay week and 7 hours in the next pay week. Or, on an 8-hour shift schedule with a night shift that begins at 11 p.m., the last night shift of the pay week will have 1 hour in the first pay week and 7 hours in the next. Employees could end up working 33 hours the first week and 47 hours the next.

Pay weeks are often set by payroll personnel who aren't familiar with groups that work more than just Monday to Friday. And they are highly reluctant to change the pay week once it has been established. That means you'll have to avoid certain schedules (despite their attractiveness) or simply live with the negative consequences.

There are so many different pay weeks and schedule patterns that it's hard to say in advance whether there will be problems or not. Just be aware that pay weeks beginning on Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, or at Midnight could impact weekends off or cause additional overtime.

I just read an article by Jackie Edwards on unemployment for seasonal workers. The article is posted on a website that covers various aspects of unemployment. If this topic is something you might be interested in, here's a link: unemployment.

Shift schedules specify when employees are supposed to work. For managers, this defines how the staff will be utilized. For employees, this determines their time off, making it just as important as their pay.

Shift schedules tend to be associated with companies that operate around-the-clock, such as public safety (fire and police), hospitals, utilities, mines, and large manufacturing facilities. But shift schedules are needed by any group that has more than one shift.

The first big change in shift schedules began in the 1980s, when larger 24/7 operations started changing from 8-hour shifts to 12-hour shifts. These companies found that the longer shifts were good for both management and employees. Productivity improved because there were fewer shift hand-offs and tasks were more likely to be finished on one shift rather than passed along to the following shift. Although most workers hated the idea of working longer shifts, the 12-hour patterns were clearly better than the 8-hour patterns, since they offered twice as many days off and up to half the weekends off.

The second major change in shift schedules arose from widespread business growth. Companies that were working 5-days-a-week were expanding to 7-day operations. The three 8-hour crews covering Mon-Fri were burned out from all the weekend overtime and the companies didn't like the spiraling costs. Some companies chose to adopt 5½-day or 6-day schedules. Some chose to hire weekend crews. Most decided to add a fourth crew and adopt a 24/7 schedule, typically with 12-hour shifts.

The third and most recent change encompassed companies not normally associated with shiftwork, such as beauty salons, pharmacies, government offices, mechanics, dentists, insurance companies, restaurants, and customer support centers. They may not run 24/7, but they do operate longer than the traditional 8 to 5, Monday to Friday, and therefore require more than just one shift.

Some of these companies found it more economical to add a shift rather than move to larger facilities or purchase additional equipment. Others found it necessary to stay open longer because of competition and customer expectations. Because the workload in these companies is rarely constant all day or throughout the week, the challenge for scheduling is finding a schedule that matches the coverage with the workload throughout the hours of operation. This can involve staggered shift start times, multiple shift lengths, and overlapping shifts.

Whereas the two previous changes in shift schedules involved finding the single best shift length for around-the-clock coverage, the third change involves choosing the best combination of shift lengths and start times to accommodate a variable workload, often with less-than-24/7 coverage.

At the same time shift schedules were evolving, the process for finding a new schedule also was changing. Early scheduling transitions took place in companies with large staffs and budgets. They often hired consultants to help facilitate the change. The consultants would start by developing a business case that justified changing schedules. Then they would involve the employees in the selection process, educate them about different approaches, revise paid-time-off policies to match the new schedule, and help to implement the new schedule.

When smaller organizations (that couldn't afford a consultant) started changing schedules, they initially turned to industry forums for help, and more recently to free schedule templates found on the Internet. Although the number of options is somewhat limited, this approach is okay if the workload is constant and the staff size is a multiple of 4 (since most of the schedules rely on 4 crews). Since most smaller groups don't have a steady workload or the right number of employees, the templates often will result in unnecessary costs and/or ineffective utilization of the staff.

In addition to thinking you can simply copy schedule examples from the Internet, here are the most common mistakes made today when searching for a new shift schedule:

1.      Wrong priorities. Increased concern for employee work-life balance has led many managers to search for a schedule with shift lengths or work patterns that are popular with employees. They forget that employee satisfaction is NOT the primary purpose of the schedule. The reason you have a schedule is to ensure the right number of the right people are working at the right time. This means matching the coverage (the number of people actually working) with the workload distribution. You don't want a schedule with steady coverage if the organization's workload is lighter from Midnight to 6 a.m. or on the weekends. And you don't want a schedule with a lot of double coverage (from overlapping shifts) if the organization's workload is constant. The top priority should be to find an approach that satisfies the business requirements. Then, and only then, should you seek options (using that approach) that a majority of your employees prefer.

2.      Narrow focus. Focusing on a single issue and ignoring the big picture often results in costly choices. For example, many establishments think they're saving money by having a schedule with no overtime in it. They don't understand that this requires a larger staff and/or more overtime to cover absences. Although they think they are being frugal, a schedule with a small amount of built-in overtime actually might have been cheaper when the total labor costs are considered. Another example is the manager who wants to give his employees more days off by adopting a 10-hour schedule. He doesn't realize that this will reduce the coverage on each shift by 25%, which depletes the reserve capacity used to compensate for absences. Although employees now have 3 scheduled days off each week, they may have to work some of those days whenever somebody takes vacation or calls in sick.

3.      Solution-oriented. When most managers decide it's time for a new schedule, they immediately start searching for a solution on the Internet, e.g., schedule examples or articles about the pros and cons of different shift lengths or work patterns. They should start by developing a process for educating and involving employees. If employees don't believe there is a need to change or that their opinions are being considered, it will be difficult to secure their buy-in and support for the new schedule. Managers should never assume they know what's best for the group. They should try to find multiple options that satisfy the business requirements and let the employees make the final choice. Each site will choose differently due to its unique combination of demographics, experiences, and lifestyles.

Shift schedules will continue to evolve as more and more groups adopt them. Although many of the same issues will continue to exist, new problems are likely to arise as more diverse facilities begin implementing new schedules. Let's hope they learn from the mistakes of other organizations and contact us.

When people search for a new shift schedule, they often cite one of these two goals: (1) better work-life balance, or (2) better staff utilization.

Work-life balance is an employee-oriented goal associated with more or better time-off. And that usually means 10 or 12-hour shifts and/or work patterns that feature fewer consecutive days of work or longer stretches of consecutive days off, e.g., the Pittman or DuPont schedules.

Staff utilization is a management-oriented goal associated with making the most cost-effective use of the employees. If the workload varies by time of day or by day of the week, that can mean matching the coverage with the workload. If the workload or available resources have changed, that can mean squeezing out more coverage. If the absence rate is high, it means trying to maintain coverage that's more than the minimum necessary, while keeping costs minimized.

When work-life balance is the top priority of the search, the resulting schedule will likely be great for employees but less-than-ideal for the organization. There are three reasons:

1.       Effectiveness. Work patterns that are most popular with employees produce constant coverage on a 24/7 basis. If the organization's workload isn't constant, the schedule will not be the best match. 

2.       Efficiency. Most of these popular work patterns use four crews. If the staff size is not an exact multiple of 4, the organization will be wasting some of its resources. 

3.       Cost. 10-hour shifts tend to require at least 25% more staff than 12-hour shifts because they add six hours to the work day (three 10-hour shifts = 30 hours/day). Popular work patterns do not consider absences. The organization either uses overtime to cover those absences or it schedules extra coverage to exceed the minimum necessary. A less-costly approach would be to build relief coverage into the schedule.

So does that mean work-life balance should not be considered when searching for a new schedule? Of course not. But it should never be the starting point for the search. The needs of the organization must always come first. Once those are satisfied, then (and only then) can alternatives that offer more or better time-off be considered.

You'd be surprised how many times I hear this phrase after I tell someone how much I would charge to create a set of schedule options for their group:  "Thanks, but I'll figure it out myself."

And I'm sure they do. But will their schedule:

1. Consistently match the workload? Adopting popular patterns you can find on the internet may not be the best fit if your workload varies by time of day or weekdays vs. weekends.
    
2. Make efficient use of the staff? If the staff is not a multiple of four (e.g., 4, 8, 12, 16, etc.), a schedule using 4 crews is obviously not going to utilize everyone equally.
    
3. Maximize weekends off for the employees? If your payweek is different than the schedule's, you may end up compromising the number of weekends off.
    
4. Give them multiple options? Allowing employees to choose from different scheduling options makes them feel more involved in the selection process, which will result in greater buy-in and support for the change.

No way! But are they happy with the schedule they came up with on their own? Probably. But only because they have nothing to compare it to. If they did, they would see that their schedule fell short in several key areas.

Maybe it's my prices. I charge $300 an hour for my services. Most jobs take one hour of my time. Major shiftwork consulting firms charge anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000 to help clients adopt a new schedule. Granted, they come on-site, survey employees, and do a lot more hand-holding than I do. But clients willingly pay their fees and feel good about the value of their services. That's 200 to 300 times what I charge. Ouch!

So, should I give up on people who don't seem to care about coverage, costs, employee satisfaction, or the ability to choose from alternative patterns/approaches? I'd sure like to hear from anyone who reads this post.

Over the past couple of weeks, I've had requests from several managers of small groups (5 or 6 people) for help in finding a 24/7 schedule. In most cases, the groups consisted of supervisors rather than workers. They wanted 8, 10 or 12-hour shifts, and they were open to either fixed shifts or rotating shifts.

The managers wanted to see what the different options looked like so they could choose the one that appealled to the most people. I explained that this was not the best way to search for a schedule. The starting point should always be the business requirements. You want to make sure there is adequate coverage and that it matches the workload. You also want to use the resources (staff and overtime) efficiently. Schedule attractiveness can only be pursued after the business requirements are satisfied.

If I assume that these groups needed 1-person coverage on a 24/7 basis, this is what they would see with the six different combinations of shift length and format (fixed vs. rotating shifts):

8-hour Rotating Shifts

1-person coverage requires 4 people working an average of 42 hours a week. With a staff of 5 or 6, they would have 1 or 2 "extra" employees. This extra capacity could be used to increase the coverage, reduce the average hours of work, or to build relief coverage into the schedule to cover absences. The biggest downside is that the schedules are miserable for the employees.

8-hour Fixed Shifts

1-person coverage requires 6 people working 40 hours a week (2 people per shift). There would be 3 days a week in which both employees on a shift would be working, so this is something to keep in mind if there isn't enough room for 2 people at the same time. There would be no extra capacity with this type of schedule. Although not as efficient as 8-hour rotating shifts, they are a little better for employees.

10-hour Rotating Shifts

10-hour shifts always require the most personnel because the group is working 30 hours a day (three 10-hour shifts). I only recommend using 10-hour shifts if the group can take advantage of the 6 hours of overlapping shifts that could be matched to the group's busiest time of the day. 1-person coverage requires at least 5 people working an average of 42 hours a week. If there were 6 employees, this would leave 1 extra. This extra person could be used to increase the coverage on one shift or to build relief coverage into the schedule to cover absences. Even though employees get one more day off each week (as compared to 8-hour schedules), the work patterns aren't that attractive, i.e. quick rotations and lots of 1 or 2-day breaks.

10-hour Fixed Shifts

1-person coverage requires at least 6 people working 40 hours a week (2 people per shift). There would be 1 day a week in which both employees on a shift would be working. During the 6 hours of overlapping shifts on the overlapping day, there would be 4 people at work. If this exceeds the physical capacity of the site, this would not be a good choice. As with fixed 8-hour shifts, there would be no extra capacity.

12-hour Fixed or Rotating Shifts

1-person coverage requires only 4 people working an average of 42 hours a week. With a staff of 5 or 6, they would have 1 or 2 "extra" employees (the same as 8-hour rotating shifts). This extra capacity could be used to either increase the coverage, reduce the average hours of work, or to build relief coverage into the schedule to cover absences. Despite the long days of work, most employees prefer these patterns since they offer twice as many days off and up to half the weekends off.

Summary

Rather than looking for examples of every possible combination of shift length and format (fixed vs. rotating shifts), these groups should first decide what is most important to them:

• Increased coverage. Does the group need more than 1-person coverage for part of the day or during certain days of the week? If so, the desired coverage levels should be the starting point of the schedule search since several options (as pointed out above) have no extra capacity to increase the coverage with.
  
  
• Reduced work hours. Some groups avoid overtime like the plague. They will do anything (including hiring one or two extra staff) so they never have to work more than 40 hours a week. Even though I have argued repeatedly that this is not the best financial approach, many organizations still think the schedule should never have overtime in it.
   
• Relief coverage. If increased coverage isn't needed, any extra capacity can be used to create relief coverage, i.e. time in the schedule available to cover absences. This will reduce the need to cover absences with overtime. Relief coverage works best with rotating shifts since it can be used to cover absences on any shift. With fixed shifts, you would need to build relief coverage into each shift's schedule, so it will require more staff.

Once the priorities are clear, this will narrow down the feasible approaches. There are too many possibilities to discuss here, so if you need more help, please let me know.

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.

Most people think a shift schedule is effective if it does a good job with one of these 3 goals:

1. Better staff utilization – coverage that is consistent and matched with the workload
2. Reduced labor costs – lower wages and/or overtime
3. Greater employee satisfaction – more days off and/or more weekends off

Unfortunately, doing well with one goal often means compromising the other two.

Here's an example. Suppose the employees want a 10-hour shift schedule to get one more day off each week and possibly more weekends off. This would certainly help the third goal: greater employee satisfaction. But what would it do to the other two goals?

Since the 10-hour shifts would overlap for 6 hours a day, this would exceed the physical capacity of the work area. Employees from one of the overlapping shifts would be sitting around with nothing to do for 6 hours – every day of the week. This is definitely not a good way to use the staff.

What about labor costs? Well, since the 10-hour shifts would require the organization to work 30 hours a day (three 10-hour shifts), the additional hours of coverage would necessitate an increase in the staff size by 25%. This certainly would not save money.

So how do you find a schedule that satisfies all 3 goals? Simple. Instead of starting the search for a new schedule with a focus on Goal #3: Greater Employee Satisfaction, you start with #1: Better Staff Utilization. You then move to the second goal, and finally to the third goal.

Here are the steps we follow when designing a new employee shift schedule:

• Feasibility. We start by comparing your coverage requirements and scheduling preferences with your staff size to determine the feasibility. Sometimes the resources are inadequate, so different approaches may have to be considered.
  
  
• Possibilities. Sometimes, overtime may need to be built into the schedule to avoid gaps in coverage. Occasionally there may be more staff than necessary, so we'll show you different ways to utilize these "extra" resources.
  
  
• Work patterns. In this third step, we start the actual shift schedule design. Often we can apply common scheduling patterns as a starting point, and modify them to fit your unique circumstances.
  
  
• Options. We create several different shift schedule options to show you the range of possibilities, such as the number of consecutive days worked, different shift lengths, relief coverage, alternative patterns, and so on.

This process ensures that the schedules we create are effective with all three goals, not just one of them.