Masonry Magazine July 1969 Page. 28
Do You Know
# THE HIDDEN COST OF OVERTIME
Editor's Note: Here's an article by James Howerton that appeared in the March issue of Qualified Contractor, official publication of the National Electrical Contractors Association, that presents a common sense approach to a difficult problem for all. Reprinted with permission.
The theory that working extra hours will get the job done faster has been advanced for many years. Many people believe that if a man can do eight units of work in eight hours he should be able to do ten units in ten hours. Some even believe the man may put out a little extra and produce 10½ units because of premium pay for the extra time. Or so goes the theory.
The catch is that the theory doesn't always work out in practice. But proving this point is not easy in a high-peak and low-valley business like electrical construction.
To find out more about the problem of overtime productivity or loss of it-Qualified Contractor went to Detroit to talk with members of the Southeastern Michigan Chapter of NECA.
Why Detroit? Because a few years ago the Detroit contractors were swamped with overtime work, with most of their big industrial customers picking up the overtime tab. It looked like it would be a very profitable year. But, according to Chapter Manager Perry Shilts, when the books were balanced most contractors actually had lost money and others had made much less than anticipated.
In an attempt to find out why, chapter members pooled their experience and came up with the information shown in Table 1. As Mr. Shilts noted, the figures are rough and the data is not as complete in some categories as in others. But they definitely show a direct relationship between overtime labor and loss of productivity. Here's how Don McFadden of Triangle Electric Co. capsuled the situation:
"We had this rather small five-story building to remodel. The building was divided into two equal parts. The first part was to be remodeled and occupied and then the other half was to be remodeled. It would seem that both halves should have taken about the same amount of man-hours of labor to remodel, but this was not the case. The first half was done in normal fashion, on a 40-hour, five-day week schedule. The second half was done on a 10-hour, six and seven-day week schedule. When the job was complete we realized that the second half had taken 25 per cent more man-hours. We found some portions of the second phase had taken as much as 100 per cent more labor."
Joining Mr. McFadden in the discussion with QC about the Detroit survey and the problem of overtime productivity in general were Mr. Shilts and four other members of the Southeastern Michigan Chapter: James A. Zakem of Brooker Electric Co., Inc.; John M. Harlan of Harlan Electric Co.: W. Rodman Turner of Turner Engineering Co., and Robert K. Hydon of Hydon-Brand Co.
The Detroit survey attempted to isolate the factors which contributed to the pronounced loss of productivity shown in Table 1. At least five problem areas were identified: fatigue, absenteeism, mental attitude, turnover and human error. Each of these was discussed.
Fatigue. Long working hours are bound to increase the amount of fatigue experienced by the average man. Previous studies have shown that a workman has a fixed number of labor units that he is willing, or even able, to expend on his job each day. Without thinking about it, he adjusts his pace to expend a full quota of labor units over the total hours he works in a single day. For example, if a workman is capable of 12 labor units in a single day, some units are devoted to productive activities while other energy is consumed by just being on the job and by such activities as walking, standing and sitting. This non-productive energy is expended regardless of whether productivity is achieved or not. Thus, a workman who puts in 8 hours on the job may expend 8 labor units producing useful work and 4 labor units on non-productive activity. If the job lasts 10 hours, unproductivity may consume 5 labor units, leaving only 7 labor units for productive work. He is actually producing less in 10 hours than in 8 hours. Going a bit further, upon returning to shorter hours, several days will be needed for the workman to readjust his pace. Не will continue to produce useful work at the slower 10-hour rate for some time after he has returned to an 8-hour schedule.
Absenteeism. Many contractors report that when employees are working on overtime jobs for an extended period, they will take a day off during the week, then show up for work on the weekend when premium rates are being paid. John Harlan described another angle of the problem this way: "One of the causes for our absenteeism is because the 8th hour of a day on a 35-day hour work week is a double-
Table 1:
The following overtime inefficiency table was developed by members of the Southeastern Michigan Chapter on the basis of work records compiled during the summer and fall of 1964:
Weekly
Per Cent Inefficiency
Days, Hours Hours
7 Days
14 Days
21 Days
28 Days
Six 9's 54 4-6% 6-9% 8-12% 10-15%
Six 10's 60 7-9% 11-14% 14-18% 18-23%
Six 12's 72 12-14% 18-21% 24-28% 30-35%
Seven 8's 56 9-11% 14-16% 18-22% 23-27%
Seven 9's 63 11-13% 17-20% 22-26% 28-33%
Seven 10's 70 14-16% 21-24% 28-32% 35-40%
Seven 12's 84 20-22% 30-33% 40-44% 50-55%
masonry • July, 1969