Facts

• Pennsylvania State University professor H. Randolph Thomas, in a March 1992 "Journal of Construction Engineering and Management" paper, cited several studies on the effects of overtime on construction labor efficiency. The 1947 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics study, which covered 78 case studies at 34 facilities in various industrial settings, reported that efficiency rates declined for workweeks greater than 40 hours. It found that the average efficiency for a 50-, 60- and 70-hour workweek was 0.92, 0.84 and 0.78, respectively. In a separate June 1997 "Journal of Construction Engineering and Management" paper, Thomas and a colleague reported efficiency losses of 10 to 15 percent for 50- and 60-hour workweeks.
  
  In a 2008 "Partners in Progress" presentation, University of Wisconsin at Madison professor Awad S. Hanna noted that compressing schedules result in higher overtime wages and lost labor efficiency. He states that labor efficiency declines by about 8 to 25 percent as the overtime hours increase from being 5 percent of regular hours to 50 percent.
  
  

Significance

• John S. Mrowiec, a partner with Chicago-based construction law firm Conway & Mrowiec, wrote in an October 2005 "Midwest Construction" article that construction companies often prefer overtime to other schedule compression techniques, such as shift work and adding personnel. Shift work presents coordination issues and adding more personnel could lead to quality and productivity problems. However, overtime also could lead to productivity problems, such as absenteeism, fatigue, low morale, poor quality, higher costs and accidents. Disputes about who pays for the lost productivity can result in expensive legal battles.
  
  

Implications

• Thomas notes in his March 1992 article that research supports the practice of providing workers with at least one day per week to relax. An overtime schedule with the fewest days per week is preferable because inefficiencies are likely to be higher for longer hours and for more days per week. In other words, if a company needs to schedule 60 hours of work per week, a five-day, 12-hours-per-day schedule is better than a six-day or seven-day schedule with fewer hours per day.
  
  

Considerations

• Thomas writes in his 1992 paper that the 4/10 schedule -- four days, 10-hours per day -- has gained popularity in the construction industry. The advantages include more productive work hours because of fewer starts and stops, increased employee morale, more interest from candidates, lower turnover and the ability to work around weather and other disruptions. The main disadvantage is that the company supervisors, managers and client personnel might work on a more regular schedule, thus making coordination a problem.