- Reaction score
- 7,373
- Points
- 1,360
mariomike said:My employer tried to put us back on 8's, or at least 10's, ( from 12's ) for years, but the union took it to arbitration and won.
I think it's important to make note for the "Union haters" why a case like that would be "won". Even though we have those that say 12/16 hour shifts cost more, [see few posts above] that is simply not the case. Hours to be filled are hours to be filled.....full stop.....the times we have been threatened to go back to '8's have always been under the guise of saving money but once all the stats come in then it is obvious, for any trade that requires a detailed changeover before new shifts, that 12/16 hour shifts save money and have the added benefit of less cars on the road doing even less commuting. [which just happens to be the something Govts. push for]
The arbitrator then realizes that the management sided argument of "saving money" is a farce and that the whole thing is a corporate attempt at intimidation and when he asks if they have anything more they usually do not.
Having said all that I can not speak for 24 hour shifts that obviously have some built-in 'down' time. I have never looked into those stats, in regards to efficiency, but rather wanted to clear up Mariomikes post in case of any confusion.