New York Times 17 September 2000

Overtime Rises, Making Fatigue a Labor Issue

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

In his last two and a half days of life, Brent Churchill slept a 
total of five hours. The rest of the time he was working.

Mr. Churchill, a lineman on call one stormy weekend for Central Maine 
Power, worked two back-to-back shifts on Friday, went to bed at 10:30 
p.m., was called back at 1 a.m. Saturday, caught a quick nap around 
dawn and went back to his job clambering up and down poles for almost 
24 hours straight. Taking a break for breakfast on Sunday morning, he 
got yet another call.

At about noon, he climbed a 30-foot pole, hooked on his safety straps 
and reached for a 7,200-volt cable without first putting on his 
insulating gloves. There was a flash, and Mr. Churchill was hanging 
motionless by his straps. His father, arriving before the 
ladder-truck did and thinking his son might still be alive, stood at 
the foot of the pole for more than an hour begging for somebody to 
bring his boy down.

The death of a 30-year-old lineman from remote Industry, Me., might 
have gone unnoticed beyond family, friends and the woman he had 
planned to marry in June, but for a coincidence: Mr. Churchill 
happened to die at a time of heightened public concern about the 
expanding workweek - a time, in fact, when the Maine legislature had 
been debating whether to cap the amount of mandatory overtime allowed 
in the state.

The bill was not exactly a clarion call for worker ease, placing the 
overtime limit at 96 hours within any three-week period. The governor 
had already vetoed two versions, and there had not been enough votes 
in the Senate to override him. But the outcry over Mr. Churchill's 
death lent new momentum to efforts to cap overtime. The lawmakers 
compromised on a cap of 80 hours in any two-week period, and in May, 
Maine became the first state in the nation to limit the number of 
hours an employee can be required to work.

But it is not the first to recognize the problem of physical 
exhaustion on the job in the tightest labor market in almost half a 
century. Although Maine faced an especially stark catalyst in Mr. 
Churchill's case, elsewhere around the nation, in courthouses and 
state legislatures, on picket lines and at negotiating tables, a 
backlash is building against the new economy's voracious appetite for 
Americans' time.

West Virginia and Pennsylvania recently debated but deferred action 
on bills that would allow workers to refuse overtime without being 
punished. Washington State lawmakers considered a Maine-style 
overtime cap earlier this year but it died in committee.

New Jersey legislators had greater success with a narrower bill, 
voting in June to ban mandatory overtime in hospitals; the bill now 
awaits Gov. Christine Todd Whitman's signature. California started 
counting overtime after an eight-hour day, rather than a 40-hour 
week, though lawmakers there are now being bombarded with calls to 
exempt ski lodges, hospitals, construction sites and many other 
workplaces.

The expanding workweek has become a flashpoint for some unions, 
though not all. Studies show that most employees who qualify for 
overtime premiums still want the extra hours. This lack of consensus 
on whether the workweek is too long or too short is one reason most 
state efforts to cap overtime have faltered.

The labor groups now taking a stand on the workweek tend to be those 
representing either workers with safety issues, like pilots and 
firefighters, or large numbers of women, who often feel the work-time 
pinch more acutely.

A strike by telephone workers against Verizon this summer was 
motivated in large part by overtime issues; women in the company's 
calling centers complained that they could not break free from work 
early enough to pick up their children or make dinner for their 
families. Firefighters in Connecticut recently challenged the 
constitutionality of mandatory overtime, arguing unsuccessfully that 
it violated the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. Nurses in several New 
York hospitals now sign protest statements when they start their 
shifts, creating a paper trail of their mandatory workloads.

Congress has also been grappling with the issue of the expanding 
workweek, though much of its effort is aimed not at workers but at 
helping employers who seek to reduce the associated labor costs. 
Several attachments to the pending minimum-wage legislation would 
disqualify technology workers, sales personnel and others from 
receiving overtime pay. Another provision would allow businesses to 
reduce overtime payments to virtually all qualifying employees.

Labor's fight for relief from onerous working hours dates back more 
than a century - and its victories have been hard won. From 1886, 
when a potent eight-hour movement exploded in street violence in the 
Chicago Haymarket, it took 52 years for American society to agree on 
a 40-hour workweek with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
in 1938. But now, the strains that the booming economy is putting on 
workers, especially women, are reopening the debate.

"Overwork has been an issue for quite a while," said Peter Rachleff, 
a history professor at Macalester College in St. Paul. "But whether 
workers have felt it was an issue they could address or not has 
changed in the last year."

For all the rumblings of discontent, it is difficult to quantify 
Americans' workload. Federal statistics show that Americans are 
working record levels of overtime, but the data tracks only hourly 
manufacturing workers, who make up a shrinking share of today's work 
force.

The average American employee works just two more hours a week than 
in 1982, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But Randy E. 
Ilg, a senior economist at the bureau, said that figure probably 
understated the problem because women have been surging into the work 
force, and their generally shorter hours appear to have pulled down 
the average.

Only in the workweek statistics for households does the increase jump 
off the page, Mr. Ilg said.

"Twenty years ago, you had one person in the household working," he 
said. "Today you've got two. And who goes to the grocery store now? 
Who takes the check to the bank on the weekend? Who does the dishes 
after dinner?"

Other features of the new economy compound the sense of pressure. 
Samuel Bacharach, a professor at Cornell University's School of 
Industrial and Labor Relations, found that workers who are most 
worried about downsizing are the ones most likely to load up on 
overtime. Central Maine Power had, in fact, laid off 37 linemen 
several years before Brent Churchill was killed, his mother said, and 
was timing the performances of those remaining.

"He took that job seriously," his mother, Donna Churchill, said.

The increased use of cellular phones, laptops and beepers also makes 
Americans feel like they are working more, Mr. Ilg said. So do 
today's longer commutes.

David Kavanagh, who recently held a job maintaining cooling systems 
for the Grand Union supermarket chain, knows this better than most.

Each evening, Grand Union would call Mr. Kavanagh at his home in 
Patchogue, N.Y., and tell him which supermarket he should appear at 
by 8 a.m. the next day. Most of his trips required him to drive the 
length of traffic-clogged Long Island and through New York City 
during morning rush hour. Some days, his commute took nine hours.

"There was no fast way he could get where he was going," said his 
wife, Tara Kavanagh, a lawyer. "He would sometimes leave at 4:30 in 
the morning and not be home until 10 o'clock at night."

Represented by his wife, Mr. Kavanagh sued Grand Union, demanding 
compensation for his travel time. In June, the court ruled, in a 
split decision, that while his situation was "inequitable," the law 
held no relief because a 1947 provision specifies that employers do 
not have to pay for "normal" commutes. (The dissenting judge said Mr. 
Kavanagh's commute was not normal.)

Mr. Kavanagh was eventually fired. "I smiled all the way home," he 
said. Today, he works as a machinist - a 10-minute drive from home.

For all the travails of blue-collar workers like him, the people 
putting in the longest hours these days are white-collar workers on 
salary, Mr. Ilg said. Their ranks have been swelled by the 
information economy: 60 percent of the jobs created in the last 10 
years are managerial and professional positions. Many of these people 
toil in a legal twilight zone, often performing duties that did not 
exist in 1938, when Congress drew clear-cut distinctions between 
workers and managers. The law is silent on how such workers should be 
compensated for their long hours, if at all.

Many businesses classify them as managers and executives, paying them 
a fixed salary with no premium for overtime. But many of them say 
their hours make them feel more like production workers on an 
assembly line. Some are demanding to be paid accordingly.

Alan Truex, a sportswriter for The Houston Chronicle, had a job doing 
something most people would hardly consider to be work: He watched 
hours and hours of baseball. Following the Houston Astros on the 
road, he racked up enough frequent-flier miles to take his wife on 
the occasional foreign trip. Team owners invited the couple to lavish 
celebrity parties.

But for all the glitz, the long hours began to wear on Mr. Truex, 
recalled Phyllis Truex, his former wife. From spring training in 
February until the end of the World Series in October, he devoted an 
average 51 hours a week to watching baseball and writing stories, and 
that was not counting the constant travel. His marriage began to 
unravel. His elderly parents fell ill and died, and he was not able 
to spend as much time with them as he wanted, Ms. Truex said.

Mr. Truex asked his employer for overtime pay. His boss replied that 
he was a salaried professional and not entitled to the premium. The 
next time Mr. Truex asked, he had a copy of the federal overtime law 
in his hand and a tape recorder hidden in his jacket. Again, his boss 
said no.

Mr. Truex sued Hearst Communications Inc., the Chronicle's parent 
company, entering his timelogs and a transcript of his conversations 
as evidence. The Chronicle settled with him out of court. Mr. Truex 
is barred by the agreement from discussing any aspect of the case, 
but other Houston media have reported that he received $300,000 to 
$500,000. He also remains an employee of the paper, reviewing 
restaurants out of his home.

Bob Carlquist, The Chronicle's vice president for administration and 
human resources, declined to comment, saying the paper never 
discusses disputes with employees.

It is precisely that sort of dispute that the current Congressional 
bills are meant to preclude. Measures now under consideration 
identify several types of information-economy workers - including 
computer network analysts and database administrators and even 
funeral directors - and specifically define them as management, 
barred from receiving overtime pay.

Yet another provision being considered would go further, allowing 
employers to reduce workers' regular pay and make up the difference 
in bonuses. Employees' total pay for every hour worked would be 
unchanged, but overtime compensation would fall since it would be 
calculated on a lower wage.

Advocates of these provisions say they would enhance American 
competitiveness. Opponents worry, though, that the changes are poorly 
understood by the public and are going largely unchallenged by 
organized labor. The provisions are under discussion as part of 
coalition-building for the proposed $1 increase in the minimum wage, 
which is expected to be passed this fall.

Should the measures be enacted, two things would happen, said Edward 
Montgomery, deputy secretary of labor. Many workers would see their 
income shrink, he said, "and second, who knows how many hours they 
would be compelled to work to make it up?"

_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international

Reply via email to