24/7 Workforce

The nurses at Carstairs high-security state hospital threatening strike action in a dispute over shifts are not alone. Similar disputes are not confined to healthcare. Over the past eighteen months a growing number of concerns have been voiced in journalism and manufacturing. In fact just about anywhere you care to look. Employers are seeking greater productivity and services and employees improved motivation, work life balance which lead to the same goals.

So what really is the problem? Well we have been hearing about the long working hour’s culture for so long we have missed what is really important. It is not about how many hours are worked but when they are worked that is the burning issue. Just like chess, too much focus on one piece on the board exposes you to checkmate.

Changes in shift patterns per se can have enormous impact but rarely on cost and staff headcounts. The nurses at the high-security state hospital work a pattern of four days working followed by two days off. They are being asked to change to a working pattern of six shorter working days followed by two days off. There is also evidence shift pattern changes have little impact on accidents and sickness in the workplace.

Shift patterns are often counter intuitive. Staff working significantly more hours can work less days and have more days off than the same number of staff working significantly less hours. Staff headcounts and salaried costs remain the same for both. The two “chess pieces” are shift duration and the Day-off- Day-on ratio.

So what does this mean? Well for the unwary, whether an employer or employee, it will prove costly. What appears attractive for the employee i.e. working fewer hours for the same pay can be costly in terms for the number of days off they get. Conversely what appears attractive for employers i.e. staff working more hours for the same pay can be costly in terms of fewer days staff are available. That is the real battleground, the rest is just commentary.

A scalple of insight by Mark Barrowcliffe - The Times about flexible working is a must alternative read, if for no other reason than to see the release of comment from the self-fulfilled. Generally comment about work life balance and statements such as “just give me the deadline and I’ll do the job” are quite useless. Amicable agreement is only possible when employer and employee both think in either hours or days. Where they don’t the “chess game” takes over and the rules are to win. The opening gambit is formed over the “interview” table when one is thinking in terms of days while the other is thinking in terms of hours. Here the seeds of conflict are sown.

Staff scheduling is not something that thrives well in ambiguity. In my experience, apart from loose reference to shiftwork, it is rare for HR to make staff scheduling requirements form part of terms and conditions.