'Tis the season where #politicians are talking #budgets.
My #HotTake on the subject (as an arts administrator; if you want to see a TIGHT budget look at what us theatre-kids have to deal with some time) is that the single biggest "inefficiency" in any budget at all? Is ALWAYS overtime.
Paying for 1.5, 2, 2.5 or more hours of work when only 1 hour of work was actually accomplished is just wasteful and stupid on its face. And it is even more so when you consider that at hour 50, 60, 65, 70, etc., you're just getting less and less efficient, because of fatigue. You make more mistakes when you're tired, and you work more slowly. Continually fatiguing yourself measurably lowers your intellect and critical thinking skills, making you a worse worker. You're also incurring more health care costs and more sick days, as a tired person will get hurt or sick more often.
It's not an easy thing to eliminate, of course, and it's not as straightforwards as "overtime is never worth it" (there are times when it should be the answer, but those times are rare).
And I'm certainly not suggesting that a person who *must* work more than standard hours doesn't deserve every penny of that premium pay. When you sacrifice hours of your personal time, your health, and your sanity? You deserve more pay for that. The company that scheduled this needs to go ahead and pay you extra for that.
Staff, in any department/industry, will fight like hell to keep their OT hours, because their hourly wage is too low to begin with, & without OT they can't make a decent living. That's true basically across the board. Even if the hourly wage is good, people get accustomed to having the "extra" money that OT provides, and don't want to give it up, even if the personal time they sacrifice to work those hours is literally killing them. People in my industry die young, of stress-related and fatigue-related causes. I get multiple obituaries in my email every week. Heart attacks, overdoses, and falling asleep at the wheel. They will still fight you tooth and nail if you suggest that the 60-80 hour weeks aren't worth it.
The cultural shift away from continual overuse of OT is something that will take years of multi-pronged effort to accomplish, and it will only work if people admit that overwork is a public health crisis, not just a financial waste.
It will require hiring more staff (with the associated training and administrative costs). It will require higher base wages, to make a 40-hour week a livable wage. It will require wholesale shifts in the support industries that have grown up to fill the holes left when people work too many hours to clean their own homes, raise their own kids, walk their own dogs, cook their own food.
It's absolutely not an easy answer.
But if you have 3 people working 40 hours apiece (120hrs paid), instead of 2 people working 60 hours apiece (120hrs worked but 140hrs paid, assuming they make 1.5x after 40), you've saved 20 hours of wages (14.2%) and have a healthier workforce with a greater ability to adapt to emergencies. Two people can step up and help if one is out sick. Three well-rested brains can problem solve an issue. You've created a job where one didn't exist before.
Will some of that 14.2% savings be eaten up by administrative costs? Of course. Will you need to offer a raise to entice a worker accustomed to making OT every week, to stay on and accept a low-OT model? Almost certainly.
Will the long-term benefits outweigh all of that? Absolutely. I do not doubt it for an instant.