At my job they are having an all night event. Many employees are working all night through the morning and then again in the evening. For example 9pm-9am and then again at 7:30pm-11pm. I know that overtime is based on a workday but could an employer really have one work for more than 8 hours w/o overtime because of the shift being split between more than one workday? I'll let somebody share their thoughts before I go rambling on.....

Short answer, yes. As you figured, it all depends on what the defined "work day", i.e., 24-hour period, is.

I have difficulty seeing how daily OT can be avoided given the hours listed. I looked at two variations.

V1, workday commences at midnight.

So, 9 pm - mid = 3 hours reg
mid - 9 am = 8 hours reg, 1 hour OT
7.5 pm - 11 pm = 3 OT, .5 DT

I think that split shift pay applies to this, too, but that has nothing to do with regular, OT and DT owed.

V2, workday commences at noon

9 pm - 9 am = 8 reg, 4 OT
7.5 pm - 11 pm = 3.5 reg

Right, hard to avoid overtime with that schedule, but what about an employee who works 9pm-9am, with the next day off? Assuming a 12am-11:59pm workday, that would mean one hour OT. Considering that he/she would worked approx. 12 hours minus breaks, one hour OT hardly seems fair.

Not really any different than someone who works ten consecutive eight hour days, but gets no overtime because the first 40 hours falls in one work week and the second 40 in another one.

Wouldn't it be a subterfuge though to work those long hours without premium pay?

By the way I have always thought it to be the same as you have stated, so I am voicing a co-worker's concerns. Though I do have to question this to a certain extent myself.

The law is whatever the law is. We can argue that anything is not "fair". I always thought that being Exempt and having to work unlimited amounts of unpaid overtime on demand was unfair. But it is not illegal. Unfortunately. I am not sure that the specific instance of "unfair" is particularly high on the outrage meter, but maybe that is just me. The world is a pretty messed up place, and I suspect that we all have only a certain amount of outrate in us that gets parcelled out over a lot of different issues.

Wouldn't it be a subterfuge though to work those long hours without premium pay?

Working eighty hours in ten straight days is legal, even in California.

A regular schedule could be set up like that and give the employee four consecutive days off every two weeks. Some would like that. Some wouldn't. (I wouldn't).

I don't like having folks work more than six days in a row and I prefer to have only five (less, if the employee is working more than eight hours per shift). I will do what it takes, though, to meet my requirements.

Not exactly, you could only work six 8's, not 10, because of the one days rest in seven requirement. However, we're starting to get a bit off subject. I'm talking about daily overtime, not weekly. I'm not talking about what is fair. I'm talking about what would be considered a subterfuge. Let me restate my quesation by asking, is there an instance in which a judge would have a problem with a 8> hour shift w/o premium pay?

Villain: Not exactly, you could only work six 8's, not 10, because of the one days rest in seven requirement.

There is generally no problem with an employer working employees 10 days in a row. While Labor Code 551 povides that "every person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven," and Labor Code 552 provides that "no employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven," Labor Code 554 makes it clear that "Nothing shall be construed to prevent an accumulation of days of rest when the nature of the employment reasonably requires that the employee work seven or more consecutive days, if in each calendar month the employee receives days of rest equivalent to one day's rest in seven."

Villain: What about an employee who works 9pm-9am, with the next day off? Assuming a 12am-11:59pm workday, that would mean one hour OT. Considering that he/she would worked approx. 12 hours minus breaks, one hour OT hardly seems fair.

No problemo under the law. Also, the employee may not even be entitled to 1 hour of OT (e.g., if he took a 30 minute meal break after midnight - only 30 minutes OT would be due).

Villain: Not exactly, you could only work six 8's, not 10, because of the one days rest in seven requirement.

There is generally no problem with an employer working employees 10 days in a row. While Labor Code 551 povides that "every person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven," and Labor Code 552 provides that "no employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven," Labor Code 554 makes it clear that "Nothing shall be construed to prevent an accumulation of days of rest when the nature of the employment reasonably requires that the employee work seven or more consecutive days, if in each calendar month the employee receives days of rest equivalent to one day's rest in seven."


Right. I was aware of this, and while I understand that days of rest can be postponed, I don't believe it could be regularly scheduled as such. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Villain: Right. I was aware of this....

If you were aware this, I don't know why you would tell ScottB "an employee can only work six 8's in a row, not 10, because of the one days rest in seven requirement"? In any event, my point is not to pick on you rather to make sure that anyone reading this thread realizes, as ScottB correctly stated above, California employees can legally be required to work 10 days in a row.

Villain: I don't believe {working more than 6 days in a row} could be regularly scheduled as such.

Upon what do you base your belief? LC 554 clearly states, "nothing shall be construed to prevent an accumulation of days of rest when the nature of the employment reasonably requires that the employee work seven or more consecutive days..."

I don't see the problem.

Given a Monday - Sunday work week, if the employer scheduled someone to work eight hour days Wednesday through Sunday of Week One and Monday through Friday of Week Two, there are two days off every work week.

ScottB: I don't see the problem

Neither do I.

You are up really late, Barry.

April 16th is just around the corner. If you were at my office right now, you would swear it were 1:48 in the afternoon and not 1:48 in the wee hour of the morning. Our entire staff has been working 24/7, seven days in a row (pardon the pun).

April 16th is just around the corner. If you were at my office right now, you would swear it were 1:48 in the afternoon and not 1:48 in the wee hour of the morning. Our entire staff has been working 24/7, seven days in a row (pardon the pun).

Oh, yes!

You'd have an extra day here. Taxes aren't due until April 17, thanks to Patriots Day.

Thank you for reminding me of that, Scott. I need that extra day!

I took care of Federal in early February. State is ready to be filed, but since I owe them, I will wait until the 17th to mail it.

Mine's more complicated since my husband and I are filing jointly, and are both self-employed with a second job.

I would have had mine done earlier, but for having to wait on my wife to provide me the info on her sales, inventory and expenses. She slows me down every year. :(

I'd prefer to do it earlier, but I didn't even get my K1 till a week ago.

Sorry for the thread hijack, Villain.

ScottB: You'd have an extra day here. Taxes aren't due until April 17, thanks to Patriots Day

Californian's are as Patriotic as New Englander's, yet no extra day for us. ;)

It's not even all of New England. Only Maine and Massachusetts (who were a single state on the date being celebrated) recognize Patriots' Day.

It's not even all of New England. Only Maine and Massachusetts (who were a single state on the date being celebrated) recognize Patriots' Day.

However, everyone who has to file with the IRS center in Andover, Massachusetts benefits from the extra day. While residents of two New England states (CT and RI) don't send their returns to MA, those in New York and Maryland do.

So if you could be suffered to work for weeks at a time endlessly, then why would there even be a one days rest in seven clause?

Villain, I don't know the answer to your question, but do you want me to dump all the stuff about taxes and state holidays? I will if you want. :o

No, it's fine with me. I sidetrack conversations alot myself, so I can't be upset. That's just the way things go.

My question was not rhetorical. I'd like to know why there would be a one days rest in seven clause if it's really a one days rest in seven monthly equivalent? My interpretation was that a monthly equivalent was the exception, for times "when the nature of the employment reasonably requires," rather than the rule. That is, I came to the conclusion, using common sense, that you could work several weeks at a time, when required, but not endlessly.

No comment?

I really had nothing else to add.

A regular schedule involving ten consecutive work days is easy to develop and legal as it gives the employee two days off every work week.

I looked at trying to come up with a perpetual schedule that would allow twelve consecutive days (6 hours each, 36 hours in a work week), but it breaks down in the third week.

"You had nothing else to add? How about an answer to my question?

I'm sorry, but are we reading the same labor code? Perhaps one of our monitors is malfunctioning because mine clearly states "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent an accumulation of days of rest when the nature of the employment reasonably requires that the employee work seven or more consecutive days, if in each calendar month the employee receives days of rest equivalent to one day's rest in seven."

Oh and Happy Easter everyone.

Villain, all of your questions can be answered here http://www.theseminargroup.net/brochures/07.EMPSF%20Brochure2%20ni.pdf