How can a 24/7 operation maintain full coverage and control labor costs if every hour beyond 32 requires overtime pay?
Legislation & PolicyWhen we first explored the idea of a 32-hour, 4-day workweek, we looked at the broader implications for employers and employees alike — highlighting both the appeal of a better work-life balance and the real risks of rising labor costs and staffing complexity.
Now we take a closer look at how this plays out in 24/7 operations — and what leaders need to weigh as interest in this concept continues to grow.
Momentum is building behind the idea of a shorter workweek, specifically a 32-hour threshold before overtime kicks in. Global pilot programs have shown promising results: higher employee satisfaction, improved work-life balance, and productivity gains in office and knowledge-work environments.
For continuous operations — manufacturing, logistics, food processing — the challenge is fundamentally different. A knowledge worker who completes their work in 32 hours has delivered full value. A production line that runs 32 hours has left 136 hours of weekly capacity on the table.
Most 24/7 operations use one of two basic models.
Monday–Friday systems (1, 2, or 3 crews) use 8-hour shifts, cover 40 hours per week per employee, and carry no built-in overtime.
24/7 systems (4 or 5 crews) are designed to cover every hour of the week. Four-crew systems average 42 hours per week per employee, with alternating 36- and 48-hour weeks and some built-in overtime. Five-crew systems average 41.6 hours per week, using the fifth crew for training and relief.
Both models are optimized for the current 40-hour overtime threshold. If that threshold drops to 32 hours, the math — and the economics — change significantly.
If a 32-hour workweek becomes law, hours worked beyond 32 would require overtime pay. For 24/7 operations, this creates two options: absorb higher labor costs, or redesign schedules to reduce weekly hours without sacrificing coverage.
| Crew Model | Avg Hours/Week | Current Pay Basis | Impact Under 32-hr Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–3 Crew (M–F) | 40 hrs | 40 hrs straight time | 8 hrs become OT — ~10% cost increase |
| 4-Crew (24/7) | 42 hrs avg | 44 hrs pay equiv. | ~47 hrs pay equiv. — 6.8% increase |
| 5-Crew (24/7) | 33.6 hrs avg | 41.6 hrs pay equiv. | Only 1.6 hrs above threshold — minimal impact |
1, 2, or 3-crew systems face a direct choice. Keep schedules unchanged and 8 hours per employee per week become overtime — a roughly 10% increase in labor cost. Redesign schedules to cap at 32 hours and additional staff are required, which also increases costs.
4-crew systems currently average 42 hours per week with 44 hours of pay. Under a 32-hour threshold, pay would rise to approximately 47 hours for the same work — a 6.8% increase.
5-crew systems are the most adaptable. If all five crews are used for coverage rather than reserving one for relief and training, each crew averages 33.6 hours per week — only 1.6 hours above the 32-hour threshold. The tradeoff is losing dedicated relief and training capacity.
Proactive modeling now is significantly less expensive than reactive restructuring later.
— Ethan Franklin, Shiftwork Solutions
Legislation has not passed, and the timeline remains uncertain. But the concept has enough momentum — in policy discussions, in union negotiations, and in employee expectations — that 24/7 operations benefit from understanding their exposure before it becomes urgent.
A few questions worth working through now: How many of your employees regularly exceed 32 hours? What would a 5-crew rotation look like in your operation? Is it more cost-effective to absorb overtime premiums or redesign for lower weekly hours? And beyond cost — how would different approaches affect fatigue, turnover, and your ability to attract the workforce you need?
