I'm not so sure about this, I have worked for a company which "stated," at the beginning of the interview process, that OT (7 day weeks) MAY be necessary; this was before the 2009 meltdown. After enduring a chapter 11 bankruptcy, were 25% of the work force was completely eliminated, the possible OT became almost mandatory. We were encouraged (strongly) to work at least 1 OT day/pay period. Then after 2008-09, another 25% employee reduction occurred, people were getting tired as the same people always volunteered; our expected workloads increased. My job, OT became "required." Eventually because people were no longer eagerly volunteering for OT, the unwritten rule was mandatory OT. At one point I worked 9 weeks without a day off. So yes abuses will happen.
BUT, here is the plus side. Why many people will voluntarily agree (as long as it is not abused). If and when an individual needs to file for unemployment, ALL your wages are factored into your expected benefits. Because of the OT I worked, I made more money (short term) on unemployment than I did working. So in some ways, it was nice to have that quirk as a fall back after working many weeks in a row. I would sometimes volunteer for lay-off as a "break" so to speak, usually after my vacation time ran out, but in all honesty I preferred to work.
This would not be a long term "benefit," as your benefit is calculated on a yearly basis (and the benefit amount is capped at some point) as your total income decreases from lack of work, so does your unemployment. After 12-15 months of unemployment this would no longer feasible as your benefit is based on the highest quarter of wages.
So there is good and bad with this proposal,,,
__________
Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R) is attempting to roll back one of the state's progressive labor laws, arguing that workers should be allowed to work without a day off if they so choose.
[,,,]
Wisconsin is one of the few states in the nation where businesses "must provide employees with at least one period consisting of 24 consecutive hours of rest in each calendar week." This doesn't mean that workers get to take off once every seven days; an employee could work for up to 12 consecutive days "if the days of rest fall on the first and last days of the 2 week period."
Grothman said he finds this law "a little goofy," and he argued that rolling it back is a matter of "freedom."
He's proposing legislation that "would allow an employee to voluntarily choose to work without one day of rest in seven," according to an email sent by his office to other state lawmakers on Friday. The email, which was sent to The Huffington Post by the progressive group One Wisconsin Now, was asking lawmakers to cosponsor the bill. State Rep. Mark Born (R) is leading the legislation in the state Assembly.
[,,,]
Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, applauded Wisconsin for having such a progressive law on the books in the first place. He said Grothman's proposal is problematic because it may lead to employers forcing their staff to work overtime.
"It's a very hard thing to know whether something is truly voluntary or not," he explained. "If the employer puts pressure on people and lets them know they will be unhappy if workers exercise their right to have a day off, that might be enough so that no worker ever does anything but volunteer to work seven days a week."
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin GOP Senator, Fights For A Seven-Day Workweek
