Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk honeypot

Author Topic: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk  (Read 60629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rennhack

  • Forum Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9005
  • Karma: 4683
  • Gender: Male
NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« on: Apr 03, 2006, 02:06 »
New rules would force outage workers to limit hours to 48 hrs a week!

Fatigue complaints by Barry Quigley of Byron Ops drive NRC proposal
Monday, April 03, 2006
BY GARRY LENTON
Of The Patriot-News
The nuclear plant security officer said he normally works 46 hours a week, but it's often more than that.

Mandatory training, high turnover rates and covering for absent colleagues frequently mean additional 12-hour shifts and fatigue.

"We have people dropping off [to sleep] all the time," said the officer, who spoke on condition that his name and employer not be identified.

His complaint is not unique. Security workers and other nuclear plant employees across the nation have complained to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for years about the effect of working sustained long hours.

After nearly eight years of study, the NRC is poised to tighten limits on individual work hours and increase the number of rest days per week.

The goal is to eliminate "sleep debt," said David Desaulniers, a senior human factors analyst for the NRC.

Barry Quigley knows about fatigue. He asked the NRC to change its rules in 1999. He was a senior reactor operator at the Byron Station nuclear plant in Illinois, where he and his co-workers sometimes worked 72 to 84 hours a week.

The proposed rules, which are expected to be finalized in January, are not what Quigley asked for, "but it's better than nothing," he said.

The changes proposed by the agency include requiring a minimum three days off each week for employees who work 12-hour shifts and eliminating shift averaging, which allows plant operators to bypass individual work limits.

NRC rules limit workers to 48 hours a week, but plant owners could allow some to work longer by averaging the hours of all workers on a shift. Three people on a 10-person crew could work 60 hours a week as long as at least three others worked no more than 36 hours.


Industry officials who attended a hearing on the proposed rules last week said they would hamper their ability to manage plants safely. Strict limits on individual hours could break up work teams, resulting in poorer communication and work performance, said James Davis of the industry group Nuclear Energy Institute.

Dr. Charles A. Czeisler, chief of the division of sleep medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital, a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School, said the NRC is correct to demand the three-day rest, especially for 12-hour night workers.

Night workers suffer most from fatigue because their bodies' circadian rhythm, or sleep cycle, is disrupted, Czeisler said. Surveys of night-shift workers at nuclear plants conducted by Harvard found that 50 percent admitted falling asleep at least once a week.

This year, the owners of Three Mile Island acknowledged five cases of worker inattentiveness since March 2004. All occurred during the night shift.

The revelation prompted the state Department of Environmental Protection to start a surprise inspection program for the state's five nuclear plants.

Czeisler said reducing workers' time off "would be a mistake."

David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety expert with The Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed.

"I think the regulations should regulate the industry, not the other way around," he said.

Fatigue is a concern for the NRC and the industry because mistakes by inattentive workers can cost millions of dollars and risk lives.

Industry representatives argue they need flexibility to meet growing production demands. They say that the number of unplanned shutdowns at nuclear plants have declined steadily for nearly two decades.

Mandating three days off a week is a "killer issue," said Davis of the NEI. He asked the agency to reduce it to two days, which would allow plants to keep workers on the job for 60 hours when needed.

But the NRC's Desaulniers chafed at the suggestion.

"It seems as though you only see flexibility as being able to bring somebody in on their day off," he said. "The answer is having enough [workers], not bringing them in on their day off."


« Last Edit: Apr 03, 2006, 02:07 by Rennhack »

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #1 on: Apr 03, 2006, 03:08 »
(Gasp) They would have to staff properly!

I wonder what it will be when actually implemented.....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

ageoldtech

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #2 on: Apr 03, 2006, 03:48 »
During an outage, imagine how many more workers would be needed if everyone worked 48 hours a week. I don't think there is that many out there, especially RP's.

foreverajr

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #3 on: Apr 03, 2006, 04:04 »
When I was on the road, we barely had enough techs to cover an outage.  When we were short on staffing techs, we worked 13 or 14 hours a night, 7 days a week to make up for it.  I didn't complain because personally, I liked the money.  I understand the point about "inattentiveness" causing accidents, but I also think that if I want to work 84 hours a week, I should be able to.  Not all of us were falling asleep on the job.  How long would an outage take if RP's or craft were only allowed to work 48 hours a week?  I don't think that any facility could get enough people in for an outage working 48's and still keep the usual two to three week outage schedule.  How much money would it cost the facility being shut down for extra weeks?  I've always heard of plants restricting the amount of hours worked, but I've never seen it happen. 

tmp21849

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #4 on: Apr 03, 2006, 05:03 »
With only 8 hours OT a week, I can't imagine being able to make enough money to bother with road work.

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #5 on: Apr 03, 2006, 05:55 »
Remember, this is a news story.  That means that they only have enough facts to be dangerously wrong.
The 48 hour limit only applies to security guards.  They get exceptions for everyone else during outages.  Plus they get to do workgroup averaging.  So, there will still be overtime.  We've discussed this on other threads.
« Last Edit: Apr 03, 2006, 08:30 by BeerCourt »
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Bryanw822

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #6 on: Apr 03, 2006, 05:57 »
Management will not (does not) like this because more people will need to be hired, thus reducing profit.  Our union bretherin will like this because more people will be hired, thus more union workers.  The union locals will ensure proper staffing levels.

Non-union work places (like where I work) will drag their feet on any new hires until forced to by the NRC.

I just wish more operators at the non-union stations would see the benefits of a union organization. In my humble opinion, this issue would never have happened if more stations were organized.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #7 on: Apr 03, 2006, 08:59 »
Management will not (does not) like this because more people will need to be hired, thus reducing profit.  Our union bretherin will like this because more people will be hired, thus more union workers.  The union locals will ensure proper staffing levels.

Non-union work places (like where I work) will drag their feet on any new hires until forced to by the NRC.

I just wish more operators at the non-union stations would see the benefits of a union organization. In my humble opinion, this issue would never have happened if more stations were organized.


BS. It wouldn't matter. The guy who originally raised this issue on the Ops end was an SRO who is Non Union.

The staffing between Union and Non Union Plants is virtually identical, it's based on your Tech Specs and Appendix R Committments, not your Union Contract.

Mike

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5828
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #8 on: Apr 03, 2006, 09:49 »
axecoose me, but aren't rules and rule changes applicable to licensees?  contractors are exempt from licensee rules, aren't they?  sro, ro, licensee rp personnel are all included, contractors aren't.
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Cobranut

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #9 on: Apr 03, 2006, 10:11 »
I don't think that's right.  I'm at a plant now where they are pushing us to stick to the 72 hour rule.

Personally, when on night shift the only thing a day or two off does is screw up my sleep schedule even worse.
I get used to it after about 3 nights and am fine until I have a night off.  Then I have to start over.

I think it'd make more sense to limit workdays to 12 hours but not mess with the consecutive days worked.

axecoose me, but aren't rules and rule changes applicable to licensees?  contractors are exempt from licensee rules, aren't they?  sro, ro, licensee rp personnel are all included, contractors aren't.

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #10 on: Apr 04, 2006, 07:16 »
axecoose me, but aren't rules and rule changes applicable to licensees?  contractors are exempt from licensee rules, aren't they?  sro, ro, licensee rp personnel are all included, contractors aren't.

Slo,
I have been considered exempt as a contract RP at one plant, and it applied at another. Some plants (such as FP&L) do not consider anyone exempt.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

chuckhallett

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #11 on: Apr 04, 2006, 07:57 »
I would think the proposal is aimed at both Operations and Security personnel, i.e. those who take an active role in operating or protecting the plant.  I doubt it applies to Engineering and possibly maintenance, which would continue to be bound by the 12/24/72 hour rules for Safety-Related work.  If I am incorrect, the uproar, which will be loud enough over Ops/Security, will be tremendous if applied to all groups.  As others have noted, it is unlikely there are enough qualified persons to fill all the voids this would create.  It will be a real stretch for Ops.  Security will not be as big a deal because the training cycle is much shorter.

I personally think it is a good idea.  I was in Operations at Surry in 1977-78 and the reason I moved into maintenance and eventually engineering was because I never knew when I would be going home.  We would consistently be held over for at least one-half a shift to cover for someone or some unexpected evolution.  And I agree with the statement about inattentiveness as well, based on my personal experiences.

Remember that the Nuclear Renaissance is really only one accident away from being a memory.  The safety of the public is paramount, but giving a little for the enhancement of our own job security isn't a bad thing either.

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #12 on: Apr 04, 2006, 09:34 »
much ado about nuthing.....this has been tried before and it worked ok. how many hours can those HP's over 50 years in age handle before they fall over...... 

remember there are less than 3000 techs at any one time and that number is on the decline.. so it will look good on paper but in reality it will be somewhat different.   


living by overtime is a risky game,  because one day there will not be any OT and all those debt collectors move in with ya.  After 60 hours your pay rate drops drastically (taxed) and for  a 72 hour week the last day goes entirely to taxes. (Besides at the exempt professional level time and a half dont exist.- and comp time sometimes is the norm)


Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #13 on: Apr 04, 2006, 09:37 »
Well said, 'Dude
What I think is encouraging, is that if you limit workers to 48 hours (more likely the final number will be 60 hours) per week, then you extend the outage season. Either an outage will last longer or worker unavailability will push some outages outside the current seasons.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Offline Rennhack

  • Forum Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9005
  • Karma: 4683
  • Gender: Male
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #14 on: Apr 04, 2006, 09:41 »
remember there are less than 3000 techs at any one time and that number is on the decline..

Traveling HP technicians in power plants are < 800 now.

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #15 on: Apr 04, 2006, 12:34 »

After 60 hours your pay rate drops drastically (taxed) and for  a 72 hour week the last day goes entirely to taxes.

This is so untrue.  Your income tax is calculated on your ANNUAL income, even though withheld weekly.  The result of having all those taxes taken out of your check is a big refund.  If you work 7-12's, they will withhold way more money than you owe in taxes because the tables they use assume you earn that much money 52 weeks year.  A road HP is going to have wages of about $50k - $60k per year, but the weekly withholding for an 84 hour week is the same as someone who makes ove $125k.  It might take until spring to get it, but most of that tax is coming back to you.
« Last Edit: Apr 04, 2006, 01:50 by Rennhack »
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline darkmatter

  • Heavy Metal Poster Child
  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Karma: 552
  • you don't know the power of the dark side.
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #16 on: Apr 04, 2006, 01:02 »
Management will not (does not) like this because more people will need to be hired, thus reducing profit.  Our union bretherin will like this because more people will be hired, thus more union workers.  The union locals will ensure proper staffing levels.

Its not the profit Management is worried about, its their compensation. In the early 80's the averaged RP road tech made five times what the average smore on the street made. Now its something like twice or maybe three times. The profit hasn't changed, its the upper management compensation has gone out the roof. Just check out the stockholders yearly reports for public held companies. Although the wages might be 6 figures or so, the bonuses are multi-mil. And don't forget the board of directors who in addition to their salary get attendence fees for each meeting they attend. (and they are usaully on boards of several companies at the same time.) Don't forget Enron and now Westar ripoffs.
I know who I want against the wall when the revolution comes.
"Never underestimate the power of a Dark Klown"

Darkmatters website is no more, nada, gonzo, 
http://darkmatter.nukeworker.net.istemp.com  this will get you there, but I can't update it anymore. Maybe nukeworker will host personal sites eventully

Offline Rennhack

  • Forum Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9005
  • Karma: 4683
  • Gender: Male
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #17 on: Apr 04, 2006, 01:52 »
Its not the profit Management is worried about, its their compensation. In the early 80's the averaged RP road tech made five times what the average smore on the street made. Now its something like twice or maybe three times. The profit hasn't changed, its the upper management compensation has gone out the roof. Just check out the stockholders yearly reports for public held companies. Although the wages might be 6 figures or so, the bonuses are multi-mil. And don't forget the board of directors who in addition to their salary get attendence fees for each meeting they attend. (and they are usaully on boards of several companies at the same time.) Don't forget Enron and now Westar ripoffs.
I know who I want against the wall when the revolution comes.
That post has nothing to do with "NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk", the subject of this post.  Take your enron scandal to poli-Sci.

How many times do we have to ask people to stay on topic?  It's simple, just start your own topic if you want to say something that is not directly related to the main post.
« Last Edit: Apr 04, 2006, 01:54 by Rennhack »

M1Ark

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #18 on: Apr 04, 2006, 05:04 »
Slo,
I have been considered exempt as a contract RP at one plant, and it applied at another. Some plants (such as FP&L) do not consider anyone exempt.

Which FPL plant are you talking about?  At St. Lucie overtime hours applies to:

1. SRO
2. RO
3. NLO
4. Chem
5. RP
6. Security
7. Key Maintenance Personnel (Maintenance Tech and Foreman working on Safety Syatems)

I agree that plants administratively handle this differently.  I've seen other plants apply it to everyone on site.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #19 on: Apr 04, 2006, 05:18 »
At Fermi it applied top everyone on site. It didn't matter what department you worked for because the theory was on any day someone might be handling something safety related.

I'm not sure how it's applied where I work now.

Heck, here we even have a different interpretation of what 8 hours off not including turnover time means!

Mike

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #20 on: Apr 05, 2006, 09:35 »
Tide and I are on the same page...bring it on!!

good to see there are some still young enuff to work the burn out schedule and dirvorce issues.  (cannon fodder)

The number of techs i stated is from studies conducted a few years back and based on all that are available for work at any one time.  This number was derived from tech school, utilities, nrrpt etc.. not just a roster of powerplant techs. That number was reviewed about 2 years ago and was around 2500 or so techs available at anyone time.  This is half of what it was in 1988 (5200).

As far as the tax goes, that refund only comes back if you dont work the full year. (feast or famine) For those of us in the $100 k (40 hrs a week) range its a giveaway to the IRS.. (see Alt Min. Tax) So for us, working over 60s, its a tax burden.

Beer court you didnt read what I said.. it goes to taxes.. so its not untrue..  the amount of refund you get is based upon deductions, allowances and income.

« Last Edit: Apr 05, 2006, 09:44 by alphadude »

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #21 on: Apr 05, 2006, 10:34 »
So which positions should be exempt? The laborers supporting the maintenance or RPs? I guess they shouldn't be exempt because they are held to the same zero-tolerance for mistakes rules (such as violating postings).

Maybe the cafeteria workers? Of course, if they mishandle the food and the operators get sick.....

OK, just the clerical staff. We don't really expect to have error-free payroll processing anyway.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Offline Mike_Koehler

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
  • Karma: 844
  • Gender: Male
  • I love nukeworker.com!!!!
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #22 on: Apr 05, 2006, 11:49 »
I know that I got off the road and started working for doh!!!!!, I mean dough, no that's not it either, DOE at the end of the 90's due to outage length, wages and all the other factors that have been beaten to death. The translation of the above grammatical nightmare is that I got older and tireder (is that a word?) and really don't want to work a ton of hours anymore. I would if I had to to feed the family, but at DOE I don't need to. If they drop hours to 48 for road techs they would need pay of at least 40-45/hr + per diem to equal what is possible with 72's at the current rates + per diem. I don't see the utilities or the contract companies jumping to raise our pay until they need to for staffing. A bunch of old road techs here were discussing this as a few of them had plans to retire and work 1-2 outages a year to supplement their retirement checks.They still might do this, but it has bumped the retirement age back some for those guys. Just my nickels worth......

Mike
 
"Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented
  immigrant" is like calling a drug
  dealer an "unlicensed Pharmacist."
unknown
"If you seal the borders and you stop giving federal benefits to people who are in the country illegally... many of them will simply go home."
Lou Barletta, Mayor of Hazelton, Pa.

Offline HydroDave63

  • Retired
  • *
  • Posts: 6295
  • Karma: 6629
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #23 on: Apr 05, 2006, 05:12 »
So which positions should be exempt? The laborers supporting the maintenance or RPs? I guess they shouldn't be exempt because they are held to the same zero-tolerance for mistakes rules (such as violating postings).



I'd imagine the proposed restrictions would apply to positions mentioned in the license and SAR/FSAR.

For those that think this is a bad thing for money concern, consider that when you have to hire the next new operator, etc from the pool of applicants, the incremental cost is basically what you paid for the last one. See SONGS and Diablo for how pay doesnt match cost of local living. However, if all plants in the country need to raise license mandated staff positions by 25% in numbers simultaneously , the incremental cost of what they would have to pay increases substantially.

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5828
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #24 on: Apr 05, 2006, 09:05 »
Quote from: Mike_Koehler link=topic=7716.msg41194#msg41194
If they drop hours to 48 for road techs they would need pay of at least 40-45/hr + per diem to equal what is possible with 72's at the current rates + per diem.

yeah, write!  iffen their gonna hold hpteks to 48/wk, there gonna bring in a buncha remote monitorings, digi-instrumentation, 'n rotate the crews thru on 48hr basis.  itz cheeper to buy instrumentation than rent techs.  'n yinz can rent instrumentation also.  sew get used to 48 hr, 25 day outages.  maybe, iffen utilities are reely inot benevolence, they may start to stagger the outages so's ya can work 6 or 7 per season. 
« Last Edit: Apr 06, 2006, 07:14 by Roll Tide »
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Rennhack

  • Forum Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9005
  • Karma: 4683
  • Gender: Male
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #25 on: Apr 05, 2006, 09:25 »
Slo,  If I thought the utilities could understand you, I'd delete that message so they don't get any wise ideas.

Offline Mike_Koehler

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
  • Karma: 844
  • Gender: Male
  • I love nukeworker.com!!!!
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #26 on: Apr 06, 2006, 05:33 »
I wasn't thinking that the pay was gonna come up, I was just commenting that pay would need to be 40-45/hr with diem to make the same $$$$. Basically we're gonna get forked again......

Mike
"Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented
  immigrant" is like calling a drug
  dealer an "unlicensed Pharmacist."
unknown
"If you seal the borders and you stop giving federal benefits to people who are in the country illegally... many of them will simply go home."
Lou Barletta, Mayor of Hazelton, Pa.

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #27 on: Apr 07, 2006, 07:05 »
Right now, we are cheaper than peak generation electricity. If there are fewer workers, it will have to either stretch the outage season, or they will have to raise wage rates to bring in new blood (and entice retired blood to come back for a few...)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #28 on: Apr 07, 2006, 09:10 »
dont forget the age factor.  as most of you know the schools are cranking up again to produce more techs..and rat companies and untilities are planning to produce more (notice the demand for green jrs lately??) the results will be a younger work force that will appreciate working for the present wage or less.  so dont expect the wages to be cranked up to compensate the lack of work for the maturing work force of techs already out there.   the utilities did this in the downsizing boon doggles of the 80's and 90's. the high achievers were kicked to the curb..who all went on to make more money consulting :P, and they brough in young, 1.5 kids, new house, and car type people at 60% or our wage.  those young 1.5 kids types will do what ever they are told to do..(bills another kid on the way etc) to keep afloat. whereas the high achievers had kids already out of school, lower bills, one or two houses etc.. and questioned the process and management tactics of the utilities. anyway... its the same cycle repeating... so plan for the future.. go to school... rise above your present job title and pay grade...
« Last Edit: Apr 07, 2006, 09:11 by alphadude »

hghlndr

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #29 on: Apr 12, 2006, 12:11 »
What the hell... I had heard murmurs but had seen nothing in printed matter until I got home this week about this BS. The short outages hurt enough but limit the hours to 48 and it hurts even more. Right now I can work about 20 weeks a year and slide by... but thats netting about a grand a week. I would much rather work more weeks but not at the cost of hours per week. There is something to be said about being happy in ones employement a joy I did not know until I started as a roadtech two years ago... I like my job, I like the hours, and I LOVE the MONEY... and no mater how you slice it 48 is just not the same as 72, and 48 will do nothing to increase the number of techs...

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #30 on: Apr 12, 2006, 02:13 »
the risk is rather high and not acceptable... the rate of accidents will increase at the 72 hour level.. its a proven statistic.. 

if you are only making 20 k a year that puts you around the poverty level.. perhaps looking to other fields may help...by getting a BS degree or MS you can quadruple that amount... don't live at the mercy of others ... year after next is a lean outage year and there will be a lot of hungry techs out there taking lower wages just to keep a job
« Last Edit: Apr 12, 2006, 05:32 by alphadude »

Offline RRhoads

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: 334
  • Gender: Male
  • it was like like that when i got here!
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #31 on: Apr 12, 2006, 02:44 »
try going here to read the full text of whats going on & get away from the media take on things. This topic is getting a little out of touch w/ whats going on.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2006/06-041.html

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #32 on: Apr 13, 2006, 07:17 »
try going here to read the full text of whats going on & get away from the media take on things. This topic is getting a little out of touch w/ whats going on.

Probably my fault. I was looking at the eventual outcome. As an analogy, consider impact from increased oversight on truckers and more stringent limits on their hours; the net effect is that the majority of carriers are recruiting teams for long distance runs. What would be the long term effect for nukeworkers?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5828
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #33 on: Apr 13, 2006, 10:08 »
 the utilities did this in the downsizing boon doggles of the 80's and 90's. the high achievers were kicked to the curb..who all went on to make more money consulting :P, and they brough in young, 1.5 kids, new house, and car type people at 60% or our wage. 

eye dawnt know wattinel yer talkin here.  my pay in 1980 wuz $10.5/hr; '81, $13.5,  '85, 18.5; '87, $16.5...etc. upta twodey @>eye'm gonna say, 'k?  job descrip has maintained.  pay was based on contract and company involved.  same as it wuz in the 70s.  eye bin thru 84 scheduled hrs/wk, 60 hrs, 72, etc.  hours scheduled didn't affect the rayte of pay.  eye due remember the graduating class of '79 at tmi had a depressing effect on wages, but that wuz overcome in about a fuel cycle.  most people really do not like to travel.  that's why travelers usually make more.  hardship for leaving the hearth of home, ya know?
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #34 on: Apr 14, 2006, 12:49 »
Has anyone considered the following scenario?
Cut hours from 6-12's to 6-8's.
Go from two shifts to three.
Change the two breaks of three hours each (or three breaks of two hours ) to one 30 minute lunch and two 15 minute breaks.
If you had 40 techs, you can now do with 30.
After one outage season, all the road techs will go to DOE or leave the business altogether.  The utilities can finally get their longtime wish of "qualifying" workers to self-monitor (citing the lack of RP's as the reason). 
C'mon, they've been doing everything they could do (except take away per diem) to get rid of the RP roadblocks.  This could be their chance to get it done.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline HydroDave63

  • Retired
  • *
  • Posts: 6295
  • Karma: 6629
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #35 on: Apr 14, 2006, 03:15 »
actually, going from 12s to 8s would increase staffing needs ( it was the issue of fewer jobs when 8s became 12s, that led to the long Caterpillar strike in the early 90s ). If you need "x" amount of techs to cover the work on 12-hr night shift , still need "x" number of bodies on 8 hr swing shift. Does Joe Deconner somehow wipe things down slower or faster on 8s vs 12s ??

At any rate, the proposed order is likely only going to affect positions named in the plant license. Do you really want fatigued operators or fatigued security on the 11th hour of their 13th shift in a row due to outage schedule? Yes, RP/HP is important too, but other than 1 house mouse per shift, its not a mandatory staffing requirement. If plants go cheap on staffing, dont blame the NRC order when it shows up, blame mgmt. greed. I know of a Region 4 site that, when it operates, makes about 200 million a year after all expenses. Adding or subtracting a few outage positions would scarcely affect the bottom line. Having a crew of fatigued operators making bad decisions that leads to another busted reactor in the US will.

As chuckhallett said it best: Remember that the Nuclear Renaissance is really only one accident away from being a memory.

dangrs1

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #36 on: Apr 18, 2006, 03:57 »
I tried in an earlier post to get people to reply to the NRC on this subject. Everyone thinks this will not affect them. It will.
You can still send comments to the NRC. Just do it.

mailto:SECY@nrc.gov

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #37 on: Apr 18, 2006, 09:03 »
Dave,
You're still a house mouse aren't you?  I don't remember.  Anyway, going from 2 shifts of 12 hrs. to 3 - 8's will actually decrease staffing.
You may not be aware, but if you do some snooping you'll find out, that 3-in-3-out is as alive and well as it has ever been.  Techs are just better at hiding it.  I came back onto the road in 2001 and was told that the 3/3 was a thing of the past.  I believed them and did a 2-in-1-out schedule with full approval of the house.  I didn't know any better.  The rest of the plant was doing 2/2.  Since then every single outage has been a 50-50 split of 2/2 or 3/3.
But anyway, any group that runs a 3/3 or 2/2 is actually running with four shifts.  So, if you think you have two shifts of 30 contractors, you actually have 4 shifts of 15.  You cut it down to 3 shifts of 15, and you go from 60 to 45 techs per outage.  Instead of coming to work and immediately starting a 2 hour break- or ending their shift on one, everyone does 2 in, 1 out, 2 in 1 out, 2 in and DONE.  They work 6 out of 8 hours instead of 6 out of 12.
The downside of this is that there is absolutely nobody to spare when the big jobs occur.  There will be nobody to borrow from refuel while you pop the s/g manways, and nobody extra on BOP when you need a cavity decon covered.  You will have three turnovers per day instead of two.  You will not turnover to the crew who turns over to you.  BIG opportunity for missed communications and interrupted work flow.
PLUS, the loss of overtime will be the absolute last straw that drives the remaining roadies out of the business.  Why leave home for 48 hrs a week?
You are right, the rules need not apply to contract HP's (or most of the house techs for that matter), but many utilities already use the work hour rules to justify cutting overtime, and they will do it even more with the new rule.
You and I know that the rule doesn't apply to the majority of the work force, but that doesn't stop management from applying it to them anyway for fiscal reasons.
I'm very curious to see how this plays out.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline RRhoads

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: 334
  • Gender: Male
  • it was like like that when i got here!
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #38 on: Apr 19, 2006, 12:19 »
"but many utilities already use the work hour rules to justify cutting overtime, and they will do it even more with the new rule."

I was just at an outage last year that wanted us to work 84 hrs the first couple weeks of the outage..there are just as many that still do the waiver too....ex-com ed plants comes to mind also.

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #39 on: Apr 19, 2006, 01:17 »
I hear that!
My last nuke outage was one where they held the entire plant to strict adherence to the 72 hour rule.  Then, they realized that the schedule was going to slip.  They dropped the 72 hour limit like it was a pile of steaming human waste.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #40 on: Apr 19, 2006, 02:00 »
justify cutting overtime????  no justification needed!

hmmm the perspective is skewed. overtime is considered a failure or defect.. under the 6 sigma processs overtime is presented as a defect or error in the planning process.. and rightly so... it you have to use overtime to get PLANNED work done, look for new planners... emergent or hindered work is another situation. After 10 hours a day, you gain nothing in worker productivity, and after 60 or so hours you are at risk with higher error rates and lost time accidents.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #41 on: Apr 21, 2006, 12:33 »
justify cutting overtime????  no justification needed!

hmmm the perspective is skewed. overtime is considered a failure or defect.. under the 6 sigma processs overtime is presented as a defect or error in the planning process.. and rightly so... it you have to use overtime to get PLANNED work done, look for new planners... emergent or hindered work is another situation. After 10 hours a day, you gain nothing in worker productivity, and after 60 or so hours you are at risk with higher error rates and lost time accidents.


Well said!

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5828
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #42 on: Apr 21, 2006, 10:25 »
under the 6 sigma processs overtime is presented as a defect or error in the planning process.. and rightly so... it you have to use overtime to get PLANNED work done, look for new planners...

or better staffing companies that can put feet on the site to accomplish the planned work without exceeding the straight time goals. 
 of course, better planners would be interactive with others in the industry to align the routine scheduled work in order to accomplish it with a minimum of schedule conflicts.  so better planning would run at the upper eschelon of industry management, not on the individual plant site nor even in the corporate office building.  this is a reason of the maximum profit of the fleet owners compared to the individual utility plants. 
  but why is it that management executives can work and bill all the ot required and no one is regulating them in the wake of bad decisions? 
« Last Edit: Apr 21, 2006, 10:43 by SloGlo »
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #43 on: Apr 21, 2006, 10:41 »
power plants are cash cows thats why...

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #44 on: Apr 21, 2006, 02:16 »
I'm somewhat curious as to which management executives get OT?

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #45 on: Apr 21, 2006, 02:57 »
management usually does not get OT under professional employee status.. line supervisors do. OT is usually charged off to the customer in some way or form. Shrewd managers will budget 110% to allow for "emergent" OT situations which gets "burned".

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #46 on: Apr 21, 2006, 03:02 »
One possible outcome would be more plants using "Core Techs" via a contractor (e.g. Duke) or having "Itinerant" positions (e.g. FP&L); both routes provide more workers guaranteed to be available for any situation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #47 on: Apr 21, 2006, 03:21 »
management usually does not get OT under professional employee status.. line supervisors do. OT is usually charged off to the customer in some way or form. Shrewd managers will budget 110% to allow for "emergent" OT situations which gets "burned".

I know managers don't get OT, and in many plants it's going away for LIne Supervisors too.

However, in deregulated plants NO ONE is budgeting 10% OT just to burn it. I know at DTE budgets were scrutinized with a fine tooth. It's fast becoming the new way of the world.

Mike

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #48 on: Apr 21, 2006, 04:01 »
justify cutting overtime????  no justification needed!

hmmm the perspective is skewed. overtime is considered a failure or defect.. under the 6 sigma processs overtime is presented as a defect or error in the planning process.. and rightly so... it you have to use overtime to get PLANNED work done, look for new planners... emergent or hindered work is another situation. After 10 hours a day, you gain nothing in worker productivity, and after 60 or so hours you are at risk with higher error rates and lost time accidents.

Skewed from where?  From the "ideal" which exists only in the classroom (where the six-sigma process and other total fads are taught)?  Or, skewed from reality?  Perspectives differ depending on the location of the observer.  However, one's perspective is not "skewed" merely because his placement is different from someone else's.  It is just different.  Two intelligent people who see a situation from different perspectives should come to an agreement as to what the actual situation is.  One reality will yield multiple perspectives to observers in multiple locations.  The differences are probably the most valuable tool for determining the truth.
In the real world, utilities do not have enough employees to accomplish outages without overtime.  The reliance on contractors necessitates the use of overtime.  The failure is not in lack of personnel, or in the use of overtime.  It is in the inability to reconcile the cause with the effect.

Finishing an outage in a reasonable time, at a reasonable cost, given the limitations of the workforce must entail the reasonable use of overtime.  Trying to eliminate the effect (OT) without addressing the cause (short schedule and limited resources) is sheer stupidity.

If you are worried about lost-time accidents, you are not going to fix that problem by cutting hours alone.  Occupational safety is more complex than that.  Fatigue is only one factor in workplace injuries.  By far the more prevalent cause of accidents is time pressure.  It's not the hours that people are at their jobs which puts them in danger - it is the speed at which they are forced to work (and the corners they must cut to maintain that pace).  The answer to that problem is most definitely NOT in giving them fewer hours in which to accomplish the same workload.

You are simply not going to get a workforce of trained and qualified people to travel long distances to work 48 hours per week for fewer than 25 weeks per year.  It is not the fault of the "planners" that outages happen in a very narrow window of time each spring and fall.  It is also not their fault that utilities do not beef up their staffing to accomodate outages without contractors.  
The better situation would have been to build multiple-unit sites with several smaller units in place of one or two huge ones.  They would be better able to schedule outages through most of the year and do them with an in-house staff who would not need tons of overtime to earn a living.  If you had six 400MW units on site instead of two behemoths, you could have a full time in-house outage staff, and run outages from September until July with minimal OT.  
But remember... we are in the world we have and not in the one we would have.

« Last Edit: Apr 21, 2006, 04:08 by BeerCourt »
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #49 on: Apr 21, 2006, 06:04 »
I have seen work schedules where either January or December were off and then either July or August would be off. You worked 10 months (kind of like school teachers) for 12 months reduced pay.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #50 on: Apr 21, 2006, 09:39 »
That's perfectly legal for non-manual workers.  However, most of the work is done by the manual labor force.  It is illegal to pay non-clerical, non-management workers that way.  The law requires that they be paid an hourly wage and not a salary.  It also requires that their overtime be paid in the form of money and certainly NOT time off in lieu of OT.  If they work over 40 hours in a week, they must be paid OT.  Averaging, deferring, or otherwise "juggling the books" on overtime is strictly against the law.
This is why there is no way on this earth that I would ever accept a salaried job.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5828
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #51 on: Apr 21, 2006, 11:29 »
management usually does not get OT under professional employee status..

i never sayed management got ot.  i sayed they billed it.  'n office 101 teaches you that the more you bill the more you will make.  it won't show up in this weeks check, it'll show up in your  bonus, yer stock options, yer 1st class airline tix, yer stocked booze cabinet.  but it will show up because you are making more moola for the company.  'n ya learned in every business discipline 101 class that the more you make for the company, the more you make.
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #52 on: Apr 23, 2006, 01:33 »
the risk is rather high and not acceptable... the rate of accidents will increase at the 72 hour level.. its a proven statistic.. 

This is really getting to be a burr under my saddle.  Twice in this thread you allude to statistics which simply do not exist.  If you are aware of studies or other compiled data which supports this assertion, then please share it with us.
I have exhaustively searched the BLS tables for the years 1998 - 2004, and find that they just do not have as much as a footnote declaring that they are even aware of the incident rates based on hours worked per day or per week.  The closest you can get is the raw number of injuries vs. hours worked prior to the injury and by day of the week.
(BTW, they do not compile data on "accidents", or "lost time accidents".  They report the total number of "non-fatal injuries and illnesses resulting in days away from work".  One "accident" will never show up in the data, but could be reported in several different places depending on the injuries involved.  So, a single event which results in an OSHA recordable injury, a fatality, and a non-fatal injury resulting in days away from work, will be recorded in three different reports, but not as a single "accident".)
Anyway, the time with the highest number of injuries is two to less than four hours after the start of shift.  The second highest period is six to less than 8 hours.  This bears out the established concept that workers are more likely to be injured in the periods before lunch and before quitting time.  (Time pressure rears its ugly head again.)  Although the number of injuries after 10 hours is lower, just as the number of injuries is lower on Sundays or after 12 hrs or 16 hrs, these numbers tell nothing because fewer people work at those times.  The statistic which purportedly states that there is a higher probability of injury after 10 hrs per day or 72 hrs per week is just plain nonexistent.

So, if you have this data from some other authoritative source, post it here.  Otherwise, please stop saying things that are not supported by the data as if they were undeniably true.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #53 on: Apr 24, 2006, 10:14 »
The view from up here;


That opening line explains perfectly the rest of the post.  It seems to have been written while you were high.  It reads like one of those "stream-of-consciousness" pieces -- the NukeWorker.com version of Gravity's Rainbow.

When you come down, would you be so kind as to make your point, please?
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #54 on: Apr 24, 2006, 02:03 »
While some amount of overtime is often operationally needed and desired by some employees, excessive overtime hours can compromise safety, health and productivity – adding to the true costs of long working hours of exempt and non-exempt workers. These indirect costs relate, for example, to an increased risk of heart attacks; diabetes; high blood pressure and mental illness; a greater risk of retirement disability; increased safety risks due to human error; lowered productivity and presenteeism; increased chance of turnover and absenteeism; and costs of potential liability issues and law suits.

Few studies have directly investigated the financial consequences of long working hours. For example, in a study on white-collar jobs, performance decreased by as much as 20% when 60 or more weekly hours are worked (Nevison, 1992). Data from 18 manufacturing industries in the U.S. show that a 10% increase in overtime resulted, on average, in a 2.4% decrease in productivity measured by hourly output ( Shepard and Clifton, 2000). High overtime levels can cause poor employee morale, which can affect productivity and absenteeism. For example, Circadian showed that 31% of extended hours operations that have extremely high overtime hours (25% or greater) also had poor morale, compared to only 13% of companies with low or normal overtime (Kerin, 2003). Long working hours and overtime contribute to increased worker fatigue and safety problems. For example, the average cost of workers compensation claimed per individual at extended hours facilities that reported severe fatigue problems was considerably higher ($4,037) than at facilities that report moderate ($2,240), minor ($981) or no ($276) fatigue problems.

need any more???




Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #55 on: Apr 25, 2006, 12:43 »
I asked you to draw a picture and you threw paint at the wall.

Yeah, working a lot of ovetrime makes people tired.  We don't need NIOSH to tell us that.
The full text of the article you posted can be found here:

www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/workschedules/abstracts/dawson.html

Fatigue can be managed during long work hours.  Even at extended-hours operations (like a nuke plant during an outage) the frequency of breaks actually has a much greater effect on worker fatigue and risk levels than the length of the shifts.

So anyway, when and where are you going to Google a statistic that proves your contentions that :

1) "and after 60 or so hours you are at risk with higher error rates and lost time accidents. "

and

2) "the rate of accidents will increase at the 72 hour level.. its a proven statistic.. "

There is no such thing as a "proven statistic".  Statistics are used to prove or disprove theories.  Still you haven't come up with one that matches the statements attributed to you above.

Nobody, including me, is contending that overtime is harmless.  We are just calling it for what it is - a necessary reality in the current state of the commercial nuclear industry.  Asserting that long work hours have no effect on safety would be just as irresponsible as ... say...  extracting bogus statistics from a posterior orifice ... perhaps?
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #56 on: Apr 25, 2006, 09:22 »
this is a dead horse...

True enuff Marssim, its been an ongoing condition here with the technicians.  Roadtechs aka roadw**** suffered from the same situation and had to rein in the surley crew they had, so they migrated here.

Point being.. you can't live by overtime.. its a loss for industry,  presents risks that are not fully evaluated or ignored by industry and in a high risk situation such as nuclear power inappropriate. Increases stress in workers manifests itself around 60 hours of work and productivity drops drastically around the 72 hour level with noted loss of attention to detail in the work process. Increased exposure, fatigue, manifested stress- precursors to the "proven statistic" that workers comp does increase with longer hours worked.

Simple "fatigue management" by taking extra breaks does not remove the employee from the stressfull enviroment that will eventually take its toll.


« Last Edit: Apr 25, 2006, 10:33 by alphadude »

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #57 on: Apr 25, 2006, 10:53 »
the point was made - "In the meantime we will continue to "improvise, adapt and overcome",..."

you need to read the entire post before you ridicule,...

additionally, there is no entry in my service jacket granting me an exemption for "experimental" use of marijuana, the answer was no and still is to this day, I've never been "high",...don't insinuate it,

if you feel compelled to sling insults at people there is a "No Holds Barred" section on these forums, why should I pay $36.50 for another year of gold membership when I can get insulted in this thread for free?

I apologize if you took insult.  The comment was not directed at you so much as at your style of writing.  The lack of punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure (considered by most people to be laziness and a lack of respect toward the reader) made it ... well, quite frankly ... barely coherent and tedious to read.  The combination of that style and your opening line ( which should be viewed as pretentious if not outright arrogant) made it too hard for me not to take a shot.  You made the target so big nobody could miss it.

I do actually agree with your premise, at least the summary.  We must improvise, adapt, and overcome.  The challenge is real because it exists in the real world.  We cannot improve the situation by following the unrealistic dictates of people who decide (because they took some business courses and accepted salaried positions) that overtime is a no-no.  To them, and to alphadude I say, "thanks for the input, but can you tell me something that is useful to me in the actual situation I'm facing?"

The reality won't change just because the latest flavor-of-the-month Business School fad says that it should. 

So alphadude, if you had read in depth the report you cut and pasted above, you would have read the part where it says that workers comp costs rise where there is overtime AND high levels of fatigue.  Given that overtime WILL NOT GO AWAY, the only alternative is to manage the fatigue.  You give the impression that you have some sort of management position.  That puts the ball in your hands.  You can make the change that is needed (managing workload and fatigue) or you can just rant about how bad overtime is.  Somehow I feel that your position on OT might have been different if you were getting paid for it and only got the opportunity to work 20 -25 weeks per year.
« Last Edit: Apr 25, 2006, 11:00 by BeerCourt »
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #58 on: Apr 25, 2006, 12:59 »
I make changes daily thats part of process improvement.  There is no ranting, planned overtime  for non-emergent, non-emergency work is a process failure. plain and simple.

and if frogs had wings...

beercourt you have been in the trenches too long..

M1Ark

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #59 on: Apr 25, 2006, 01:05 »
snip.. There is no ranting, planned overtime  for non-emergent, non-emergency work is a process failure. plain and simple.

...snip...

Is a refuel outage a process failure?

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #60 on: Apr 25, 2006, 03:01 »
How about this excerpt from a recent news release:


    The IG also found that:

        * Wackenhut routinely worked officers in excess of the 60 hr/week maximum
      at the Y-12 National Security Complex and some worked more than 72 hours
      per week in some cases. Working excessive overtime affects the ability
      or willingness of some officers to complete required physical fitness
      training.



http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/news/article/print/SIG=121av1i7p/*http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060425/dctu036.html?.v=48&printer=1


Just thought we could use more gasoline on this fire....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #61 on: Apr 25, 2006, 03:10 »
no a refuel outage is not a process failure.. its a routine...that is normally planned for... and your question is?


Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5828
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: NRC limits workers to 48 hrs/wk
« Reply #62 on: Apr 25, 2006, 09:33 »
the prob for the business in the midpoint of the fuel cycle is the reliance upon trained workers to work for half a year per year and not receive a full years worth of compensation for this exercise.  should the business realign the corporate mentality towards the independent, i.e. itinerant, workers with a compensation package reflective of full time commitment then the question of hours worked per week will be a needless exercise.  until such time, the amount of hours worked will be counted upon by the workers involved since the weeks not worked will be counted as a fiscal balance.  there have been many models of the worker/total compensation put into play in the u.s. domestic market and the international labor market.  unfortunately for the workers in the theatre, there has not been a consistency in the u.s.   and that is where this problem is being addressed, is it not?
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?