Long Working Hours

[Brian]

The perils of long working hours have been discussed here before. Last night I came across this story in my local paper...

 

The employers of a 21-year-old agricultural worker who crashed and died while driving home after working three consecutive 19½-hour shifts may escape a "significant" fine because they are on the verge of going out of business.

 

Potato distribution company The Produce Connection, based in Chittering, near Waterbeach, admitted failing to ensure the health and safety of workers and of other members of the public.

 

The prosecution, thought to be the first of its kind in the UK, was brought by the Health and Safety Executive after Mark Fiebig, of Soham, died after the Ford Escort van he was driving drifted into the path of an oncoming articulated lorry on the A10 near Ely in October 2002.

 

He (the Judge) added: "If the company was in a healthy financial position then the court would be bound to turn its mind to a significant financial penalty."

 

Health and Safety Executive officials said Mr Fiebig had been harvesting potatoes, which involved driving farm machinery, at the time of his death. A spokesman said evidence showed that he had been working shifts which began at around 6am and finished between 1am and 2am the following day. He said there was evidence that other employees were also working similar hours.

 

"We believe this is the first prosecution of its kind in the country," said the spokesman.

 

"The employer has admitted breaches of Health and Safety legislation which amount to them admitting that they failed to ensure the health and safety of Mr Fiebig and other members of the public who might have been using the roads."

[GUSTie]

who hear has not worked a 36hour shift on the odd occasion, you shouldn't and you know it, but sometimes there is just no option. when you are doing a mammoth get in and stuff goes wrong, what can you do? I had an employer who actually hired my crew for 48 hours consecutively, (we did get some sleep though, when the director went home to get some sleep.) its too easy to do. although not sensible.

 

Matt

[mac.calder]

Officially, I have never done anything like that.

 

Un-officially, the number of times I have fallen asleep behind a console (not during a show thank god and mainly in amdram) after a couple of all nighters in a row is ridiculous.

[Guest lightnix]

The only thing that makes me cross about this case is that it looks like the company directors (who were presumably responsible for this policy) will be walking away scott free

 

As usual, this probably has the scariest implications for freelancers (who are far easier to prosecute). It's all very well being helpful and showing a can do attitude, but if that's going to lead to accidents for which you wind up in court... :)

[leofric]

'died while driving home after working three consecutive 19½-hour shifts'

 

'A spokesman said evidence showed that he had been working shifts which began at around 6am and finished between 1am and 2am the following day. He said there was evidence that other employees were also working similar hours.'

 

 

Sounds a bit like a arena tour schedual to me!

[Just Some Bloke]

Who here has not worked a 36 hour shift on the odd occasion, you shouldn't and you know it, but sometimes there is just no option?

Un-officially... {snip}

Sounds a bit like a arena tour schedual to me!

 

This guy crashed his car. Had you been coming the other way at the time, and he'd killed, not just himself, but your girlfriend/mother/whatever at the same time, would you feel the same?

 

OK, so I may have not had the statutory 11 hour break between shifts on many occasions before, but "a couple of all night sessions" is just silly. There's always a way of getting the show up, even if it means the director/designer/LD not getting everything they wanted. Great art/entertainment is very important but not as important as people's lives.

[mac.calder]

This guy crashed his car. Had you been coming the other way at the time, and he'd killed, not just himself, but your girlfriend/mother/whatever at the same time, would you feel the same?

 

I never drive whilst tired - I think it is irresponsible, and certainly don't condone it, it is why I keep a sleeping bag, toiletrys and change of clothes in my car. I am was just saying that I have been called to do much the same thing as that chap - especially with AmDram, who quite often cannot afford a full tech week before the show opens.

[Brian]

This guy crashed his car. Had you been coming the other way at the time, and he'd killed, not just himself, but your girlfriend/mother/whatever at the same time, would you feel the same?

What I found interesting was that the company was charged with both a section 2 breach, which deals with their employee who died, and a section 3 breach which deals with risks to the general public even though no-one else was involved. Clearly they felt that sufficient risk arose to make such a charge worthwhile.

[AndrewR]

Errr, he drifted into the path of oncoming trafic. I think thats a fairly large risk to the public. But the company being poor is a rubbish excuse, prosecute the company directors say I.

[GUSTie]

This guy crashed his car. Had you been coming the other way at the time, and he'd killed, not just himself, but your girlfriend/mother/whatever at the same time, would you feel the same?

 

when I am doing such irresponsible shift patterns I try and minimise the risk by not doing stuff like driving and rigging when tyred, sound checking and setting up the desks, can be done, shouldn't, but can. theirs no excuse really but how many employers encourage you to do it?

 

it is a systemic problem, although you are write we shouldn't be working 48hr shifts.

[dbuckley]

... But the company being poor is a rubbish excuse, prosecute the company directors say I.

If it were possible to prosecute the directors then that would be a nice thing to do, but you would hope that the CPS would beleive the prosecution would have a reasonable chance of suceeding before proceeding. The whole idea of a limited company is to isolate directors as people from the actions of the company by making the company a legal entity (equivalent to a real person) in it's own right, so holding directors personally responsible is deliberately made quite hard.

 

In terms of the fine, I think the court's view is that the victim is dead, there is no benefit to the victim (or the family of the victim) of the government collecting money from fines on the company, and if fines were levied then the company would probably be unable to meet it's obligations, and would thus close, so the government wouldn't actually get the money anyway, and there would be one or more people joining the dole queue. Its a lose situation whichever way you look at it, so if you cant get any good out of it, the next best thing is to minimise the overall damage.

[p.k.roberts]

Its a lose situation whichever way you look at it, so if you cant get any good out of it, the next best thing is to minimise the overall damage.

 

Sorry, really can't agree with that - the purpose of a the fine would surely be to discourage other employers from following these dangerous and abusive practices in the future?

[dbuckley]

Sorry, really can't agree with that - the purpose of a the fine would surely be to discourage other employers from following these dangerous and abusive practices in the future?

Good theory, but not the case in practice.

 

Firstly, what you are saying is that to send a message you want to destroy the company, and throw all the workers onto the unemployment queue, losing all benefits due to the employees from the company. You want to punish the employees, maybe the suppliers, maybe clients, and everyone else the comanay has a financial relationship with, all just to send a message. You think that punishing everyone except the company directors who get to walk away unscathed is the right thing to do?

 

Secondly, in the more general case, the trouble with fines against companies as a corrective and deterrence tool is that they are a quantifiable financial risk to a business, and therefore become just a cost of doing business. As companies become bigger and become PLCs, you end up having budget lines for this kind of stuff.

 

There are only really two scenarios, either the fine is affordable, or not affordable, and in the former case you pay, and in the latter case wind up the business, and open under a new name next week.

 

If it is cheaper for the business to work staff 24x7x3 and have the risk of the odd fine, as opposed to being completely within the working time directive and employing more people unproductively, what do you think they'll do? The clue is to follow the money...

 

None of this makes over-working employees right, but as contributions earlier up the thread have shown, people are willing to do it. Willing employer plus willing employee.

[leofric]

This guy crashed his car. Had you been coming the other way at the time, and he'd killed, not just himself, but your girlfriend/mother/whatever at the same time, would you feel the same?

 

OK, so I may have not had the statutory 11 hour break between shifts on many occasions before, but "a couple of all night sessions" is just silly. There's always a way of getting the show up, even if it means the director/designer/LD not getting everything they wanted. Great art/entertainment is very important but not as important as people's lives.

 

 

Sorry you got the wrong end of the stick

 

I have known personally, several people killed while driving home after a show

 

The point I make is that production companies think that it is acceptable to schedule long days and strings of shows without rest days especially when employing freelancers. Most days you get a break before show time to go and sleep on the bus, but not always especially on shows where the budget has been cut too tight. There is always a way to get a show up, you work until you have no time left.

[p.k.roberts]

Good theory, but not the case in practice.

 

If you look at the building industry in the UK as an example, it has become the norm to enforce safety measures - you simply won't get onto a site these days without the appropriate PPE - I would say this is a good example that the theory can work.

 

what you are saying is that to send a message you want to destroy the company, and throw all the workers onto the unemployment queue, losing all benefits due to the employees from the company. You want to punish the employees, maybe the suppliers, maybe clients, and everyone else the company has a financial relationship with, all just to send a message. You think that punishing everyone except the company directors who get to walk away unscathed is the right thing to do?

 

I'm clearly NOT saying this, and would suggest that is is an extreme and emotive argument. I think we actually agree though that is certainly the directors/management who are responsible for this type of behaviour who should be punished. If this means that a company which is endangering workers lives goes out of business, is that necessarily a bad thing?

 

Secondly, in the more general case, the trouble with fines against companies as a corrective and deterrence tool is that they are a quantifiable financial risk to a business........

 

either the fine is affordable, or not affordable, and in the former case you pay, and in the latter case wind up the business, and open under a new name next week.

 

Even if a fine is 'affordable' it still has an effect on the bottom line - so surely it must be possible to make it more cost effective to do things the right way?