Smart employers don’t run constant OT regardless of the economy. People working a lot of OT get fatigued, tired people do lower quality work. Having a work force that can get your project done in 40 hours results in a better output. Plus when you force your people to live at work you actually dramatically cut down on productive hours, people that have to do 12 hour days all the time they probably only actually work 6 or 7 hours, the rest of the time they’re on the phone and running their personal lives that you’re not letting them have with those work hours. It’s hard for employees to take a stand, but employers need to understand the basic math, 40 hour work weeks actually help the bottom line.
I chose to work 50 to 60 hours every week most of my life so that I could be successful. If there was an opportunity for overtime, I jumped at it and always said thank you. I took the ‘extra’ money and invested it. Thankfully I was successful at that also.
The result, I retired at 50, quite well to do. My wife retired one year after I did. Grabbing that overtime when I was a youngster was one of the smartest things I ever did.
I find myself doing 2-4 calendar hours of casual OT per week, but it is in recompense for the “non-work” discussions and other unproductive time I find myself in. I work in a professional office setting.
But my OT is my choice.
I 100% agree with you - mandatory OT (over extended time periods) is destructive and counter productive. During real crunches, it can be a business saver. But the definition of “real crunch” doesn’t expand past about 2 weeks per 6 months, IMO.