Sunday shifts?

So, how many Sundays a month does your wife actually pull shifts in the medical field?

My cousin works in healthcare too, and naturally, she picks up shifts on holidays and Sundays, but it’s by no means a weekly occurrence, let alone every single Sunday or every federal holiday. On top of that, those shifts come with premium pay—we're talking significant overtime—so thanks to those extra duties, her take-home pay ends up being quite respectable.

My husband also finds himself working on Sundays from time to time, which is just standard practice in his line of work; however, again, he isn't working every single Sunday, and he gets compensated specifically for that time, much like how every single minute of overtime is tracked and paid out separately.

Betty Bennett10 said:So, how many Sundays a month does your wife actually pull shifts in healthcare?

My cousin works in medicine too. Yeah, she pulls holidays and Sundays, but it’s definitely not every single week or even every other weekend, and she isn't grinding through every single federal holiday either. Plus, those shifts come with serious overtime pay—the kind of money that actually makes the hassle worth it.

My husband also pulls the occasional Sunday shift, which is just standard for his line of work. But again, it’s not a weekly thing, and he gets paid a premium for it, just like he gets paid extra for every single minute of overtime.

My mom is a department head at a hospital. Based on her seniority and specific contract terms, she gets 57 vacation days a year. On top of that, since she’s a radiologist, she works six-hour shifts—basically a four-day work week. She also covers every other weekend. As the boss, she calls the shots on the vacation schedule. Because certain specialties aren't exactly "popular," they're always short-staffed. If you do the math, if she bundles her time off every two years, she could technically take over six months of paid vacation all at once. Over the last decade, she’s had about 20 days of her vacation canceled every year. Since she’s a chief physician, she gets to pick her workplace. <-- She chose this one herself.

It really comes down to the price of that very last hour of free time versus an hour of work.

Say you work 8 hours and have 6 hours of free time left. What's the value of an extra hour of work at $33 per hour?
After a 12-hour shift, you've only got 2 hours of freedom left. What's the price tag on that second-to-last hour of free time?
After a 13-hour shift, you're left with just one lonely hour of freedom. Does that hour even have a price?

Should the government be meddling in the market like this? Shouldn't they be focusing on unemployment or making sure labor laws are actually being followed? It’s easy to say, "We can't control this, so let's just ban it." Economics has a term for this: "laissez-faire"—basically, "leave us alone." It means the government stays out of the free market.

Let people make their own choices, even if that choice is "work more" or "hit the streets." There are people out there waiting for a job like yours, praying they'd have it. Put yourself in their shoes. Not everyone looking for work is some scammer or fraud. Some people just don't have a paycheck coming in.

Look, I want everyone to live the good life. But if we aren't working, where's the money coming from? You gotta work.

Milwaukee said:Do you actually work on Sundays? And according to your logic, who would ever get a Sunday off? Are you even aware that judges face backlogs of two or three years? Entire caseloads go stale simply because they lack the bandwidth to process them. They don't work Saturdays or Sundays, yet if they handled even just 10% more cases, we might actually see some progress. By what metric is one profession deemed more valuable than another such that they are exempt from Sunday shifts?

The solution is quite straightforward: judges do not provide a service industry function. The only exception should be misdemeanor courts, which ought to operate in the afternoons and on weekends to ensure working citizens aren't losing precious hours over traffic violations.

Otherwise, judges—much like anyone else—should work five 8-hour shifts to meet their weekly quota. Permanent overtime isn't permitted, nor is it economically viable for an employer since it costs significantly more than standard labor.

Essentially, we just need to ensure legal compliance. Retailers operating on an 8-hour schedule will naturally have two days off per week because hiring more staff is simply too expensive. The only outliers would be small mom-and-pop shops, where it makes financial sense for an owner to occasionally pay employees for overtime to cover a shift.

Ronald Castillo5 said:What strikes me as particularly curious about this Supreme Court ruling is that it was split—roughly seven in favor of striking down the law and five against. It’s a bit of a logical puzzle, isn't it? A law is either constitutional or it isn't. One would assume everyone on that bench possesses the requisite expertise to grasp the legislation perfectly well. Instead, you have seven interpreting it one way and five seeing it quite differently. I’d be very interested to see how those seven justices might find their standard of living or bank balances shifting in the coming months once they receive their "incentives" from the big retail chains.

That kind of rhetoric is biased and frankly insulting. You are reducing the Supreme Court to the level of a flea market and essentially branding judges as potential criminals. In reality, their standard of living is perfectly respectable, much like any other high court justice in a stable nation.

The fact that the decision wasn't unanimous is hardly noteworthy; it’s standard practice in jurisprudence, especially in constitutional matters where the core focus is often on fundamental principles rather than simple facts. Take Roosevelt, for instance. To push through the New Deal, he practically had to wait for a conservative Supreme Court justice to pass away so a liberal could be appointed, finally allowing the reforms to move forward. Major decisions being decided by a slim majority is nothing out of the ordinary.

Similarly, at the International Court of Justice, for example, every single judge maintains the right to issue a separate or dissenting opinion.

Betty Bennett10 said:Exactly how many Sundays a month does your wife work in healthcare?

My cousin works in medicine too, and of course, she covers holidays and Sundays, but it’s definitely not every single Sunday, nor is it every federal holiday. On top of that, those shifts come with premium pay—really good pay—so those extra duties actually help her build up a decent salary...

My husband also pulls some Sunday shifts from time to time, which is totally standard for his line of work. But again, he isn't working every Sunday, and he gets special pay for those days, just like he gets overtime for every single extra minute he puts in.

My wife actually works almost every Sunday because she prefers having one specific weekday off, along with Saturdays.

Everything you mentioned should apply to all workers, too. It's not like people at big shopping malls or retail hubs are forced to work every single Sunday. And naturally, they should be paid better for it.

Things like this should be regulated properly rather than just banning everything outright...

Ronald Castillo5 said:My wife ends up working almost every Sunday because she actually prefers having just one weekday off, along with Saturday.

And everything you wrote applies to all other employees too. You don't see everyone at the big shopping malls working every single Sunday, nor would they want to. And of course, the pay should be better.

These kinds of issues need proper regulation rather than just blanket bans on everything.

I agree that we shouldn't just ban everything outright; however, based on what the Labor Union claims—and what several people here have shared from their own experiences—retail workers in shopping malls and stores throughout America are pulling massive amounts of overtime. They either aren't getting paid for those extra hours at all, or the compensation is pathetic, all while being forced to work nearly every holiday and Sunday.

To reiterate—I realize that banning Sunday work isn't the magic fix, since employers would likely find ways to exploit workers regardless—but I find myself wondering what the actual solution is. It seems quite obvious that the government simply refuses to step in when these labor rights are being violated.

So, I’m curious if anyone posting here who supports Sunday shifts would actually be willing to boycott a specific shopping mall if it turned out the employer there was systematically violating worker protections?

Betty Bennett10 said:I honestly wonder if any of the people on this forum who are constantly arguing in favor of Sunday retail hours would actually be willing to boycott a specific shopping mall if it turned out the management there was violating labor laws.

And what about striking? I mean, what is the point of having a Labor Union if not for that? As individuals, people are pretty much powerless, but a organized Labor Union could realistically bring a giant like General Motors to its knees in just three days. Yet, for some reason, workers find it way too much of a hassle to actually join a union or pay that tiny 1% membership fee. Everyone seems to want someone else to swoop in and fix their problems while they sit around doing absolutely nothing.

Joshua Chavez said:A strike? What’s the point of a Labor Union then? As individuals, they’re powerless, but as a collective, they could bring a giant like General Motors to its knees in three days flat. Yet, for most workers, actually joining a union and coughing up that 1% membership fee feels like too much work. Everyone wants someone else to fix their problems while they just sit there playing passive bystanders.

But what happens when an employer actively prevents them from organizing, or if people are simply too terrified of losing their jobs to walk out? Or consider the small local shops where there are only one or two employees to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that people ought to fight harder for their rights, but what if they are genuinely afraid or just lack the capacity to do so? Shouldn't their rights be protected by law regardless, and shouldn't the government be the entity responsible for ensuring those laws are actually enforced?

The real question I'm posing is this—is anyone among us actually prepared to show solidarity with workers whose rights are being trampled, even if it's just by boycotting the employer who is violating them? To be perfectly honest, after reading the threads on this forum regarding the MTA strike and the doctors' strike, I have my doubts.

Betty Bennett10 said:I’m curious if anyone here who supports Sunday shopping would actually be willing to boycott a mall if it turned out the employer there was violating labor rights?

Hold on, so you're saying customers should protest because employees are working Sundays and overtime without getting paid properly?

When we see workers organizing themselves to speak up and doing everything in their power to stop being exploited, then we as customers will step up and support them...

But if not a single worker takes action, signs a petition, or asks for a meeting with management and their Labor Union representatives... if they just grumble but choose to stay in those roles anyway, then there’s really no point in someone else fighting that battle for them...

So, I think the better question is... how many workers who refuse to work weekends or overtime without fair pay will actually take the necessary steps to bring this abuse to light through the legal system, or use pressure from Labor Unions to force management toward decent changes (without all the drama)?

We'll be right there to support them when they do...

Personally, I don't buy anything from Gap, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, or any of the other huge companies known for using sweatshops and cheap labor—often exploiting immigrants without providing basic workplace safety...

Like that news story from a few years back about a McDonald's worker who fell into the meat grinders... since shutting down the processing line would have cost too much money, that worker ended up in a customer's meal...

Ronald Castillo5 said:Hold on, so you're saying customers should be outraged that employees are working Sundays and pulling overtime without seeing an extra dime?

It isn't about the customers; it's about the citizens, the general public—I don't really view myself as just a customer. My question is whether the public in this country would actually be willing to react to labor rights violations by, say, boycotting the companies that ignore them. Everyone in these threads seems to agree that we shouldn't ban Sunday work, but rather ensure that workers' rights are respected. Yet, I find myself wondering what we are actually prepared to do when those rights aren't upheld—which, according to reports from the Labor Union, they clearly aren't.

Betty Bennett10 said:What I’m really getting at is this: is anyone here actually willing to show some solidarity with workers whose rights are being trampled? Even just by boycotting the employer responsible? To be honest, looking at the discussions on this forum regarding the MTA strike or the doctors' strikes—I have my doubts.

If they don't have the guts to join a Labor Union, then they can't really blame anyone else. The government only guarantees them a minimum wage (<$500 net), so if they want anything more than that, they have to fight for it through their union. No, I don't feel any particular sense of solidarity with the workers; I suppose I'm on the other side of the street (meaning, I'm a capitalist 😁)