How important is overtime when you are considering a new job

[DrParasite]

When you look at a new job (or your current job), is the chance to get copious amounts of overtime something you look for? is it a requirement? is it a negative?

Will you accept a job for less money, worse management, or any other criteria if they say you can work as much OT as you want?

 

[ffemt8978]

I prefer OT to be of my choosing, not my employers. I would rather be able to make a living without any OT.

I do have a life outside of work...despite what some people think.

 

[Anjel]

Yes you have a life. EMTlife.

 

[Anjel]

And if it came down to two companies both offering me a job. One paid lets say $11/hr with no OT available. And the other $10/hr with as much as I wanted. I would take the one for $10/hr.

 

[DesertMedic66]

I haven't picked up an OT shift in more then a year despite the fact we have shifts open every day.

So OT is not an issue when it comes to a job for me.

 

[mycrofft]

FINd out if by "no OT" they mean they don't let you pick up OT, or they expect you to work over without extra pay (quasi-salary, like what they do to desperate lowest-rung supervisors).

 

[Amberlamps916]

The more OT the better for me. I like to push myself to almost inhuman limits just so I can save for retirement 40 years from now.

 

[STXmedic]

Meh, I don't take a lot of OT. I prefer working PRN at my multiple other jobs. It's a nice change of scenery. If the OT I could take here was more predictable, I might take more, though. $750 per 24hrs is hard to pass up sometimes

 

[46Young]

In EMS, it's prudent to always have your foot in the door at another agency (per diem) in case you lose/want to leave your FT job. As such, OT at the regular job shouldn't be too important.

When I was young and broke, OT availability was paramount. Now that I'm a little older and have my finances in order, I want more time away from work. Back in the day, I would live at work if they would let me. Now, my efforts are focused on degrees for promotional purposes so that I can cut way back on OT and enjoy my thrice monthly four day breaks rather than doing OT all the time. Still, $650 take home for 24 hrs plus an extra $275 or so in FLSA depending on when do it is hard to resist.

When a place has copious OT, you have to ask why that is the case. Do they have frequent employee turnover? Do they short staff and use forced OT to cover vacancies? Can they afford to do this because their pay is so low to begin with? It's cheaper to hire as few employees as possible, pay them substandard wages, and fill the holes with OT. It's cheaper to pay OT rather than pay medical benefits, paid time off, disability, uniforms, retirement, etc. on extra employees that they should hire.

With this copious OT, I'm concerned about forced holdover OT, forced recall, not getting leave approved, and having leave rescinded.

Bottom line, I'd recommend going with higher pay/better benefits, and taking a second job if there isn't enough OT. If you need to work 70-80 hrs a week just to make what a $25/hr forty hour employee makes on the regular, you're screwing yourself.

Edit: For a rule of thumb, that's about the same as a $12/hr employee working 56/week no FLSA (40 straight and 16 OT on the average) with an additional 14 hours OT. 70 hours/week @ $12/hr = $53,040. $25/hr 40 hours/wk = $52,000. So, the $12/hr person who makes $39,936 on a 56 hour regular schedule needs to work 70 hours just to make what a $25/hr person does normally. This is how we get screwed in EMS. We think we're doing well because we have decent paychecks, but we work so many more hours than most everyone else, even before picking up OT in many cases. A 56 hour week is already 40% more hours than a normal 40 hour employee, and you haven't even worked any additional OT. What's wrong with this picture? This is why so many in EMS get a degree and bail, or go fire where they may still be working these hours, but now it's for higher pay and the added bonus of FLSA pay.

 

[NomadicMedic]

I take a couple of OT shifts a month. I schedule it around when my fiancé is working, so it's not a conflict. Telestaff calls me almost every day that I'm off, but I really try to limit how much I work. I have a busy life outside of work, and it's important to me.

The fact that we have a fair amount of OT is nice, but it certainly doesn't make or break my paycheck. If I know I've got some bills looming on the horizon, I may work more OT.

 

[NYMedic828]

I prefer higher actually pay.

That way I can live my life on the side...

 

[46Young]

The more OT the better for me. I like to push myself to almost inhuman limits just so I can save for retirement 40 years from now.

Absolutely right. It's all about "time in" rather than timing. For example, if you start investing $10k at the end of year one, and add an additional $10k every year for 40 years @ 7.2% (reasonable if 100% in equities as you should be), you'll have $2,092,199.15 at retirement. If you wait 20 years but invest $20k instead of $10k every year, you'll only have $818,039.82 to retire on. Starting 20 years in, you would have to put aside more than $50k/yr just to match that $2,092,000 if you had started 20 years sooner.

If you put off retirement investing with the hypothetical $10,000 just for one year, the $2,092,199.15 is reduced to $1,941,678.31. You lose $150,520.84 just for waiting only one year to start investing! If you wait two years, it's only $1,801,267.08, or a loss of $290,932.07. $290k for $20k in the front end. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

It's all about "time in."

 

[NYMedic828]

Absolutely right. It's all about "time in" rather than timing. For example, if you start investing $10k at the end of year one, and add an additional $10k every year for 40 years @ 7.2% (reasonable if 100% in equities as you should be), you'll have $2,092,199.15 at retirement. If you wait 20 years but invest $20k instead of $10k every year, you'll only have $818,039.82 to retire on. Starting 20 years in, you would have to put aside more than $50k/yr just to match that $2,092,000 if you had started 20 years sooner.

If you put off retirement investing with the hypothetical $10,000 just for one year, the $2,092,199.15 is reduced to $1,941,678.31. You lose $150,520.84 just for waiting only one year to start investing! If you wait two years, it's only $1,801,267.08, or a loss of $290,932.07. $290k for $20k in the front end. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.


It's all about "time in."

What I need to stop doing is procrastinating signing up for deferred comp. I should have done it 3 years ago. I've had the papers on my desk for a few months now. Losing money every day :/

 

[Tigger]

I work full-time hours as a per-diem employee. I have to fight to get those, so whenever there is OT I try and snag it so if I get stuck with a three day work week it's not the end of the world. If I want to go away next week, I'll pick up an extra shift this week to make up for my absence.

As I start looking for a new job in Colorado, I am trying to get the low down on the OT situation. I also care because if I can only find a part time position, lot's of OT indicates available hours so I'll be able to get 40+ hours a week.

 

[Trashtruck]

I don't think it's a good idea to rely on OT. Where I work, it's unlimited. I never take it. I live on my salary very comfortably and enjoy my days off.

In deciding where to go, OT has absolutely NO bearing on my decision.