An employee refusal to work overtime

The paper ” An Employee Refusal to Work Overtime” is an exceptional example of an essay on human resources. It is necessary to consider the arguments from both sides of the parties involved in the case. First, the union is justified in its push for arbitrary measures that will satisfy Mr. Gryzmisk and at the same time make the employers aware of its stand in protecting workers. Considerably, the union is pushing for the employees’ rights by because working overtime results in effects in the social life of individuals. As much as there is an increase in the amounts of time spent on overtime duties in the US, it is necessary to consider the possible effects. It is justified that the overtime trend helps the economy of the country and individual output of any firm to expand. However, such arrangements have unhealthy social costs for the persons involved. The case does not only take a toll on the workers but also their families, communities as well as all parties that look up to them. The union’s perspective for this case is justified because their needs to be a mutual agreement between the workers and their employers regarding the case. On the other hand, the employer, in this case, has more legal grounds than the union. First, there is a consideration that the country has allowances for mandatory overtime for all civil servants. The standard average work time in the country is 40 hours per week (Golden & Jorgensen, 2002). There are also allowances for overtime and this case, the United States is one of the leading nations in terms of overtime in the world. The company in the case of Mr. Gryzmisk has even more legal ground because there is no limitation on the amounts of overtime. At the same time, the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) does not prohibit the dismissal of workers who refuse to work overtime (Golden & Jorgensen 2002). Arguably, the union has no legal grounds, in this case, which makes Mr. Gryzmisk risk his job. In my judgment, therefore, the worker should review his decision because the employer has the rights to lay him off.