About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


7 N.Y. City L. Rev. 85 (2004)
Overwork Robs Workers' Health: Interpreting OSHA's General Duty Clause to Prohibit Long Work Hours

handle is hein.journals/nyclr7 and id is 93 raw text is: OVERWORK ROBS WORKERS' HEALTH: INTERPRETING OSHA'S GENERAL DUTY CLAUSE TO PROHIBIT LONG WORK HOURS Tosh Anderson* I. INTRODUCTION Since World War II, worker productivity in the United States has tripled.' This maximization of productivity has been the result of the reorganization of work. The reorganization is characterized by long work hours and a dizzying array of new work arrangements that American capital, with the support of governmental policy and the judiciary, has utilized to demand ever-increasing productivity levels and squeeze more profit out of working people. These profit margins are obscured by a so-called work-and-spend economy that is characterized by long working hours, high-income growth, and high consumption.2 For those workers marginalized by this work-and-spend economy, long hours have become increasingly necessary to supplement declining real wages and living standards.' Now, long working hours are being linked to work-related injuries and illnesses, including stress, depression, fatigue, performance-im- paired and overexertion injuries, repetitive motion and cardiovas- cular disorders, family conflict, and death.4 The demand for longer * J.D., City University of New York School of Law, 2003; M.A., Georgia State Uni- versity, 1996; B.A. University of Georgia, 1993. Recipient of the 2002-2003 Law School Student Award sponsored by the Labor and Employment Law Section of the New York State Bar Association. I would like to thank the following individuals for their thoughtful comments, critiques, insights, suggestions, and guidance: Laura Gillis, JoAnn Lum, Shirley Lung, Paul O'Neil, Kevin Read, and John Whitlow. I am particu- larly thankful for the support of family and friends who have enriched and shaped this journey, and, in particular, to Leslie and Mac whose love, patience, and compan- ionship provided a much-needed balance to the demanding schedule of this past year. I Juliet Schor, The Kenneth M. Piper Lecture: Worktime in Contemporary Context: Amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, 70 CHI.-KENT. L. REv. 157 (1994). 2 Id. at 163. 3 KIM MOODY & SIMONE SAGOVAc, LABOR EDUC. & REs. PROJECT, TIME OUTI: THE CASE FOR A SHORTER WORK WEEK, 10-12 (1995). [F] or the production and nonsuper- visory employees that make up 80% of the labor force . . . just to reach their 1973 standard of living, they must work 245 more hours, or 6-plus extra weeks a year. Id. at 10. 4 See LONNIE GOLDEN & HELENE JORGENSEN, ECON. POL'Y INST. BRIEFING PAPER, TIME AFrER TIME: MANDATORY OVERTIME IN THE U.S. ECONOMY 1 (January 2002); see also Linda M. Goldenhar et al., The Goldilocks Model of Overtime in Construction: Not Too Much, Not Too Little, But Just Right, 34J. SAFETv RES. 215 (2003); INST. FOR WORK-