To the Editor:

I read the article about the Berne Highway Department’s bid to work four 10-hour days instead of five eight-hour days from May to October.   If this time period included the winter months when winter storms require all hands on deck for plowing, I could understand the town having issues.  But, during the late spring through early fall, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

Throughout the article, Supervisor Kevin Crosier kept saying that this schedule would cost the town money.  He says the schedule would somehow cheat the town and would be an embarrassment to town people working two jobs.

However, the way I see it, 40 hours is 40 hours. They aren't asking to only work 32 hours.  They are asking to work longer days, which on a hot summer day won't be any walk in the park by any means.

My brother-in-law works three 12-hour days with three days off then four 12-hour days — 80 hours in a two-week period.  Same hours as someone working five eight-hour days or four 10-hour days.  I certainly don't feel like he is somehow privileged over me because he gets three days off instead of two.

In the article, Kevin worried about what they would do if it was dark at 6 in the morning but from May until October it is light out by 6 and stays light well past 7 at night — easily 10-plus hours of daylight to work.  There are many towns whose workers flex their time during the summer months.  It isn't unheard of.

I can't find any evidence in the article that this would in any way cost more.  In fact there seems to be evidence that it may cost less.  I was surprised to read that they had done this last year.  I don't recall there being any issues and there was no mention in the article that there were problems with the schedule last year.

The compromise where some workers have Mondays off and others have Fridays off seemed a reasonable way to ensure there are employees available every weekday to handle whatever emergency may occur. The argument that this staggered plan would only have a full roster of workers for three days doesn't make sense either since the supervisor had no problem laying off two workers to force their hand.

There must be some information we are missing, so I ask that the supervisor and the board please explain that side of it.  What extra costs are you expecting?

From what I have read it's embarrassing that our elected officials couldn't figure out a way to resolve this.  Additionally the article  makes it pretty clear that the layoffs are purely to coerce the employees into bowing to the opposing contract offer. The supervisor is quoted saying they can have their jobs back if they agree to his plan.  Is that even legal?

Maureen Abbott

East Berne