18 ms·

It isn't doing it quietly, it's running around yelling in the streets banging pots and pans. Outside the bay area I have never had an Uber driver that did not d

by zwkrt 7y ago

It isn't doing it quietly, it's running around yelling in the streets banging pots and pans. Outside the bay area I have never had an Uber driver that did not drive as their full-time job. (Actually my most strange memory of San Jose was being driven by a dad going to pick up his son from school.) But what's someone to do if their other option is not to work at all? My mom used to work two jobs in the early 2000s, and it was always a struggle because so many retail jobs (or at least retail managers) will intentionally randomize schedules, such that even if you are working 30h/week you can't hold another position because in any given week the schedules are likely to overlap. The gig economy is a weaponized response to this variability IMO.

smsm42 7y ago
> But what's someone to do if their other option is not to work at all? So, let's imagine all wishes of Uber opponents came true and Uber doesn't exist anymore. What does it mean for that "someone" - back to "no work at all", right? Do you think that change improved his situation? > so many retail jobs (or at least retail managers) will intentionally randomize schedules Why? What advantage does it provide to them? Also, isn't retail job the very one that has centuries of protections and, as the topic article claims, must survive and serve as a model while Uber jobs must be gone?
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  A lot of worker protections are reserved for full-time employees -- like healthcare, breaks, paid sick leave. In theory, you don't have to give full-time employees vacation time, but in practice most full-time employees get vacation time, and very few part time employees do. That's part of the Under-employed crisis in the US. When people talk about worker protections, they're not talking about part-time work. Additionally, very few full-time employees have anything remotely like a randomized schedule. The medical industry is the only industry AFAIK that resembles randomized schedules at all. Yet this is VERY common in part time work.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > That's part of the Under-employed crisis in the US. Let's imagine, again, the wishes of the progressive forces came true and the part-time jobs are banned forever, together with gigs and side jobs and contracting and interning and whatever it is that is not 100% full-time fixed steady job - all other ways to get employment is verboten. Would you think people that are now working part-time jobs would be better or worse off? If, say, someone is a mother working part-time because she needs time to take care of the kid (and she doesn't mind giving up vacation time for being able to actually spend time with the kid when she needs it) - would she better off losing the part-time job or being required to work full-time and hire a full-time (remember, no part-time jobs anymore!) nanny or give the child to the mass-warehousing facility for kids while she is working? Would the person who has a side gig because his main job does not provide enough income be better off losing that gig? Would we be better off is we solve the crisis by destroying the part-time employment?
- zwkrt 7y ago
  1. We are agreeing, not sure why the argumentative tone. 2. If you have 10 employees, late shift only twice a week, only 3 of them are trained to open the store, and employees constantly swapping hours, it can be hard to provide consistent hours for everyone. "Intentionally randomize" could have been restated as "regularly unstable"
  - smsm42 7y ago
    I am still not getting the last part. I understand that if small number of employees only can take care of a vital function, then they must be carefully scheduled so that the vital function is covered all the time. How exactly randomizing is achieving this? If I planned it, I'd say randomizing is the worst method ever to achieve it, so I wonder what I am still missing - what advantage the employer gains in randomizing the hours? I can't see any.
    - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
      Low-wage employers often don't generate or issues schedules far in advance. The longer they wait to issue a schedule the more flexibility the employer has. Often this involves giving shorter but more frequent shifts to keep workers who work 4 or 5 days a week from accruing enough hours to be consider a full-time workers (and qualifying for benefits).
      - smsm42 7y ago
        What you have described sounds logical, but it's not randomizing. It's giving out shifts by specific and well-defined criteria (maybe unethical or undesired by the worker, but hardly random).

by zwkrt 7y ago

smsm42 7y ago

> But what's someone to do if their other option is not to work at all? So, let's imagine all wishes of Uber opponents came true and Uber doesn't exist anymore. What does it mean for that "someone" - back to "no work at all", right? Do you think that change improved his situation? > so many retail jobs (or at least retail managers) will intentionally randomize schedules Why? What advantage does it provide to them? Also, isn't retail job the very one that has centuries of protections and, as the topic article claims, must survive and serve as a model while Uber jobs must be gone?

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
A lot of worker protections are reserved for full-time employees -- like healthcare, breaks, paid sick leave. In theory, you don't have to give full-time employees vacation time, but in practice most full-time employees get vacation time, and very few part time employees do. That's part of the Under-employed crisis in the US. When people talk about worker protections, they're not talking about part-time work. Additionally, very few full-time employees have anything remotely like a randomized schedule. The medical industry is the only industry AFAIK that resembles randomized schedules at all. Yet this is VERY common in part time work.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > That's part of the Under-employed crisis in the US. Let's imagine, again, the wishes of the progressive forces came true and the part-time jobs are banned forever, together with gigs and side jobs and contracting and interning and whatever it is that is not 100% full-time fixed steady job - all other ways to get employment is verboten. Would you think people that are now working part-time jobs would be better or worse off? If, say, someone is a mother working part-time because she needs time to take care of the kid (and she doesn't mind giving up vacation time for being able to actually spend time with the kid when she needs it) - would she better off losing the part-time job or being required to work full-time and hire a full-time (remember, no part-time jobs anymore!) nanny or give the child to the mass-warehousing facility for kids while she is working? Would the person who has a side gig because his main job does not provide enough income be better off losing that gig? Would we be better off is we solve the crisis by destroying the part-time employment?
zwkrt 7y ago
1. We are agreeing, not sure why the argumentative tone. 2. If you have 10 employees, late shift only twice a week, only 3 of them are trained to open the store, and employees constantly swapping hours, it can be hard to provide consistent hours for everyone. "Intentionally randomize" could have been restated as "regularly unstable"
- smsm42 7y ago
  I am still not getting the last part. I understand that if small number of employees only can take care of a vital function, then they must be carefully scheduled so that the vital function is covered all the time. How exactly randomizing is achieving this? If I planned it, I'd say randomizing is the worst method ever to achieve it, so I wonder what I am still missing - what advantage the employer gains in randomizing the hours? I can't see any.
  - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
    Low-wage employers often don't generate or issues schedules far in advance. The longer they wait to issue a schedule the more flexibility the employer has. Often this involves giving shorter but more frequent shifts to keep workers who work 4 or 5 days a week from accruing enough hours to be consider a full-time workers (and qualifying for benefits).
    - smsm42 7y ago
      What you have described sounds logical, but it's not randomizing. It's giving out shifts by specific and well-defined criteria (maybe unethical or undesired by the worker, but hardly random).