3 ms·
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 stor
by 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 agoI 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 agoLow-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 agoWhat 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).