4 ms·

I've read reports of Target, and similar companies, cutting back hours of many employees. I take such reports as anecdotal, but I didn't catch them talking abou

by Pigo 7y ago

I've read reports of Target, and similar companies, cutting back hours of many employees. I take such reports as anecdotal, but I didn't catch them talking about this in the article at all.

Cheyana 7y ago
I work part-time stocking shelves at a Walmart, and I can say from first-hand experience that while there is talk of cutting hours, the reality is that it won't happen at this time. Shelves don't stock themselves. Robots are a long way away, no matter what you hear, as the current process is inefficient enough to make it difficult for automation. Robots won't clean poop out of the urinals, or off the floors (yes, people do take a shit where they are not supposed to). I can also guarantee you that Walmart is not hurting by paying people 11 bucks an hour, and they still won't be hurting if they raise it by a couple of bucks. The CEO of Walmart even advised the feds that they should raise the minimum wage. Employees are necessary, and will be for a while.
- blix 7y ago
  > The CEO of Walmart even advised the feds that they should raise the minimum wage. High minimum wages favor larger entities than can leverage economies of scale. Amazon has expressed similar support. I don't think this is entirely altruistic.
  - jcims 7y ago
    It's not altruistic at all. In ten years Amazon (and likely WalMart) will be out of that labor market entirely and their competition will be left with the baggage.
    - blix 7y ago
      Assuming their competition will be left.
  - kuzimoto 7y ago
    Yep, larger companies are probably way better equipped to deal with raising the minimum wage. This will just hurt small/medium business.
    - asdff 7y ago
      It will hurt small/medium businesses that can't afford to not exploit their workers. If your business plan is reliant on having an artificially high staff due to exploiting an artificially low wage, then you don't have much of a business plan at all. "But what of all the poor businesses engaged in a race to the bottom to maximize personal profit?" Let's not think of the parasites here.
      - blix 7y ago
        It's not like Amazon/Walmart don't exploit workers, they just do it farther away. And are you really claiming they are not engaged in a race to the bottom? McDonalds is going to be better positioned to invest in automated ordering kiosks than any independent diner... is this because they are a beacon of chivalrous capitalism, or because they have been much better at exploitation? This is the weirdest defense of oligopoly. I've never understood it.
    - Pigo 7y ago
      Well everyone just wants to buy from three companies anyways, right? Just like everyone only wants to visit 3 websites? And everyone really only wants 1 ISP to choose from. /s
dv_dt 7y ago
I think the unethical part we get into with Target/Walmart/et al is the staffing of multiple shifts of part time work when it's obvious by the numbers that they're avoiding paying benefits for the hiring of fewer full time workers. The systemic question here is if we should allow it to be a financial advantage for companies to do that - especially large profitable ones with a footprint all over our nation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  >The systemic question here is if we should allow it to be a financial advantage for companies to do that - especially large profitable ones with a footprint all over our nation. The tying of health insurance to employment is the core issue. We give massive tax breaks to corporations via tax-deductible health insurance which naturally favors those employers with larger labor pools (who can therefore negotiate the best discounts). We need to move to medicare for all and then treat health insurance over and above that like any other taxable benefit provided by an employer.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  Ironically, consolidating the same amount of hours in fewer employees suffers the same effects people say raising minimum wage does -- reducing the total number of people involved. Some people get more hours and benefits, others get fired.
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    Yes that's a poor and hopefully temporary side effect - but it would get more people covered with medical benefits. It may also not be that bad en effect because unfair scheduling practices for the part time hires. The part-time scheduling is reported to take up essentially full time commitments to be on "standby" with poor stability in the scheduled times on/off. So if one wasn't instantly available to come off standby, one would get penalized - to avoid that, you couldn't take other part time work.
egdod 7y ago
Axios is pretty biased.
jandrese 7y ago
They aren't cutting hours with the labor market this tight. That's scaremongering.
ohazi 7y ago
That's to avoid paying for health insurance (two 20 hour employees with no insurance vs. one 40 hour employee with insurance). Minimum wage applies across the board, so cutting hours wouldn't change anything.
grumple 7y ago
So for these companies, it might make sense to hire more part-time employees and keep people under full-time if crossing that full-time threshold costs more. In any case, jobs are created to fulfill a need. Companies don't just hire people in order to spend their new tax breaks or because they get to pay less - they do so to fulfill particular needs they have. On the other hand, if a company was overstaffing due to being able to pay basically nothing, then sure, some minimum wage jobs may be lost. So the very worst-paying jobs might have been cut down slightly. But I'm doubting this is a major factor, as there's a lot of pressure to not overstaff no matter what wages are.
vkou 7y ago
If Target could have cut hours, and maintained revenue, they would have done that anyways. They haven't, though, and they won't.

by Pigo 7y ago

I've read reports of Target, and similar companies, cutting back hours of many employees. I take such reports as anecdotal, but I didn't catch them talking about this in the article at all.

Cheyana 7y ago

I work part-time stocking shelves at a Walmart, and I can say from first-hand experience that while there is talk of cutting hours, the reality is that it won't happen at this time. Shelves don't stock themselves. Robots are a long way away, no matter what you hear, as the current process is inefficient enough to make it difficult for automation. Robots won't clean poop out of the urinals, or off the floors (yes, people do take a shit where they are not supposed to). I can also guarantee you that Walmart is not hurting by paying people 11 bucks an hour, and they still won't be hurting if they raise it by a couple of bucks. The CEO of Walmart even advised the feds that they should raise the minimum wage. Employees are necessary, and will be for a while.

blix 7y ago
> The CEO of Walmart even advised the feds that they should raise the minimum wage. High minimum wages favor larger entities than can leverage economies of scale. Amazon has expressed similar support. I don't think this is entirely altruistic.
- jcims 7y ago
  It's not altruistic at all. In ten years Amazon (and likely WalMart) will be out of that labor market entirely and their competition will be left with the baggage.
  - blix 7y ago
    Assuming their competition will be left.
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  Yep, larger companies are probably way better equipped to deal with raising the minimum wage. This will just hurt small/medium business.
  - asdff 7y ago
    It will hurt small/medium businesses that can't afford to not exploit their workers. If your business plan is reliant on having an artificially high staff due to exploiting an artificially low wage, then you don't have much of a business plan at all. "But what of all the poor businesses engaged in a race to the bottom to maximize personal profit?" Let's not think of the parasites here.
    - blix 7y ago
      It's not like Amazon/Walmart don't exploit workers, they just do it farther away. And are you really claiming they are not engaged in a race to the bottom? McDonalds is going to be better positioned to invest in automated ordering kiosks than any independent diner... is this because they are a beacon of chivalrous capitalism, or because they have been much better at exploitation? This is the weirdest defense of oligopoly. I've never understood it.
  - Pigo 7y ago
    Well everyone just wants to buy from three companies anyways, right? Just like everyone only wants to visit 3 websites? And everyone really only wants 1 ISP to choose from. /s

dv_dt 7y ago

I think the unethical part we get into with Target/Walmart/et al is the staffing of multiple shifts of part time work when it's obvious by the numbers that they're avoiding paying benefits for the hiring of fewer full time workers. The systemic question here is if we should allow it to be a financial advantage for companies to do that - especially large profitable ones with a footprint all over our nation.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
alasdair_ 7y ago
>The systemic question here is if we should allow it to be a financial advantage for companies to do that - especially large profitable ones with a footprint all over our nation. The tying of health insurance to employment is the core issue. We give massive tax breaks to corporations via tax-deductible health insurance which naturally favors those employers with larger labor pools (who can therefore negotiate the best discounts). We need to move to medicare for all and then treat health insurance over and above that like any other taxable benefit provided by an employer.
UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Ironically, consolidating the same amount of hours in fewer employees suffers the same effects people say raising minimum wage does -- reducing the total number of people involved. Some people get more hours and benefits, others get fired.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Yes that's a poor and hopefully temporary side effect - but it would get more people covered with medical benefits. It may also not be that bad en effect because unfair scheduling practices for the part time hires. The part-time scheduling is reported to take up essentially full time commitments to be on "standby" with poor stability in the scheduled times on/off. So if one wasn't instantly available to come off standby, one would get penalized - to avoid that, you couldn't take other part time work.

egdod 7y ago

Axios is pretty biased.

jandrese 7y ago

They aren't cutting hours with the labor market this tight. That's scaremongering.

ohazi 7y ago

That's to avoid paying for health insurance (two 20 hour employees with no insurance vs. one 40 hour employee with insurance). Minimum wage applies across the board, so cutting hours wouldn't change anything.

grumple 7y ago

So for these companies, it might make sense to hire more part-time employees and keep people under full-time if crossing that full-time threshold costs more. In any case, jobs are created to fulfill a need. Companies don't just hire people in order to spend their new tax breaks or because they get to pay less - they do so to fulfill particular needs they have. On the other hand, if a company was overstaffing due to being able to pay basically nothing, then sure, some minimum wage jobs may be lost. So the very worst-paying jobs might have been cut down slightly. But I'm doubting this is a major factor, as there's a lot of pressure to not overstaff no matter what wages are.

vkou 7y ago

If Target could have cut hours, and maintained revenue, they would have done that anyways. They haven't, though, and they won't.