3 ms·
According to the article, employees previously not on the 3rd shift schedule were given a week to either agree to it or lose their jobs. I don't know about you
by ceilingcorner 6y ago
According to the article, employees previously not on the 3rd shift schedule were given a week to either agree to it or lose their jobs.
I don't know about you, but if my employer said I had to start working 1:20am to 11:50am within a week or lose my job, I'd be pretty angry too. Especially if I was a warehouse worker making a low salary that couldn't afford to find a new job easily.
- mc32 6y agoI think you’re both right. Some people love these schedules _if_ they don’t have other commitments (like a second job or child care, etc). But making it mandatory and not making it elective, usually with some incentive (like 25% premium), is a bit predatory, or at least strong arming workers.
- efsavage 6y agoSounds like that's kind of the point, you impose a policy only a certain type of worker can manage. The fact that this type of worker skews cheaper and more flexible (younger, single, no kids, lower cost of living, etc.) is probably not a coincidence.
- mc32 6y agoWhen I was in my late teens I briefly worked in a warehouse. Work was okay. Pay for what it was was okay. I would _not_ have liked an abrupt no options policy like this imposed. At least make it palatable with a premium per shift as well as make it optional. Ramming it like this will only make people resent it. In a non surveillance world, I’m certain shrinkage would go up from either theft or from intentional mishandling/damage.