5 ms·
I'm not sure I agree that it's not worthy of headlines. One of the big trends I see with those 10-20 hr a week jobs, is that they are automated in terms of sch
by diob 6y ago
I'm not sure I agree that it's not worthy of headlines.
One of the big trends I see with those 10-20 hr a week jobs, is that they are automated in terms of scheduling to try and optimize profit. In other words, they call you in for an 1hr on Monday, but then another 2 hrs later in the day. It's so chopped up that it's hard to coordinate a second job.
And part of the automation is to also ensure employees don't accidentally hit full time, to avoid benefits.
So now they hold two jobs, each chopping their day into tiny bits of unusable time (commute, prep, etc.). And neither has to pay any benefits.
It's a win win for companies, and a lose lose for everyone else.
- pb7 6y agoI agree that companies should be disincentivized/punished for doing that. The overhead of an additional job can't be overstated. I would still like to see the total hours, but ideally the hours spent at each job, to see the depth of the problem. It would also help draw attention to the exact thresholds that businesses are abusing to draw up better legislature.
- renewiltord 6y agoThis is why Uber/Lyft were so good. They allowed people to dodge the bin-packing problem by allowing someone to convert time and an asset smoothly into cash flow.
- AlexandrB 6y agoAre such short shifts legal in the US? Last time I worked retail in Canada the law was that if you were called in to work you had to be paid for at least 3 hours even if you were sent home.
- diob 6y agoIt's state by state, and at least in Arizona (where I'm from), there is no minimum. Link to our laws: https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/state-wage-and-hour-laws/arizona/hours-worked/ https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/sta...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]