6 ms·

Fry's electronics used to schedule their workers like this. - Either Saturday or Sunday off - No consecutive days are off - two openings (start around 7 or 8

Fry's electronics used to schedule their workers like this. - Either Saturday or Sunday off - No consecutive days are off - two openings (start around 7 or 8 am, end by 3 or 4 pm) - two closings (start around 2 pm, end by 10 pm or so) - one normal day (start around 9:30 am) This was how they used to 'enslave' their workers: by ruining their sleep patterns (two opening vs two closing); by not doing any productive work on their own (by not giving two successive days off); by preventing people from going to school (through different start times).

kaidon 5y ago
This sounds like my hours at a restaraunt while doing my BSc. I have no idea how I made it... but it was worth it, becase I was making $7/hr...
- gwright 5y ago
  $7/hour including tips?
  - kaidon 5y ago
    hmm... maybe an extra 0.50c/hr from tip outs. But was kind of random; and the whole tip-out structure was pretty unfair to front-of-house that had slow nights.
brandmeyer 5y ago
A schedule like that isn't about enslaving workers. Its cross-training them and ensuring that nobody gets preferential treatment.
- lghh 5y ago
  Ah, so instead of risking anyone having a decent schedule they ruin everyone’s schedule. Got it.
  - refurb 5y ago
    What they need is a union who will give the best shifts to the most senior and then give the terrible shifts to the newbies!
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  A schedule like that is EXACTLY about enslaving workers. They disallow consecutive days off so that no employees are going to have a situation where they feel comfortable leaving town on a trip, so that they will always be around the store. They screw with employee hours so that employees are unable to hold a comparable second job.
  - slenk 5y ago
    Why would no employees feel comfortable leaving town? Schedule time off if you need to leave town. It's what the majority of workers have to do.
    - trainsplanes 5y ago
      Outside the US, in first world nations at least, it's expected that you get consecutive days off and you don't need to beg your boss for permission to leave town each week. I've never had to schedule a leave from town and don't know anybody who did, because it's plainly obvious that our weekends are our own. Another problem is companies that intentionally book non-consecutive days off for their workers are also going to do everything they can to discourage workers from taking time off when they want to.
      - slenk 5y ago
        I don't think it's right what employers do, but with at-will employment the norm in the US, your employer ends up holding a lot of power. I also assumed as a part-time worker I would be at the will of the employer even more; I myself have never done part-time work like that
      - refurb 5y ago
        I guess Canada isn’t a first world nation. :’(
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      In those kinds of jobs you often can't. Taking an inconvenient day off may cost you your job.
kwdc 5y ago
So my kid's sick. I'll need to take the afternoon off to pick them up from school early. Next morning I'll need to take him to the doctor. The following day I'll need to take the morning off again. Or if the other kid is sick a day or so later then it could repeat that same week. Oops! I'd be unhirable. Or fired. Or slowly "let go". Suddenly poorer chances of advancement. Regardless of employment history. Regardless of turning up every previous allotted day on time. Doesn't matter. Corporations are actively hostile. Then they complain about not being able to find workers.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Key phrase is "used to". That kind of scheduling is crap some MBA that's never run a business came up with and that no store that employs people is actively doing or at least not for long. It spent a few years bouncing around from company to company in the 2010s. I'd be surprised if anyone still does it. Your local big box store will regularly schedule people because it's a) free and b) improves employee productivity, reduces no-shows, etc, etc. They'd basically be giving up free money not to. Furthermore these kinds of employees often have complex transportation arrangements to giving them a regular schedule greatly improves their reliability. The people who are new or the unreliable guy or whatever will still get crap hours because you've gotta have someone to absorb the week to week oddities in the schedule but generally speaking regular employees get regular hours. A bunch of the big box stores tried this at one point or another. Pretty much all the local stores ignored or overrode it where possible (because it's so bad you don't even need to do it to know it's stupid). And then corporate realized it was stupid and stopped. The people implying this is typical are only one step of whoever came up with it. Because it's simply and obviously not, and anyone who's ever had to manage employee schedules knows that this kind of scheduling is just not tenable, even less so for the kinds of McJobs where people always assert this is the case. Best case this kind of scheduling is a fast path to massive turnover which wastes money. You can't treat minimum wage employees you on-boarded over the course of a morning like this because the will just go somewhere else and be on-boarded over the course of a different morning. "Cog in the machine" policy and efficient on-boarding are two way streets.
- raincom 5y ago
  “Used to”, because Fry’s electronics does not exist anymore. Fry’s management did not have MBAs, btw.

kaidon 5y ago

This sounds like my hours at a restaraunt while doing my BSc. I have no idea how I made it... but it was worth it, becase I was making $7/hr...

gwright 5y ago
$7/hour including tips?
- kaidon 5y ago
  hmm... maybe an extra 0.50c/hr from tip outs. But was kind of random; and the whole tip-out structure was pretty unfair to front-of-house that had slow nights.

brandmeyer 5y ago

A schedule like that isn't about enslaving workers. Its cross-training them and ensuring that nobody gets preferential treatment.

lghh 5y ago
Ah, so instead of risking anyone having a decent schedule they ruin everyone’s schedule. Got it.
- refurb 5y ago
  What they need is a union who will give the best shifts to the most senior and then give the terrible shifts to the newbies!
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
A schedule like that is EXACTLY about enslaving workers. They disallow consecutive days off so that no employees are going to have a situation where they feel comfortable leaving town on a trip, so that they will always be around the store. They screw with employee hours so that employees are unable to hold a comparable second job.
- slenk 5y ago
  Why would no employees feel comfortable leaving town? Schedule time off if you need to leave town. It's what the majority of workers have to do.
  - trainsplanes 5y ago
    Outside the US, in first world nations at least, it's expected that you get consecutive days off and you don't need to beg your boss for permission to leave town each week. I've never had to schedule a leave from town and don't know anybody who did, because it's plainly obvious that our weekends are our own. Another problem is companies that intentionally book non-consecutive days off for their workers are also going to do everything they can to discourage workers from taking time off when they want to.
    - slenk 5y ago
      I don't think it's right what employers do, but with at-will employment the norm in the US, your employer ends up holding a lot of power. I also assumed as a part-time worker I would be at the will of the employer even more; I myself have never done part-time work like that
    - refurb 5y ago
      I guess Canada isn’t a first world nation. :’(
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    In those kinds of jobs you often can't. Taking an inconvenient day off may cost you your job.

kwdc 5y ago

So my kid's sick. I'll need to take the afternoon off to pick them up from school early. Next morning I'll need to take him to the doctor. The following day I'll need to take the morning off again. Or if the other kid is sick a day or so later then it could repeat that same week. Oops! I'd be unhirable. Or fired. Or slowly "let go". Suddenly poorer chances of advancement. Regardless of employment history. Regardless of turning up every previous allotted day on time. Doesn't matter. Corporations are actively hostile. Then they complain about not being able to find workers.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Key phrase is "used to". That kind of scheduling is crap some MBA that's never run a business came up with and that no store that employs people is actively doing or at least not for long. It spent a few years bouncing around from company to company in the 2010s. I'd be surprised if anyone still does it. Your local big box store will regularly schedule people because it's a) free and b) improves employee productivity, reduces no-shows, etc, etc. They'd basically be giving up free money not to. Furthermore these kinds of employees often have complex transportation arrangements to giving them a regular schedule greatly improves their reliability. The people who are new or the unreliable guy or whatever will still get crap hours because you've gotta have someone to absorb the week to week oddities in the schedule but generally speaking regular employees get regular hours. A bunch of the big box stores tried this at one point or another. Pretty much all the local stores ignored or overrode it where possible (because it's so bad you don't even need to do it to know it's stupid). And then corporate realized it was stupid and stopped. The people implying this is typical are only one step of whoever came up with it. Because it's simply and obviously not, and anyone who's ever had to manage employee schedules knows that this kind of scheduling is just not tenable, even less so for the kinds of McJobs where people always assert this is the case. Best case this kind of scheduling is a fast path to massive turnover which wastes money. You can't treat minimum wage employees you on-boarded over the course of a morning like this because the will just go somewhere else and be on-boarded over the course of a different morning. "Cog in the machine" policy and efficient on-boarding are two way streets.

raincom 5y ago
“Used to”, because Fry’s electronics does not exist anymore. Fry’s management did not have MBAs, btw.