4 ms·

Is a burger flipper or barista serving the same number of customers in four days as five? No? Then where are the diminishing returns there? Pretty much any rea

Is a burger flipper or barista serving the same number of customers in four days as five? No? Then where are the diminishing returns there? Pretty much any reasonable white collar job already lets you work however many hours you want as long as you get the job done and you show up to meetings.

pwinnski 4y ago
Interesting. In your answer, you focused on the stream of customers walking in the door, rather than on the welfare of the burger flipper or barista. Do I expect a burger flipper working at a hot grill to be just as safe in hour ten as hour eight or hour six of a given workday? No, I expect that burns, for example, are more likely at the end of long shifts than the beginning. In addition, since humans are not machines, I expect that an extra day off might make workers more prompt and less likely to take six days at the beginning or end of a workweek. At the time the trade unionists were fighting for our rights, the question wasn't burger-flipping, but generally factory work. The speed and accuracy at which a person working in a factory could produce goods safely diminishes beyond a certain point, and while it's probably closer to five or six hours for peak efficiency, employers were demanding ten- or twelve-hour days at the time, so a 50% reduction was a bridge too far. Still, through a combination of many different kinds of protest and some documentation that safety incidents climbed dramatically as workers grew more tired, they managed to get hours pushed down to no more than eight as "normal," with anything beyond that requiring overtime pay. Henry Ford took the reasoning of the trade unionists, who had successfully pushed him into eight-hour days already, and took it farther. He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him. Which worked out well for him, and 13 years later became the norm by law. If you're talking about work which requires workers to be physically present for a set schedule, then yes, clearly capping each worker at 80% of hours would mean needing to increase staff by 20% to achieve the same result. But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier. If you're instead talking about, as you say, "any reasonable white collar job," then rather than letting only bold or clever people to get their work done in 32 hours while attending meetings to avoid raising eyebrows, it seems more reasonable to make that the norm, so that everybody can do the same. Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  > Do I expect a burger flipper working at a hot grill to be just as safe in hour ten as hour eight or hour six of a given workday? No, I expect that burns, for example, are more likely at the end of long shifts than the beginning This is completely unrealistic - you clearly have never worked in food service or any sort of low wage customer facing role. There is a rush for each of the 3 meals of the day, and in between your volume is pretty low. And you never work a 10 hour shift, if anything they don't give you enough hours and you work 3-4 hour shifts. > Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible The difference is that the clever people who get their work done in 32 hours are still giving 100% output. The receptionist obviously cannot give 100% output if they are only present for 80% time. > He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him No, it was not because they got just as much work done, but because it would reduce turnover [1]. It was a calculated economic decision. And in the real world, corporations have done that analysis and either decided on Ford's approach (as Costco has) or on the minimum pay possible approach (like Walmart). As a worker, you have the choice of going to Costco or Walmart to work. I'll remind you that factory jobs needed a lot more training than fast food, which meant turnover cost had a real impact for Ford. > But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier. But each worker still serves X customers per hour and works Y hours per week with flexible scheduling. If you suddenly have 20% fewer hours, then the worker has to get paid 20% less, else the business now pays more for labor. Considering a lot of restaurants operate on razor thin margins, this doesn't work out as well as you think. [1] https://hankeringforhistory.com/history-weekend/ https://hankeringforhistory.com/history-weekend/
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    > you clearly have never worked in food service or any sort of low wage customer facing role Weird that you know more about my life than I do, I wonder how I made up those memories of working at Carl's Jr as a young person. Tell me, what else have I done or not done, contra my own lived experience? >> He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him > No, it was not because they got just as much work done, but because it would reduce turnover [1]. Weird that you started with "No," and then went on to say the same thing I said? "happier employees, more loyal to him" vs "would reduce turnover" seem like the same thing. You linked to an article covering almost exactly the same ground I did, and thought that represented disagreement? So, so weird. > And in the real world, corporations have done that analysis and either decided on Ford's approach (as Costco has) or on the minimum pay possible approach (like Walmart). I'm not sure the last time you checked in with "the real world," but these days Walmart isn't paying minwage any more, at least not where I live. That extreme turned out to be unsustainable in today's labor market--again, at least where I live--so "the market" and "the real world" seem to be moving on. > But each worker still serves X customers per hour and works Y hours per week with flexible scheduling. If you suddenly have 20% fewer hours, then the worker has to get paid 20% less, else the business now pays more for labor. Considering a lot of restaurants operate on razor thin margins, this doesn't work out as well as you think. I have a child working in food service today, right now, in 2022, in America, in the real world. So I can tell you that many employers already flexibly schedule their workers, especially their front-of-house workers, and in some cases get closer to 32 hours than 40 already, specifically ensuring that they're not paying employees to sit idle during slow times. Most restaurants don't have 40 rush hours per week. That was my point--businesses that require physical presence are already scheduling as needed. I then contrasted that by shifting to "office jobs." But yes, costs rise. Industry-wide, chains which had locations paying federal minimum wage and other locations paying local wages as high as $15/hr had menu price differences ranging from 4-10% for the same food at the same chain restaurants. While restaurant margins are thin, many chains find that location rental costs dwarf even labor costs when determining prices. A McDonald's in Manhattan has menu prices higher than a McDonald's in Pocatello, Idaho, not only because they pay their employees more. Still, yes, part of this popular push at the low-end is alongside a $15 minimum wage. Either way, labor costs are rising. Some fast-food restaurants in my area have resisted the push for higher wages, and have struggled to find workers, with several (Taco Bell, Wendy's, Dairy Queen) reducing hours of operation, or switching to drive-through-only until they could staff up. Many (including a local McDonald's franchisee) had no trouble with hours because they raised wages to $12/14/15/hour. How much of the subsequent rise in menu prices is due to higher labor costs, and how much is due to international shortages affecting everyone, is unclear. Either way, I'm happy to pay even 20% more for my hamburgers if my kids can get better treatment as workers.

pwinnski 4y ago

Interesting. In your answer, you focused on the stream of customers walking in the door, rather than on the welfare of the burger flipper or barista. Do I expect a burger flipper working at a hot grill to be just as safe in hour ten as hour eight or hour six of a given workday? No, I expect that burns, for example, are more likely at the end of long shifts than the beginning. In addition, since humans are not machines, I expect that an extra day off might make workers more prompt and less likely to take six days at the beginning or end of a workweek. At the time the trade unionists were fighting for our rights, the question wasn't burger-flipping, but generally factory work. The speed and accuracy at which a person working in a factory could produce goods safely diminishes beyond a certain point, and while it's probably closer to five or six hours for peak efficiency, employers were demanding ten- or twelve-hour days at the time, so a 50% reduction was a bridge too far. Still, through a combination of many different kinds of protest and some documentation that safety incidents climbed dramatically as workers grew more tired, they managed to get hours pushed down to no more than eight as "normal," with anything beyond that requiring overtime pay. Henry Ford took the reasoning of the trade unionists, who had successfully pushed him into eight-hour days already, and took it farther. He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him. Which worked out well for him, and 13 years later became the norm by law. If you're talking about work which requires workers to be physically present for a set schedule, then yes, clearly capping each worker at 80% of hours would mean needing to increase staff by 20% to achieve the same result. But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier. If you're instead talking about, as you say, "any reasonable white collar job," then rather than letting only bold or clever people to get their work done in 32 hours while attending meetings to avoid raising eyebrows, it seems more reasonable to make that the norm, so that everybody can do the same. Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
> Do I expect a burger flipper working at a hot grill to be just as safe in hour ten as hour eight or hour six of a given workday? No, I expect that burns, for example, are more likely at the end of long shifts than the beginning This is completely unrealistic - you clearly have never worked in food service or any sort of low wage customer facing role. There is a rush for each of the 3 meals of the day, and in between your volume is pretty low. And you never work a 10 hour shift, if anything they don't give you enough hours and you work 3-4 hour shifts. > Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible The difference is that the clever people who get their work done in 32 hours are still giving 100% output. The receptionist obviously cannot give 100% output if they are only present for 80% time. > He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him No, it was not because they got just as much work done, but because it would reduce turnover [1]. It was a calculated economic decision. And in the real world, corporations have done that analysis and either decided on Ford's approach (as Costco has) or on the minimum pay possible approach (like Walmart). As a worker, you have the choice of going to Costco or Walmart to work. I'll remind you that factory jobs needed a lot more training than fast food, which meant turnover cost had a real impact for Ford. > But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier. But each worker still serves X customers per hour and works Y hours per week with flexible scheduling. If you suddenly have 20% fewer hours, then the worker has to get paid 20% less, else the business now pays more for labor. Considering a lot of restaurants operate on razor thin margins, this doesn't work out as well as you think. [1] https://hankeringforhistory.com/history-weekend/ https://hankeringforhistory.com/history-weekend/
- pwinnski 4y ago
  > you clearly have never worked in food service or any sort of low wage customer facing role Weird that you know more about my life than I do, I wonder how I made up those memories of working at Carl's Jr as a young person. Tell me, what else have I done or not done, contra my own lived experience? >> He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him > No, it was not because they got just as much work done, but because it would reduce turnover [1]. Weird that you started with "No," and then went on to say the same thing I said? "happier employees, more loyal to him" vs "would reduce turnover" seem like the same thing. You linked to an article covering almost exactly the same ground I did, and thought that represented disagreement? So, so weird. > And in the real world, corporations have done that analysis and either decided on Ford's approach (as Costco has) or on the minimum pay possible approach (like Walmart). I'm not sure the last time you checked in with "the real world," but these days Walmart isn't paying minwage any more, at least not where I live. That extreme turned out to be unsustainable in today's labor market--again, at least where I live--so "the market" and "the real world" seem to be moving on. > But each worker still serves X customers per hour and works Y hours per week with flexible scheduling. If you suddenly have 20% fewer hours, then the worker has to get paid 20% less, else the business now pays more for labor. Considering a lot of restaurants operate on razor thin margins, this doesn't work out as well as you think. I have a child working in food service today, right now, in 2022, in America, in the real world. So I can tell you that many employers already flexibly schedule their workers, especially their front-of-house workers, and in some cases get closer to 32 hours than 40 already, specifically ensuring that they're not paying employees to sit idle during slow times. Most restaurants don't have 40 rush hours per week. That was my point--businesses that require physical presence are already scheduling as needed. I then contrasted that by shifting to "office jobs." But yes, costs rise. Industry-wide, chains which had locations paying federal minimum wage and other locations paying local wages as high as $15/hr had menu price differences ranging from 4-10% for the same food at the same chain restaurants. While restaurant margins are thin, many chains find that location rental costs dwarf even labor costs when determining prices. A McDonald's in Manhattan has menu prices higher than a McDonald's in Pocatello, Idaho, not only because they pay their employees more. Still, yes, part of this popular push at the low-end is alongside a $15 minimum wage. Either way, labor costs are rising. Some fast-food restaurants in my area have resisted the push for higher wages, and have struggled to find workers, with several (Taco Bell, Wendy's, Dairy Queen) reducing hours of operation, or switching to drive-through-only until they could staff up. Many (including a local McDonald's franchisee) had no trouble with hours because they raised wages to $12/14/15/hour. How much of the subsequent rise in menu prices is due to higher labor costs, and how much is due to international shortages affecting everyone, is unclear. Either way, I'm happy to pay even 20% more for my hamburgers if my kids can get better treatment as workers.