4 ms·

Have you ever had to work a split shift? Not just been assigned one, but been in a situation where you had to take a menial job, and were forced to work this so

Have you ever had to work a split shift? Not just been assigned one, but been in a situation where you had to take a menial job, and were forced to work this sort of shift, because if you didn't you'd be fired and likely unable to eat/have a place to sleep? I know it sounds pretty drastic but the split shift is primarily used against (yes I say against) the lowest paid workers who need the wages the most. Its not going to drive wages per hour up... Hell in most cases over the last decade the prospect of raising the minimum wage is fought kicking and screaming. At the lowest levels of the wage scale there isn't really the competition you would need to drive the wages up because no one is going to say "I deserve more for doing this shitty job" at the risk of being unable to feed themselves or their kids. Get real. Edit: Not making a comment on technology here at all. Just the idea that split shifts will somehow raise the wages for said shifts.

nickff 13y ago
One could also argue that split shifts increase the value of irregular (possibly part) time workers to their employers, thus increasing their working hours, thus increasing their earnings potential. I have no evidence to support this, but increasing the availability of any service usually increases utilization of it.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  That might be true if they were two separate shifts... But they are not. Its one shift at two different times. What company is going to pay for all the hassle of having two employees to cover the same shifts they can force one person to do? The hypothetical you propose is not only imaginary, but worse value on the face for the employer, and thus will not happen because it makes no sense from a business perspective. One could also argue that any number of things, from faith in a higher power, to higher carbohydrate intake, could increase the value of an employee to their employers but that doesn't make it in any way realistic.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"One could also argue that any number of things" It is not unreasonable of me to think that increased employee availability will lead to increased number of hours worked. Whenever it becomes easier for me to get something I want, I usually get more of it (e.g. Netflix); there is no reason to believe labor is different.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      You continue to ignore that there is not 'increased employee availability', it is in point of fact decreased. As the op stated: This means a employee may be required to work a short morning shift and a short evening shift, making it effectively impossible for those prepared to scrape by working a second job to even do that any more. And I have reiterated the point. The split shift is not two different shifts. It is one shift at two different points in the day. Where does the increased employee availability come from? The employee in question actually has less availability for another employer (not to mention for themselves given possible commute times, having to work morning & night when they might see family who dont have such a schedule, etc). Unless you're somehow meaning since they are willing to work more flexible (read: Worse) schedules? Also your Netflix example rings pretty hollow. They arn't even loosely comparable situations. Any owner/manager who hires more people "because they are available!" is probably 'doin it wrong'. You ideally hire, and pay, only as many people as you need to get the job done. But for the sake of argument: Imagine if you had to pay the upkeep for Netflix twice per month (hiring two employees for the different parts of the one split shift). Pay your monthly cost, then you go over a limit or want to watch on a second device or whatever, so you then have to pay a second time. Would you be watching things as freely? I'd wager that you wouldn't.
      - nickff 13y ago
        >"Where does the increased employee availability come from?" Being able to structure the workday differently, such as a 7am-11am and 1pm-5pm split shift as opposed to a 9am-5pm shift may make the employee available for more productive hours (depending on the employer and requirements). This may make the difference between hiring and not hiring, or between giving 4-6 hours in a single shift and 8 hours in a split. >"You ideally hire, and pay, only as many people as you need to get the job done." This is true, but increasing the number of scheduling options may have an impact on how much work can get done (and the value proposition to the employer); and I am addressing marginal cases. >" Imagine if you had to pay the upkeep for Netflix twice per month (hiring two employees for the different parts of the one split shift). Pay your monthly cost, then you go over a limit or want to watch on a second device or whatever, so you then have to pay a second time. Would you be watching things as freely? I'd wager that you wouldn't." I think that if Netflix offered me more opportunities to consume content, I would be happy to pay for it. My policy goal would be to make employees more productive, and increase the demand for labor, so that employers will have to pay higher wages to attract the workers, and the employers can afford to. This also has the impact of making people's work more meaningful, as their labor must be better utilized, instead of wasted on menial tasks.
matwood 13y ago
Have you ever had to work a split shift? Not just been assigned one, but been in a situation where you had to take a menial job, and were forced to work this sort of shift, because if you didn't you'd be fired and likely unable to eat/have a place to sleep? I used to write call center management software in the late 90s and they had split shift for years. The workers loved it. The people with kids could get the middle of the day and late at night shifts. That way they could take their kids to school and pick them up each day. Admittedly it was not something that was forced, but the call center always had the split shift schedules full.
lectrick 13y ago
> because if you didn't you'd be fired and likely unable to eat/have a place to sleep? Unemployment pay? Migrant workers, you say? Well, that's an entirely different problem.

nickff 13y ago

One could also argue that split shifts increase the value of irregular (possibly part) time workers to their employers, thus increasing their working hours, thus increasing their earnings potential. I have no evidence to support this, but increasing the availability of any service usually increases utilization of it.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
That might be true if they were two separate shifts... But they are not. Its one shift at two different times. What company is going to pay for all the hassle of having two employees to cover the same shifts they can force one person to do? The hypothetical you propose is not only imaginary, but worse value on the face for the employer, and thus will not happen because it makes no sense from a business perspective. One could also argue that any number of things, from faith in a higher power, to higher carbohydrate intake, could increase the value of an employee to their employers but that doesn't make it in any way realistic.
- nickff 13y ago
  >"One could also argue that any number of things" It is not unreasonable of me to think that increased employee availability will lead to increased number of hours worked. Whenever it becomes easier for me to get something I want, I usually get more of it (e.g. Netflix); there is no reason to believe labor is different.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    You continue to ignore that there is not 'increased employee availability', it is in point of fact decreased. As the op stated: This means a employee may be required to work a short morning shift and a short evening shift, making it effectively impossible for those prepared to scrape by working a second job to even do that any more. And I have reiterated the point. The split shift is not two different shifts. It is one shift at two different points in the day. Where does the increased employee availability come from? The employee in question actually has less availability for another employer (not to mention for themselves given possible commute times, having to work morning & night when they might see family who dont have such a schedule, etc). Unless you're somehow meaning since they are willing to work more flexible (read: Worse) schedules? Also your Netflix example rings pretty hollow. They arn't even loosely comparable situations. Any owner/manager who hires more people "because they are available!" is probably 'doin it wrong'. You ideally hire, and pay, only as many people as you need to get the job done. But for the sake of argument: Imagine if you had to pay the upkeep for Netflix twice per month (hiring two employees for the different parts of the one split shift). Pay your monthly cost, then you go over a limit or want to watch on a second device or whatever, so you then have to pay a second time. Would you be watching things as freely? I'd wager that you wouldn't.
    - nickff 13y ago
      >"Where does the increased employee availability come from?" Being able to structure the workday differently, such as a 7am-11am and 1pm-5pm split shift as opposed to a 9am-5pm shift may make the employee available for more productive hours (depending on the employer and requirements). This may make the difference between hiring and not hiring, or between giving 4-6 hours in a single shift and 8 hours in a split. >"You ideally hire, and pay, only as many people as you need to get the job done." This is true, but increasing the number of scheduling options may have an impact on how much work can get done (and the value proposition to the employer); and I am addressing marginal cases. >" Imagine if you had to pay the upkeep for Netflix twice per month (hiring two employees for the different parts of the one split shift). Pay your monthly cost, then you go over a limit or want to watch on a second device or whatever, so you then have to pay a second time. Would you be watching things as freely? I'd wager that you wouldn't." I think that if Netflix offered me more opportunities to consume content, I would be happy to pay for it. My policy goal would be to make employees more productive, and increase the demand for labor, so that employers will have to pay higher wages to attract the workers, and the employers can afford to. This also has the impact of making people's work more meaningful, as their labor must be better utilized, instead of wasted on menial tasks.

matwood 13y ago

Have you ever had to work a split shift? Not just been assigned one, but been in a situation where you had to take a menial job, and were forced to work this sort of shift, because if you didn't you'd be fired and likely unable to eat/have a place to sleep? I used to write call center management software in the late 90s and they had split shift for years. The workers loved it. The people with kids could get the middle of the day and late at night shifts. That way they could take their kids to school and pick them up each day. Admittedly it was not something that was forced, but the call center always had the split shift schedules full.

lectrick 13y ago

> because if you didn't you'd be fired and likely unable to eat/have a place to sleep? Unemployment pay? Migrant workers, you say? Well, that's an entirely different problem.