3 ms·

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

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.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      What you described is not increased employee availability. It is forcing an employee to be available to the same employer for effectively 2 extra hours without having to pay for those two hours (remember you're only paying them for when it is best for you). They still have to commute to-from work which eats at least an hour of their time unless they live literally around the corner. Also this does not increase wages for the time or hours worked with pay. If you're addressing marginal cases you may not want to initially present it as an absolute that should increase wages or hours worked because it obviously will not in all but extreme fringe cases. The Netflix example would not be them offering you more, you would simply be paying twice, for the same thing you used to get (comparison being the need to pay the upkeep for two different employees rather than the one you used to use). Your response does not take that into account and it seems to ignore it purposefully. Your policy goal is lofty. But it has been shown over and over that employers having the ability to pay more does not lead to higher wages for workers. That is actually an idea that runs counter to the idea of profit. It would be nice if that were the case but it simply is not true, and something you say you have no evidence for in a previous post, while there is ample evidence to the contrary.

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.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    What you described is not increased employee availability. It is forcing an employee to be available to the same employer for effectively 2 extra hours without having to pay for those two hours (remember you're only paying them for when it is best for you). They still have to commute to-from work which eats at least an hour of their time unless they live literally around the corner. Also this does not increase wages for the time or hours worked with pay. If you're addressing marginal cases you may not want to initially present it as an absolute that should increase wages or hours worked because it obviously will not in all but extreme fringe cases. The Netflix example would not be them offering you more, you would simply be paying twice, for the same thing you used to get (comparison being the need to pay the upkeep for two different employees rather than the one you used to use). Your response does not take that into account and it seems to ignore it purposefully. Your policy goal is lofty. But it has been shown over and over that employers having the ability to pay more does not lead to higher wages for workers. That is actually an idea that runs counter to the idea of profit. It would be nice if that were the case but it simply is not true, and something you say you have no evidence for in a previous post, while there is ample evidence to the contrary.