9 ms·

Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

126 points by ahmadss 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
koblas 12y ago
This is not really a technology issue, it's a non-union employee issue. As a society we're asking the government to step in and legislate to protect workers rather than fostering unions to negotiate on a case by case basis. http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/jul/23/elizabeth-warren-senate-bill-part-time-schedules http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/jul/23/e...
- MDCore 12y ago
  I agree that the software connection is weak, but it can be a reminder to people that decisions made by software can have a real positive or negative effect on human beings, in ways that the software (and software makers) can't easily predict. How do we build more humanism into our apps?
  - tixocloud 12y ago
    The bigger question will be how can we build more humanism into our managers. Software is just a tool. Ultimately, managers are the ones who need to be educated on the impact of their decisions.
- makomk 12y ago
  At least here in the UK, it's not (just) a non-union employee issue. Part of the problem is that business interests have a hugely disproportionate influence over the media, and as soon as any media outlet lets any union spokesperson speak it's portrayed as an example of left-wing bias. So instead we get people like the head of the Confederation of British Industry, a business lobbying group, claiming that workers benefit from this because it offers the workers "flexibility". I hear the US is even worse in this regard.
  - ollybee 12y ago
    I disagree, the media in the UK is popularist, they gleefully attacked businesses over zero hours contracts.
- _delirium 12y ago
  Yeah, there was recently a (rare) train strike in Sweden over something vaguely along these lines. The train company wanted to move to flex-staffing that can vary on a week-by-week or day-by-day basis based on traffic models. The proximate trigger was that they laid off 250 salaried employees and immediately re-hired them as hourly employees, but the real issue of the strike was over that kind of flex-staffing. The strike ended with a compromise proposed by a mediator that was a victory for the train companies on the main formal dispute (no limit on hourly or flex staffing), but seen as a practical win for the union (hourly workers will have to be paid a significant wage premium over the salaried equivalent, to compensate for the uncertainty/precarity of the arrangement): http://www.thelocal.se/20140618/swedens-trains-back-on-track-as-strike-ends http://www.thelocal.se/20140618/swedens-trains-back-on-track...
noahbarr 12y ago
Additional "worker compassionate" scheduling constraints could be easily added to the optimizAtion to fix this problem. Corporations have to care about their employees. You don't hear Costco employees complaining.
- autokad 12y ago
  Costco is a different type of business with different requirements. apples and oranges. also, you do hear them complaining: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/overtime/interview-overtime-pay-laws-rules-8-16545.html#.U-zKlvl318E http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/overtime/inter...
- raverbashing 12y ago
  Exactly this, the company is not caring about their employees. As some say, "the companies that have a union are the ones that deserve it" Still, with the massive unemployment, it's hard to push for things like this.
Mithaldu 12y ago
> she was scheduled to work until 11 p.m. on Friday; report again just hours later, at 4 a.m. on Saturday; I have family working for the german train company, which has highly fluctuating shifts too, but something like that would be straight-up illegal here.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  Yep, the same here - I mean, it's ridiculous. The company has two reasonable choices - either have the time between shifts be at least 9 hours, so the people can eat,sleep and wash; or if they really want a single person to handle closing+opening, and that person is okay with that, then they're welcome to pay for the whole nightshift including the downtime. There shouldn't be a third option, and in most of the civilized world workers actually have the right to demand that.
- justizin 12y ago
  in the US, at least, there's nothing really holding you back from treating your low-income employees illegally. it's not like they can afford a lawyer, or even have time to find and/or meet with one. that's an example of where unions are important.
  - jacalata 12y ago
    "it's easy to treat workers illegally in the US" is irrelevant here - because this actually isn't illegal in the US to start with. There is no federal or state minimum time between shifts, although there are minimums within specific industries, like pilots.
oneweirdtrick 12y ago
>Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks. Reminds me of the beginning of Marshall Brain's novella 'Manna': >Manna was connected to the cash registers, so it knew how many people were flowing through the restaurant. The software could therefore predict with uncanny accuracy when the trash cans would fill up, the toilets would get dirty and the tables needed wiping down. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
- fixedd 12y ago
  >Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks. I haven't been effected by this sort of thing in years, but I've always felt that they should have to pay you for hours they schedule you, whether they use you or not.
  - TwiztidK 12y ago
    Or at least compensate employees somehow if their shifts are cut short. Something like a flat-rate $10-20 inconvenience fee for cancelling hours and any additional commute costs (if they have to take the bus instead of getting a ride).
    - Maxious 12y ago
      In Australia a casual fast food/takeaway employee gets paid a minimum of 3 hours per shift, even if the shift is cut short. http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Employee-entitlements/hours-of-work-breaks-and-rosters/hours-of-work#2146-2157-112-155 http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Employee-entitlements/hours-of-wo...
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I haven't been effected by this sort of thing in years, but I've always felt that they should have to pay you for hours they schedule you, whether they use you or not. What I think would make sense in a regime where minimum wage exists, given that people often work multiple jobs and such scheduled-but-canceled-at-the-last-minute hours effectively exclude other work is to include hours scheduled or where the employee is required to be "on call" for work that are not cancelled sufficiently far in advance -- obviously, one needs to decide where to set the bar here -- are counted as hours worked for minimum wage purposes (including for calculation of overtime pay due at minimum wage -- and for hours worked for related purposes like "full time" status as it relates to any benefit mandates, etc.), but not as hours worked at the actual wage for the position, or overtime entitlement based on the actual wage. So, you can't use schedule-and-cancel to drop the pay for the "reserved" time of an employee below minimum wage.
apalmer 12y ago
This is definitely a scheduling technology issue in that these types of scenarios wouldnt exist without the technology to up to the minute track store activity and optimize schedules based on rapidly fluctuating store activity. However the underlying issue beyond that is one of simple business 'greed'. Workers shifts are another resource to be optimized, and this is the end result. As long as this kind of optimization yields tangible bottomline benefits, and there are enough people who need the job so they are willing to deal with the fluctuating schedules, this is going to continue.
Kenji 12y ago
Am I the only one who thinks you shouldn't have a child if you haven't yet set up a stable environment for them? That includes sorting out your education and jobs.
- _delirium 12y ago
  Sorting it out requires predicting ~20 years of social and technology changes, which is a pretty high bar. A stable job today might not be stable in 5 years, if employment conditions change (as they seem to be changing in the case discussed here). I suspect in the medium-term future there will be very few stable jobs at all.
  - Kenji 12y ago
    "Sorting it out requires predicting ~20 years of social and technology changes, which is a pretty high bar." No. Finishing your degree before you have a child is not a high bar. It's common sense.
    - willismichael 12y ago
      "Finishing your degree" in no way guarantees employment.
      - PeterisP 12y ago
        Nothing guarantees employment, but some factors almost guarantee a low income. You can't be sure if you'll be okay, but if you already know that you definitely won't be okay - well, then you probably can't afford to have kids.
        GHFigs 12y ago
        if you already know that you definitely won't be okay This "okayness" is something people determine by looking at their community and peer group, not by looking at statistics. It's the same effect that causes the middle class to buy houses and cars that it can't really afford.
swalsh 12y ago
If there is a higher demand for workers during certain hours, shouldn't the workers be paid higher for those hours? Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices. Only way I can think to do it though is by regulating time software... something like "if you use flexible hours, you must comply to these regulations" where in they specify custom pricing.
- apalmer 12y ago
  This doesnt really follow. There is no incentive for the business to pay more just because.
  - antman 12y ago
    In other countries it is compulsory.
  - swalsh 12y ago
    I edited my comment about 2 seconds after I posted it, saying that it would probably require regulation.
  - justizin 12y ago
    when basic dignity for workers is 'just because', a business has lost its' way. a business should produce three things, for three important customer segments: customers, investors, and workers, and all three are equally important. too many businesses, most of the large ones esp, cater only to investors (or the interests of the owners) leaving both customers and workers by the wayside. i fully support exile for people who operate these businesses.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Looking from the other side of it: if the supply of workers is such that you can get enough for your high-demand hours without paying more, why should workers be paid more? I realize that the real world adds a lot of complications, but in theory, supply and demand should just work itself out here. "In theory" isn't always useful by itself, but the remedy depends greatly on why the theory is breaking down.
gojomo 12y ago
Minimum wages also contribute to this: when you remove flexibility from one parameter of a gigantic system in dynamic tension, it can be partially clawed back elsewhere. So if the mix "lower wages but consistent (and often overstaffed) schedules" is prohibited by the wage law, you may instead get the mix "slightly higher wages but hours aggressively trimmed and rearranged".
- pyre 12y ago
  Even people making minimum wage struggle to make ends meet. Do you propose that this will significantly change if we remove minimum wage? I understand the "prices will fall" mantra, but cost of living goes up with inflation. One would think that there would be no need for a minimum wage because as cost of living goes up, no one would be paying the 'bare minimum' anymore. The problem is that this is not what we see in practice. Another consideration is that middle-/upper-class wages would (in my opinion) no fall as a result of minimum wage abolition. This does not have an insignificant impact on prices too (just because cost goes down does not necessarily translate into lower prices, maybe just higher profits).
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I don't see him proposing that minimum wages should be removed, or that anything will "magically" work out if they are. I merely see him stating that minimum wages contribute to this particular problem, which is true. It does not then follow that minimum wages should be eliminated. This sort of knee-jerk reaction makes it really hard to discuss any sort of public policy in a rational way. The moment you point out any problem with anything, somebody will come along and "rebut" your statement by pretending that you just stated that everything would be better if you eliminated the thing you're discussing. It's really annoying!
    - normloman 12y ago
      Why would you blame minimum wage for this problem if you weren't implying we should reform or abolish it? Also, the process of proposal and rebuttal you describe has another name: Debate. And the constant rebutting is why it works so well. You attack the other side's idea while defending your own and the best ideas survive the process.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
I've written simple scheduling software. The only consideration taken by this scheduling software were worker preferences: management doesn't care who covers the shifts, just that they're covered. So it took into account "fairness", day of week preferences, scheduled holidays, et cetera. By those measures, the software does a lot better than humans. However, there's something to be said about the predictability of the old human schedules. The humans generally just figured out a 2 week schedule and repeated it; filling in holes created by scheduling conflicts with those workers they knew were usually eager to pick up more work. IOW, you may previously have worked every 2nd Tuesday. If you couldn't work on a particular Tuesday, you just didn't work. Now you're much more likely to get a solid 2 shifts a month (presuming that's what you asked for), most will be on days you marked as preferred, some days may be on some you marked as available and none on days you marked as not available. Now obviously I could have added a metric to guide the system towards more 'regular' schedules. But it would still compensate for those other considerations, and would still look somewhat random. It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference between a computer-generated and a human-generated schedule, and many people still prefer the human generated ones, even if it is less 'fair' by almost any measure. Given how crazy a schedule generated solely by worker preferences is, I shudder to consider schedules driven solely by management preference...
- waps 12y ago
  What really helps is if the employees can 1) go online and see their "proposed" schedule months out, ideally with decent export options 2) can trade shifts, ideally online in some app (and have contact info for their colleagues) 3) have a schedule printer in the office 4) can report in ill on the app 5) and of course, manager needs to be hands-off from the schedule (you can of course, build this into the software by making sure it has a "how many urgent changes" counter for managers, so their bosses can see how finicky they are) Especially you shouldn't build in the ability to give monetary incentives for work. That'll cause a race to the bottom on part of the employees.
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
    Yes, my scheduling software has those, or equivalents. iCalendar export, a way to email everybody if you get sick, et cetera. It works on the honour system: anybody with a login can schedule anybody else for a particular shift. The presumption is that the other party has agreed to the change, and that assumption hasn't been violated for the 5 years they've used the software. If that presumption ever gets violated I suppose I may be asked to put in more verification, but I suspect that the response likely would be to remove the offender from the group. In retrospect, that's perhaps all I should have built. But the schedule optimization part was the "fun" part. The rest is pretty standard CRUD + email webapp.
ARothfusz 12y ago
This article and the one on "House Elf Bias" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177292) reinforce each other. What magic had to happen to create that 40 hour schedule? What does the world look like to Gavin, the 4 year old son in the scheduling story?
datasmash 12y ago
The macro trend of more and more companies shifting jobs from full time to part time is disconcerting. Working one of these service jobs where you're slave to your hours like this is hell. The "Share Economy" (Uber, TaskRabbit, etc.) has the potential to make this both better and worse. At least if you're an independent uber driver, you can choose when you're going to be available and pick up jobs when it makes sense for your schedule. There are time periods that are higher/lower demand, but you're wage is reflected in that and its your choice to make.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The "Share Economy" (Uber, TaskRabbit, etc.) has the potential to make this both better and worse. Incidentally, while its a pleasant (for the industry) propaganda/marketing label, these things have nothing to do with sharing. They are routine sales-through-an-agent, and are no more about "sharing" than selling a house through a real estate agent is.
  - aianus 12y ago
    They're different from their traditional competitors in that they increase the utilization of one's pre-owned assets. I can use the same car for commuting as I do for moonlighting as an UberX driver, for example. That's pretty innovative, whether people like to admit it or not.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > They're different from their traditional competitors in that they increase the utilization of one's pre-owned assets. That's actually not a difference from their traditional competitors, in that (to the extent that the uses weren't actually illegal at the time) agent-intermediated rentals for already-owned assets weren't new things when these apps started doing it, and also because these apps aren't specific to "pre-owned" assets, and in fact drive asset purchases dedicated to rental through the apps. (And, in any case, rental-through-an-agent doesn't become "sharing" just because you owned the property you chose to rent out before you decided to rent it out.)
madcaptenor 12y ago
Starbucks is announcing that they're changing their scheduling policies as a result of this story: https://twitter.com/jodikantor/status/499929471957610496 https://twitter.com/jodikantor/status/499929471957610496
AdamFernandez 12y ago
I was thinking it would be interesting to create a 'low-income life simulator' where people could be presented with all the problems of an American with low income. With limited resources, and branching scenarios, you would attempt to 'solve' your way out of it. It would be interesting to see the reaction of people who blame low-income people for their own troubles, when actually playing this game.
- jbattle 12y ago
  An interesting idea although you run the risk of making 'low-income life' seem like an interesting puzzle and one that once-solved is pretty easy actually. Your idea reminded me of a project someone built several years ago to give western audiences a taste of life in darfur... http://www.darfurisdying.com/ http://www.darfurisdying.com/
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  Papers Please! has some elements of that, but of course it's set in a fictional country.
- ovulator 12y ago
  I’ve seen something like this before (I forget where or its name), the idea is sound, but it added alot of sensationalist stuff as well, which would allow someone to dismiss it at as a whole. It also threw in some points where the “character” made a bad decision, which led to really dire consequences. Someone could easily conclude “they are poor because they made bad decisions” but it doesn’t highlight how if you have the money bad decisions don’t compound the way they do when you don’t.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  Cart Life does exactly that.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  There was an attempt at this game on HN a year or so ago. It was insanely hard, but also super flawed - just one example you may get a scenario about half way in where you find out you have a dog, which you suddenly have to pay vet bills for. Found it: http://playspent.org/ http://playspent.org/
Guvante 12y ago
> If she dared ask for more stable hours, she feared, she would get fewer work hours over all. While being in this position sucks, I kind of think that this is a compromise she chose for herself. "I want to work as many hours possible" is obviously going to conflict with "I want to work a stable shift".
- GHFigs 12y ago
  In my experience with a certain retailer, the former is a decision made for you: they'll schedule you for 32-34 hours if they schedule you at all. As soon as you introduce any friction outside of what they're legally obligated to accept, you get squeezed out.
Mz 12y ago
Scheduling software is a tool. Management still makes the decisions. At the end of the article, management helped this woman out and gave her a more bearable situation. Software may magnify the problem but this is fundamentally about how management views employees.
jacalata 12y ago
He could be kicked out of day care for having no home address. What the FUCK is that about? How can anyone justify that? "Oh, I see you're spiralling downward. Here's a fucking boot on your kid's head to make sure he gets right down to the bottom with you." That's a fucking disgrace.
un_publishable 12y ago
This is part of the creeping one-sided "professionalization" of low-wage work. Employees are expected to arrive pre-trained, stick within specific constraining roles, and be available at all hours. Employers are demanding all the responsibilities of white collar salaried jobs while offering none of the benefits. For many people it's not even possible to juggle two of these jobs thanks to "improved" scheduling technology.

126 points by ahmadss 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

This is not really a technology issue, it's a non-union employee issue. As a society we're asking the government to step in and legislate to protect workers rather than fostering unions to negotiate on a case by case basis. http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/jul/23/elizabeth-warren-senate-bill-part-time-schedules http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/jul/23/e...

MDCore 12y ago
I agree that the software connection is weak, but it can be a reminder to people that decisions made by software can have a real positive or negative effect on human beings, in ways that the software (and software makers) can't easily predict. How do we build more humanism into our apps?
- tixocloud 12y ago
  The bigger question will be how can we build more humanism into our managers. Software is just a tool. Ultimately, managers are the ones who need to be educated on the impact of their decisions.
makomk 12y ago
At least here in the UK, it's not (just) a non-union employee issue. Part of the problem is that business interests have a hugely disproportionate influence over the media, and as soon as any media outlet lets any union spokesperson speak it's portrayed as an example of left-wing bias. So instead we get people like the head of the Confederation of British Industry, a business lobbying group, claiming that workers benefit from this because it offers the workers "flexibility". I hear the US is even worse in this regard.
- ollybee 12y ago
  I disagree, the media in the UK is popularist, they gleefully attacked businesses over zero hours contracts.
_delirium 12y ago
Yeah, there was recently a (rare) train strike in Sweden over something vaguely along these lines. The train company wanted to move to flex-staffing that can vary on a week-by-week or day-by-day basis based on traffic models. The proximate trigger was that they laid off 250 salaried employees and immediately re-hired them as hourly employees, but the real issue of the strike was over that kind of flex-staffing. The strike ended with a compromise proposed by a mediator that was a victory for the train companies on the main formal dispute (no limit on hourly or flex staffing), but seen as a practical win for the union (hourly workers will have to be paid a significant wage premium over the salaried equivalent, to compensate for the uncertainty/precarity of the arrangement): http://www.thelocal.se/20140618/swedens-trains-back-on-track-as-strike-ends http://www.thelocal.se/20140618/swedens-trains-back-on-track...

noahbarr 12y ago

Additional "worker compassionate" scheduling constraints could be easily added to the optimizAtion to fix this problem. Corporations have to care about their employees. You don't hear Costco employees complaining.

autokad 12y ago
Costco is a different type of business with different requirements. apples and oranges. also, you do hear them complaining: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/overtime/interview-overtime-pay-laws-rules-8-16545.html#.U-zKlvl318E http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/overtime/inter...
raverbashing 12y ago
Exactly this, the company is not caring about their employees. As some say, "the companies that have a union are the ones that deserve it" Still, with the massive unemployment, it's hard to push for things like this.

Mithaldu 12y ago

> she was scheduled to work until 11 p.m. on Friday; report again just hours later, at 4 a.m. on Saturday; I have family working for the german train company, which has highly fluctuating shifts too, but something like that would be straight-up illegal here.

PeterisP 12y ago
Yep, the same here - I mean, it's ridiculous. The company has two reasonable choices - either have the time between shifts be at least 9 hours, so the people can eat,sleep and wash; or if they really want a single person to handle closing+opening, and that person is okay with that, then they're welcome to pay for the whole nightshift including the downtime. There shouldn't be a third option, and in most of the civilized world workers actually have the right to demand that.
justizin 12y ago
in the US, at least, there's nothing really holding you back from treating your low-income employees illegally. it's not like they can afford a lawyer, or even have time to find and/or meet with one. that's an example of where unions are important.
- jacalata 12y ago
  "it's easy to treat workers illegally in the US" is irrelevant here - because this actually isn't illegal in the US to start with. There is no federal or state minimum time between shifts, although there are minimums within specific industries, like pilots.

oneweirdtrick 12y ago

>Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks. Reminds me of the beginning of Marshall Brain's novella 'Manna': >Manna was connected to the cash registers, so it knew how many people were flowing through the restaurant. The software could therefore predict with uncanny accuracy when the trash cans would fill up, the toilets would get dirty and the tables needed wiping down. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

fixedd 12y ago
>Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks. I haven't been effected by this sort of thing in years, but I've always felt that they should have to pay you for hours they schedule you, whether they use you or not.
- TwiztidK 12y ago
  Or at least compensate employees somehow if their shifts are cut short. Something like a flat-rate $10-20 inconvenience fee for cancelling hours and any additional commute costs (if they have to take the bus instead of getting a ride).
  - Maxious 12y ago
    In Australia a casual fast food/takeaway employee gets paid a minimum of 3 hours per shift, even if the shift is cut short. http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Employee-entitlements/hours-of-work-breaks-and-rosters/hours-of-work#2146-2157-112-155 http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Employee-entitlements/hours-of-wo...
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I haven't been effected by this sort of thing in years, but I've always felt that they should have to pay you for hours they schedule you, whether they use you or not. What I think would make sense in a regime where minimum wage exists, given that people often work multiple jobs and such scheduled-but-canceled-at-the-last-minute hours effectively exclude other work is to include hours scheduled or where the employee is required to be "on call" for work that are not cancelled sufficiently far in advance -- obviously, one needs to decide where to set the bar here -- are counted as hours worked for minimum wage purposes (including for calculation of overtime pay due at minimum wage -- and for hours worked for related purposes like "full time" status as it relates to any benefit mandates, etc.), but not as hours worked at the actual wage for the position, or overtime entitlement based on the actual wage. So, you can't use schedule-and-cancel to drop the pay for the "reserved" time of an employee below minimum wage.

apalmer 12y ago

This is definitely a scheduling technology issue in that these types of scenarios wouldnt exist without the technology to up to the minute track store activity and optimize schedules based on rapidly fluctuating store activity. However the underlying issue beyond that is one of simple business 'greed'. Workers shifts are another resource to be optimized, and this is the end result. As long as this kind of optimization yields tangible bottomline benefits, and there are enough people who need the job so they are willing to deal with the fluctuating schedules, this is going to continue.

Kenji 12y ago

Am I the only one who thinks you shouldn't have a child if you haven't yet set up a stable environment for them? That includes sorting out your education and jobs.

_delirium 12y ago
Sorting it out requires predicting ~20 years of social and technology changes, which is a pretty high bar. A stable job today might not be stable in 5 years, if employment conditions change (as they seem to be changing in the case discussed here). I suspect in the medium-term future there will be very few stable jobs at all.
- Kenji 12y ago
  "Sorting it out requires predicting ~20 years of social and technology changes, which is a pretty high bar." No. Finishing your degree before you have a child is not a high bar. It's common sense.
  - willismichael 12y ago
    "Finishing your degree" in no way guarantees employment.
    - PeterisP 12y ago
      Nothing guarantees employment, but some factors almost guarantee a low income. You can't be sure if you'll be okay, but if you already know that you definitely won't be okay - well, then you probably can't afford to have kids.
      - GHFigs 12y ago
        if you already know that you definitely won't be okay This "okayness" is something people determine by looking at their community and peer group, not by looking at statistics. It's the same effect that causes the middle class to buy houses and cars that it can't really afford.

swalsh 12y ago

If there is a higher demand for workers during certain hours, shouldn't the workers be paid higher for those hours? Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices. Only way I can think to do it though is by regulating time software... something like "if you use flexible hours, you must comply to these regulations" where in they specify custom pricing.

apalmer 12y ago
This doesnt really follow. There is no incentive for the business to pay more just because.
- antman 12y ago
  In other countries it is compulsory.
- swalsh 12y ago
  I edited my comment about 2 seconds after I posted it, saying that it would probably require regulation.
- justizin 12y ago
  when basic dignity for workers is 'just because', a business has lost its' way. a business should produce three things, for three important customer segments: customers, investors, and workers, and all three are equally important. too many businesses, most of the large ones esp, cater only to investors (or the interests of the owners) leaving both customers and workers by the wayside. i fully support exile for people who operate these businesses.
mikeash 12y ago
Looking from the other side of it: if the supply of workers is such that you can get enough for your high-demand hours without paying more, why should workers be paid more? I realize that the real world adds a lot of complications, but in theory, supply and demand should just work itself out here. "In theory" isn't always useful by itself, but the remedy depends greatly on why the theory is breaking down.

gojomo 12y ago

Minimum wages also contribute to this: when you remove flexibility from one parameter of a gigantic system in dynamic tension, it can be partially clawed back elsewhere. So if the mix "lower wages but consistent (and often overstaffed) schedules" is prohibited by the wage law, you may instead get the mix "slightly higher wages but hours aggressively trimmed and rearranged".

pyre 12y ago
Even people making minimum wage struggle to make ends meet. Do you propose that this will significantly change if we remove minimum wage? I understand the "prices will fall" mantra, but cost of living goes up with inflation. One would think that there would be no need for a minimum wage because as cost of living goes up, no one would be paying the 'bare minimum' anymore. The problem is that this is not what we see in practice. Another consideration is that middle-/upper-class wages would (in my opinion) no fall as a result of minimum wage abolition. This does not have an insignificant impact on prices too (just because cost goes down does not necessarily translate into lower prices, maybe just higher profits).
- mikeash 12y ago
  I don't see him proposing that minimum wages should be removed, or that anything will "magically" work out if they are. I merely see him stating that minimum wages contribute to this particular problem, which is true. It does not then follow that minimum wages should be eliminated. This sort of knee-jerk reaction makes it really hard to discuss any sort of public policy in a rational way. The moment you point out any problem with anything, somebody will come along and "rebut" your statement by pretending that you just stated that everything would be better if you eliminated the thing you're discussing. It's really annoying!
  - normloman 12y ago
    Why would you blame minimum wage for this problem if you weren't implying we should reform or abolish it? Also, the process of proposal and rebuttal you describe has another name: Debate. And the constant rebutting is why it works so well. You attack the other side's idea while defending your own and the best ideas survive the process.

bryanlarsen 12y ago

I've written simple scheduling software. The only consideration taken by this scheduling software were worker preferences: management doesn't care who covers the shifts, just that they're covered. So it took into account "fairness", day of week preferences, scheduled holidays, et cetera. By those measures, the software does a lot better than humans. However, there's something to be said about the predictability of the old human schedules. The humans generally just figured out a 2 week schedule and repeated it; filling in holes created by scheduling conflicts with those workers they knew were usually eager to pick up more work. IOW, you may previously have worked every 2nd Tuesday. If you couldn't work on a particular Tuesday, you just didn't work. Now you're much more likely to get a solid 2 shifts a month (presuming that's what you asked for), most will be on days you marked as preferred, some days may be on some you marked as available and none on days you marked as not available. Now obviously I could have added a metric to guide the system towards more 'regular' schedules. But it would still compensate for those other considerations, and would still look somewhat random. It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference between a computer-generated and a human-generated schedule, and many people still prefer the human generated ones, even if it is less 'fair' by almost any measure. Given how crazy a schedule generated solely by worker preferences is, I shudder to consider schedules driven solely by management preference...

waps 12y ago
What really helps is if the employees can 1) go online and see their "proposed" schedule months out, ideally with decent export options 2) can trade shifts, ideally online in some app (and have contact info for their colleagues) 3) have a schedule printer in the office 4) can report in ill on the app 5) and of course, manager needs to be hands-off from the schedule (you can of course, build this into the software by making sure it has a "how many urgent changes" counter for managers, so their bosses can see how finicky they are) Especially you shouldn't build in the ability to give monetary incentives for work. That'll cause a race to the bottom on part of the employees.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  Yes, my scheduling software has those, or equivalents. iCalendar export, a way to email everybody if you get sick, et cetera. It works on the honour system: anybody with a login can schedule anybody else for a particular shift. The presumption is that the other party has agreed to the change, and that assumption hasn't been violated for the 5 years they've used the software. If that presumption ever gets violated I suppose I may be asked to put in more verification, but I suspect that the response likely would be to remove the offender from the group. In retrospect, that's perhaps all I should have built. But the schedule optimization part was the "fun" part. The rest is pretty standard CRUD + email webapp.

ARothfusz 12y ago

This article and the one on "House Elf Bias" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177292) reinforce each other. What magic had to happen to create that 40 hour schedule? What does the world look like to Gavin, the 4 year old son in the scheduling story?

datasmash 12y ago

The macro trend of more and more companies shifting jobs from full time to part time is disconcerting. Working one of these service jobs where you're slave to your hours like this is hell. The "Share Economy" (Uber, TaskRabbit, etc.) has the potential to make this both better and worse. At least if you're an independent uber driver, you can choose when you're going to be available and pick up jobs when it makes sense for your schedule. There are time periods that are higher/lower demand, but you're wage is reflected in that and its your choice to make.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> The "Share Economy" (Uber, TaskRabbit, etc.) has the potential to make this both better and worse. Incidentally, while its a pleasant (for the industry) propaganda/marketing label, these things have nothing to do with sharing. They are routine sales-through-an-agent, and are no more about "sharing" than selling a house through a real estate agent is.
- aianus 12y ago
  They're different from their traditional competitors in that they increase the utilization of one's pre-owned assets. I can use the same car for commuting as I do for moonlighting as an UberX driver, for example. That's pretty innovative, whether people like to admit it or not.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > They're different from their traditional competitors in that they increase the utilization of one's pre-owned assets. That's actually not a difference from their traditional competitors, in that (to the extent that the uses weren't actually illegal at the time) agent-intermediated rentals for already-owned assets weren't new things when these apps started doing it, and also because these apps aren't specific to "pre-owned" assets, and in fact drive asset purchases dedicated to rental through the apps. (And, in any case, rental-through-an-agent doesn't become "sharing" just because you owned the property you chose to rent out before you decided to rent it out.)

madcaptenor 12y ago

Starbucks is announcing that they're changing their scheduling policies as a result of this story: https://twitter.com/jodikantor/status/499929471957610496 https://twitter.com/jodikantor/status/499929471957610496

AdamFernandez 12y ago

I was thinking it would be interesting to create a 'low-income life simulator' where people could be presented with all the problems of an American with low income. With limited resources, and branching scenarios, you would attempt to 'solve' your way out of it. It would be interesting to see the reaction of people who blame low-income people for their own troubles, when actually playing this game.

jbattle 12y ago
An interesting idea although you run the risk of making 'low-income life' seem like an interesting puzzle and one that once-solved is pretty easy actually. Your idea reminded me of a project someone built several years ago to give western audiences a taste of life in darfur... http://www.darfurisdying.com/ http://www.darfurisdying.com/
nhaehnle 12y ago
Papers Please! has some elements of that, but of course it's set in a fictional country.
ovulator 12y ago
I’ve seen something like this before (I forget where or its name), the idea is sound, but it added alot of sensationalist stuff as well, which would allow someone to dismiss it at as a whole. It also threw in some points where the “character” made a bad decision, which led to really dire consequences. Someone could easily conclude “they are poor because they made bad decisions” but it doesn’t highlight how if you have the money bad decisions don’t compound the way they do when you don’t.
PeterisP 12y ago
Cart Life does exactly that.
tomjen3 12y ago
There was an attempt at this game on HN a year or so ago. It was insanely hard, but also super flawed - just one example you may get a scenario about half way in where you find out you have a dog, which you suddenly have to pay vet bills for. Found it: http://playspent.org/ http://playspent.org/

Guvante 12y ago

> If she dared ask for more stable hours, she feared, she would get fewer work hours over all. While being in this position sucks, I kind of think that this is a compromise she chose for herself. "I want to work as many hours possible" is obviously going to conflict with "I want to work a stable shift".

GHFigs 12y ago
In my experience with a certain retailer, the former is a decision made for you: they'll schedule you for 32-34 hours if they schedule you at all. As soon as you introduce any friction outside of what they're legally obligated to accept, you get squeezed out.

Mz 12y ago

Scheduling software is a tool. Management still makes the decisions. At the end of the article, management helped this woman out and gave her a more bearable situation. Software may magnify the problem but this is fundamentally about how management views employees.

jacalata 12y ago

He could be kicked out of day care for having no home address. What the FUCK is that about? How can anyone justify that? "Oh, I see you're spiralling downward. Here's a fucking boot on your kid's head to make sure he gets right down to the bottom with you." That's a fucking disgrace.

un_publishable 12y ago

This is part of the creeping one-sided "professionalization" of low-wage work. Employees are expected to arrive pre-trained, stick within specific constraining roles, and be available at all hours. Employers are demanding all the responsibilities of white collar salaried jobs while offering none of the benefits. For many people it's not even possible to juggle two of these jobs thanks to "improved" scheduling technology.