6 ms·

This article that sparked the response is phenomenal: "Working anything but 9-5" - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-workers-schedulin

This article that sparked the response is phenomenal: "Working anything but 9-5" - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-workers-scheduling-hours.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-w... A lot of the problems she is dealing with are things I have never experienced and likely never will. The things she is facing on a regular basis are personal nightmares of mine. Imagine if your life story started out "drug addicted mother and an absent father," what a disadvantage that is. Certainly worth a read.

j_s 12y ago
Discussed yesterday (managed to keep its custom title): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177262
- dang 12y ago
  Not a custom title, but the subtitle of the article.
vacri 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. This is just a plain evil tactic, moving the cost of bad capacity planning from management, who made the decision, to the employee.
- pc86 12y ago
  It's easy to blame it on bad capacity planning, but some times it really is just irregularly slow (or busy). When I waited tables it wasn't at all unheard of for the manager to ask if someone wanted to leave if it was abnormally slow. If there were no volunteers (or if everyone was indifferent) they almost always picked someone to go home. Same goes for it being extremely busy and calling someone who is off and asking if they wanted to come in to make some extra money.
  - nostromo 12y ago
    My significant other used to work as a Starbucks store manager in New York City. He would always comment that the weather played a huge role in how busy they were, particularly a sudden downpour. Planning around such ephemeral things is quite a challenge.
  - lthornberry 12y ago
    Even if it's not bad planning, the business is the more appropriate party to bear the risk of unexpected slow times than the employee. The employee has already reserved the time in her schedule because she's been told that she will be working then. Even if it turns out her works is not needed, she should be paid for those hours.
    - jaxn 12y ago
      Except that there are plenty of people who are willing to work for these terms. I own several retail stores. Labor is by far the largest manageable cost and whether or not we make any profit is often a direct result of managing our labor cost. Re: being the one who should bear the risk, I am also the one who bears the responsibility to make sure they have a job tomorrow. If we don't make money then there is no job. Of course, the alternative is that we could raise prices so that we don't have to be ruthlessly efficient. But then, the market doesn't tend to like that.
      - ejstronge 12y ago
        I appreciate your position as a business owner but I take issue with your assertion that it's okay to dismiss workers because 'there are plenty of people who are willing to work for' those terms. There are also other practices that people might be allowed to perform but which are prohibited - consider, for example, young children working for businesses outside the home. I don't think the willingness of labor is a reasonable metric to gauge the fairness of a business practice. In general, I think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that pro-business positions (even understandable ones like what you're mentioning) don't unfairly hurt workers - to be fair, 'flexible' hours have been mentioned by the Obama administration multiple times this summer.
scottfr 12y ago
It really is a truly excellent piece of writing. There's not an ounce of apparent judgement or subjectivity in it. Rather the article is purely an enumeration of causes and effects that leads to a scathing critique of these scheduling practices and the effects they have on people's lives.

j_s 12y ago

Discussed yesterday (managed to keep its custom title): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177262

dang 12y ago
Not a custom title, but the subtitle of the article.

vacri 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. This is just a plain evil tactic, moving the cost of bad capacity planning from management, who made the decision, to the employee.

pc86 12y ago
It's easy to blame it on bad capacity planning, but some times it really is just irregularly slow (or busy). When I waited tables it wasn't at all unheard of for the manager to ask if someone wanted to leave if it was abnormally slow. If there were no volunteers (or if everyone was indifferent) they almost always picked someone to go home. Same goes for it being extremely busy and calling someone who is off and asking if they wanted to come in to make some extra money.
- nostromo 12y ago
  My significant other used to work as a Starbucks store manager in New York City. He would always comment that the weather played a huge role in how busy they were, particularly a sudden downpour. Planning around such ephemeral things is quite a challenge.
- lthornberry 12y ago
  Even if it's not bad planning, the business is the more appropriate party to bear the risk of unexpected slow times than the employee. The employee has already reserved the time in her schedule because she's been told that she will be working then. Even if it turns out her works is not needed, she should be paid for those hours.
  - jaxn 12y ago
    Except that there are plenty of people who are willing to work for these terms. I own several retail stores. Labor is by far the largest manageable cost and whether or not we make any profit is often a direct result of managing our labor cost. Re: being the one who should bear the risk, I am also the one who bears the responsibility to make sure they have a job tomorrow. If we don't make money then there is no job. Of course, the alternative is that we could raise prices so that we don't have to be ruthlessly efficient. But then, the market doesn't tend to like that.
    - ejstronge 12y ago
      I appreciate your position as a business owner but I take issue with your assertion that it's okay to dismiss workers because 'there are plenty of people who are willing to work for' those terms. There are also other practices that people might be allowed to perform but which are prohibited - consider, for example, young children working for businesses outside the home. I don't think the willingness of labor is a reasonable metric to gauge the fairness of a business practice. In general, I think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that pro-business positions (even understandable ones like what you're mentioning) don't unfairly hurt workers - to be fair, 'flexible' hours have been mentioned by the Obama administration multiple times this summer.

scottfr 12y ago

It really is a truly excellent piece of writing. There's not an ounce of apparent judgement or subjectivity in it. Rather the article is purely an enumeration of causes and effects that leads to a scathing critique of these scheduling practices and the effects they have on people's lives.