4 ms·
Part of the reason that companies enacted irregular schedules was to remove the ability of managers to schedule employees in a biased (or perceived as biased) m
by jt2190 12y ago
Part of the reason that companies enacted irregular schedules was to remove the ability of managers to schedule employees in a biased (or perceived as biased) manner. Some examples:
* Employee A gets a more desirable shift than employee B. Employee A also gets along with the manager better that employee B.
* Employee A gets a more desirable shift than employee B because employee A has worked for the company longer. Employee B is equally capable of doing the work.
* Employee A gets a more desirable shift than employee B. Employee B feels that it's because of race/gender/sexual orientation.
* Employee A covers the shift of employee B. Employee A now has enough hours to qualify as a "full-time" employee, causing an administrative headache.
This is not to say that completely randomizing work schedules is the answer, just to point out that there's more reasoning for these systems than the article suggests.
(edit: I worked for a major U.S. retailer when they were implementing such a system.)
- justin66 12y ago> Part of the reason that companies enacted irregular schedules was to remove the ability of managers to schedule employees in a biased (or perceived as biased) manner. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? (I hate to be that guy, but, wow...)
- jt2190 12y agoI'm not sure what evidence you're asking for... That people sometimes feel discriminated against? (edit: The mere fact that Starbuck's has 130,000 barristas at any given point in time makes it quite likely that someday one of those barristas will sue them for discrimination because they couldn't get the shifts they wanted. If the company can prove that the shifts were assigned using an algorithm and not by a person, they have a good chance of winning their case.)
- rando289 12y agoEvidence as in a source which is more authoritative than "random anonymous internet commenter" which says that companies use irregular scheduling to deter lawsuits & take power away from managers to discriminate.
- jaxn 12y agoAs someone who actually creates irregular schedules, that has absolutely nothing to do with it :) It is about making money. Plain and simple. Occum's razor at it's finest.
- mmanfrin 12y agoI'm not sure what evidence you're asking for... That people sometimes feel discriminated against? No, he's asking for evidence to the claim that irregular schedules are a result of trying to avoid discrimination, because that is a big claim.
- Chronic29 12y agoStill waiting for evidence
- rtpg 12y ago>If the company can prove that the shifts were assigned using an algorithm and not by a person, they have a good chance of winning their case This is wrong. An action can be ruled discriminatory even if the intent wasn't such. Though if it is considered "vital" to the survival of the business there can be exceptions. But honestly, companies with only white collar workers face downtime too, but the employees still get paid