3 ms·
I'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
by jt2190 12y ago
I'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