Wal-Mart Seeks New Flexibility In Worker Shifts

[Zenlitened]

"Flexibility." Well that sounds all sortsa warm and fuzzy. What's the problem? Just have children who are "flexible" about when they need babysitters, and bills that are "flexible" about when they need to be paid, and everything'll be great! :eyes:

Wal-Mart Seeks New Flexibility In Worker Shifts

By KRIS MAHER (Wall Street Journal)
January 3, 2007; Page A1

...Early this year, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., using a new computerized scheduling system, will start moving many of its 1.3 million workers from predictable shifts to a system based on the number of customers in stores at any given time. The move promises greater productivity and customer satisfaction for the huge retailer but could be a major headache for employees.

The change is made possible by a software system that can crunch an array of data, part of a shift toward computerized management tools that can help pare costs and boost companies' bottom lines. But it also could demand greater flexibility and availability from workers in place of reliable work shifts -- and predictable paychecks.

(snip)

But while the new systems are expected to benefit both retailers and customers, some experts say they can saddle workers with unpredictable schedules. In some cases, they may be asked to be "on call" to meet customer surges, or sent home because of a lull, resulting in less pay. The new systems also alert managers when a worker is approaching full-time status or overtime, which would require higher wages and benefits, so they can scale back that person's schedule.

That means workers may not know when or if they will need a babysitter or whether they will work enough hours to pay that month's bills. Rather than work three eight-hour days, someone might now be plugged into six four-hour days, mornings one week and evenings the next.

(snip)

Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, says the new scheduling system has "devastating implications" for employees. "What the computer is trying to optimize is the most number of part-time and least number of full-time workers at the lowest labor costs, with no regard for the effect that it has on workers' lives," he says.

More:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116783043728965894.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

Radio Shack, Payless Shoes also using the system, per WSJ.

[Virginia Dare]

1. About a month ago Wal-Mart announced they would no...

longer accept snow storms as an excuse for being late/off. We all know the stores are just packed with customers during a raging blizzard. :eyes:

This is just another further erosion of workers rights in this country. It wouldn't surprise me to see 6 day work weeks with no paid leave again in our lifetimes.

[LiberalEsto]

2. It's a ploy to make everyone part-time

so the company doesn't have to provide benefits

[uncle ray]

17. and make it impossible to hold a second job

[ThomCat]

21. Yes.

It will make it impossible for people to have second jobs, so they will be even more at the mercy of walmart.
It will reduce people's pay/benefits by minimizing the number of people who work full time.
It will devestate people's lives with more uncertainty, risk and inconvenience.

The only 'good' thing it will do is pump more money up to the corporate office. x(

[Matariki]

23. everyone *should* be part time -

and it should pay enough to live on. and everyone should have equal, universal health care.

really - when i was a kid, one person could support a family - now it seems to take two full time paychecks to support a family. we should all be working part time and spending more time with our families - men and women both.

[BootinUp]

29. bingo. n/t

[superconnected]

3. It's amazing in how they constantly out-do themselves in trying

to become the worst employer in America.

Walmart, you already won... why the over kill?

Last time they were giving demerits and docking pay for people not showing up during disasters like snowstorms and floods. They intentionally instilled a computerized system that gave no lienency no matter what the excuse. The idea was to get rid of the human element that could understand the resons were beyond the employees control.

[MadHound]

4. This will probably become the norm soon among all such employers

Force employees to base even more of their lives around the whims of the employer, much like it was in the "bad ol' days" of the Gilded Age. Part of the success of this program is going to be based on other such retailers using the same practice, thus WalMart, Radio Shack et al can smirk at an employee complaining about this and say "where ya gonna go kid, they're all doing the same thing." This also depends on a lack of jobs to give that "extra incentive" to their employees to put up with such shit.

The only way I'm ever going to deal with a retail job again is if I own the business. I'm too old and cantankerous to put up with such bullshit.

[phusion]

5. I really wish wal-mart would not pull crap like this...

First I was encouraged by the prescription drug plan that they introduced not too long ago. And I think pushing compact fluorescents out to the masses could actually work.

However, they keep doing crap like this to their workers and it seriously outweighs anything positive that they attempt. They could be a huge force for positive change in our consumer culture but not at the cost of their employees.

:grr:

[sharp_stick]

6. Wal-Mart only pretends to care about their employees

That shithole will stab an employee in the back the second they can to save a nickle. I despise that place and hope their stock continues to tank, down $4 since October.

[Bentcorner]

7. This is a way to get rid of single mothers.

They cannot just out right fire people because of their marital status or because they have children. Instead they concoct some weird system were hourly employees have to be sitting at home "on call" for free, ready to spring up and rush into Wal-Mart. The employees that cannot possibly do this are the single mothers who have to get someone to watch their children so they can work.

[Occulus]

8. Why can't the employees sue for 24/7 pay?

If they're being expected to be "on call", that's basically saying "you're at work, even when you're not."

I would expect to be paid for that, if I were working retail.

[guruoo]

11. Good point - They call it 'Standby pay' n/t

One definition:
Standby Pay 'Compensation for overtime-eligible employees
who must be immediately available to respond while off-duty'
http://www.dop.wa.gov/HRProfessionals/CompensationBenefitsandHours/StandbyPayDefault.htm

Case example: http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:JfhfhlCiQXgJ:www.flra.gov/decisions/v51/51-105-4.html+Standby+pay&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

Plenty more here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Standby+pay&btnG=Google+Search

[AnneD]

16. This is terrible....

I work prn at a hospital now. I blocked out 6 days recently and they were confirmed. They said ok then would call me up at 5:00 am to cancel me- 4 times. Now I had already made child care arrangement and everything (now my kid is a teen-but she has a job and I had to make arrangements for her-she starts work at 10 am.)
Now one time that I was scheduled-I really wanted off. They said there was an 80% chance I would be called off, but refused to let me off. I did not get any type of on call pay (which was what it really was). It left such an awful taste in my mouth that I am looking for a permanent part time job. This gives to business all the rights and benefits and the workers get shit. This takes the cake. I will avoid Walmart as much as possible.

It is nothing more than slavery.

[guruoo]

25. What would you feel about it if they paid you for this 'stand by' time?

Say, ahh, a third or so of your normal pay to
compensate for your time and trouble?
(Just an arbitrary example on my part)

[AnneD]

41. I would not....

survive on 1/3 pay, but paying me 1/3 would take some of the sting out of setting aside the time only to be called off. As of now I have gotten zero and time IS money. They need to think twice about confirming and then canceling. This means nothing to them. If they have to pay a penalty (1/3rd), they might be a bit more careful before booking me.

As I said before, this involves supplemental work. It would be totally different if this were a primary job. It would be unacceptable.

[guruoo]

49. I misunderstood your situation....

What I was wanting to know is if you believe that it would be
fair to require workers to be on call for their work
shift if they were paid 1/3 or so of their normal
hourly wage for the time they were required to
remain in this 'standby' condition.

on edit: They would still receive full pay once they began the shift
that they were standing by to assume.

[AnneD]

52. Hope I cleared it up...

I have worked in medicine for a long time and have seen management try to peel that labour bananna every way possible (remember, Docs were the first to have pagers). Some of the good places give you on call pay, but not this one. You need to be at work when you are on and off when you are off. The lines between work and home are too blurred now as it is with all the technology they have now. I liken it to being a slave to your job. I don't live to work, I work to live. My time is the most precious thing I have----and I don't intend to waste it or sell it so cheaply. I am already looking through the papers for something better.

[Bentcorner]

12. In Maryland, an employer can require you to be on call

and not pay you for it. I had to deal with just this problem a couple of years ago and contacted someone with the state concerning employment laws. I was suppressed really how little rights a worker has in the state of Maryland.

[yardwork]

18. Welcome to DU!

[emmadoggy]

26. I was thinking that too..

as a matter of fact, I'm wondering just WHO will be able to work with that sort of schedule? Not college or high school kids. Not single parents. Probably not even most married parents. About the only folks with that sort of flexibility are non student people with no kids or empty-nesters and older people.

These practices are disgusting. As if Walmart is hurting so bad for profit that they need to find ways to streamline and cut back :wtf: :grr: :eyes: :puke: and, of course, the first place to start is with employees.

And the bit about snowstorms is sick too. Now, I understand that there are folks out there who use every little excuse for calling in and take advantage of situations - which can cause a hardship sometimes for other employees - but, at the same time, employees should not have to risk their lives to get to work either. Sounds to me like they want to just make blanket policies so that managers and supervisors are saved the trouble of making decisions based on an individual and case-by-case basis.

[Scairp]

42. Not just the mothers

Anyone with young children is going to have a problem with this. What about couples where both people work, nearly a sure thing if one of them is working for Wal-mart. And I've known plenty of single dads trying to juggle jobs and kids, even if they don't have custody. What if it's their week or their weekend to have the kids, and they have no clue when they might be called into work? This is so wrong and there is no way it is going to work for anyone.

[bperci108]

9. One word:

UNION.

www.iww.org


I hope Mao-Mart keeps this up.

Keep kicking the dog and sooner or later, you get bit.

[guruoo]

15. Yep, it's just a matter of time. n/t

[Lugnut]

32. It's way past time

We also need effective labor laws that give workers some clout.

[guruoo]

50. What I meant is that it's just

a matter of time before the shit hits the fan for big business.

[Fierce]

20. I'd like to know what they're waiting for.

If not now, when?

[emmadoggy]

27. Yep. My thought too. The employees need to fight back.

Love your "Mao-Mart" term too. :rofl:

[bperci108]

39. Saw that on a bumper sticker...

...so I can't take credit for it. ;)

Saw another that had "WAL-MART" broken down as an acronym:

"Working Against Local Merchants And Ruining Towns"


I thought it was brilliant. :rofl:

[libnnc]

10. Doesn't Sears do this too?

[Bentcorner]

13. If they do, I bet you wont find a lot of single mothers working there (nt)

[guruoo]

14. Haven't hear that, but I do know

that Sears has quite a history of age discrimination,
i.e., forcing out long time employees to replace them
with any warm body that's willing to work for peanuts.
This is happening to my wife (33 year employee)right now.
Can't go into detail here due to, -well, you know.

[Beaverhausen]

24. My sister works retail and her store sort of does this

It's a national woman's clothing store.

If business is slow on any given day they will send home an employee or two. I think it's ridiculous. She is an assistant manager and sometimes doesn't get 40 hours in a week.

[guruoo]

28. They do that where I work, too

When I was hired they promised 40 per, but I haven't gotten in more than 38 since
summer.

I wouldn't mind it so much if they paid us what we were worth
to begin with. I'm a manager, and I never send anyone home earily
unless I'm specifically ordered to do so.

[Javaman]

19. Naaa those workers don't need a union, nope not here...

move along citizen, nothing to see here, just more workers being exploited.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. If they can keep their operations staffed with such rules, there's no stopping them.

Union yes.

[Zhade]

30. And to think, some self-labelled 'geniuses' still support them.

NT!

[NotGivingUp]

31. this just renews my resolve NEVER to shop at walmart

[LiberalFighter]

33. Should computerized the customers to arrive based on last name

[pitohui]

34. this sounds dumb-ass on the face of it

do they really think they can keep the walmarts going w. only people who can work part-time as an occasional hobby 3 or 4 times a week when the store bothers to call them into work?

[GreenTea]

35. Propaganda. Wal-Mart keeping themselves in the news to make people think...

they are really making positive changes for the workers...AND the majority of Americans will just hear the headlines Oh Wal-Mart is making positive changes for the workers. The rest of the sheep won't really pay attention they'll just watch TV news spin and think Wal-Mart cares about it's workers...of course it's bullshit...Wal-Wart will make NO changes to hurt their profits, especially for workers who are just peasant scum expendable nothings....More part-time workers they don't have to pay benefits nor higher wages to.

[mitchum]

36. SABOTAGE...

can be found under S in the dictionary

[starroute]

37. Lowe's is almost as bad

A friend of my sons worked there for a while. He did get his regular 39 hours a week -- carefully calculated so they would never have to pay overtime -- but the irregular scheduling was just as intolerable. Every two-week period was different, and not announced until just before the start of the period, so he couldn't ever buy tickets for a concert or schedule a regular weekly evening with his friends. And his shifts might vary from starting at the 6 am opening on one day to finishing at the 10 pm closing on another, which played havoc with his sleeping hours.

And that's not even to mention the pre-work pep rallies.

Not surprisingly, he only lasted there a few months.

[Pithlet]

45. I worked at a retail establishment that had those godawful pep rallies.

We had to attend them every Saturday morning an hour before opening, even if we had that day scheduled off. We had to do endless role-playing sessions and were basically told we suck because the sales were poor, never mind the crappy local economy at the time.

Retail sucks enough as it is. Wal-Mart just makes things that much worse, because other retailers often copy them.

[HockeyMom]

38. Utility Bills - Difference Last year and This Year

Last year I would get them get beginning of the month. They had to be paid before the beginning of the next month.

This year I am getting them two weeks later and they say they must be paid by the 1st of month or they will incur DAILY INTEREST of 2%.

[Conscious Confucius]

40. Confession: I work at Wal Mart, and things are much worse than reported.

Here's a few gems that I have either witnessed or have had happen to me during my 5 year tenure at Wal-Mart:

I was scheduled for six 5 hour shifts in a week, instead of the four 8 hour shifts that I requested.

My hours were cut drastically from 32 or so down to 20, and sometimes even as low as 12 for a period of four months. (Note: this year I have already been reduced in hours, and this is expected to last until May.)

Most everyone at the store who at one time requested full time hours (me included) were denied, only to be given 34-40 hours while remaining at part time status. This means no benefits or no guarantee of 40 hours, just 40 when they can give it.

Even though I have been employed for 5 years, newer hirees are given twice the amount of hours that I receive. Why? I make $10, they make $7.

When I started average beginner's pay was $8 an hour, that has been lowered to $7.

One of my managers, who is surprisingly a fine human being, has been repeatedly coached, written up and given threats of being fired. Why? Because she was too nice to the employees!

Don't buy the Wal Mart being environmentally friendly nonsense. Here's a few reasons why not:

They have a green recycle box in front of the door that is in place for the customers to bring in used plastic shopping bags to be recycled. Oh, but they aren't recycled. These bags are taken out and thrown in the garbage.

Cans and bottles are thrown away with little regard for anything, because "it's just easier, that way."

Don't take this pushing of energy efficient lightbulbs as environmentally friendly either. I'm sure there's some major kick-back or cross promotion at work there.

I am in the process of writing complaints to Wal Mart headquarters about the environmental deception. Anybody know of other places I may contact?

I am only still employed because I attend college and emplyment is scarce in my town. Without student loans and assistance from the parents, I would be unable to live on this slave's wage. Many times I have been unable to pay bills -even rent- because my hours were drastically cut. It's a horrible place to work for.

[NashVegas]

43. Don't Most People Get Paid at Least $60k to Have a Job That Totally Fucks With Their Family Life?

At least?

[pitohui]

44. not in the real world

maybe on wall street

[anotherdrew]

46. I'd rather die than work for those wal-mark fuk-heds n/t

[DotGone]

47. I remember this crap...

when Sears tried this when I worked for them 10 years ago. I walked out. There was no way I was going to work 7am-10am and then come back at 5pm to close or whatever stupid schedule they wanted; all for the princely wage of $6.75/hr.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. When managers talk about "flexibility," employees should be very, very

afraid.

"Flexibility" means "We will do anything to your weekly schedule, wages, and benefits that we feel like, no matter how much it messes up your life, and we'll fire and rehire you as it suits us.”

Funny thing, they never seem to want the executives to be "flexible." Do they really need all those bean counters around all day every day?

[aaronbees]

51. Albertson's started doing shift cuts

a couple years ago to save money, all at the expense of working families -- cutting many shifts back from eight hours to four- and six-hour shifts. I saw a video presentation made by the company on why this was done, with a division manager stating they were in a "do or die" situation in the division (this is in the Dallas/Fort Worth region for them). The basic idea was that they would schedule to the needs of customers ... whatever that means ... and not strictly to the need of store associates. It was incredibly blatant like that. Their push for self-checkout lines occurred at around the same time. (There are times at my local Albertson's when you can ONLY use self-checkout.) So, this is not quite the same as Wal-Mart's move now, but similar. And it has the same result: workers jipped.