
Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos - ahmadss
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-workers-scheduling-hours.html?_r=0
======
koblas
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/e...](http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-
blog/2014/jul/23/elizabeth-warren-senate-bill-part-time-schedules)

~~~
makomk
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
I disagree, the media in the UK is popularist, they gleefully attacked
businesses over zero hours contracts.

------
bryanlarsen
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
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
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.

------
Mithaldu
> 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.

~~~
justizin
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
"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.

------
swalsh
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.

~~~
zo1
" _Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay
ala carte prices._ "

That only works if the supply of workers is limited. And in this case, the
low-wage bracket, it isn't. It's absolutely flooded with people, so you can't
expect the workers to command any such bargaining power. It's simply supply
and demand, and there simply isn't enough demand to satisfy the huge supply of
low-wage workers.

My solution: Company towns. Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation,
training/education and pay them peanuts... in the middle of nowhere. But
that'll never fly, because the argument really isn't about "fair-wage", it's
more about "entitlement" so people see it as some sort of loss instead of a
huge gain in a market that really isn't favoring them at the moment.

~~~
GHFigs
_Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training /education and pay
them peanuts..._

In practice, many low-wage workers already get these resources, but via the
government (i.e. your taxes) rather than the company.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
In reality, they don't get these things from the government. I suppose
"private-company run debit cards systems, private-company run day care,
private-company run medical facilities, private-entity run education programs,
etc." paid for with a stipend or debit card issued and funded by the
government qualifies as "via the government."

However, as is so often the case when "welfare" or a social safety net comes
up, especially in America, what is technically true by a parsimonious and
context-free reading of the facts is, _in practice_ , not fundamentally
relevant (or even completely true).

------
oneweirdtrick
>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
>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
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
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-
wo...](http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Employee-entitlements/hours-of-work-breaks-
and-rosters/hours-of-work#2146-2157-112-155)

------
jacalata
_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.

------
apalmer
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.

------
noahbarr
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.

~~~
raverbashing
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.

------
ARothfusz
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?

------
AdamFernandez
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.

~~~
ovulator
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.

------
datasmash
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
> 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
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
> 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.)

~~~
aianus
Normal people didn't rent out their bedrooms overnight before AirBnB came
around and now they do. Normal people also didn't drive strangers around for
money in their own cars before Lyft and UberX came along and now they do.

You can't say there's nothing new there.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Normal people didn't rent out their bedrooms overnight before AirBnB came
> around and now they do. Normal people also didn't drive strangers around for
> money in their own cars before Lyft and UberX came along and now they do.

 _People_ clearly did. I'm not sure what definition of "normal" you are trying
to use here, but it seems likely circular...

> You can't say there's nothing new there.

Nor did I say that there's nothing new there. What I did say is that it has
nothing to do with "sharing", each is just a new convenient web/mobile app for
fairly normal agent-intermediated rentals (often with little attention to the
legalities of the specific industry -- which in several cases of so-called
'sharing economy' companies is the main innovation offered over existing
online agent-intermediated rental systems in otherwise similar markets.)

------
madcaptenor
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)

------
un_publishable
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.

------
gojomo
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
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
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
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.

~~~
mikeash
"Why would you blame minimum wage for this problem if you weren't implying we
should reform or abolish it?"

Seriously? It's possible to think that something causes a problem while still
thinking that it's a net gain. Is that concept actually foreign to you? Do you
truly think that you must either see no faults in something or you must think
it should be changed?

Debate involves a mutual discussion. The process I describe, where a person
"rebuts" something that was never said, is not debate, it's simple argument.

~~~
normloman
Yeah, I the fact that you could support it as a necessary evil (benefits
outweigh the costs) slipped my mind. My bad. I still thought the post heavily
implied something needed to be changed about minimum wage.

Debate and argumentation are essentially the same. Debate can imply something
formal, and argument can carry a negative connotation. But both are, by
definition, adversarial methods of arriving at the truth. They require people
to take sides, if just for the sake of argument.

------
Guvante
> 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
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
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.

------
Kenji
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.

~~~
datasmash
It's obviously as not as simple as that if you didn't choose to have your
child.

~~~
PeterisP
Having a child definitely _is_ a choice.

You "don't choose to have your child" only if the three main things
(conceiving, birth and rising up) are forced on against your will; i.e., in
cases of rape in a society that doesn't allows neither abortion nor adoption;
or in cases of persons that are mentally incapable to decide for themselves
(they do sometimes have kids and the ethics of those events are often
unpleasant, involving their abuse).

In USA, I'd like to believe that pretty much all parents are raising their
children are results of choice - perhaps a reckless choice made long ago by a
different version of themselves; perhaps a difficult choice with lots of
complications; perhaps an unsure choice with emotional pressure from
family&friends - but in the end, still based on their own choice and own
responsibility.

~~~
ars
Sorry for the accidental downmod.

I applaud you for including adoption as an alternative to abortion. Finding
someone to adopt and older child is hard, but it's easy to find someone to
adopt an infant. (Although you should not discount how hard it is to give one
away - it's very emotional.)

