Home
- - - - - - -
About David Batstone
Saving the Corporate Soul
Consulting Services
Speaking Events
- - - - - - -
WAG
Right Reality Blog
Articles
Press
- - - - - - -
Contact David Batstone
Store
- - - - - - -
RSS


Subscribe to the WAG
Email:
Zip:
 

 


Just When You Thought the Squeeze Was Over Print E-mail
Written by David Batstone   

David Batstone Just when you thought that the American worker could not get squeezed for any more juice, major retailers have come up with a new cost-savings innovation to apply more pressure on their workforce. Indeed, staffing is the latest area where big retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, and Payless hope to wring out a few pennies with new operational efficiencies.

Mind you, Wal-Mart and its kin already have been blasted for paying low wages, being miserly with health benefits, and reticent to pay their workers overtime. So how could matters get worse for their employees?

Major features in the Wall Street Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle this week reveal that new computerized scheduling systems will move many American workers from a predictable work shift to staffing based on the number of customers in a store at any given time. The system will allow managers to start the business day with a few employees on hand, then bring in "on call" workers when business picks up during the course of the day. Once commerce lags, the manager can send workers home until further notice. In short, it matches staffing to more closely match customer demand.

It's easy to see how this practice could increase productivity and, hence, operational profitability. But consider the plight of workers who no longer can budget their expenses for a week, or arrange for baby sitting for their kids if called into work, or hold a second job that might help them make ends meet. They are essentially at the beck and call of their boss on a daily basis. Rather than work, say, four 8-hour shifts per week, a worker might work two hours one day, six another, and three on a subsequent day. The practice will force a large slice of American workers into low-paid, part-time jobs.

"The whole point is workers were a fixed cost, now they're a variable cost," Kenneth Dalto, a management consultant told the Wall Street Journal. "Is it good for workers?" he added. "Probably not."

I don't know why Dalto had to throw the word "probably" into his assessment. It's clearly a nightmare scenario for workers who will be pressured to be available at the drop of a hat. It gives "flex time" a whole new meaning. It used to mean that workers could arrange their work to fit their personal demands. It now means that workers will arrange their lives to meet the demands of commerce.

Wal-Mart now asks its hourly employees to fill out a schedule of their availability, and encourages them to include a weekend window "if at all possible." This "personal availability form states: "Limiting your personal availability may restrict the number of hours you are scheduled." The obvious implication is that the less flexible you are, you may find yourself in the manager's dog house and fall to the bottom of his call list.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that some longtime workers, who have reached higher pay scales, fear that managers are using the system to pressure them to quit their jobs. After working 16 years at a Wal-Mart in Hastings, Minnesota, Karen Nelson says managers told her she had to be opening to working nights and weekends. When she refused, her manager told her, "[I can] get two two people for what I pay [you]." Her hours were cut, though restored again after she filed a complaint.

While retailers can defend the new staffing policies by hiding behind improved customer service - workers will be present when the customers most need them - the truth of the matter is that it places an unfair burden on workers. Just how far can we squeeze the worker? It looks like mammoth American retail chains are willing to test that proposition.

Comments
Add NewSearchRSS
Phil Gerbyshak - Make It Great Guy
2007-01-04 20:05:12
Wow, one more blow to the little guy. Guess the disparity between the haves and the have-nots will continue to grow. This is such a sad state of affairs, that we are so after the almighty dollar that we would do this, at such an obvious cost to workers. Being "on call" to work 40 hours a week is ridiculous, especially if companies are expecting folks to be available from 7 AM until 12 AM. What's to stop them from opening up 24/7/365 and having folks come in for 60 minute intervals to "meet customer demand." The only way to fight back against this is to stop shopping at these big box stores. Unfortunately, the very people that can afford little choice in where they shop for financial or location reasons are the very same ones that WORK at these stores.

Sad times. I hope other countries don't follow THIS lead.
Bob Childs - Retired
2007-01-05 08:39:41
I fully agree with Phil Gerbyshak's comments. I would have said it, if he hadn't done so already. I think of Walter Wink and "The Domination System." We certainly are under the "Domination System" and such total disregard for people, only to make more money confirms it.
KeesW - Worth a bonus?
2007-01-04 22:14:00
Some guy in Wall Street probably earned a bonus thinking of this. If the creativity applied to further screwing workers was used to create more work, the whole community would benefit.
Mary Zimmerman - Financial Planner
2007-01-04 23:05:46
I'm not so sure this is an all-bad idea.

As a frenzied shopper, I would welcome more staff and service during the packed shopping hours during lunch and between 4 and 7 p.m.

It depends on how Wal-Mart handles this. Nurses, police officers, and other professionals are paid while they are "on call." Do we know that Wal-Mart is NOT going to compensate the waiters?

I was an early proponent (since the '70's) of flex-time, job-sharing, and permanent part-time work. More and more Boomers are looking for part-time jobs in retirement. If the part-time pay is good enough, maybe everyone wins.

Corporate intention is key. If the idea is to push people out of full-time benefits, there will be a huge whiplash. The generations are not divided on ethical behavior, and the younger generations see a slick PR schtick a mile off.

We are living in a service-challenged world. Let's see if this plan has any merit.
Jeannette - Counselor
2007-01-05 01:32:58
Questioning corporate intention is a generous view of this egregious afront to workers who already make minimum wage with no option to better their working conditions and pay. We the consumers are responsible for putting a halt to this insult to workers. We must decide how much we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers, what will we stand by and tolerate, and when do we say enough to the abuse of people whose jobs, there but for the grace of God, could be yours and mine. If these workers were unionized, we can be assured that this discussion would be unnecessary.
Jonathan Winter - Author - CiManifesto.com
2007-01-05 01:53:46
It depends on how Wal-Mart implement these new practices, and especially how they treat existing workers during any transition. If they do it well, there may be substantial benefits for workers and for society.

To achieve that they would need to focus on giving a larger number of people the opportunity to be on the on-call list when it suits THEM, not just asking existing workers to make themselves available as much as possible with no guarantees.

An initiative in the UK called 'Slivers of Time' allows people who have only a few hours available for work to register their availability (and rates of pay) on a website, so employers can then bid for their time. This innovation has the support of the British government because they regard it as a practical way to help people into work. Other temporary agencies don't allow people (parents, students etc) to offer small portions of time. So it's a real benefit to them.

If (and I grant it's a very big IF) Wal-Mart can focus on the service benefits that result not only from effective staffing numbers but also from happy staff with a good attitude, then there is a potential win-win here.
Arden C. Hander - ..."I don't recognize this c
2007-01-05 03:54:45
No winners here, & certainly not the sense of society with its vested interests for all who participate therein, however passively. If the jobplace has NO commitment to the workforce, why should the workforce have ANY loyalty for the employer? Is it not a two-way street? Has not the "top down" model so popularized with the CEO dictating less and less for the employee reached its terminus this last week, when Home Depot's CEO accepted a severance pay package of $210 million while the average HD worker is part-time & lucky to get $8.50 per hr? How can a Blumburg as Mayor of NYC, with his billions & a record of one's own money spent on a campaign, balance the city's budget by cutting $30,000 jobs, incidentally on which a number of people expect to live? What do extremely rich know about poverty-line jobs? Or, for that matter, how someone technically approaching that "rich" threshold seeks to support 2 or 3 college tuitions when the days of a select college charging $35K are long gone now that they have reached $55K? It's all about people's expendability for the bottom line. With a shortage of "affordable" housing already, how do we get more homeowners when their very props are going to be knocked from beneath them? And a subsequent rise exponentially in bankruptcies & sheriff sales!
It's about health benefits too. Take Safeway in CA & western states, that supplanted Genuardi's in PA/NJ/DE into its fold. Genuardi already had my wrath when they made 32 hrs the threshold for health benefits but regularly scheduled employees for no more than 30 hrs and that at the 'odd' times talked about above. Good will? The public weighed in on this one, sort of, but under the cut in quality of service & products (Safeway labels for local ones & meat grades from Choice to Select). Am I the only one left who believes in & enforces the old-fashioned boycott idea? I did it then & would do it again. You cannot do everything possible to eliminate the middle class & then wonder where they went, having slipped downward into working class & worse. If the middle class is what makes [has made] democracy possible, should we not look at what supplants them?
Our country used to believe in fairness; now, it's smash-&-grab, while wondering why crime, passive & violent, esculates into the stratosphere. Grocery stores [read: supermarkets] tried the "I'll send you home for awhile" notiion four decades ago first, only to retreat. But do not think that higher education has not contributed royally to the part-timeizing of America with fewer & fewer full-time professors & more & more "term contract" or part-time [read: ten cents on the dollar] hires and......over the last four decades! Would I want new fodder for this mill to start out this way, or spend four decades in higher education like I did [even with benefits collecting]? Again, fair is fair, not more fair for a few & not at all for the majority. Don't you see how this contributes to the "online credits/degrees" & "Distance Education" phenomenon? How does this factor into where 'quality' has gone or is going?
Don't think that this only affects others, for it affects you as well, if only passively? And how does this spill over into the immigrant predicament? Don't wonder why one party proclaims we need illegals to make America run & work, for we simply can't afford the minimum wage now!!!???? Doesn't anybody correlate, or does anyody care?
Louis Soares - Executive Director, National W
2007-01-05 04:52:02
When Dan Pink wrote Free Agent Nation many college educated folks saw it as a "get out of jail free" card. They now held the means of production and could work on their own terms. Pink's story was seen as the prologue to a narrative of self-employed by choice folks. Indeed, we have seen a explosion of the ranks of independent contractors especially in the business services. There are many risks and pressures associated with this "liberation".

Technology is finally migrating this same concept to hourly workers with all of the same freedom, risks and pressures.

Some of these issues we need to manage as a society through new labor market institutions that provide supports for newly "freed" hourly worker, we need new notions of portable benefits and even transitional income supports.

But even more important is to provide them with equivalent tools for navigating this new world of abridged hours, multiple employers, and continued learning.

These are the realities all individuals working in our economy must manage. We risk having the wrong discussion about well-balanced, productive people working to keep our economy competitive and food on their tables if we don't accept that everyone is in the same boat and our focus should be on providing tools to manage complexity, not wringing our hands over injustice.
Jerry Mazza - Associate Editor, Online Jour
2007-01-05 05:05:54
I believe if Wal-Mart wants to hire workers at random hours, at Wal-Mart's convenience, the workers should be paid a commensurately higher hourly wage for their financial inconvenience.

For instance, if you call a plumber because a pipe has broken and you have to have him, you will be charged a travel fee, plus a "union established hourly rate" (which ranges into the double or triple digits), plus fees for "emergency service" and materials.

This is another reason to unionize Wal-Mart workers. Also, if the W-M managers were really thinking, they would be using "day workers" to replenish inventory, neatening the store, doing tele-marketing, etcetera, during hours when customer traffic was light.

Unfortunately, if workers settle for work for a couple of hours a day or week without additional compensation for the shorter time spans, they will only be making things worse for themselves. Whether they know it or not, they're being driven to the wall by this ruthless retail giant.

Lastly, employees who have had enough with Wal-Mart should organize and picket the stores and create picket lines during peak periods of traffic. If possible, they should bring their children and babies to embarass this heartless employer and gather publicity from local papers and TV stations. Their answer should be to fight back when pushed to the wall. That's the only way labor advances have ever been made in America.

JM.
Luke
2007-01-05 06:11:44
Quit whining!

It could be great for workers. Who wants to get paid for sitting around doing nothing?! For every dollar that Wal-Mart saves, they could give their workers more pay for when they are there. Furthermore, if having a “fixed” income is important to a worker, Wal-Mart and the worker could negotiate a range of hours needed over a year and then just pay the worker the same per week based on the average number of hours per week.

Any gain in efficiency in any business benefits society. Some of the benefit goes to the workers in higher pay, some the shoppers in lower costs and some goes to the owners in profit.

Furthermore, if you don’t like it, you work someplace else. The whole key to “worker power” is to have more choices. If Wal-Mart implements the plan in a way that is too detrimental to their workers, they’ll have trouble hiring them.
J. R. - Agree
2007-01-05 08:23:54
Lowest cost equals lowest price.

If you can find a lower cost for the product you want to buy will yoou, the consumer go there to buy it???
Kathy
2007-04-11 07:27:12
Luke, why don't you get a job with Wal-Mart, just to see what it is like? Workers never sit around; this new system pulls workers from some areas and the people left are told they still have to get their jobs done without the proper resources to do their jobs. The only people who will take a job with Wal-mart are people like elderly women who can't get a job elsewhere but still need income to survive.
Bill - Efficient Market
2007-01-05 06:55:28
I think most retailers fail to recognize that the people that work the floor everyday are some of their most important resources. These are the people that interact with their customers. It is this interaction that will have the greatest impact on the customers shopping experience. Personally, I find most of these workers are poorly trained and have a poor attitude. As a result, I shop online whenever possible. If retailers continue to make the lives of their employees miserable, it will eventually cost more than it saves when customers stop coming!
Dave M. - Manager of Human Resources
2007-01-05 06:57:15
Thank you Luke for the sanity check.

Hey workers - if you don't like what your employer is doing, go work somewhere else!

If enough workers start voting with their feet, then unscrupulous employers will be forced change their ways.
Lorna - Administrator
2007-01-05 07:10:51
Quality of service will continue to decline. Customer and worker dissatisfaction will increase. Neither one is good for business in the future.
Bob Hunter - Campus Minister
2007-01-05 08:09:42
Reading this article and then reading through the comments I am struck by the divide between those who really believe that the system will work it self out and those who believe retail power is over the top and it will take laws and/or enormous mobilizing to counter that power. I side with the latter. I was dumbfounded in hearing the reports of the demize of corporations like Rubbermaid apparently at the hands of WalMart. If there is any truth to that episode then I wonder how individuals or even small groups of employees could ever stand up to this kind of power. It is my experience that people are so frightened at the loss of their job that they tend to cower and give in just to keep something rather than risk the enormous uncertainty and abyss that may await them.

Hence it seems to me that consumers and employees and other companies who see power looming must ban together and organize to make sure such power does not become immoral or abusive. And discussions of this sort are very necessary in doing that. Why would anyone call that whinning?
Anne Preston - Professional Coach
2007-01-05 08:17:47
At first glance, I would wonder if organizations could really be effecient at this strategy, and I really wonder if they could be equally effecient in creating empowered and inspiring work places. I see a downward spiral occurring unless they do both.
J.L.E - Manager
2007-01-05 08:41:30
unreal.
Claire - Office Manager
2007-01-05 08:51:33
This would be a good idea IF companies would pay employees for being on stand-by. I have often thought this would work well with a local assisted living facility in my hometown in order to have optimal staffing during peak periods when residents have extra needs. But my idea was to pay the stand-by employees, perhaps not their full salary but certainly some compensation.

An alternative would be to pay employees bonus pay to come in at a moment's notice for peak times. You might have some people willing to be avaiable for just those times if the pay was good enough.

I believe companies would find either of those options would be about equivalent to their current salary costs.
Bonnie North - doc cntl spec
2007-01-05 09:47:11
This idea is unconscienable and obviously thought up by the execs who can make their own hours and have no mundane worries, like making ends meet, getting child care, having a personal life outside of work. The next step will be indentured servitude, followed by slavery. Where will it end? Greedy profiteers are ruining this country, and those who benefit (temporarily) are going along without protest...until it affects them!
Redd stahl - Account Manager
2007-01-05 10:03:23
I think the idea/concept is absolutely brilliant and will probably save WalMart hundreds of millions of dollars. However, it does one thing that I am totally against and that is it screws the American worker out of precious hours/dollars he/she needs to make ends meet. Don't we have enough Americans in either low income jobs or on government programs? We certainly don't need more. While I think the idea and concept of what WalMart is considering doing awesome, perhaps they should consider offering this ''backward flex-time schedule'' to workers who can afford to do it and allow those workers who need a 40 hour week to keep it.

Redd Stahl
reddredd60@yahoo.com
dek2000@centurytel.net - Mgr.
2007-01-05 10:29:50
Shameful and oppresive. No more needs to be said.
K. Jacob - I'm appalled
2007-01-05 12:25:00
I was appalled by your column. To exploit workers (most of whom are low-wage workers) is in my mind sinful.

I think Wal-Mart epitomizes The Bush Administration to a "T"! Take, take, take from the people. Only the bottom line matters. And the people who run it call themselves Christians. They are making a billion dollars and are using the poorest people to implement their business and taking the money from them. How can they sleep at night?

I went into a WalMart in Florida and I felt as though I was abetting the company. I have never and will never go into one again. Not even if they gave their merchandise away.
Mark Young - papa/granpops
2007-01-05 12:34:27
I am always for trying something new. Although, the obvious treacherous zone for employees is so blatant here that it would seem that there is no silver lining for them or market or business that is worth the price.

It is obvious to me that there are good opportunities for business to reduce costs while benefiting customers. But, as with anything, good watch-dogging is a key to balance. One of the most powerful ways of doing this is to keep things highly visible to all so that all can judge the worth or benefit (personal, business and/or social) for themselves. If the impact of actions is so obvious that it hits us smack in the face, I believe most of us (or enough, democracy"?) would make the right judgment and send this new idea packing or force it to adjust in how it is implemented or die.

Unfortunately, it often takes time for this adjustment to take place and many a good idea has met its premature doom before having an honest chance at showing some form of success. I trust that if the feedback on this technique does not support its quick demise then it will be sorted out eventually to either work in some form or not at all. An overwhelming demise may simply mean a good idea that isn't well defined and will need a longer incubation period before a means for being beneficial all around can be found. I just hate to cut possibilities off at the knees before true viability has been proven even in the face of such obvious positives and negatives. Sometimes it just takes some real testing from the cauldron of reality before something proves it’s full worth.

My sense at this point about Wal-Mart and the like is that good will or fairness to competition and workers is not a long suit that is even in the vocabulary. So Wal-mart definitely does not end up with the long stick of tolerance these days with me anyway. It’s becoming so that any news I here about the company is jaundiced by my perceptions of a huge behemoth gone out of control with no “real" balancing sense of social consciousness. I really am beginning to wonder when the pendulum will begin swinging back to a more balanced view of social consciousness in the business world. You know we ask for what we get. We want more profits on demand every quarter and lose sight of the long term? Cut throat is what we get. A free market and democracy is only a reflection of what is underneath, you and me.

Perhaps the lack of balance is simply in our ignorance of all that is good that is happening in the business social consciousness world to help offset our serious concerns in the new things that come down the pike. Again, total open awareness of all things by all is a key. After all, ours is not just to judge but to be educated in our judgments. Which is what has me so confused about our, yes our, choice of Bush and company these last years? Since, in a true democracy, we are "all" responsible no matter what the outcome for the successes as well righting the wrongs? Perhaps our “democracy” and “free market” still have some long years to go in the fiery cauldron. In these arenas, ignorance is no excuse; in fact it is the food of tyrants and the seed of our destruction. We do truly, in this way, ask for what we get.
Mark Young - papa/granpops
2007-01-05 13:07:12
Sometimes I think Wal-Mart’s strategy is to keep the carrot of price and value just far enough ahead of the horses nose that it will pull the consumer's/worker's cart over the cliff again and again. However even Sisyphus couldn't keep that boulder going up hill forever.
dmy - no real surprise
2007-01-05 21:28:45
Not a fan of Walmart particularly, but a long time manager for another major corporation. I suspect that the "on call" aspect of this concept is less pervasive than it is being perceived to be. Scheduling to meet customer demand is routine among retailers. If Wal mart is just now discovering it, they're way behind the 8-ball. And, as with so many things, I suspect the response among associates will vary depending on the approach of the individual store manager. Scheduling implies planning, not random or immediate knee jerk responses to foot traffic. Indeed, if that were the case, and Joe Shmo were called in to meet a rush at 12, by the time he got there it would probably be over. You study the trends, schedule to meet them, in advance. And yes, on call is another fact of retail life, although the example of being on call 24-7 is extreme. Usually you'll know when you're on call and be able to plan accordingly. As a manager I was not a big fan of on-call, but there were times when those on-call folks saved my bacon. The requirements of availability shouldn't be news to associates, if they are properly informed at the outset. And it is their choice how to respond. No employer drags people in and forces them to work. As a manager and an associate (I have certainly been in the associate position!) I believe it all comes down to communication. If you agree to the terms of the contract, then you don't get to whine. No more than any imperfect human does, anyway. Take it or leave it, it's a choice.
Tim Baisdon
2007-01-06 14:40:41
This practice has actually been growing for some time among retailers, though without a computerized system such as described here. My wife worked eight years for a major international clothing retailer (definitely not a discounter I might add) who increasingly over that time over-hired employees so that there would always be a fresh pool of part-time, no benefits workers. Since typically workers were students only wanting part-time jobs, this worked for many; however, the company's desire to cover bases for undependable employees who might just not show up was also an incentive for this hiring practice. Many persons were hired and hours divided at only 12 to 16 hours a week at the same time that the employees were encouraged to increase their "availability" to seven days (and nights) a week. Not only would schedules vary widely, but people were often scheduled "on call" for one or two days. The more an employee limited his/her availability, the less they would be favored when hours were divided up. These conditions may have worked for some students, but made it impossible for others to make a "living wage" or even just plan their lives in terms of time management or family. Seven day "availability" for 12-16 hours work: such a deal!
Kathy
2007-04-11 07:32:11
You said it exactly. This is an attempt to root out the ones who have been there for years and are earning somewhat of a living wage, and replace them with cheaper "talent." If you think service at Wal-Mart stinks now, wait till all you have is bored college kids who don't want to zone or keep the store up and can't tell you where anything is or if the store has it.
Luke - Engineer
2007-01-06 19:20:52
If you "really" want to change it, you don't bash or picket wallmart, you enhance the skills of the workers or get more businesses in the area so people have choices.

And people need to be willing to make those choices instead of complain.

When people take the power through choice, that is when the equation changes.

[One other thing that might help - pay more attention in school or develop a trade skill so you don't have to take a walmart job in the first place. ]
KeesW - Theoretical equality?
2007-01-06 20:22:13
Some defenders of Wallmart's proposed policy seem to think that we live in an ideal world where everybody has the same opportunities. Yet we have seen that corporations - and individuals - manipulate markets and situations to reduce competition and equality . We finish with a society where the means justify the ends. In America, it seems that the only 'end' that matters is money - and lots of it. If this is so, Wallmart's approach is to be expected.

However, I thought that one measure of a civilised society was how it cared for the less fortunate. Not all skills are in demand or as transportable being an 'engineer'. Some people are not smart enough to learn more. Others have restraints (such as caring for elderly or sick parents) which stop them from studying or relocating to a better job. Funny thing about 'competition' and the 'free market' is that companies who's only aim is to maximise profit, will all adopt the lowest level of staff conditions and customer service. If we don't like it, we can move - but where to when others offer the same?

Only one person has said anything about America supposedly being a Christian country. I don't see any Christian values displayed in Wallmart or many other corporations. Maybe the making of money should not be constrained by old fashioned ideals - or priorities!
julie walsh - power of the consumer
2007-01-07 09:28:04
I have heard many negative things about the practices of Wal mart and Target. So for the past year and a half I stopped shopping there. We must all take a stand because there is tremendous power in the hands of the consumer. We must continue to educate people on the abusess of corporate giants and demand both political action as well as personal action.
Gill
2007-01-07 16:25:16
It is absolutely unconscionable and immoral for these arrogant corporations to treat their workers as if they are pawns and exploit them in such abusive ways. The charters of these corporations should be revoked and their executives jailed if they do not start doing the right thing and pay the workers the living wage they deserve, accompanied by full benefits, especially quality health care coverage.
Community Action Hero David Yo - Orange Juice or Charmin?
2007-01-08 09:19:14
Great question. Another question is how long are "we" willing to be squeezed? What are "we" willing to do to change this crisis.
Drucker, Peters, Pink and other thought leaders have been tapping up on the shoulder for years that there is no such thing as "JOB Security" We are all freelancers and if this is not imparted in school than it needs to happen after school, summers and before High School.
Write comment
Name:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
Security Image

Powered by JoomlaCommentCopyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.Homepage: http://cavo.co.nr/

 
Web Design by Laryn Bakker