« Funny How That Happens | Main | Yowch »

January 03, 2007

The Wal-Mart Way

Wal-Mart is moving towards widespread implementation of new employee scheduling software. Sounds innocent enough -- the software tracks customer habits over seven week periods, and reschedules workers for each one. Moreover, it also creates a range of daily possibilities, allowing Wal-Mart to schedule workers to be on-call during surges, or send them home during lulls, or implement a variety of other strategies to create a more flexible, adaptive, workforce. All sounds routine enough, right?

But pity the workforce. The new software will make advance scheduling and reliable paychecks a thing of the past. According to The Journal, "experts say [the program] 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."

Brave new world. And one that can be used to push out older, more experienced, better-paid workers. "Some longtime workers," the Journal reports, "also say they believe managers use the system to pressure them to quit. After working 16 years at a Wal-Mart in Hastings, Minn., Karen Nelson says managers told her she had to be open to working nights and weekends. After she refused, her hours were trimmed, though they have been restored in recent months. 'The store manager said he could get two people for what he pays me,' says Ms. Nelson, who earns about $14.50 an hour." Take a highly-paid veteran and begin shaking up their shifts, demanding nights and weekends, and scheduling erratically, and soon you'll have a former highly-paid veteran.

This isn't, it should be said, an initiative unique to Wal-Mart. Other retailers, from Radioshack to Payless, have given the system a shot, though with varying degrees of ferocity. But Wal-Mart's adoption will make it standard. The whole enterprise underscores the dangers of the service economy, with its relentless focus on efficiency and terrifying absence of concern towards its workers. Given that service jobs are slated to be the fastest-growing over the next decade or so, a central focus for progressives will have to be endowing those workers with the bargaining power and voice to demand -- and receive -- better treatment. We talk about the need for better wages and benefits a lot, but workplace treatment is a critical component as well. The import of regular scheduling and predictable paychecks should not to be taken for granted.

At Tapped, too.

January 3, 2007 in Wal-Mart | Permalink

Comments

THIS is the most disturbing thing Wal-Mart has ever done. Where are all the "family values" voters when you need them?

Posted by: Robert P. | Jan 3, 2007 2:30:13 PM

The Walmart management has now proven that the equation "Walmart = Evil" is true.

How about an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide that for any person employed less than full time (40 hours/week), in a corporation with more than 500 employees, that they be paid for 8 full hours if they are required to work for any number of hours less than 8 hours in a 24 period?

The Dems could call this the Walmart Restoration of Worker Fairness Act.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jan 3, 2007 2:41:13 PM

Huh. Don't see how this is a new thing. Starbucks has a highly automated system for scheduling. It suggests that minimum and maximum hours be entered for each employee. It keeps track of labor costs for each hour, so that managers can cut the most expensive workers. Any overtime sends an automatic message to District Managers so that managers can get a quick and personal ass-reaming.

Barnes & Noble has a similar system. They also are much more likely to schedule people knowing that some will be sent home. These hours are marked as being "on call," but they count for the workers' total hours for the week.

It's not that I want to defend Wal-Mart or anything. Rather, the service industry as a whole is a horrible place to work.

Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 2:42:22 PM

I should have said: if they are required to work for any number of hours less than 8 hours continuous in a 24 period.

And I should have added: and if the worker is required to work more than one work appearance during a 24 hour period, they will be paid double time for the seoond required shift.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jan 3, 2007 2:44:53 PM

"Huh. Don't see how this is a new thing. Starbucks has a highly automated system for scheduling. It suggests that minimum and maximum hours be entered for each employee. It keeps track of labor costs for each hour, so that managers can cut the most expensive workers. Any overtime sends an automatic message to District Managers so that managers can get a quick and personal ass-reaming.

Barnes & Noble has a similar system. They also are much more likely to schedule people knowing that some will be sent home. These hours are marked as being "on call," but they count for the workers' total hours for the week."

There are two things this poster is overlooking.

1) Wal-Mart is a 24 X 7 operation in which Starbucks and B & N are not.

2) While it's important to have more people working when there are more customers, I didn't see anything as whether or not this had been beta tested, or it had, for how long it had been studied for patterns. The story says "just last year." It should not be based on week to week patterns or daily patterns, but monthly or even 2 months of data, and to give workers an opportunity to get some elder care or child care planning input ahead with managers.

Sam Walton is probably turning in his grave. He would have wanted to see patterns first and wanted his workers to be treated humanely. Perhaps the CEO of Wal-Mart hasn't discovered that satisified employees = satisified customers. It's not all about low prices.

Posted by: benny05 | Jan 3, 2007 3:05:49 PM

I think the question is really whether this is going to work or not - and I suspect that it's going to make it harder for Wal Mart to fill some positions, because the inconsistency of scheduling and the variability of pay will push some people out of working for them. From a service standpoint, unfortunately, it makes sense, but only if they have the people in place to make it work. This also goes back to a broader point that no one really likes to face: Wal-Mart type work (i.e. discount store service staff) was really never meant to be a full time job for supporting a family, but more part time work for students and others with spare time but not dependent on a full time income. Yes, Wal Mart should face some realities about its workforce, but the bigger challenge is finding better jobs for people who need better incomes than a Wal Mart job can provide. And I don't see a lot of good solutions on that front...

Posted by: weboy | Jan 3, 2007 3:11:11 PM

1) Wal-Mart is a 24 X 7 operation in which Starbucks and B & N are not.

Nope. The vast majority of Wal-Marts are not open 24/7. I live in Kansas City, a metro of a couple million, and the Wal-Marts around here close at 10pm. Anyway, it's not like this matters.

My point is that working in the service industry pretty much sucks. Whether employees get plenty of advance notice for shifts, regular hours, enough hours, etc. or not is dependent upon the store manager. Even when the manager is trying to be fair - and I have been on both sides of this - things get messed up and people get screwed. There were a couple of times when I was working for Starbucks that I came very close to causing an employee to lose their benefits, because I wasn't scheduling them for enough hours. We were able to make it work, but I still feel rotten about it all. What about those managers who just don't care?

I agree that Sam Walton's company is no longer around. I agree that Wal-Mart is a crappy place to work. And I agree that this type of scheduling is not good for the workers. But the problem is actually larger than Wal-Mart, and since our employment rates are increasingly dependent upon the service sector, it's not going to go away any time soon.

Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 3:18:08 PM

The difference is also that starbucks provides benefits, and walmart does not. Starbucks is a part time employee company specifically for people who want part time work. The problematica aspect of the description of this program is that it is not part time, but rather on call. On call is typically associated with higher pay and benefits because its assume that the employee's time is money, and that if you expect someone to be on call for you- you pay them a premium for that requirement. This, at least, is how it works when one can negotiate one's contract. Here, it's not likely to happen because they lack a union.

Posted by: akaison | Jan 3, 2007 3:36:38 PM

The "on call" thing (and the flipside "go home, it's dead in here") is what strikes me as the worst aspect of this. It's bullshit to not know your schedule a week in advance, with the exception of emergency workers (and who are handsomely paid for their troubles).

When you think about it, why do they even need software to figure out when the surges are? I can tell you right now they are 4-7 PM on the weekdays, right after work. I worked a grocery store for a few years, and never fail, that's the busiest time.

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Jan 3, 2007 3:39:13 PM

akaison,

great minds, etc. etc.

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Jan 3, 2007 3:39:54 PM

What you are going to get, after all of this poking and prodding and outright stupid behavior by WalMart managers are Service Employee Unions. And contracts that say that this type of behavior is NOT ALLOWED. And if the rest of the retail community follows WalMart's lead, they'll end up dealing with unions too. The service sector is a shitty place to work, and the shittier the employers make it, the more attractive paying a small portion of your wages to a union becomes to the workers.

This is how you take people who don't want to be in a union and turn them into lifetime union supporters - be an employer who plays these types of games and shafts them again and again. And unlike manufacturing, service industry jobs are a helluva lot harder to offshore or outsource.

Posted by: NonyNony | Jan 3, 2007 3:49:20 PM

I suspect and hope that NonyNony is correct. And when it comes to pass that WalMart and those that follow their lead are dealing with unions and have contracts that restrict what they can do with their workers they'll wish they'd taken their eye off the bottom line once in awhile and considered the quality of life of those who worked for them. I was a manager and later a company labor rep in a union environment for more than a dozen years and there wasn't a single restrictive overtime, penalty overtime, and work hour limitation provision in the collective bargaining agreements that wasn't placed there to protect workers from the inhuman treatment of their managers.

Posted by: mrgumby2u | Jan 3, 2007 4:19:22 PM

While the 'service sector' of the economy is growing, retail sales is not, the reverse is true their actually, so I highly suspect all the worry about this being the 'new wave' is hugely overstated.

I have done quite a bit of work with call centers, also service sector, and of course one that can be quite easily outsource. This sort of thing has been going on for years there, and in fact I have written software to aid in both the analysis and the scheduling of employees, from both a predictive to a on the spot perspective.

In some ways this does suck for employees. On the other hand, generally speaking more stable and/or greater choice in scheduling is typically partially at least based upon performanence. This certainly rewards productive employees.

At the end of the day, if these methods to reduce costs are not taken, the company won't be competive and the jobs will go away either to another company (which does these things) or another place.

I think liberals time would be much better spent worrying about how to make employees more valuable then trying to artificially limit competitive practices.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Jan 3, 2007 4:35:36 PM

Dave-- any thoughts on whether higher productivity ("more valuable workers") will = reduced employment? Why higher 5 workers when 4 have become as valuable as 5?

Posted by: RW | Jan 3, 2007 4:51:29 PM

"more stable and/or greater choice in scheduling is typically partially at least based upon performanence. This certainly rewards productive employees."

Knowing if you're working or not tomorrow is a privilege, not a right. Welcome, our new gilded age overlords

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Jan 3, 2007 5:32:44 PM

Few words make me laugh out loud as quickly as "I think liberals should..."
In terms of making money for its shareholders, Wal Mart is doing just fine. They don't need any major revamp to save their collective asses. New moves like this are just measures to push more of the profit towards the top of the chain. Nony may be right; eventually, workers simply can't afford to put up with these conditions, and Wal Mart will find it increasingly tough to find worthwhile workers.

Posted by: sprocket | Jan 3, 2007 5:33:41 PM

Don't get all hot and bothered over this. If they really do use this system, it's going to fail mightily and significantly harm Wal-Mart in the process, undermining the arguments in favor of a Wal-Mart economy writ large.

Just think of the reasons you are a liberal. You don't believe an economy where individual human beings are simply considered interchangeable factors of production works. And you're right. Wal-Mart is headed for disaster to the extent they implement this.

Posted by: Marshall | Jan 3, 2007 5:53:50 PM

On the other hand, generally speaking more stable and/or greater choice in scheduling is typically partially at least based upon performanence. This certainly rewards productive employees.

Not true in retail or any other setting that can apply this type of scheduling and has employees with varying rates of pay. The key here is to keep labor costs down as a percentage of volume. So you can schedule your more productive employees - and most likely the ones making more money - for fewer hours, but during busy times. Tweaking the schedule like this makes your labor efficiency higher and is starting to be used as the newest metric when determining bonuses.

And akaison, I'm not defending Wal-Mart. Indeed, my whole point is that yet again, Wal-Mart is just providing the clearest example of practices that are industry-wide.

Posted by: Stephen | Jan 3, 2007 5:59:57 PM

"So you can schedule your more productive employees - and most likely the ones making more money - for fewer hours, but during busy times."

And when you do this you're likely to lose these employees' discretionary effort, at least, or lose them altogether to an employer who respects them more and treats them better.

Posted by: mrgumby2u | Jan 3, 2007 6:34:39 PM

In the early-mid 1980's, I was an assistant manager at Express (a lowish-priced, trendy clothing chain owned by The Limited). We worked until a half-hour after the mall closed, as the more desirable morning-afternoon shift was given to managers with more seniority. There were no benefits, unless you count the employee discount on mass-produced clothing you were required to wear to work and were sick of looking at anyway. You'd recieve next week's schedule on the last day of that week (Thursday). There was also a requirement that on one of your two days off (which were never, ever a Saturday or Sunday unless the planets were aligned or something) you stayed near the phone so you could be called in if needed. Remember, cell phones back then cost around $500 and were the size of toaster ovens, so that particular requirement meant you were tethered to your house from 10am to dinner time.

In exchange for all this and an hourly rate that was pretty much the norm in the service sector, Express got a bilingual part-time model with B.S. degrees in advertising and English ed. It was Florida, and it was the 80's; such was the job market then. Some (my parents, for example) would call restaurant work less dignified. But after I left the retail scene, I found bartending and cocktail waitressing to be considerably better--at least it felt like I had a social life, and cash is always nice.

At the very least, companies who require employees to work "on call" should pay a premium wage for that, or figure out a way to schedule the right number of people during busy times. Regardless, people need to know when they're working and when they're not so they can plan their lives accordingly. The problem is, Express assumed that they were your life.

It's depressing to see that nothing has changed. Not even the minimum wage--not that much!

Posted by: litbrit | Jan 3, 2007 7:54:18 PM

stephen- I didn't think anyone defending Walmart. I am just pointing out what jumped out to me as the biggest problem I have with this- that not only are they scheduling time, which is fair, but in effect they are putting a demand on the time that the employee is not at work (the on call aspect) without paying for it. I know this exists in a white collar setting because one is being paid a higher wage for one's work in part for this reason, but I didn't think it was trickling down into the service industries. The thing is- where walmart goes other can follow. Why can't other employers decide that they can take up employees down time without paying a premium for it. certainly not negotiation if it becomes industry standard.

Posted by: akaison | Jan 3, 2007 8:11:07 PM

As another veteran of the retail world, both from the management and the wage-slave side, I just want to add that what's objectionable here is not really the scheduling methodology, which as has been pointed out, is not all that different from what Starbucks or other big retail companies do right now.

No, the objectionable part is the "on call" part. Your employer should not have the right to expect that you will sit at home, waiting for them to call you in, or not, yet only get paid if you actually do get called in.

Posted by: fiat lux | Jan 4, 2007 1:00:35 AM

And now pls remember that a Wal Mart employee can't sustain his family on his WM salary alone. How is he going to do a second job when he's supposed to be available for WM all the time?

This kind of exploitation has to stop. Dems should introduce legislation that requires companies to pay workers for hours they are on-call. Or else other retailers would be forced to follow WM's lead and workers would be on a downward spiral once more.

Posted by: Gray | Jan 4, 2007 4:01:54 AM

"At the end of the day, if these methods to reduce costs are not taken, the company won't be competive and the jobs will go away either to another company (which does these things) or another place."

Well, and that's why there has to be a legal framework that prevents companies from exploiting their workers in this and other ways, so that all companies on the market are playing by the same rules. Without such regulations, there will always be an enterprise that seeks an advantage by shifting burdens to the work force. And don't say workers can simply switch to a 'better' employer. Most of the jobs at WalMart are for unqualified workers, and those don't have much chances to get a better offer. Also, afaik there's still 4.6% unemployment in the US, and that's according to the euphemistic official statistics.

Posted by: Gray | Jan 4, 2007 4:15:02 AM

Also, afaik there's still 4.6% unemployment in the US, and that's according to the euphemistic official statistics.

Also, if unemployment were to drop below its current amount by any appreciable amount, the Federal Reserve would have a seizure. That level of unemployment is a deliberate policy of the US Federal Government. So let's keep the responsibility for the poor negotiating position of low- and non-skilled workers correctly distributed.

Unions. Unions. Unions. We need more and stronger unions.

Posted by: NBarnes | Jan 4, 2007 6:52:38 AM

"Well, and that's why there has to be a legal framework that prevents companies from exploiting their workers in this and other ways, so that all companies on the market are playing by the same rules."

How are companies "exploiting" their workers by using software that makes their employment scheduling more an informative and efficient?

Posted by: DRR | Jan 4, 2007 8:29:04 AM

Why all the emphasis on unions? The best I know (and this knowledge is old) WalMart had a 100% track record of (perfectly legally) shutting down stores and plants that unionized. And it's not like unions make for job security--look at the auto industry and ask yourself just how much good UAW is doing. Not to mention that Europe's labor laws haven't really been a boon for the workers.

The idea of making employers pay for the time workers spend on call is rediculous. Think of what it'd do to hospitals (and medical costs), as well as cops and emergency personel in general. How much of the average reservist's time will be counted as 'on call?'

Democrats and progressives in general are in a position to vastly influence public opinion. Instead of focusing entirely on badmouthing Republicans, why not leverage that--instead of making laws detrimental to the economy at large--to convince people to only spend money at places where they'd be comfortable working . . . I'm not the only voter who'd be glad to see a shift from divisive politics towards constructive engagement and it'd definitely give a feeling of empowerment. I could think of my few disposable dollars as economic warriors fighting the good fight. Wasn't it JFK who said "Ask not what your country can do for your paycheck, but what your paycheck can do for your country?"

Posted by: Toby | Jan 4, 2007 8:46:54 AM

I agree that Wal-Mart's policy, as described, is exploitive and inappropriate. I can think of two alternatives that might be preferable. First, if, in a large, primarily self-service operation like Wal-Mart, additional cashiers are needed at peak times, train everyone in the store to operate the cash register, so employees can be redeployed within the store as needed. My understanding is that Target already does this. Large stores also usually have a number of floaters who can work in many different departments. Second, if more specialized supplemental help is needed (electronics department, stockroom, specialty departments within the supermarket section, etc.) maintain a list of qualified people who are willing to be called. However, they should be free to go about their lives, and if they cannot be reached when called, so be it. There should also be no penalty for saying no to a call in. This is how school systems access substitute teachers. Once called in or working a normal shift, management should not be able to just send an employee home due to slow business without paying him or her, which, of course, would defeat the purpose of sending them home in the first place. For those who say no virtually all the time, however, they could find themselves on the bottom of the call list or removed from it altogether.

Posted by: BC | Jan 4, 2007 9:00:40 AM

Toby- a concerned troll. "I certainly didn't vote for you to legislate issues in my economic interest. I am far more concerned with civility and bipartisanship because even if what the GOP does is going to screw me and mine over, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I certainly am not using talking points that the GOP has been spreading around. It certainly doesn't matter that this issue here is one which is exactly why the public in poll after poll trusts Democrats rather than the GOP. Why can't we all just get along (until I the concerned troll stabs you in the back)? Kubaya, my lord, kumbaya.)" All jokes aside- are you seriously comparing a part time Walmart worker to a skilled medicial professional? You don't see any differences in those two pathways at all as to why on call maybe relevant to one, and abusive to the other? No- because we should all just get a long, and things like unions aren't important to the american public. did we are get that?

Posted by: akaison | Jan 4, 2007 9:20:16 AM


How are companies "exploiting" their workers by using software that makes their employment scheduling more an informative and efficient?

The software makes a hell out of employees lives in order to eek out profits. That's practically the definition of exploitation.

People are not parts in a machine.

Posted by: Sandals | Jan 4, 2007 11:09:42 AM

Toby- a concerned troll.

Yeah, that *BASTARD*!!
What nerve to have a different opinion!! And where does he get off advocating "constructive engagement"?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Jan 4, 2007 11:22:10 AM

Fred, constructive engagement is going to have to wait, wait until hell freezes over. This is kinda like the Soviets and the US in that whole nuclear arms race neither side wanted to give an inch and why should they?

As for this Wal-Mart situation, I am thinking that eventually Wal-Mart goes totally automated, a couple of IT guys, an old man or woman at the door, and 4 teenagers in different sections of the store to point people to the proper aisle and to answer other questions.

Posted by: jbou | Jan 4, 2007 12:33:07 PM

I think I will use the GOP's definition of constructive engagement for the last 12 years as my guide to what the Democrats should do in turn. If you didn't want to die by the sword, you should not have lived by it. Now, you will discover as you have said elections have consequences. One of which is we decide what is or is not constructive while you sit around whining about how unfair we are being to do what the American people actually want versus what you have been telling us they want.

Posted by: akaison | Jan 4, 2007 12:40:47 PM

Good suggestions, BC, but is there sufficient incentive for Wal-Mart to accept them instead of their current plans?

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 4, 2007 4:02:07 PM

Sanpete,

I, of course, have no insight into Wal-Mart's decision making process or what strategies they think they need to implement to optimize their competitive position. If their proposed labor scheduling initiative receives enough adverse publicity, perhaps they will abort or discontinue it. Afterall, they did improve their health benefits (somewhat), at least partly in response to criticism.

Posted by: Barry Carol | Jan 4, 2007 4:28:15 PM

"How are companies "exploiting" their workers by using software that makes their employment scheduling more an informative and efficient?"

DRR, You're kidding, right? The scheduling is only efficient for WalMart, not for the workers whose lifes are screwed up by constant availability. And I guess you know damn well that the software isn't the problem, but WalMart's demand that employees have to be on-call and come to work on a very short notice, regardless of their well-being and that of their families.

Posted by: Gray | Jan 4, 2007 5:14:29 PM

"Afterall, they did improve their health benefits (somewhat), at least partly in response to criticism."

Would you pls cite a qualified source that's really saying the changes are an improvement for the workers, Barry? I only saw reports stating the opposite so far.

Posted by: Gray | Jan 4, 2007 5:16:56 PM

Huh. Don't see how this is a new thing. Starbucks has a highly automated system for scheduling. It suggests that minimum and maximum hours be entered for each employee. It keeps track of labor costs for each hour, so that managers can cut the most expensive workers. Any overtime sends an automatic message to District Managers so that managers can get a quick and personal ass-reaming.

I have a lot of friends who work at Starbucks, and they get such goofy schedules from one of the managers (like close at 10:30PM, open at 4:30AM next day, or consistantly having to switch days to accomodate a class that has always been on Weds at 3) I have often asked why on earth they don't have an automated system (as far as I've been told they do not use one for the actual scheduling, that's all by hand, though they sure as hell know when you're approaching 40 hrs)...I was thinking more along the lines of being able to enter in who can't work certain days, who prefers not to work certain days, who perfers to work what hours, and then set up the schedule to best meet the needs of everyone. My high school had a class assignment schedule that worked on a similar method of who had priority to what class, and who had hard to schedule courses that needed to be accomodated first...can't imagine that it couldn't be easily adapted to weekly schedules.

Irritating that WalMart is using a system like that to screw people when it could just as easily be implemented to make the system work better for everyone, i.e., have a regular schedule, and then have certain people who don't mind working flex time like high school or college students with lots of free time scheduled for those spots to make a little extra cash or get a little extra bonus free time. Sigh.

Posted by: rabbit | Jan 4, 2007 5:22:07 PM

I would also imagine the demographic of the worker at Starbucks is probably different from wallmart- the former does it probalby for extra money, and later for livelihood.

Posted by: akaison | Jan 4, 2007 5:26:16 PM

I've one good friend who's worked for Wal-Mart for about 18 years. He told us about this scheduling system last year - it was absolutely clear to him that one of their intentions is to push out long-term, higher-paid employees like himself.

Posted by: jackd | Jan 4, 2007 5:56:08 PM

While I'm very sympathetic to the workers (I refuse to shop at WalMart, ever), this is what unions are for, not the government. When things get bad enough people will start forming/joining unions and if they don't then it's not getting bad enough.

Posted by: Bill D | Jan 4, 2007 6:31:01 PM

If their proposed labor scheduling initiative receives enough adverse publicity, perhaps they will abort or discontinue it. Afterall, they did improve their health benefits (somewhat), at least partly in response to criticism.

Yes, we can hope for that. Ezra's doing his part.

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 4, 2007 6:46:25 PM

Would you pls cite a qualified source that's really saying the changes are an improvement for the workers, Barry? I only saw reports stating the opposite so far.

Gray,

While I don't have detailed knowledge of the evolution of Wal-Mart's health benefits, what I was referring to was the fact that they reduced the amount of time with the company needed to be eligible for benefits and the introduction of a high deductible plan for a comparatively low employee contribution. While probably not a great plan, some employees who could not afford the previous offering but can afford the new one probably consider it an improvement (for them).

More generally, retail, along with restaurants and, to some extent, hotels, are low wage industries. With cash wages ranging from the minimum wage to $10-$15 an hour for most workers, employers cannot easily afford up to another $5-$6 per hour for family health insurance. Income based subsidies are probably necessary to address this and are likely to be part of most of the state experiments in trying to achieve universal health insurance coverage.

Posted by: BC | Jan 4, 2007 6:47:15 PM

The idea of making employers pay for the time workers spend on call is rediculous. Think of what it'd do to hospitals (and medical costs), as well as cops and emergency personel in general. How much of the average reservist's time will be counted as 'on call?'

Um, nurses ARE paid to be on call. I believe cops are as well. Did you not know this?

Posted by: Mnemosyne | Jan 4, 2007 7:00:42 PM

Just think of the reasons you are a liberal. You don't believe an economy where individual human beings are simply considered interchangeable factors of production works.

I do believe in an economy like this. I believe it functioned well for nearly a thousand years as the feudal system and worked very well in the industrial era. Indeed, it still does in countries such as Indonesia.

I also believe it was inhumane and unjust, and required concerted political effort to alter it, including (but not limited to) unions, strikes, riots, and the occasional revolution. I believe that socialism and communism were provoked by the realisation that the economy should serve people and not the other way around, and that this attitude then became the dominant attitude in the Western capitalist countries. And now that communism has been discredited, this attitude is under attack. Deliberate attack. Walmart is a prime example.

If you think the problem will solve itself on an economic basis, you're fooling yourself.

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Jan 4, 2007 7:32:14 PM

"Just think of the reasons you are a liberal. You don't believe an economy where individual human beings are simply considered interchangeable factors of production works."

I'm liberal. I don't believe that an economy where the individual is without real bargaining power is a real market. Efficiency requires supply and demand. If the suppliers of labor have no ability to negotiate deals, then the market is not working. Workers treated as interchangeable cogs isn't about markets because the construct means that workers are not rational actors deciding whether or not to provide their services for the best economic outcome. If they are cogs, then they are indentured servants or slaves, but not suppliers of labors in a market for labor. The question is whether you view workers as being a market, or you view them as indentured servants. If they later, then you have no problem with Walmart's practices. If the former, then you do.

Posted by: akaison | Jan 4, 2007 7:53:39 PM

Verplanck Colvin: Knowing if you're working or not tomorrow is a privilege, not a right.

Then I assume that it would be okay if Wal-Mart flogged their employees?

Posted by: TimBendOR | Jan 4, 2007 8:01:26 PM

Knowing whether or not you are working tommorrow is a priviledge not a right but it is a priviledge that helps our economy run. It is a priviledge that makes it possible to plan out the rest of your existence and to manage your household.

How would everybody act if they were not sure whether or not they were working tomorrow or what amount their next paycheck would be?

Posted by: ellenbrenna | Jan 5, 2007 1:18:48 AM

Believe it or not, I wasn't actually suggesting "constructive engagement" with Repubicans because, even though it sickens me, I've given up on that. I was saying why not engage the public? Instead of using MoveOn.org and the remaining democratic opinion machine to stip people into a froth over perceived and legitimate problems, why not use it to educate people and say "You're only one of 300 Million living in the U.S., but there's tons you can do. Don't spend your money at places where you wouldn't want your kids to work."

Don't ask me for journal articles proving this, but I have the impression it worked to reduce American textile companies relying on child labor in sweat shops, and it's made inroads on the environment (most of the changes have been voluntarily made by people who see the need) why wouldn't it work?

And why not be the party of education? The party that believes the American people can make a change for the good? The party that believes in the worth, but also in the power of the individual?

Posted by: Toby | Jan 5, 2007 9:37:29 AM

The software doesn't schedule the workers, the managers do that. The software is a tool to increase the managers' efficiency. (Anyone know what this software is called or the name of the company who is creating it?)

Are we suggesting that the local managers should unionize so that they can defend their own jobs and help their workers, or that the workers should unionize so they can defend themselves from the (higher) managers?

As a union member, I would like to point out that part of the purpose of a union is to guarantee a certain level of competence in a given industry. Cashiers must know how to make change (even when the 'computer is down') and accurately fill in the associated paperwork. A manager must be able to handle multiple priorities, delegate responsibility, field calls from all quarters, properly schedule employees according to customer volume, stick to a budget, among many other varied tasks. These skills require experience. It seems that, unionized or not, an individual in one of these roles would be able to market themselves in other industries if Wal-mart is dumb enough to treat them badly.

As to the stock people, greeters, cart collectors, etc, the skill sets here are markedly smaller than for a manager or cashier. Understand that I am not dis'ing these workers (a friendly smile and well stocked shelves are important to my decision whether or not to shop in a place), I am merely pointing out that collective bargaining for these skill sets is very difficult given the competition at this level.

I think the best way to impact the way these workers are treated is by the tried and true "boycott" method. Also, stink up the 'net and every other medium you can access with the filth Wal-Mart is trying to foist on their workers. It may not hit the 'bottom line' tomorrow, but the more pressure we put out there, the more the company will have to deal with their perceived wrongs and take real steps to right them.

(Now, about those Chinese laborers who get paid $0.08 a day to make a shirt that retails at Wal-Mart for $5. How many $5 shirts do you need? Your answer to this question will depend heavily on the skill sets you have acquired over the course of your life.)

...And yes, nurses and doctors are paid to be 'on-call'; either directly or as part of their salary. Emergency responders are in the same boat. It is completely outrageous for ANY employer to expect a worker to be 'on-call' and not be compensated for that time.

Here are some 'non-cash' rewards that would seem fair compensation for an 'on-call' shift, or 'early-out' foreshortened shift: one free sick day, early-out (employee's choice), two weekend days off in a row, monetary credit toward the health insurance bill, credit the hours (though still unpaid) toward qualification for benefits (that is, you don't get paid, but the hours count toward reaching your 'full-time' status. Sure these suggestions would increase the workload for some HR rep or manager trying to keep track of all the permutations, but if they have this nifty program to help them schedule people, they will have extra time to work on this side of things. Heck, build these suggestions into the program and let it do the tracking!

Please notice that all of the suggestions above could be implemented by a corporation without requiring a trip through Congress or the creation of a (collective bargaining) union. Come on Corporate America, step up and do what's right for the Country.

Thanks!

Posted by: John | Jan 7, 2007 10:34:20 PM

Actually, knowing whether you are going to work tomorrow is a right. It arises from the employment contract between employer and employee, guaranteed by minimum standards created by and enforced by legislation.

Arguably, not every employee or person in a situation of working for another person has such a right. Independent Contractors generally do not have such rights, or more precisely, their rights are specific to their contracts. Certain kinds of casual or occasional employees in certain circumstances may not have such rights.

But generally, it is a right. Let's keep the rabid fascism to a minimum, people.

Posted by: Den Valdron | Jan 8, 2007 11:02:33 AM

It is hard to get upset over any company that simply wants to efficiently use its labor. Any company that does not will soon pay the price in its bottom line. Don't like it? Then don't work there. Companies have no obligation to be nice, only to compensate them as they promised and provide a safe working environment.

Anyhow, Wal-Mart has bigger problems that don't bother the left much. Under their current CEO, Wal-Mart has mandated numerical quotas for the hiring of minorities and women, placed Jesse Jackson associate Christopher Williams on its board, and is financially supporting gay rights groups advocating same-sex marriage. If you want to find companies in dire trouble, simply find the ones that has one of Jesse Jackson's guys on the Board of Directors. It is a perfect fit.

The company is also bullying its 60,000 suppliers to adopt its environmental standards, a move even the Sierra Club has dismissed as ineffective. Wal-Mart even hired left-wing spin doctor Leslie Dach back in July and since then he has helped the company ramp up its cynically calculated capitulations to the left. Even more fascinating is that Wal-Mart has begun to support the encroachment of unions, particularly in its China suppliers. As this takes hold, Wal-Mart will find itself no more competitive than Sears.

Posted by: NOTR | Jan 26, 2007 11:40:32 AM

Regarding John’s comment on Jan 7, 2007 7:34:20 PM, I couldn’t agree more with you that; “software doesn't schedule the workers, the managers do that”. To be upfront, I happen to be associated with Asgard Systems, who are publishers of employee scheduling software. We are not the suppliers of Wal-Mart’s employee scheduling software and are on unaware of what product they are using.

Even if Wal-Mart still uses a pencil and paper to produce their employee schedules, they might still implement policies and procedures that would promote their own corporate interests. The promotional literature that we provide regarding our product does directly address organizational scheduling needs. However, such needs include taking the employees personal life into perspective as well. An example is the priority given to personal conflicting events such as night school, taking care of sick parents, weddings etc. Such issues are promoted at our website (www.asgardsystems.com), in our free trial version and our instructional movies. I am very pleased to say that, most employers express the need of having to contend with the humanistic aspects of managing an organization. Their needs dictate our products design and the design of our competitors’ products as well. However the fact that an organization might use our automation tools for abusive means still hurts.

Posted by: Michael Askwith | Mar 1, 2007 11:07:19 AM

I hate to do this; but I not only shop at Wal-Mart, but I defend it.
Wal-Mart provides affordable health insurance (as little as 20 dollars every two weeks for individual coverage), affordable dental insurance (we pay around 14 a month for my husband and I), 401k, profit sharing, quarterly bonuses, and most importantly... the opportunity for a person without a college degree to work their way up to a management position (which starts at around 35k a year).
Yes Wal-Mart does strange things, but so does Target, KMart and every other big box retail store.
The new 'bad' things Wal-Mart does make sense. Salary caps have been in place at other stores for years. Why should a person get a 40 cent raise annually for mediocre performance? Also, if this continues, a stocker could end up making 20 dollars an hour after a while. The salary caps do encourage people to work harder and apply for management.
Wal-Mart wants its employees to strive to be better. Uniforms, salary caps, working at all hours, putting up with customers... All can be seen as good or bad, depending on your point of view.
Working for Wal-Mart is a job, and like every job people can always go elsewhere.
As a customer, if you hate the policies so much, I suggest you open a store of your own and see how you can keep costs down for customers while paying employees what they think they are worth.

Posted by: Katie | Mar 5, 2007 4:08:43 PM

The service industry can be difficult to work in, but for some, it can be the only choice. Scheduling software makes sense, however, the key to success is using it wisely. As the workforce manager, one must put into place employee friendly restrictions so that the needs of the business as well as the needs of the worker are met. At times, compromises will have to be made. When you implement one of these systems, it's important to ask your employees to be your partner - explain peak demands but always offer the handshake of reciporcity. For instance, let me know you have a doctor's appointment in advance and I'll schedule off time for you instead of tapping your benefit time. I'll then offer to let you make up the hours during times where I'm short staffed. Making the overtime and the time off for slow business voluntary is also key. In my experience, when I offer "VTO" to offset unexpected lulls in traffic, I'm never, ever short of volunteers who wish to depart early. Conversely, by offering optional overtime, those who truly want and need the extra time can have it and I don't force it on anyone. Same experience here, I never want for volunteers to pick up extra schedules - I let them know the time frames as soon as I expect an upswing in traffic and I generally have more volunteers than available schedules. It's about balance. That's where Wal-mart may have a problem, not with implementing the software, but with failing to partner with their workers in striving to meet business needs.

Posted by: HFY | Mar 17, 2007 10:51:40 AM

Welcome to the world of retail!!!!!

Posted by: imfree | Mar 21, 2007 4:21:52 PM

I happen to work for WalMart and I just love sanctimonious idiots like Kate who think that wearing a depressing ugly uniform, not getting raises after a certain point, and being treated like a slave by working at all hours is a wonderful way to make me strive to be better. Let me tell you something you dumb cow, I am a good person. I work hard. And yeah I should be paid what I think I'm worth. Just like everyone else in the world wants to get paid for what they're worth. I earn my money plus some. And yeah I think I also deserve to have a life outside of work. Believe me honey, anyone with any smarts doesn't want to get into management at WalMart. Talk about being a slave. You work more hours than you get paid for. And you have no life. And if they need a fall guy you have to make sure it isn't you. At the end of the day Kate I work harder than you and I am better than you. By the way did you know that a lot of military veterans work for WalMart? I happen to be one. Did you know a lot of laid off well educated people wind up having to work for WalMart? I hire many people in that situation. Have some damn respect you ignorant cow.

Posted by: Angela | Jun 23, 2007 9:49:43 PM

I also work for walmart, and thank GOD i am in the walmart shopping online department! I guess im not affected with that.

Posted by: Ryan | Jul 3, 2007 11:17:55 PM

This is all lies. I work at Wal-mart. If we puch in, we have to work at least four hours. We now have set shifts, with mandatory breaks and lunches within specific time intervals. We would be "coached"- advised as a gentle warning if we didn't take our breaks or lunches. Breaks are flexible- we don't punch out. Lunches have to be around the middle of a shift. We even have to work most of our shift, or it results in a "meal exception"- a violation of state law on the company's part. It's not a big deal for us, but it's very big for the company.
It's still the best-paying retailer around, with good benefits. Don't beleive the hype. It's coming from Union fatcats who profit from other people's work. Ask anyone who works in a grocery store in New York.

Posted by: Kathie | Jul 30, 2007 7:12:19 PM

ALSO, we cannot be forced to go home early or cut scheduled time. That would be illegal. It's purely voluntary.

Posted by: Kathie | Jul 30, 2007 7:16:03 PM

Kathie i guess the new scedule hasn't hit your store yet, well, it has ours and it is terrible, I am a 20yr associate and a lead, My scedule call for 7am to 4pm, when I was ASKED to take this departmant I was told I could come in at 7:15 due to dropping my young son off at school, well now due to the new scedule system I was told I could not do that anymore and if i did not open my availability I would be left off the scedule, I proceded to call my market human resource manager she never called back. I thought I was valued at this company and 2 days ago I would have stuck up for it like you. Never again. I have never had an accident, all my evals have been exceeds expectations, and have had a few merrits raises (before they stopped them) I go beyond my job, and I bust my butt. There are several other long term associates in the same position as me, Wal-mart just doesn't give a shit anymore. So keep sticking up for them till they screw you too.

Posted by: Nancy | Aug 22, 2007 3:20:46 PM

liqingchao 07年08月30日
google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
呼叫中心
呼叫中心
客户关系管理
客户关系管理
北京月嫂
北京月嫂
china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour

北京律师
北京律师
礼品
礼品
礼品公司
礼品公司
会议礼品
会议礼品
商务礼品
商务礼品
保洁
保洁
保洁公司
保洁公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
鼓风机
风机
风机
货架
光盘刻录
光盘刻录
光盘制作
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪

超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
google排名
集团电话
集团电话
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体
监控
监控
搬家公司
搬家公司
条码打印机
条码打印机

Posted by: wslmwps | Aug 30, 2007 1:28:05 AM

EVE ISK
EQ2 Gold
FFXI Gil
Guild Wars Gold
Lineage 2 Adena
Runescape Money
wow power leveling
wow gold
cheap wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow power leveling
EVE ISK
EQ2 Gold
EQ2 plat
everquest 2 gold
FFXI Gil
FFXI Gil
Guild Wars Gold
Lineage 2 Adena
Maple Story Mesos
Runescape Money
Runescape Gold
runescape items
SilkRoad Gold
wow gold
warcraft gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold
warcraft gold
LOTRO Gold
wow power leveling
cheap wow gold
wow gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold
runescape gold
runescape money
runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
ffxi gil
guild wars gold
eve isk
Final Fantasy XI Gil
ro Zeny
wow gold
cheap wow gold
cheap wow gold
eq2 gold
eq2 plat
everquest 2 gold
lotro gold
lotro power leveling
lotro powerleveling

Posted by: azavin | Sep 19, 2007 8:13:33 PM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: judy | Sep 26, 2007 8:12:52 AM

搬家
搬家公司
装饰公司
装修公司
装潢公司
办公室装修
家政公司
家政
开锁
开锁公司
水电维修
水电安装
电器维修
电器维修
装饰网
装饰网
装修设计
装修设计

Posted by: 32rrfrtg | Oct 7, 2007 10:57:37 PM

wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
cheap wow gold
world of warcraft gold
Buy WoW gold
World of Warcraft Gold
Buy World of Warcraft gold
Cheap World of Warcraft Gold
buy Cheap World of Warcraft Gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
cheap wow gold
world of warcraft gold
Buy WoW gold
World of Warcraft Gold
Buy World of Warcraft gold
Cheap World of Warcraft Gold
buy Cheap World of Warcraft Gold

Posted by: nbalive | Oct 7, 2007 11:01:51 PM

装饰公司电话|装修公司电话|装潢公司电话
装饰公司电话|装修公司电话|装潢公司电话
装饰公司电话|装修公司电话|装潢公司电话
装饰公司电话|装修公司电话|装潢公司电话
装饰公司电话|装修公司电话|装潢公司电话
装饰公司电话|装修公司电话|装潢公司电话
装饰公司电话|装修公司电话|装潢公司电话
新房装修|新房装饰|新房装潢
新房装修|新房装饰|新房装潢
新房装修|新房装饰|新房装潢
新房装修|新房装饰|新房装潢
新房装修|新房装饰|新房装潢
新房装修|新房装饰|新房装潢
新房装修|新房装饰|新房装潢
别墅装修|别墅装饰|别墅装潢
别墅装修|别墅装饰|别墅装潢
别墅装修|别墅装饰|别墅装潢
别墅装修|别墅装饰|别墅装潢
别墅装修|别墅装饰|别墅装潢
别墅装修|别墅装饰|别墅装潢
别墅装修|别墅装饰|别墅装潢
厂房装饰|厂房装修|厂房装潢
厂房装饰|厂房装修|厂房装潢
厂房装饰|厂房装修|厂房装潢
厂房装饰|厂房装修|厂房装潢
厂房装饰|厂房装修|厂房装潢
厂房装饰|厂房装修|厂房装潢
厂房装饰|厂房装修|厂房装潢

Posted by: 4354fd | Oct 8, 2007 3:29:22 AM

google排名
google左侧排名

Posted by: cool dog | Oct 16, 2007 2:42:53 AM

HP F4098A
HP F4809A
HP F4812A
HP PP2182D
Pavilion ZV6000
HP F2024B
Pavilion 5000
Pavilion ZV5000
HP PP2812L
Pavilion ZD7000
Pavilion ZD8000
Pavilion DV1000
Pavilion ZT3000
Compaq Presario 2500
Compaq PP2200
Presario NX9000
Compaq Presario R3000
342661-001
338794-001

Posted by: batteries | Oct 16, 2007 11:22:45 AM

wow gold
world of warcraft gold
wow guide
nba live
火箭队
google排名
wow gold
world of warcraft gold
runescape
google左侧排名
hellgate
runescape money
lotro
lotro gold
guild wars
guild wars gold
dofus
dofus kamas
hellgate london

Posted by: cool dog | Oct 31, 2007 2:05:11 AM

Post a comment