Wal-Mart to use Scheduling-Optimization
 

Story on AOL

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


_____________________________________

This is completely ridiculous. I've never had a problem with Wal-Mart's employment practices until now.

Sure, they don't pay the best - but it's completely unskilled labor, so why should they?? And they have decent benefits. But to take an employee who was working 35 hours a week for years and drop them to 12 because they refuse to work nights and weekends is crazy. They at least deserve a solid schedule.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL so the lack of breaks and lunches was fine, but *GASP* unbalanced scheduling is a problem?

Although I generally think Wal-Mart is pretty reprehensible in a lot of ways, I have absolutely zero problem with this - what duty does Wal-Mart have to keep staff on a schedule that is wasteful?

Do you really think Wal-Mart will have trouble filling these positions if people can't work the 'optimized' hours?

This is nothing but intelligent business - I'm not sure predictable hours are 'deserved' by anyone.

I'm not really sure who came up with the "lack of breaks and lunches" thing (I know it was in the article, but they didn't go into further detail about it). If you're a floor rep, it's up to you to take your breaks and lunches, and at least at the store I worked for, it was abused, more then skipped. And if they are following company policy, everyone else (i.e. cashiers) is scheduled by the customer service manager for breaks and lunches, and shouldn't be missing them.


I'm all for cutting overhead, and intelligent business and all that, but I do feel that employers have a responsibility to their employees to treat them decent. I believe this includes predictability in scheduling. There are times that something comes up in my schedule (dr. appointment, interview, etc) and I have to adjust my schedule, my husband's schedule, the babysitter's schedule and it's a nightmare. I couldn't imagine doing that every week, or heck, even every day. And at Wal-mart wages, I wouldn't be able to afford to keep a babysitter on call, that's for sure.

As I discovered in my unfortunate 2-week foray back into retail after 15 years, most places do utilize an "on call" system. Where I was, I could call no earlier than 2 hours beforehand - in other words, I had to put my life on hold to MAYBE work that night - and whether or not you came into work depended a LOT on the individual outlook of whoever the manager on duty was that night. (i.e., some believe in extra coverage, some believe in bare bones-ing it) It was a pain in the ass, but I can understand it. They get penalized if their sales and payroll aren't at a certain ratio.

However, I was a part-time worker. This sounds like it's going to be used for EVERYONE, including those who have Walmart as their one and only job and are considered full-time, which is just not cool at all.

It's a business decision. While I may not like what it does to some folks who depend on second jobs to support their families, I think the individual workers are more-less at fault for working where they work.

You're right, some version of this already exists in many stores, particularly mall stores. It's not as complex as this, because Walmart is much bigger, but it's a practice that has been done for a long time. It's smart business. Walmart is just doing a much more advanced version. Having too many people on schedule when the store is dead results in a loss of profit. Having too few people on schedule when it is busy results in loss of sales and cranky customers. This program seems to be able to account for any factor you can think of.

It's not an employer's job to work around their employees' lives. Sure, there are some things that a good employer would do- work around medical appointments, etc. But employees in all walks of life and in all salary levels have to work their lives around their jobs.

I don't see a problem with this, and if any of Wal-Mart's workers have a problem, they should seek other employment. This scheduling system isn't anything new, and they really have to do what's best for their business. Now workers know the system, and if they'd like to seek other employment with more convenient hours, they can do so.

Spoken like someone who's never had Walmart decimate his town and basically eliminate any other retail outlet that might have "more convenient hours."

Not to mention, a lot of the people working there don't exactly have PhDs.

Whose fault is it that Wal-Mart workers are not qualified to work elsewhere? Wal-Mart's? Nope.

These employees could be making great money right now as plumbers, electricians, college degrees, etc. Instead, for whatever reason, they thought that retail was their career of choice.

I hate crap like this. Objectively, I understand the concept of business practices and making money, yada yada. That said, on a personal level, I find Walmart evil and symbolic of all that is bad in our society. I would never even consider shopping there in a million years, and I wish so many Americans weren't so fixated on saving a few dollars that they're willing to shop somewhere that operates as Walmart does. Here I go being a hippie again, but I'd rather pay higher prices for things than support Walmart, and it's beyond me why more people don't feel the same way.

Walmart only "decimates" a town because people shop there. If a city really wanted to keep them away they'd simply boycott and not give in to the lure of lower prices.

Actually, that's incorrect, as it's happening right now to my hometown. I admit I was a bit harsh in the post, harsher than I meant to be when I posted. As you noted earlier, it's a real pain in the neck for those involved, but I can understand (from their point of view) why they would want to go to the system. I can also see where WalMart workers would think it was unfair.

I said the same thing when Walmart came to my town, but then again I didn't have to feed a family on near poverty wages. For them, the price is everything. The sick thing is, Walmart reduces prices, drives everything out of business, and then puts their prices back up. People are finally getting wise to it, but it's taken a long time.

And Kevin - college degrees, plumbers' school, electricians' school (even if you do internships) COST MONEY. Which many of Walmart's employees simply DO NOT HAVE.

Don't misunderstand - from a MONETARY point of view, I completely understand why they're doing this. My best friend is a retail manager and this is the kind of stuff that keeps her up at nights - did we go over budget? did we make plan? Is my job on the line because we didn't have enough sales to match our hours? It is the right MONETARY decision. But for a company that's taken so many PR black eyes lately and keeps saying that they care about their employees, it's a really stupid, not to mention uncaring thing to do.

Not everyone is cut out for college or trades. As big of goobers as we have working here at the plumbing company, there are definitely less-skilled people that work at WalMart. (I realize that not everyone who works there is unskilled, but there are many who are).

Well, that's their fault! If they were born into poverty and never got an education and don't know how to succeed and make money, it's their fault!

(LOL that's not my argument, but I'm guessing it's what Kevin would say.)

No, Wal-Mart doesn't drive the competition out of business -- Wal-Mart's customers do. (And in my experience, they usually aren't driving the locally-owned mom and pops out of business, they're driving other discount chains out of business.) The customers have a choice -- shop Wal-Mart or shop the other stores -- and quite a few of them choose Wal-Mart.

I can't stand Wal-Mart -- I'll go everywhere else possible before I go into their over-crowded, messy stores. Still, I get so tired of the Wal-Mart is the devil incarnate attitude. But if it is the devil incarnate, it only succeeds because too many people give in to the devil's temptation.

I agree with what you're saying. I'm going to sound like an ass here (but hey, that's never stopped me before), but I wonder if part of the "Walmart as devil incarnate" attitude arises from the thought that many (not all) people shop at Walmart because it's cheap and they're too stupid to know better and realize the negative effects doing so can have on our society.

Exactly,

Walmart doesn't make the other stores raise their prices, they just offer lower ones. The majority of the people who try to keep walmart out of their town will shop there because of the prices and the "convenience" of being able to buy a napkin holder at 2AM. (South Park did a great episode on this)

In my city we have 2 Super Walmarts, 4-5 Krogers, a Cubs and a few small grocery stores that survive due to being conveniently located or having a full service meat counter. Those local stores aren't threatened by Walmart so much as the Krogers. And the Super Walmarts haven't harmed Krogers either, in fact it has grown as well. (Eagles went out of business and Krogers bought them up) Schnucks tried to move in to town but blamed Walmart on their store's failure... when a Kroger was closer.

Rambling here, but the point is that Walmart does not equal destruction of a city, here at least it functions very well.

As much as a detest Wal-Mart expansion (we are about to add the 3rd store within a 4 mile radius of my home) I don't see a problem with this kind of scheduling. I worked for "the worlds largest electronic retailer" (think television) and I worked what was called "on call". I picked my schedule based on their projections two weeks out....got to schedule my own hours, and had a great deal of flexibility. And it always amazed my with how accurate they were in determining when we were going to be busy. I felt much more productive at work, and I enjoyed this job immensely because of it.

This is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Saying they'll schedule more people on Friday nights than Monday afternoons is not the same as saying "you're f-ed for childcare" and I'm not sure why we're taking it to that extent.

Wal-Mart symbolizes a LOT of problems with micro-level capitalism, but this simply doesn't seem to be one of them. We're "hippy-ing" up this thread (thanks for the term, Val!) when the conversation is really much simpler.

I will agree, from the PR point of view (at least to the public), this doesn't look good. However, I'll also say that, if someone wants to go into plumbing or be an electrician, school isn't necessary. They can hook up with someone in the area and learn on the job. I realize it's not the easiest thing to do (my dad is a contractor who learned those skills on the job), but it's an option for people who wish to make more money and have more secure employment.

I think I'm just coming from a biased position on this whole, larger issue, of self-improvement, etc. My family didn't have much money, and I worked full-time (2 jobs senior year) to pay for undergrad (KSigRC can attest to this), and am currently working full time to pay for law school (evenings). It's not necessarily relevant to the present conversation, but it's the reason why I tend to side the way I do in situations like this. I think there are opportunities out there for people to better themselves, although I'm also fully aware that it's difficult for many in these situations to do so.

To back up what MysticCat is saying, it's happening right now in my hometown (as I noted). People are flocking to the WalMart, and slowly businesses in the area are starting to close down. Customers are ignoring the local places, and that's not WalMart's fault.

What is Cubs?

Do you have another discount store? (Kmart, Target or a similar local store)

Do you have a department store? (Walmart is not a true department store.)

Do you have a variety store?

Do you have stores that sell clothing?

Do you have stores that sell CDs?

I'm sorry, but "Walmart didn't hurt us, we have 2 of them and lots of Krogers!" is in the top 5 of really silly statements I've heard where Walmart is concerned.

Because the use of this type of scheduling makes it hard if not impossible for people whose FULL TIME job is Walmart to 1) budget or 2) schedule ahead of time. I don't use childcare, but I'm guessing they wouldn't be too jazzed if I kept calling and saying "I'll know 2 hours ahead of time but no earlier if I'm bringing little Connor in, oh, and by the way, I might have to work late, so can I maybe leave him there till 8 PM?"

Wow, I'm assuming that's supposed to be sarcastic, but it's a statement I agree with dead on. But I wont get into all that because I'll derail the thread...

on a different note - I HATE shopping at walmart - simply because of the check out process. The lines are always too long, the cashiers are short tempered (cant blame them, I've worked retail before and I HATED it) and the deaf,dumb and stupid people with a cart full of items thinks it's *cute* to go through the self serve lines, while someone like me, who goes to walmart for the simple convenience of location, for 1 or 2 things, has to wait 15 or 20 minutes in line.

Believe me - if it's not a matter of distance and convenience, I'll bypass walmart and go to Target. I NEVER have to wait in a long line at Target.

I'd still put charges that Wal-Marts decimates towns and basically eliminates any other retail outlet as number one on that list.

You're assuming, without much evidence as far as I can see, that's how it would work. Heather17, who actually has worked under a system like Wal-Mart is implementing, described it quite differently.

Wait, it's cool to make fun of deaf people now? I'm sure they're sorry that their disability makes you feel like you have to spend more time standing in line at the store, although I don't think it follows that a deaf person using the self-serve line would take any longer than a non-deaf person using the self-serve line.

I think you're right, valk. A blind person may take longer, but not a deaf person. I don't think I've seen braille on those machines. Although,they have braille on drive up ATMs - which is a major "go figure" for me.

You aren't far off the mark. How hard is it really to learn how to be a welder? How difficult is it to be a plumber? Even trade schools have financial aid, so the money thing isn't the huge problem you make it out to be. It is still a choice to do poorly in school. There are opportunities for people who want to succeed. Can they piss those opportunities away by building up a criminal record or bad credit? Sure. Those are choices as well though.

If they're ineligible for financial aid because they have a history of not paying their bills.... again, whose fault is that? Wal-Mart's?

Being born into poverty does not preclude one from getting an education. Is that really what you think? It is merely an obstacle that must be overcome in order to succeed.

A non-union chain supermarket

A super Target, at least one Kmart, plenty of dollar stores as well.
The mall is just north of the actual city. Several large department stores and a Kohls. Downtown I worked at a small dept. store that does office/gifts/toys/books/wicker/christmas. So there are locals as well.

Not sure what you mean, but the answer is likely yes. We have a LOT of the chain stores though I swear they're sucky in comparison with the next city over.

See said mall as well as stores downtown such as Talbots and locals.

BB, CC, and locals. Suncoast/Sam Goody dropped our store (and most of them in the area) when they got bought out.

The majority of stores that close or leave our area are due to corporate issues. Our downtown started struggling when the city said "we don't need the mall" and let it go outside of the city limits. To be fair, at the store I worked at downtown, everyone would have earned more money (except the owner) working at Walmart. That said, they made most of their money off of selling wicker furniture and Christmas trees anyway so Walmart wasn't much of a competition.

Grocery stores are just one example because I felt like I was already rambling. Supermarkets put many local grocers out of business years ago. Yet most people now shop at the nearest supermarket, even if they shop around for a few special items. Walmart isn't much more than a continuation of that trend. People just keep getting what they want.

They get 2 hours notice? Where did you read that?

I'm guessing they have at least a 1 week notice. I'm vaguely familiar with a similar piece of software called "PeopleSoft." I've heard few complaints from teh folks working under that schedule. I imagine that the software does allow for some employees to have priority as to their schedule remaining the same (e.g., students who have to go to classes).

That this affects all employees in the same way is arguing the facts without having access to the facts.

Absolutely, when it causes people to take things out of context as you just did. Anybody with half a brain (oh wait, is that offfensive too? My bad...) would realize that I was not talking about "true" deaf people. It's called "a saying"...I was referring to the morons (oops, another something offensive) out there who waste other customers time going through the self checkout, when common sense should intervene and say 'ya know, I really should go to a cashier for this'.

I apologize for using the term "deaf" in conjuction with moron's. I didnt mean it that way. Unfortunately, you took it that way, even though if you had read the context of what my post was actually saying, you shouldn't have. But surely you've seen people at stores who play up the oblivious part and it makes you wonder if they are deaf, when 9 times out of 10, it's not actually a person who has the disability.

I'm pretty sure she was referring to people who can't figure out the self serve machines and stand there staring at it when it tells you to put the item in the bag. Not physically deaf and dumb, but people who can't follow directions.

Metaphor

Thank you. Exactly my point.

Yes. That's exacttly what I meant. Jesus, I'm not so shallow to make fun of someone who suffers from a true disability. Stupidity, though, is NOT a disability. Haha.

I think the reality is probably somewhere between your idea and my idea -- I don't think being born into poverty precludes anyone from getting an education, but I know that being born into poverty creates hardship the likes of which I've never experienced in my relatively privileged life, and there is no way I can understand the struggles faced by people born into poverty/drug addiction/whatever other crappy circumstances people face.

I have a hard time with your statement that it's a "choice" to do poorly in school. I'm willing to agree with that to a certain extent, but not in terms of people who do poorly in school from early childhood -- a child under the age of say, 15 or 16, is not old enough to be independently responsible for his or her behavior to that extent.

Long story short, I don't think you or I are qualified to speak to how hard or easy it is for someone born into poverty to get an education and achieve some measure of financial success in life.

I'm sorry, but I have to call out this statement. I have a friend who busted his ass 3-5 hours a night to make C's. He had a brain tumor that affected his short-term memory as a child, but is mainly of normal intelligence. It's not fair to say that it's a choice to do poorly. I know that just because I didn't study much and got good grades, doesn't mean others got that lucky.

As the father of two children under 10, one of whom has ADHD and Asperger's, I would disagree. Many children may have challenges that make it hard for them to "choose" to do well in school, but it has actually been pretty clear to us and to our son's teachers when he is struggling because of his own challenges and when he is choosing not to do well. He may not understand the long-term consequences of such choices, which is why we explain those long-term consequences while imposing short term consequences. It's still his choice to be independently responsible or not.

How about I qualify that and say that absent mental or physical impairment, failure is a choice?

Better? :)

As for crappy schools, 15-16 Y.O.'s not being responsible for their own actions, I'm sorry, but my personal experience tells otherwise. My wife teaches at a charter school here in OKC which exists solely to help inner-city kids get into college. It's and AVID school if you know what that is. They remediate the kids, then expect them to perform on an AP level. They assist in getting financial aid, etc. They recruit from the worst schools in the city and consistently beat the "prestigious" magnet schools and ALL of the suburban schools on their NCLB test scores.

These are kids from broken, poor homes. Most of them are minorities, many of their parents are addicts. They're good kids who want to do better for themselves. In some cases, they come from great homes. In other cases, not so much -- they just have a lot of personal drive and ambition.

When you say that it's not someone's fault for their own actions, you are simply giving an excuse. For someone with a good brain and a good body, there is no good excuse for failure. None.

I'm not assuming. I worked under this sort of "on call" system, and it blows. Although I was part time, so I really can't complain. I can't imagine using it for employees who are supposed to be fulltime.

Heather said she was allowed to CHOOSE HER OWN SCHEDULE AND HOURS. I didn't see that mentioned in any of the articles about Walmart.

I think that's valkyrie's point though. Many children (especially those born into poverty) have parents who either don't care enough or themselves don't understand the affect doing poorly in school has on their life to impose short-term consequences and explain the long-term. Darn you responsible parents for actually caring enough about your children to MAKE them make something of themselves. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury.