Wal-Mart to use Scheduling-Optimization

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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?"

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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

Originally Posted by 33girl

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?"

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

Sure you're assuming -- you're assuming that Wal-Mart will use a system like the one you worked under, instead of the one she worked under, even though she mentioned that she worked for "the worlds largest electronic retailer" and the article specifically mentioned Radio Shack. (Yes, I'm assuming as well.)

No, you didn't see anything mentioned in the article about choosing a schedule or hours, meaning the article didn't say anything about it one way or the other. That might mean that no such choice will be available, but without more to go on, that's just an assumption.

Frankly, I think you're assuming that just because it's Wal-Mart, it must be bad for the employees.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Frankly, I think you're assuming that just because it's Wal-Mart, it must be bad for the employees.

When it's been proven over and over again that they don't give a shit about anything but profit, why on earth should I think otherwise?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

When it's been proven over and over again that they don't give a shit about anything but profit, why on earth should I think otherwise?

Maybe you shouldn't. But based on the information at hand, you're still making an assumption, which is what you said you weren't doing.

Or maybe you should ask yourself if Wal-Mart is really as evil as you make it out to be, especially when people on this board who have worked there have disagreed repeatedly with the idea that Wal-Mart is a terrible place for employees.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

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.

I see that, but what I was really challenging was Valkyrie's statement that "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." I think they are old enough. Without support they may not be motivated to be independently responsible or see the value in being responsible, but that's a different challenge from saying that they are not old enough to be independently responsible.

Darn you responsible parents for actually caring enough about your children to MAKE them make something of themselves.

Son wailed one night, "why do I have to have parents who care about things like school and grades?!"

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Even though your kid has obstacles (ADHD and Asperger's) he clearly has good teachers and parents. What about the kid who has ADHD and Asperger's and attends (rarely, nobody cares if he goes) an overcrowded class in a crappy school where teachers don't even notice he's struggling and his mom is a crackhead who has never explained anything to him and rarely provides enough food for him to eat? To argue that this kid is responsible for his decision to do poorly in school implies that he should have some type of built-in adult ability to figure out for himself the consequences of his behavior without an adult to help him learn these things. I think that is unreasonable.

Look back at my post and at my response to AlphaFrog -- what I was challenging was the contention that a child younger than 15 or 16 isn't old enough to be independently responsible. From plenty of experience with my own kids and others, I stand by that challenge. Sure, in early years it takes someone to teach most kids the value and expectation of that kind of personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean the kid isn't capable of holding himself responsible. I've seen too many young children -- kids of parents who don't care, even -- hold themselves responsible to buy into the idea that "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."

Just because no one has taught a kid to read doesn't mean the kid isn't capable of reading.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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?"

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

When I did "on call" I didn't have more than 2 hours notice as to whether I was definitely working. I was scheduled tentatively a week ahead, yes, but when it came down to actually working, I didn't know more than 2 hours before. When I see them using the term "on call" that's what I take it to mean.

I would hope they would have a one week notice, but considering this is Walmart, I really doubt they would be that thoughtful. (Reminds me of Lily Tomlin - "we don't care! We don't have to! We're the phone company!")

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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?"

First off, the article notes that 'some' employees 'may' be subject to an on-call arrangement, so we're really, really stretching to assume this will be the case for even most employees, or even a significant number of shifts.

Second, almost every other store in the advanced world, including most grocery stores, already uses a similar process - having a 'guaranteed', strict 40 hours per week is TERRIBLE for business purposes. Unskilled labor often requires you to work hours suited to people shopping after work, over lunch or stocking before the business day - getting pissed about this seems odd.

Now, to argue with the above points, you're really digging for a reason to be pissed - this type of flexible child-care arrangement is not only eminently possible, but if it doesn't exist already it will probably spring up to meet the needs if there is demand . . . you know, market and all that. Wal-Mart is not holding anybody hostage, as far as I know, and if a profitable decision for the company is ruinous for employees, the employees have a right to strike, to seek other employment, etc etc etc.

These things do NOT require money, nor education, nor anything related.

It is QUITE a stretch to claim that being scheduled two days, two evenings and one 'flex' period on Friday makes it 'impossible' to find child care or to adequately budget.

Will it require the employees to change their current lives? Quite possibly - but again, there are other no-collar options, and demand will always create supply for the subsidiary elements you've focused on (even if I consider them somewhat superfluous) if these changes are dire or even drastic, and adapting to these will make the company more profitable, which benefits shareholders, creates jobs and all of that good stuff. Is it a 'poor tax'? Possibly, but again, we can all stop shopping there and stop the whole thing. See how circular this becomes?

Originally Posted by 33girl

When it's been proven over and over again that they don't give a shit about anything but profit, why on earth should I think otherwise?

Finally, and I hate to break it to this level, but what on Earth don't you understand about the fact that a.) a company is responsible (to shareholders and employees alike) for turning a profit and b.) its employees are out much more than a few hours a week if the company does not turn a profit?

Wal-Mart is profit-oriented? Do you own mutual funds or a 401(k)? I mean, come on . . .

[Tom Earp]

Times are tuff, just be glad to have a friggen job. Oh, getting some money to live on and put bread and milk on the table.

Try owning a small business in this economy!

Got my quartly hair cut and look good!

[33girl]

If it hasn't happened to you, you know nothing about it. Period.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If it hasn't happened to you, you know nothing about it. Period.

But what if some of us have been in similar work situations to the Wal-Mart workers? What if some of us come from similar limited financial backgrounds? How do you draw the line about who knows about these types of situations, and who doesn't?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If it hasn't happened to you, you know nothing about it. Period.

Then tell us about it, without the posturing? Respond to my points by explaining to me why I'm wrong, and thus educate me about "it" (I don't know what "it" means here)?

I don't get what has "happened" here - it's a work situation. One that can and has worked for millions of people.

Maybe we should try it this way: what reason does Wal-Mart have to keep an inefficient status quo?