Wal-Mart to use Scheduling-Optimization

[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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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

So logically, since you haven't worked at Wal-Mart, you know nothing about it?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

So logically, since you haven't worked at Wal-Mart, you know nothing about it?

Well, I worked at Walmart in Highschool. I win the thread.

[bluefish81]

If I read the article correctly, it sounds like Target already uses a similar system for their scheduling. I am not a fan of Wal-Mart by any means, and as a result, I don't shop there.

I have no doubt that this could very well result in people who were used to be full-time employees being reduced to part-time hours depending on schedule forecasting and their availability. Who knows, it might mean more people on welfare as a result. It's unfortunate for those people. I would think that if the employees are truly that upset about it maybe they'd finally decide they should unionize or strike, etc., or start looking for a job elsewhere (which may require them to move).

[33girl]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

I would think that if the employees are truly that upset about it maybe they'd finally decide they should unionize or strike, etc., or start looking for a job elsewhere (which may require them to move).

If they try to unionize, they'll most likely get fired anyway.

And what I meant with my statement is that UNLESS you have lived in a SMALL town (I'm talking 7000 people) that Walmart comes in and fucks up, you know nothing about the damage they can do. No, the Walmart in North Versailles is not going to destroy Pittsburgh.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If they try to unionize, they'll most likely get fired anyway.

And what I meant with my statement is that UNLESS you have lived in a SMALL town (I'm talking 7000 people) that Walmart comes in and fucks up, you know nothing about the damage they can do. No, the Walmart in North Versailles is not going to destroy Pittsburgh.

Wal-Mart coexisted with the businesses in my mother's hometown just fine. It's been there since the early 80's. The population of that town today is 8,371 which is a lot higher than it was in the 80's.

[MysticCat]

^^^ Sounds a lot like my hometown, where Wal-Mart managed to keep some business in town that otherwise would have been lost to nearby towns, and where the only local businesses that closed after Wal-Mart arrived were a few other chains that were struggling long before Wal-Mart arrived.

Come to think of it, sounds like my wife's hometown, too.

[Drolefille]

Again, Walmart can only screw a town if the population allows it to happen.

If Walmart did run everyone else out of business, then the lack of competition will eventually bring in another super store to compete with Walmart, thus bringing prices back down. Assuming they're artificially high currently.

[33girl]

Walmart sucks because I say so.

End of thread.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Walmart sucks because I say so.

End of thread.

Awww, now if you had just pulled that card up front, we all could saved our fingers lots of typing and put the carpel tunnel syndrome off for a few more minutes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Walmart sucks because I say so.

End of thread.

I'm okay with that.