April 14, 2015
Retailers asked to explain ‘on-call shifts’
New York’s attorney general thinks big chains operating stores in his state may have crossed a legal line with the use of "on-call shifts," which depends on staffing software to notify employees, within a short time frame, whether or not they will be working on a given day.
In a letter sent last week to 13 large chains — including Ann Inc, Abercrombie & Fitch, Burlington Coat Factory, Crocs, Gap, J.C. Penney, J. Crew, L Brands, Sears, Target, TJX Cos., Urban Outfitters and Williams-Sonoma — New York’s AG, Eric Schneiderman, wrote that the use of on-call scheduling leaves "too little time to make arrangements for family needs, let alone to find an alternative source of income to compensate for the lost pay" on days when they are not called to work.
Mr. Schneiderman asked the chains contacted to provide details on their use of on-call shifts to determine if they may be violating a state law. In New York, employees who report to work for a scheduled shift have to be paid for at least four hours at the minimum wage.
New York, according to an NPR report, is one of eight states along with Washington, D.C. that have "reporting time" laws.
According to a Reuters report, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon are considering bills that would address the use of on-call scheduling.
The practice of on-call shifts has also gotten the attention of the U.S. Labor Department.
"This is an important issue for workers struggling with work-life balance, especially for women," Tania Mejia, a spokesperson for the Labor Department, told Reuters.
Ann Inc, J.C. Penney, Sears and Target said they do not use on-call systems to schedule employees.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
What is your take on the use of on-call scheduling in retail? Are there guidelines that should be followed to make the system fair for hourly employees while enabling businesses to staff efficiently?
Poll
I think the use of on-call scheduling is being a bit distorted, especially in small-box retailers.
It is very hard for me to imagine a situation, except for the holiday season, where companies like Ann or Gap would have so many extra people on a shift that they could afford to cut staff right before the employee is scheduled to come in. Big box retailers are another story and certainly there should be guidelines.
Most of what I understand on-call scheduling to be about is helping fill shifts that suddenly are running short due to absence. If the company puts out an alert “We have a shift that needs to be filled” and an employee can get there, what’s the harm?
As I said, I’m sure there are abuses in some of the big box retailers, but honestly, I think the employees themselves have bigger fish to fry—like being paid a living wage and having paid sick time.
I guess I wonder two things. 1. How much research has the AG actually done on the matter and how much is just a little bit of grandstanding (in the grand tradition of NY AGs) and 2. If he is so concerned about worker fairness, why hasn’t he made a statement about all the stores that now open on Thanksgiving? To me that seems like the more egregious issue.
Methinks he’s talking a bit out of both sides of his mouth.
While many have made money off “disrupting” scheduling to make it an on-call opportunity, big data has proved heartless to many hourly workers.
I say it’s about time as most are in violation of existing laws.
On-call scheduling is just another example of old-school thinking that doesn’t reflect the reality of today’s workforce. It used to be that you could pretty much out and out abuse staff and they had little recourse. Now, courtesy of a much more enlightened workforce, the work experience is just as important as the customer experience. Retailers who “get” this have much more engaged staff who no doubt outperform those employees who find themselves on-call.
There are those who want to be on-call to boost their number of hours. As Paula mentions, there’s no harm in that.
Where it may cross the line is if I am asked to be on-call and it is done involuntary and without any remuneration for the lost opportunity by the employee. Making demands on one’s time equates to work and that necessitates getting paid.
So the definition and practice of on-call scheduling ought to allow both retailer and employee to derive mutual benefits while acknowledging the needs of each side. Gains by one ought not be made by harming the other.
In general this practice sounds like a way around accurately scheduling employees. In most cases it should not be necessary. Certainly it is disruptive to employees who are responsible for child care or who are not able to schedule hours for another job for which they could get paid. Those retailers can not expect those employees to be loyal to them when they show a lack of loyalty to the employees.
Large chains should have little challenge in avoiding on-call needs. They have register/transactions by time-of-day, and they know what we all know—when holidays may be breaking differently.
Write the program to provide associates with their schedule for the coming three weeks. It simplifies the associate’s life as well as the store operations team’s needs. This is common sense, and it builds confidence and trust for all concerned.
Let the labor market of supply and demand decide on on-call scheduling. Sure it’s not convenient for some workers, however there are plenty of retailers that do not use on-call scheduling. Probably because they want a better quality worker and in order to attract better workers retailers need to have a better work environment. Workers choose their employers the way customers choose what store they want to shop. I wish all stores stayed open 24 hours to better fit my schedule but life doesn’t work that way. If its not a good fit, they go elsewhere. It’s very difficult to schedule part-timers in the high-turnover retail stores. Employees generally only stay for a few months. Retailers know their sweet spot on what works best for the retailer. However it doesn’t always work out so well for the employee. If turnover is too high and inconvenient for the retailer, then the retailer will make adjustments. The retailer knows what’s best for business and not the New York Attorney General. There is an old saying, if you don’t play the game, you don’t get to make the rules.
Teachers who substitute are well acquainted with the last minute on-call system of scheduling. They and their families basically accept this as reality when they sign up to substitute in a district. They have some protections and the school has some protections built in. Emergencies happen—people get sick.
As others here have already said, some retail workers are desperate for hours and are willing and eager to be called to duty even at the last minute. Some retail workers absolutely need a more set schedule and simply cannot always be at the beck and call of the store management. I think Schneiderman may be making a mountain out of a mole hill about something that is just not widespread in the industry. (He’s a politician!) It seems that both employees and the stores are better off working out what works for them economically, and if stores do not treat their experienced retail workers well, their employees will find another one who will.
The “let the market decide” approach is a non-starter. Without some basic regulation of the workplace, we’d once again have children working in sweatshops, and garment workers locked in dangerous buildings. Laws are passed for a reason, and I think we can all agree that a happy workforce is a productive one.
There has been sophisticated scheduling software available for at least a decade (if not longer) that takes into account factors such as sales traffic, employee availability, meal periods, age restrictions, and training/certifications and can automatically generate schedules as far in advance as needed. I know this because I’ve deployed it for a large national retailer and taught store managers how to use it. From a technology standpoint, this problem was solved quite some time ago.
Of course, not all companies may be able to invest in such technology, but even still, I think a greater cause of the issue is store managers being forced to manage payroll so tightly that they can only schedule skeleton crews rather than making allowances for absences. Unless it’s a really small operation, a store should be able to have X amount of its scheduled staff absent and still be able to function.
I’m not a lawyer, but if your intent to is attract, train, retain and inspire the best staff then I don’t think on-call is the tactic for you. We’re not talking about well paying jobs with few options for other employment. I do think there should be guidelines in this regard. I understand the commercial aspect, but the tactic is likely to water down quality in the pursuit of flexibility.
I think it is strictly up to the individual if he or she is willing to accept those terms of employment. For some it is acceptable or the only employment deal they can get. The employer knows what is at stake — lower labor costs in the short term, higher turnover in the long term.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
I think the use of on-call scheduling is being a bit distorted, especially in small-box retailers.
It is very hard for me to imagine a situation, except for the holiday season, where companies like Ann or Gap would have so many extra people on a shift that they could afford to cut staff right before the employee is scheduled to come in. Big box retailers are another story and certainly there should be guidelines.
Most of what I understand on-call scheduling to be about is helping fill shifts that suddenly are running short due to absence. If the company puts out an alert “We have a shift that needs to be filled” and an employee can get there, what’s the harm?
As I said, I’m sure there are abuses in some of the big box retailers, but honestly, I think the employees themselves have bigger fish to fry—like being paid a living wage and having paid sick time.
I guess I wonder two things. 1. How much research has the AG actually done on the matter and how much is just a little bit of grandstanding (in the grand tradition of NY AGs) and 2. If he is so concerned about worker fairness, why hasn’t he made a statement about all the stores that now open on Thanksgiving? To me that seems like the more egregious issue.
Methinks he’s talking a bit out of both sides of his mouth.
While many have made money off “disrupting” scheduling to make it an on-call opportunity, big data has proved heartless to many hourly workers.
I say it’s about time as most are in violation of existing laws.
On-call scheduling is just another example of old-school thinking that doesn’t reflect the reality of today’s workforce. It used to be that you could pretty much out and out abuse staff and they had little recourse. Now, courtesy of a much more enlightened workforce, the work experience is just as important as the customer experience. Retailers who “get” this have much more engaged staff who no doubt outperform those employees who find themselves on-call.
There are those who want to be on-call to boost their number of hours. As Paula mentions, there’s no harm in that.
Where it may cross the line is if I am asked to be on-call and it is done involuntary and without any remuneration for the lost opportunity by the employee. Making demands on one’s time equates to work and that necessitates getting paid.
So the definition and practice of on-call scheduling ought to allow both retailer and employee to derive mutual benefits while acknowledging the needs of each side. Gains by one ought not be made by harming the other.
In general this practice sounds like a way around accurately scheduling employees. In most cases it should not be necessary. Certainly it is disruptive to employees who are responsible for child care or who are not able to schedule hours for another job for which they could get paid. Those retailers can not expect those employees to be loyal to them when they show a lack of loyalty to the employees.
Large chains should have little challenge in avoiding on-call needs. They have register/transactions by time-of-day, and they know what we all know—when holidays may be breaking differently.
Write the program to provide associates with their schedule for the coming three weeks. It simplifies the associate’s life as well as the store operations team’s needs. This is common sense, and it builds confidence and trust for all concerned.
Let the labor market of supply and demand decide on on-call scheduling. Sure it’s not convenient for some workers, however there are plenty of retailers that do not use on-call scheduling. Probably because they want a better quality worker and in order to attract better workers retailers need to have a better work environment. Workers choose their employers the way customers choose what store they want to shop. I wish all stores stayed open 24 hours to better fit my schedule but life doesn’t work that way. If its not a good fit, they go elsewhere. It’s very difficult to schedule part-timers in the high-turnover retail stores. Employees generally only stay for a few months. Retailers know their sweet spot on what works best for the retailer. However it doesn’t always work out so well for the employee. If turnover is too high and inconvenient for the retailer, then the retailer will make adjustments. The retailer knows what’s best for business and not the New York Attorney General. There is an old saying, if you don’t play the game, you don’t get to make the rules.
Teachers who substitute are well acquainted with the last minute on-call system of scheduling. They and their families basically accept this as reality when they sign up to substitute in a district. They have some protections and the school has some protections built in. Emergencies happen—people get sick.
As others here have already said, some retail workers are desperate for hours and are willing and eager to be called to duty even at the last minute. Some retail workers absolutely need a more set schedule and simply cannot always be at the beck and call of the store management. I think Schneiderman may be making a mountain out of a mole hill about something that is just not widespread in the industry. (He’s a politician!) It seems that both employees and the stores are better off working out what works for them economically, and if stores do not treat their experienced retail workers well, their employees will find another one who will.
The “let the market decide” approach is a non-starter. Without some basic regulation of the workplace, we’d once again have children working in sweatshops, and garment workers locked in dangerous buildings. Laws are passed for a reason, and I think we can all agree that a happy workforce is a productive one.
There has been sophisticated scheduling software available for at least a decade (if not longer) that takes into account factors such as sales traffic, employee availability, meal periods, age restrictions, and training/certifications and can automatically generate schedules as far in advance as needed. I know this because I’ve deployed it for a large national retailer and taught store managers how to use it. From a technology standpoint, this problem was solved quite some time ago.
Of course, not all companies may be able to invest in such technology, but even still, I think a greater cause of the issue is store managers being forced to manage payroll so tightly that they can only schedule skeleton crews rather than making allowances for absences. Unless it’s a really small operation, a store should be able to have X amount of its scheduled staff absent and still be able to function.
I’m not a lawyer, but if your intent to is attract, train, retain and inspire the best staff then I don’t think on-call is the tactic for you. We’re not talking about well paying jobs with few options for other employment. I do think there should be guidelines in this regard. I understand the commercial aspect, but the tactic is likely to water down quality in the pursuit of flexibility.
I think it is strictly up to the individual if he or she is willing to accept those terms of employment. For some it is acceptable or the only employment deal they can get. The employer knows what is at stake — lower labor costs in the short term, higher turnover in the long term.