Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

xford t1_iu7f7us wrote

"it has always sucked, so don't try and change anything." is a pretty sad way to go through life mate.

3

c0d3s1ing3r t1_iu80s3c wrote

"I refuse to do anything that is not within the narrowly defined scope of my job description. I am a cashier, therefore I will not stock shelves"

2

xford t1_iu9rkl5 wrote

The more realistic scenario is that they are feeling the affects of 'schedule optimization' where one person is being staffed in place of two because the algorithm says that is all you need. That single person is then being given completely disparate requirements such as 'stock this section in the next X minutes' while also 'greet every customer within fifteen seconds of them walking in the door' 'along with 'ensure that all drink orders are fulfilled within 3 minutes' and also 'ensure all packages are picked within 90 seconds of scanning the ticket'.

I've manged retail before, it isn't some secret that there are large stretches of time where the staffing levels 'make sense' if you only look at the computer but also objectively suck for the person tasked with working that time when it happens to be even slightly busier than projected.

This is the exact sort of thing that affects workers from minimum wage all the way up to six figure software developers. Kudos to them for standing up and seeking the only path that will empower them to do so without fear of retribution.

2

c0d3s1ing3r t1_iub5mto wrote

Anyone designing such an algorithm should clearly have some automatic additional compensation system in situations where a storefront is busier than expected.

Over optimization of labor is a thing, for sure, but I wouldn't be able to say which one it is without knowing the situation of it better

1