Mar
25
Just-in-time-staffing – #11 – Josh Hirth
March 25, 2015 | Leave a Comment
The Forbes article discusses the FED’s intention to raise interest rates. This past week FED chair Janet Yellen (vaguely) discussed the FED’s plan going forward. Bottom line, as the title alludes to, it is 100% a question of time not a question of if. The FED cannot justify artificial manipulation of the markets by changing interest rates when the economy has fully recovered from the recession. The article also discusses the relationship between when the FED will raise interest rates and the unemployment figure. Apparently there is some metric known as the Nairu, which quantifies that relationship. Most importantly, the FED needs to be sure to begin raising rates before inflation takes over the US economy.
Jodi Kantor’s article in the NYT is truly heart retching. It is hard not to sympathize with a single mother working crazy hours just to work her way up in the world. The use of the sophisticated technology as described by the article is disrupting the lives of these lower level employees who have few other options. While the technology seems to allow managers to get bonuses based on their efficiency in staffing, it offers no such reward for an employee who is forced to “work until 11 p.m. on Friday, July 4; report again just hours later, at 4 a.m. on Saturday; and start again at 5 a.m. on Sunday.”
As I continued to read the article, quite thoroughly I might add, I grew confused. Why exactly does this technology, seemingly, only dump on Ms. Navarro, are there no other employees at her Starbucks location? Why is the Starbucks so far from her home? Are there no locations closer? As frustrated as her situation made me, reading “Legislators and activists are now promoting proposals and laws to mitigate the scheduling problems.” I think advancements in the technology would make a lot more sense. After all employers are better off with employees being happy and so if the technology avails itself I am sure (assuming it doesn’t cost them some absurd amount of money), that they would choose what’s best for their employees. The ending of the article seems to agree that a technological advancement is the answer, and thankfully Ms. Navarro circumstance is looking somewhat up.
While the article doesn’t really specify exactly what McDonalds was doing wrong beyond the basic claims, it does seem to be inappropriate and illegal. However, I am not entirely sure McDonalds corporate is to blame I am pretty sure many, if not all, McDonalds stores are franchises, owned by individual business men. So while it is obviously incorrect, is it just the business owners trying to scrape together the wage savings or is it much bigger than that?… I assume the further the lawsuit goes the more light will be shed on this, but as of now, we will just have to wait and see.
I think part of the logic behind the Amazon ruling, is that it is a fine line. Next thing you know there will be a demand for compensation for commute time etc., because that to is required of all employees. I found the case interesting, because many other “similar” cases have sided with the employees and not the employer. One of the remarks by the judge that “These arguments are properly presented to the employer at the bargaining table, not to a court”, is true. Assuming Amazon isn’t doing anything illegal this kind of dispute should be settled in wage negotiations not a courtroom.
