Mar
26
Just-In-Time Staffing-Class #17-Gerald Lizzo
March 26, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Reading both the McDonald’s and The New York Times article about Jannette Navarro and some of the issues those employees encountered made me think about my own experience at Target a few summer’s ago. First, in the McDonald’s article, one of the reasons for the lawsuits against them was because McDonald’s failed to compensate their employees for the time and cost of cleaning uniforms. At Target, I did not receive any compensation for cleaning my uniform but Target’s policy about employee attire is not like McDonald’s either. Target does not have a set uniform. The only guidelines are simply to wear a red shirt and khakis. Furthermore, Target does not supply their employees with a uniform, rather, employees are completely responsible for buying and maintaining their work clothes. Although I found this to be a little weird when I first learned it, I now think it is not all that puzzling. It was always clear for the customer who the employees were but at the same time, we also just looked like we were wearing normal clothes that just happened to be red and khaki. I think the image this created of the employees looking like a regular person helped to enhance Target’s goal of creating a customer oriented business model. So, in regards to McDonald’s not giving their employees compensation to have their uniforms cleaned, to me anyway, does not seem like that significant of an issue. I understand that those who get paid minimum wage need to allocate their money in specific ways to get by and putting money towards a clean uniform is not ideal, but I feel this is an issue that will correct itself if the other more primary issues are resolved.
When reading The New York Times article the author touched on the idea of how Ms. Navarro had to deal with Starbucks making her work an erratic schedule. At Target, when I initially started I was working in the summer and thus my availability was listed as very open. As a result, I received a number of calls the day of asking to fill or take a shift that just opened. Consequently, I did sometimes work back-to-back shifts. The thing is, when I was called and could not fill a shift, I knew I received the call because I had listed my schedule as available for that day. Furthermore, the schedules were not always that consistent with my availability the way it was. One week I would work certain days at certain times and other weeks it would be different days at different times. The lack of consistency was mostly annoying for an individual like myself but I was not like Ms. Navarro with so many other responsibilities to take care of.
Simply put, organizations are going to get the most out of you, if that means taking advantage of your availability, but also be as efficient about it as possible. I saw that at Target and it appears the Starbucks Ms. Navarro worked at is doing it to an even more extreme. But it is making the lives of these employees very hectic and uncontrollable. People need organization in their lives, especially those in the position of Ms. Navarro who have so many other concerns. Starbucks, although a great opportunity for her, was also her greatest inhibitor in her life because of those crazy hours.
However, as much I felt bad for Ms. Navarro, the more I read and thought about the article the more I thought this was too specific of an instance for their to be any large scale takeaways. First of all, why did she live so far from her work? I know you have to do anything in her situation to make ends meet but a 3 hour commute is rather extreme. Was it not an option to try and find a Starbuck that is closer or utilize her position their to find a position closer to home? Second, what about the other workers at the Starbucks? Are they suffering just as much her? Or for that matter, employees at other businesses, what is their scheduling like? Although her situation is absolutely horrible, I do not know how indicative it is of the population as a whole.
Finally, the Amazon ruling was an intriguing case because like an Amazon warehouse, Target is large space with a lot of products with a lot of employees. At Target, employees were simply monitored by cameras in the store like customers were. In addition, there were radio frequency systems set up at the entrances and exits, just like the ones you see when a customer walks in the door. Essentially, employees were treated like guests. As such, I really do not think Amazon should pay their employees while they check them. Instead, they should come up with a better way to screen them so it takes less time. That would remove the entire issue from the table.
