h a l f b a k e r y"This may be bollocks, but it's lovely bollocks."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Work schedule synchronization
People that work minimum paid jobs get a bad deal in terms of zero hour contracts and availability. Why don't workers join a pooling company and their working hours are load balanced between employers | |
I think companies mess people around and treat working people badly.
Why is creating a schedule so difficult for companies to do effectively?
Why can't employers reconcile people have childcare and other commitments to work around while still trying to maximise their hours?
Why not have a company
that uses software to schedule a pool of people so that multiple employers get workers when they need them?
You could have a day where you're on reserve for emergencies.
You should have enough staff on the rota to cover for absences or illnesses. It's similar to a future on employment.
I could probably write a scheduling algorithm that schedules people to different employers based on rules and fairness and load balancing.
Why don't zero hour contract employees demand this?
Work should work for everyone.
[link]
|
| |
//Why don't zero hour contract employees demand this?// |
|
| |
Because, if they were in a strong enough bargaining position to demand anything, they wouldn't be on zero-hour contracts? |
|
| |
What [pertinax] said. I'm pretty sure this is almost exactly how temp agencies work. |
|
| |
I have given this idea a sympathy bun, but I don't think the problem you need to solve here is a technical one so much as a political one. |
|
| |
Not sure about elsewhere but here schedules were made and then workers were obligated to find their own shift replacements and switch shifts to make up hours. Worked pretty well back in the day. |
|
| |
The real trick is to change the terms of employment. I worked for a company which outsourced their technical support to an outside company, for "cost-savings." What this meant in reality is that the exact same technical support employees stayed onsite, but were paid and answered to an outside company. To get help from someone sitting in your same office, you would have had to call the outside company first and have it arranged... |
|
| |
That sounds like union type crap ^ |
|
| |
I remember when I was in the military, one of the urinals' valves got stuck open and wouldn't stop flushing. We were an aircraft maintenance unit, so I grabbed a screwdriver and gave the valve a quarter turn to the right, and it was fixed. I got reprimanded for it later, because as it turns out the military has union (civilian) contractors on base who are supposed to get called for things like that, and apparently I deprived them of getting paid for a task that should have been theirs to perform. Even though it had been stuck flushing for 3 hours, and they'd been called when it started. |
|
| |
In the 1970s, yes, that would have been unions. Nowadays though, it's much more likely to be the opposite. I've seen the same kind of thing, with no unions involved. |
|
| |
Yep. "We're paid by the hour boy and that ain't our job. Do you want that to be our job dumbass? Clue in already. Tsh!" |
|
| |