Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#111

Post by [deleted] »

Symmetry wrote: post #77
zo1 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices. " That only works if the supply of workers is limited. And in this case, the low-wage bracket, it isn't. It's absolutely flooded with people, so you can't expect the workers to command any such bargaining power. It's simply supply and demand, and there simply isn't enough demand to satisfy the huge supply of low-wage workers.…

If workers really didn't have any bargaining power then they'd all be paid minimum wage, whereas in reality just 5% do. Workers are not fungible, people don't start being productive until they learn the ropes and some people are better or worse at their job even after training.

[deleted]

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#112

Post by justizin »

apalmer wrote: post #19
swalsh wrote: post #15

If there is a higher demand for workers during certain hours, shouldn't the workers be paid higher for those hours? Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices. Only way I can think to do it though is by regulating time software... something like "if you use flexible hours, you must comply to these regulations" where in they specify custom pricing.

This doesnt really follow. There is no incentive for the business to pay more just because.

when basic dignity for workers is 'just because', a business has lost its' way.

a business should produce three things, for three important customer segments: customers, investors, and workers, and all three are equally important.

too many businesses, most of the large ones esp, cater only to investors (or the interests of the owners) leaving both customers and workers by the wayside. i fully support exile for people who operate these businesses.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#113

Post by jacalata »

zo1 wrote: post #68
dragonwriter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My solution: Company towns. Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts... in the middle of nowhere. But that'll never fly ...because its been done before, became widely and accurately recognized as de facto slavery, and the key components of such schemes outlawed.

Enlighten me how that is slavery? Bear in mind, in my example people have the choice to go there, or not.

Because they don't have the choice to leave, and they usually don't get given the full details before they arrive.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#114

Post by jacalata »

He could be kicked out of day care for having no home address.

What the FUCK is that about? How can anyone justify that? "Oh, I see you're spiralling downward. Here's a fucking boot on your kid's head to make sure he gets right down to the bottom with you." That's a fucking disgrace.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#115

Post by crpatino »

GHFigs wrote: post #99
zo1 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices. " That only works if the supply of workers is limited. And in this case, the low-wage bracket, it isn't. It's absolutely flooded with people, so you can't expect the workers to command any such bargaining power. It's simply supply and demand, and there simply isn't enough demand to satisfy the huge supply of low-wage workers.…

Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts... In practice, many low-wage workers already get these resources, but via the government (i.e. your taxes) rather than the company.

Except that the government require these people to be available to demonstrate they are not free loaders... at the same time they should be working.

it is a full time job to get aid.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#116

Post by omegaham »

zo1 wrote: post #68
dragonwriter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My solution: Company towns. Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts... in the middle of nowhere. But that'll never fly ...because its been done before, became widely and accurately recognized as de facto slavery, and the key components of such schemes outlawed.

Enlighten me how that is slavery? Bear in mind, in my example people have the choice to go there, or not.

The big reason is that a scumbag company then realizes that there's a lot of money that they're just giving to people. Why do we have to take care of them when we can completely fuck them over?

In a company town, the real problem is that the company is simultaneously the authority and trying to make a profit. It's like making ExxonMobil an environmental protection agency; there's a conflict of interest. Sure, an inspired CEO or manager can make a difference for a while, but the lure of extra profits will win out eventually.

The way this works is through easy availability of credit and high interest. Since you have your workers in debt to you, you're effectively paying them less because they have to pay off the debt. Now, instead of paying them 8 bucks an hour, you're actually paying them 6 bucks an hour because a quarter of their income is going toward paying off their debts. As debts mount, you're now paying them 4 bucks an hour. You can further speed this process along by overcharging for goods and services. After all, you can do that because you're the only one in the region who offers them.

It doesn't have to be like this, but it's very easy for a manager to say, "Hey, we're leaving forty million dollars on the table here. You like money, right?"

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#117

Post by rsync »

oneweirdtrick wrote: post #8

>Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks. Reminds me of the beginning of Marshall Brain's novella 'Manna': >Manna was connected to the cash registers, so it knew how many people were flowing through the restaurant. The software could therefore predict with uncanny accuracy when…

"Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks."

Wouldn't this be farily easy to game ?

That is, I don't serve anyone at a register for a 10 minute period, so I quickly buy a small coke using my own money ... thus simulating a customer ... which would (I presume) throw off, or reset the whole algorithm.

Two assumptions - first, that the software really isn't that smart, and second, that it "fails safe" ... which is to say, if traffic patterns don't match up to existing models, just give up and keep people working and try again later.

So I would think this would be quite simple (and cheap) to game ... maybe four workers get together and chip in to simulate 2-3 meal purchases, thus gaining an hour or more of paid work ?

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#118

Post by un_publishable »

This is part of the creeping one-sided "professionalization" of low-wage work. Employees are expected to arrive pre-trained, stick within specific constraining roles, and be available at all hours. Employers are demanding all the responsibilities of white collar salaried jobs while offering none of the benefits. For many people it's not even possible to juggle two of these jobs thanks to "improved" scheduling technology.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#119

Post by GFischer »

smtddr wrote: post #37
swalsh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people will never get the opportunity to have a stable environment... through no fault of their own. Does that mean they should never have the opportunity to be parents?

There are a bunch of people on HN who would say "Yes, people without X amount of money shouldn't be allowed to have children." And I think that's a sad world to be in where income dictates your ability to have kids. I think having kids is a right that one should be able to exercise regardless of income and it is a problem with our society that we cannot support low-income families, not a problem with the low-income p…

It's really complex, and I can see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't call it a right.

I also agree that society should be better structured to accomodate and support parenthood. Many European countries are doing it right.

What I'm personally ambivalent about is people forcing me to support other peoples' children, when I have delayed having my own children (and I'm in a stable relationship and we both want children) because I don't believe I'm financially able to support them.

I've sometimes had thought experiments along the lines of: if you're in welfare or otherwise financially dependant, then you should have your ability to procreate temporally restrained (there have been some amazing advances recently in reversible contraception). That would cut hard on these cases. It's not "forced" (you want to have children? sure, but don't ask for welfare), and it would allow for resources to be distributed much better to those who chose to have children and then fell on hard times (it can be the case, though the lack of a parent in the story suggests it was a case of irresponsibility and lack of contraceptives).

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#120

Post by TheCoelacanth »

streptomycin wrote: post #96
anon1385 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everybody did that it would cause a demographic crisis. Who exactly do you expect to be looking after you when you are retired (growing your food, manufacturing your medication, diagnosing your ailments etc etc) and only 0.01% of the population have had children in the last 50 years. Other people having children is actually a vital service to the rest of society. Or at least those of us hoping to live for at least…

How do you expect endless increases in population to affect the climate?

That's irrelevant, because developed countries (i.e. the countries that are in the position to have a social safety net) almost universally have shrinking populations, not growing ones.
Post reply on HN