Elizabeth Warren to help propose Senate bill to tackle part-time schedules

[Omaha Steve]

Poll at the bottom.


http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/jul/23/elizabeth-warren-senate-bill-part-time-schedules

Reps George Miller and Rosa L DeLauro introduce a Schedules That Work Act to help part-time workers secure stable schedules

Part-time jobs are becoming the source of an employment crisis in the US, as they take the place of full-time jobs for many Americans. That puts many employees at the mercy of erratic part-time schedules, in which they never know what their hours will be from one week to the next.

Congress is making the rare move of taking action on a major employment issue. Representatives George Miller and Rosa L DeLauro introduced a Schedules That Work Act on Tuesday.

There's another version of the bill brewing in the Senate. Senators Tom Harkin and Elizabeth Warren are the sponsors of the Senate’s version of the bill. Carrie Gleason, co-founder of Retail Action Project, said the Warren will introduce the Senate version in upcoming weeks.

“A single mom working two jobs should know if her hours are being canceled before she arranges for daycare and drives halfway across town to show up at work,” said Warren. “This is about some basic fairness in work scheduling so that both employees and employers have more certainty and can get the job done.”

According to the National Women’s Law Center’s summary of the Schedules That Work bill, it would have several goals: to provide employees with the right to request and receive a flexible, predictable or stable work schedule; ensure that employees who show up for a scheduled shift, only to be sent home, receive at least four hours’ worth of pay; and ensure that if employees’ schedule were to change, they are to be notified with a new schedule at two weeks before it goes into effect. It would also prevent employers from retaliating against employees who ask for schedule changes.

A week before the introduction of the legislation, Miller expressed scepticism over the likelihood of its passing the Republican-controlled House. According to the New York Times, the California lawmaker “acknowledges that his bill is unlikely to be enacted anytime soon – partly because of opposition from business”, but hopes that the bill will bring attention to these unfair scheduling practices. That alone says a lot about the current political climate within the US.


http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/23/new-rules-for-part-time-work



Courtney Moore, a cashier at a Wal-Mart in Cincinnati, had her hours cut after she told managers that she would be taking college classes. Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times


Part-time jobs often come with fluctuating, on-call schedules and – because of the uncertain hours – inconsistent pay. This can make it hard for workers to schedule weekly routines, childcare or other means of employment for themselves.

Legislation in the House, proposed this week, would ensure employees get two weeks notice about their work schedules, as well as extra pay to compensate for last minute changes.

Should there be a law limiting unpredictable schedules for hourly and part-time workers?

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Part time work should be regulated for safety, child rearing, better pay, and much more.
	5 (100%)
	This would be an unfair burden on employers period!
	0 (0%)
	other please specify
	0 (0%)
	No opinion
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Beaverhausen]

1. Caught a story about this on local public radio last night

The things employers can get away with these days as far as scheduling their workers blew my mind.

No one, especially those working low and minimum wage jobs, can afford to sit around waiting to see if they have work or not, then come to work and be told they aren't needed and not paid a cent. I really had no idea it was this bad.

[Starry Messenger]

2. I was shocked when I learned this practice.

I worked retail in the 90's and we had set schedules. I heard an OURWalmart activist tell of being called in, sitting around on unpaid time in the break-room to wait to be called to clock in, work some, then being told to clock out, wait more, unpaid.

If you're at work because a manager called you in, you should be able to clock in. And it should be illegal to serve out mini-shifts like that. Sometimes they have you work for two hours and then send you home. Fuck that. It's all to pinch every dime out of those stores.

[riversedge]

4. I know some women who work about 12-2 or 3pm--then off a few hours

then have to come in about 6-7 till closing--Walmart. yup!

[conservaphobe]

5. At the store I worked at, they would work people more than 8 hours one day

And have them clock out early a day or two before the pay period ended to deny them overtime.

[Starry Messenger]

8. That's just outright banditry.

It's like getting mugged by your job!

[conservaphobe]

3. Give 'em hell, Senator. nt

[bigtree]

6. interesting. These are things unions regularly negotiate into their worker contracts

. . . it will be interesting to see the response from legislators who have it made on our dime and never have to consider such things in their own lives.


Room for Debate ‏@roomfordebate 43m
Should there be a law limiting unpredictable schedules for hourly and part-time workers? http://nyti.ms/1rdmdqg

[jeff47]

7. Not just part-time.

I spent some lovely time working at Home Depot. Full-time.

Schedules are posted a week in advance. The area I worked in had 3 people. One who loved working mornings, one who loved working evenings, and me who preferred midday. You'd think this would be the easiest schedule ever - cut'n'paste from week to week.

Nope.

Every week the scheduler was required to shuffle the schedule. Night guy had to open, morning guy had to close, and so on. We'd find out the schedule about a week before it started.

Why? Because shuffling made it harder for us to work anywhere else. That way we were more dependent on the Home Depot job, and more compliant.

Violations of federal wage law? Well....I complain and I get $20. And fired. 'Cause we were required to both follow company policy about having two people present when we restock with the heavy equipment, and they scheduled only one person. So we could be fired at any time. With the random schedule, there was no way to have other work as a back-up.

[rhett o rick]

9. It may be a good band-aid but it's not the solution. WE NEED MORE JOBS

so the worker has leverage. Without leverage, we can't force employers to do anything.

[LWolf]

10. This is fine.

There's an elephant in the room, though. This doesn't address the reason why many people are working part time schedules to begin with.

My DIL, for example. She had a full time managerial position. She got cut to 28 hours a week, and took a second part time job to fill the gap. Everybody in her company got that same cut.

They were told straight out that it had to do with the ACA as applied to full time employees. So now she works two part time jobs, both with variable schedules, and neither of which provide health insurance.

Is this an isolated case, or is it happening elsewhere? How many people are working part time jobs, not by choice, but because that's what they can get?