> "Under the contractor model, Lee says, the leaders at Luxe hadn’t been able to schedule workers for unpopular hours like late nights on Friday and Saturday; they could only bribe them to come online with higher rates of pay, as Uber does with surge pricing."
Seriously? If someone is working Friday nights or Saturday nights, he SHOULD have higher pay. What it is with CEOs that they feel they are entitled to their worker's entire existence?
To me, that always smacks of profit margins that are so razor thin the business is having trouble staying afloat.
In this case it may just be poor wording. It doesn't say that they cared that they had to pay more, just that it was required to get people to work, which seems reasonable as you said.
Are you suggesting this to be the norm across industries? Like, the folks working the registers at Target on Friday night? What about Monday night? Or Wednesday night? How does that differ?
It should be the norm across industries. I don't know if this is done or not in retail, but it is common enough in manufacturing (even in non-union shops). It event has a name; it's called a shift differential, and it can be quite lucrative for the employee. Especially if they can work a normal 40-hour week and pick up a night shift on Saturday or Sunday. That one additional shift, with the shift differential and overtime could be the equivalent of two and a half or three normal days.
Though it sounds like on the Federal level, the employee must work a majority of their hours within a particular time period to qualify:
Night shift differential means the differential paid for work performed when the majority of a prevailing rate employee's regularly scheduled nonovertime hours fall between 3 p.m. and 8 a.m. It is computed as a percentage of the employee's rate of basic pay.
Well, it's not entirely irrational that a society might decide that having to work in a way contrary to the natural diurnal cycle deserves higher pay. (Yes, I am suggesting that perhaps our society's obsession with having things like retail stores available 24/7 might not be healthy.)
That's reasonable, but we're talking about more than just 24/7 retail here. Even in the days before the 24 hour grocery store, restaurants and bars were open on Friday and Saturday nights (and most evenings, for that matter), and I don't believe those folks received higher pay.
Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S. 24/7 retail economy is bonkers, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to just bless 9-5 as the official time of economic activity. In the 1990s, I ran a climbing gym, and typically worked 3pm-11pm (or some variation of that) Monday through Friday. I kinda liked that schedule, as it allowed me to be more productive with "life" stuff because I could accomplish things before I went to work.
Just because something has always worked one way doesn't mean it always will continue to work that way.
If a business is having trouble staffing during certain time periods then it's a pretty clear indicator that they might need to offer more to entice people to work those hours. It seems like a pretty clear example of the free market in action.
Just so we are on the same page...when you say "working late" do you mean "working more than 8 hours on a given day" or "simply working outside of the 9am-5pm timeframe?"
I'm talking crazy inconvenient shifts. That can mean different things depending on the location and job but pretty much Dracula hours and double/triple shifts fall into this.
Come on, there is that whole "If you do what you love it's never going to work" meme permeating this (online) community and others. With the proverbial and tangential American dream meme it's no wonder some leaders are going to enforce it (especially if they are hungry, if they are foolish).
It works for some, but not for everyone. And not for their entire life.
Seriously? If someone is working Friday nights or Saturday nights, he SHOULD have higher pay. What it is with CEOs that they feel they are entitled to their worker's entire existence?