HARTFORD — With sophisticated computer programs, employers have data to predict how many people will be needed for a Tuesday lunch rush if it’s raining, or on a sunny Saturday afternoon at the mall in December.
The workforce analytics company Kronos, for one, promises that its products will allow front-line managers to “easily interpret workforce data and react in real time to improve cost savings and productivity.”
Being sent home early if it’s slow isn’t a big deal for a high schooler, but for adults who make up the majority of low-wage workers in retail and restaurants, erratic schedules make it difficult to plan for regular bills. On the flip side, sometimes employers wait to see how busy the day is, and call people in who were on call.
Peter Tercyak, co-chairman of General Assembly’s labor committee, said requiring employees to be on call “makes it impossible to put together two poorly paid jobs.”
Tercyak said, “McDonald’s corporate headquarters will pay attention to your costs and your sales minute-by-minute. He called short-notice shifts and shift cancellations, the staffing equivalent of just-in-time inventory, the “McWalmart business model.”
San Francisco passed an ordinance that will take effect Jan. 5 requiring chain restaurants, movie theaters and retailers to provide predictable scheduling. If these employers made changes to the schedule within a week of the shift, workers would receive an hour’s extra pay for that shift. And if they made changes within 24 hours, the worker would be entitled to two hours’ additional pay for a four-hour shift or four hours’ extra pay for an eight-hour shift. If someone was on call, and was not called in, the employee would still get paid two or four hours, depending on the length of the on-call availability. There are exceptions for last-minute changes because of another worker’s illness or leave.
The ordinance also requires that the employer offer part-time workers more hours, in writing, before hiring any more part-time workers.
David Pickus, president of SEIU 1199 New England, said that’s a provision his union has fought for, and won, at some of the nursing homes where it represents aides and cooks. “It doesn’t matter if your wage is $15 an hour if you can’t get more than eight hours a week,” he said.
Tercyak did not say he would introduce a bill this session addressing the issue of predictable scheduling, despite his clear sympathy for workers who complain about the way their jobs are scheduled. But he said there’s “an excellent chance” he will convene a hearing on the issue.
“Although it’s hard for some people to believe, I wasn’t put here to be a crusader and have all the right ideas,” he said. “We’re sincere about wanting to hear from workers, supervisors, business owners.”
The Democrat from the 26th District has already been hearing from advocates for low-wage workers, and from some workers he met at Fight for 15 Rallies, demonstrations where they’re asking for $15 an hour and a union at fast food restaurants and other employers.
Pickus said legislators will be hearing from his union in this session on the topic.
“We think that it’s a big problem, and we’re seeing it more and more. We’re seeing it a tremendous amount in the group homes and the nursing homes,” he said. “We really think it’s a bad thing, not just for our members, but for everybody.”
He said many of the workers in these jobs are women. If you have to be on call to work, “how do you schedule your child care?”
Tercyak said automated scheduling programs “are aimed at maximizing profit. Because nobody has put any constraints on them, [companies] have put no constraint on it.”
Connecticut Business and Industry Association lobbyist Eric Gjede was reluctant to take a stand on an issue that doesn’t have a bill yet, but he said putting mandates on scheduling or privileging current part-timers instead of adding more part-time employees would result in “just one more way that Connecticut will be less competitive than our neighbor states. We certainly would oppose something like that.”
Even if Tercyak’s committee did pass a bill aimed at helping part-time workers, it would not necessarily succeed on the floor. In the last legislative session, Tercyak pushed a bill that would have required employers, including franchises, with more than 500 employees to pay $1 an hour to the state for every worker earning less than 130 percent of the minimum wage. It died in the finance committee. As Tercyak was reminded of the vote tally — 27 against, 16 for — he said: “Ooo. It went down big.”
But he promised: “We will see that again.”
