This I think is part of the huge problem with modern "low level"/minimum wage jobs. Companies don't pay enough to live of of one salary but expect to have full say over their employees time just for their own convenience in scheduling and staffing.
We were thrilled by what we'd found! It would be a quick and easy fix for the client: they had solid and reliable sales forecasts for each location so estimating the number of employees they'd need on a given day wasn't going to be difficult. In fact, they were more or less already doing it. It would hardly cost them anything to implement aside from a few tweaks to the corporate scheduling tool and a bit of training for the store managers. So when management immediately shot down our proposed solution it came as a bit of shock. The erratic scheduling and the "cut" shifts were a feature, not a bug, we were told. It kept employees from getting a second job that they might dare prioritize over their current job.
But god forbid you raise the point that perhaps we need a political shift that removes some power from corporations and restores it to labor, you get painted as socialized nazi commie scum or whatever. It's so insane and frustrating just how good a lock these businesses have on the situation (Don't even get me started on Walmart et all).
To rational people this should be a no brainer. turns out a lot of people are not rational. the current system is not tenable in my opinion.
The kicker? They were children of immigrants that did the same, except their parents were lucky to have immigrated back when buying a business/land was much cheaper. Land prices are now far higher for the newer immigrants to ever be able to save enough to get in on the ownership side of the business.
http://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standar...
> As of January 1, 2019 the three-hour rule applies to students (including students over 18 years of age except if the student works:
> at a children’s camp, unless the student is also a wilderness guide > providing instruction to or supervising children, unless the student is also a wilderness guide > in a recreational program run by a charity, unless the student is also a wilderness guide.
I can’t tell why wilderness guides in particular are so special
To start, as a backgrounder, for centuries, wilderness guides have held a special place in Canadian society. They have been revered, trusted, even give special authority and powers, which even traditional law enforcement do not possess.
In as they are so trusted, discussion, conversation about their powers and capabilities have been purged from all archives. Conversation with outsiders is typically prohibited. Yet CSEC, the RCMP, and others will surely not pay attention to so old a thread! And it will be archived, recorded, saved for future posterity.
So it is my goal to lay out much detail here, for just that purpose. I do not believe such knowledge should be kept secret, for while great good can be attributed to our guides, some are concerned that great wrong is done too.
Before I start documenting this in detail, I want to reiterate that Canadians are not typically allowed to speak of guides. Often we are caught and censured for doing so! I could barely wait for time to pass, barely wait until no one was paying attention, so was my excitement at finally having interest.
Why, if the RCMP knew I was speaking of this now, there'd be utter and complete hell to pay, I suspeci)S(Dxcv0f#
<NO CARRIER>
>It kept employees from getting a second job that they might dare prioritize over their current job.
I mean, clearly it fucking didn't.
They want to hand their kids the keys via no inheritance tax and recreate a top down monarchy.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-o...
I always suspected that this was the reason for abusive retail scheduling. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. This should be illegal.
What's needed is some kind of harsh punishment for including unenforceable contract clauses, coupled with awareness from the side of the employee.
I think there needs to be some sort of law against known unenforceable contract provisions. They seem to be pretty commonly used against individuals where they are unlikely to know what is and isn't enforceable.
They want to shave a lot of pennies for themselves by playing musical chairs with our agency.