Hacker News Reader

Comment by justin66 | Hacker News Reader

> Part of the reason that companies enacted irregular schedules was to remove the ability of managers to schedule employees in a biased (or perceived as biased) manner.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? (I hate to be that guy, but, wow...)

View on HN

I'm not sure what evidence you're asking for... That people sometimes feel discriminated against?

(edit: The mere fact that Starbuck's has 130,000 barristas at any given point in time makes it quite likely that someday one of those barristas will sue them for discrimination because they couldn't get the shifts they wanted. If the company can prove that the shifts were assigned using an algorithm and not by a person, they have a good chance of winning their case.)

Evidence as in a source which is more authoritative than "random anonymous internet commenter" which says that companies use irregular scheduling to deter lawsuits & take power away from managers to discriminate.

As someone who actually creates irregular schedules, that has absolutely nothing to do with it :)

It is about making money. Plain and simple. Occum's razor at it's finest.

  I'm not sure what evidence you're asking for... That people sometimes feel discriminated against?

No, he's asking for evidence to the claim that irregular schedules are a result of trying to avoid discrimination, because that is a big claim.

>If the company can prove that the shifts were assigned using an algorithm and not by a person, they have a good chance of winning their case

This is wrong. An action can be ruled discriminatory even if the intent wasn't such. Though if it is considered "vital" to the survival of the business there can be exceptions.

But honestly, companies with only white collar workers face downtime too, but the employees still get paid

Reply on news.ycombinator.com