Question

[Teefies2]

So I've been off for a couple of days and I come back to this:

It seems the Assistant Manager has decided that from this point on "hours scheduled will be decided by performance". Most of the people that work here are asking me "is this retaliation?" (which is a no-no in the US). They are thinking that it might mean their hours are going to be decided by how hard they work, which is probably what AM meant. But some are concerned that they (themselves, not the AM) have done something illegal.

As an aside: "retaliation" in the US is not allowed ... but the term means "retaliation" in the sense that you can't be cut hours for reporting an infraction - such as reporting that you saw your manager take money from the till and put it in their pocket (hope that makes sense).

On the one hand, I can see how the AM would think this was possible. After all, we do have a "few" who do nothing but stand around and talk. And I get it, if you're not willing to work, why should we give you hours?

On the other hand, announcing this as a done deal doesn't give anyone the chance to prove themselves ... it was presented as "your future hours will be determined by how hard you have worked (or not) in the past". Hardly an incentive, is it??

So my question is ... does this seem like trying to get people to work harder? Or is it retaliation (leave the legal definition aside) for people not working to their potential in the past? And if so, is this legal (again, in the US)?? What do you guys/gals think?

I do plan on talking to the Store Manager about it tomorrow, but just wondered if there is something I am missing?

[Trixie]

I'm not sure about the whole legal aspect but that doesn't sound right to me. How can they define how someone is "working hard"? I know sometimes when I'm waiting for photo orders I kinda just stare out the windows because there may be an order that doesn't have enough pictures to leave and work on something else. Or I'm up front waiting while waiting for the cashier to finish to cover their break.

I probably could go on but I can't see how this will work out. What if there's a week where nobody has "worked hard" and all the hours get cut? Is that going to leave the store short handed? It just sounds like trouble in the making to me. Good luck with all that.

[RealUnimportant]

It's a massive catch-22; once you're determined to have underperformed, your hours are cut meaning you can never perform better due to having less opportunity, so your hours get cut again and so on. Sounds like a hostile workplace, but other than that I can't advise 'cause I don't know the rules.

[Sulhythal]

Sounds tricky no matter what the original reason. Especially in departments where the "hard work" goes on in places most people not in that department rarely visit(freezers, storage rooms, etc...Not sure offhand where you work so this may not be valid) If the hard work isn't SEEN, the assumption is that it doesn't happen. And yeah, downtime. I can't tell you how often I was "caught" not working, while waiting the five minutes for someone else to check on something I needed and get back to me.

[EricKei]

Definitely tricksy. No lawyers over here on CS, tho the folks at the "legaladvice" subreddit might be able to point you to info on pertinent laws in your state.

As for what he's doing: I'd be willing to bet that he sees this, not as a retaliatory practice, but as a way to encourage improved performance (of course, HE decides on the definition...). At the very least, that's how he'll sell it. Still doesn't feel like it. Kinda like the "Circle of Life" thing over at GameStore which has finally been formally codified and has been in the news the past few days. That crap has been company policy for well over a decade; they just never had a name for it, nor hard numbers to use as metrics before.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

If this is retaliation, good luck proving it. I'm sure manager sees this as a way to improve performance, and if he has favorites they will continue to get more hours regardless of performance.

I would definitely report this practice to somebody higher up (if possible) if it's causing people to do things like skip breaks to appear more hard-working.

[bainsidhe]

I'm sure manager sees this as a way to improve performance,

Or a way to lose the dead weight. I've seen an employee's hours scaled way back to almost nothing as a way to encourage them to quit. If there are available, hard-working staff, I would rather schedule those workers that show up on time, work during their shift, and don't act like a jerk.

And believe it or not, I've also seen this rule used to break favoritism, though that one is fewer and far between. While working both fast food and retail, certain employees expected to work very specific hours and never on Sunday and never ever on anything resembling a holiday. And if their restricted availability resulted in fewer hours, they would raise holy hell.

But to be honest OP, this sounds more like a misguided attempt to encourage employees to work harder. Good luck.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

If there are available, hard-working staff, I would rather schedule those workers that show up on time, work during their shift, and don't act like a jerk.

As would I, but "hard-working" is subjective. Toward the end of my time with the swamp management was commenting behind my back that I was slow and needed to pick up the pace. Of course "slow" meant I insisted on taking one of the two 15-minute breaks I was entitled to in a day. I still got more done than 95% of the people there.

Acting like a jerk? Well, yeah, I'll admit to that.

[Teefies2]

Thanks for all the comments. I did talk to SM about this and he agreed that it probably wasn't presented in the best way. This is what he said ...

"Hours scheduled are determined by performance" doesn't/shouldn't mean your performance in the past. It's a warning ... that you'd better shape up if you want to continue getting hours. However, that being said, we schedule to the needs of the store. We take availability into account, but if I need a body at X time on Y day and you're not available then, you're not gonna get hours. It's not company policy to determine hours by how "hard" you work, because that's subjective. What "can" affect your hours is 1) availability and 2) are you giving your best efforts? If you're not available and/or not giving effort, then no, you're not gonna get hours.

Wasn't that a pretty cool way to explain it? Now if I can just get him to make AM UNDERSTAND that personal feelings don't/can't play into scheduling. And, get him to explain this to the rest of the staff this way.

[EricKei]

It's not company policy to determine hours by how "hard" you work,

Except, that's a pretty damn good metric for "performance." He's basically saying that slackers who always show up and take shifts, but manage to do as little work as possible while *appearing* to work, will get preference, then? o_O