In the US, we have a holiday called Labor Day. Labor Day is a day of celebration for labor and trade unions, and a federally recognized holiday. It's a day where we are supposed to relax, enjoy some time at home, and maybe have a party to celebrate the end of summer. With growing attention given to the rights of food service workers and maintenance workers, game programmers and emergency medical technicians, it's no surprise that the number of people getting time off on the first Monday of September is growing exponentially. Yet there's one group of people who never seem able to celebrate Labor Day.
Retail workers.
Why not? The short answer is because they're working. To put it simply, Labor Day is one of the busiest retail days of the year. People treat it as a final day of indulgence before they return to the responsibility and hard work of their normal jobs. As a result, those who work in retail are often required to work in grueling conditions, for minimum wage, while customers scream at them for things they can't control. Like long lines, sale items being sold out, and not being able to get any help despite clearly seeing the ten other people all clamoring for attention. Demands on retail workers can get so intense that the only compensation we get for the stress we're under comes in the form of overtime pay.
Now there's a fear that overtime will become a thing of the past. The Labor Department is set to review and update laws on who qualifies for overtime pay. Like everything going on in Washington, D.C., though, it's unclear exactly that means. Two competing articles, one from Fox Business and one from the Economic Policy Institute, don't really help clarify things much for the average retail worker, as they both spend too much time arguing pros and cons, and not enough time explaining who would benefit and how. Both mention that the cap for pay will be increasing, potentially growing the number of people who would qualify for overtime pay, despite being salaried employees. Or maybe not. Again, neither article outright states in plain language who, exactly, this benefits.
What is clear from both articles, however, is that these changes are happening and companies are already preparing as a result. Because of the potential for businesses to end up paying more, companies will start putting a moratorium on overtime. It used to be retail companies could skirt overtime requirements by making people salaried employees. After all, salaried employees are often exempt from overtime pay policies. Now, however, it's likely retailers will reverse that decision and make more positions hourly so they can cut down on costs. On the one hand, this could benefit workers in giving them more time away from work. On the other, though, workers who rely on overtime pay to make ends meet will suddenly find themselves scrambling to cover bills.
No, this change is not meant to benefit workers, and it certainly won't benefit those in retail. Companies won't suddenly change to better treat employees. Instead, they'll fall back on the old stand-by: forcing workers to do more, in less time, for the same pay. Or else they'll "innovate" these positions out of existence by automating as much as they possibly can. It will be claimed that these changes are for the good of the company and its workers, and that they're necessary for the continued growth and sustainability of stores. They conveniently won't mention that their continued growth will come at the cost of people's jobs. Employees who are, by law, required to be paid for their work will find themselves replaced with things that ultimately cost the company less money: algorithms, artificial intelligence, and robots.
After all, robots don't need to celebrate on Labor Day.
留言