A couple of recent articles on the workplace caught my attention. There are employees seeking better working conditions, and others concerned that their jobs will disappear. The two concerns may be discreet and unrelated, but it is also possible that one might see them related. Business is driven to be interested in the "bottom" line," and that is a financial consideration. In The Coming Automation (November 2017), the cost/benefit analysis of investment in automation is discussed in some detail.
Reuters recently reported that Walmart
to pay $65 million to settle lawsuit over seating for cashiers. The case is Brown v. Walmart Inc, U.S. District Court (Northern Dist. CA), No. 5:09-cv-03339. The workers in this lawsuit were troubled that their cashier jobs involved standing virtually the entire shift. The business allowed "cashiers with medical conditions or disabilities," to have stools to sit on at their workstations. It also afforded store managers "the discretion to provide stools to cashiers on a case-by-case basis." But, as a general rule, the cashiers had to stand throughout their shift.
Reuters reports that this litigation is not necessarily innovative. It reports that multiple other businesses have been sued for not providing employees with seating. These include "Bank of America, CVS Health Corp, JPMorgan Chase Bank, Kmart, AT&T Corp, and Home Depot Inc." Interestingly, the LawProf blog recently reviewed "new scholarship" regarding the risks of sedentary workplaces. The scholars noted therein advocate increased socialization of health risks associated with lack of activity, including stand-up desks so people can sit less. It is almost dizzying that one might be liable either for making people stand or making people sit. For some reason, the Alan Parson's Project is stuck in my head.
The cashiers sued, citing a "California regulation that requires seating for employees 'when the nature of the work reasonably permits.'” The procedural tool used is "California’s unique Private Attorney General Act." This appears to be similar to a "whistleblower" statute, that "allows workers to sue their employers on behalf of the state and keep one-quarter of any money that they win." If attorney fees are 25% to 33%, the recovery per employee in this instance might be $400 to $500 each.
Courtesy Kioskmarketplace.com
The self-check-out kiosks that are becoming ubiquitous in retail neither want nor need stools. A search of the Internet did not reveal a single case of such kiosks filing lawsuits against any business regarding the conditions in which the kiosks worked. Some suggest that these kiosks will become more prevalent in the coming days. They are appearing now at fast food, check-ins (airlines, doctor's offices), and even in the rapidly growing dope business. They have long reigned in banking.
CBS News recently reported that Striking
Marriott Workers Job Concerns Center On New Technologies. The story is from Boston, and reports that there is concern about "robots delivering room service, check-in
kiosks with facial recognition technology and 'smart' speakers that serve as an
in-room concierge." That last item is perhaps no different than the Siri found on so many phones or the Echo or Alexa.
It seems that hotels are embracing the digital age, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Employees are not averse to technology, but they want it to make their jobs easier. They do not want it to eliminate their jobs. The potential for implementation of these technology solutions is leading to anxiety among the workforce. They are therefore striking, seeking input regarding the implementation of changes to the workplace.
There is a desire for employment to continue, whether the business needs particular workers or not. The striking employees are seeking to protect housekeepers as demand for their services diminishes. On a recent four-night trip, I opted out of having my room cleaned on each night. I am capable of picking up after myself and simply do not need the room "refreshed" daily. And, the hotel awarded me "points" on my frequent traveler account in exchange for declining the daily bed-making and straightening (little "cleaning" is done in an occupied room). That trend apparently concerns workers as well.
Employees are a means to an end for business. There is a great trend toward recognizing the contribution of employees, with some businesses referring instead to "associates" and "team members." But, at the end of the analysis, the question is whether a person or persons bring value to the business and its customers. So long as the customer perceives value, and is willing to consume the business' goods or services, then those businesses will perceive value in the employee.
However, it is unlikely that employees can force employment for the sake of employment. As kiosks and automation continue their march to primacy, employees will have to bring value to the economic exchange that is being made between customers and businesses. An associate recently recounted an interaction at a somewhat famous fast food outlet that offered kiosks for ordering. This person disregarded the kiosk because "I believe in people and like ordering from a person." But, the person that she/he encountered at the counter turned out to be surly, rude, and slow. The "people" championing customer assured me that the next time around the kiosk would be used instead.
It recurrently seems that technology takes jobs. The typing pool died at the hands of word processors, many accounting clerk jobs were replaced by spreadsheets, and manufacturing jobs have been replaced by robotics. These effects can be stated in many occupations. The fact is that progress and technology affect employment.
Employers will likely be influenced by the value that employees bring to the customer. And there will likely be influence affected by cost. The cost of an employee versus the cost of a kiosk. It may be that the ability of a kiosk to work without the need for a stool, or alternatively a "stand-up desk," and the cost savings related to that will figure into decisions as well. Employees may be able to influence through lawsuits and strikes. However, employees' best tool of influence will be in the value that they bring customers (hint, "surly, rude, and slow" is not the right answer).
The future is coming for us all, and it is really a question of "when" it impacts our occupations, not "if." If change is gradual, then attrition may ameliorate the impact that these changes have on particular individuals' employment, income, and lives. However, the fact is simple: change is coming, jobs will be eliminated, and people need to figure out how to adjust and evolve. Like it or not, we all need to understand change and figure out how we each bring value to our customers.
Employers will likely be influenced by the value that employees bring to the customer. And there will likely be influence affected by cost. The cost of an employee versus the cost of a kiosk. It may be that the ability of a kiosk to work without the need for a stool, or alternatively a "stand-up desk," and the cost savings related to that will figure into decisions as well. Employees may be able to influence through lawsuits and strikes. However, employees' best tool of influence will be in the value that they bring customers (hint, "surly, rude, and slow" is not the right answer).
The future is coming for us all, and it is really a question of "when" it impacts our occupations, not "if." If change is gradual, then attrition may ameliorate the impact that these changes have on particular individuals' employment, income, and lives. However, the fact is simple: change is coming, jobs will be eliminated, and people need to figure out how to adjust and evolve. Like it or not, we all need to understand change and figure out how we each bring value to our customers.
