Is the productivity impact really plausible? I seemed so unlikely to me that I read the paper and was even less convinced. Before the law managers were making some shift adjustments >10 days in advance, some 7-10 days in advance, but virtually none 0-7 days in advance. The law shifted ~1/6 of adjustments from the 7-10 day bucket to the >10 day bucket. To believe that this change in manager behavior is impacting store productivity, one has to believe that a) there is something magic about the information available 7-10 days before the shift but that the information that arises <7 days either has no value or is inexplicably not being utilized by managers, b) the changes that managers are making (the paper doesn’t describe these well, but it seems likely that the total staffing impact in a particular hour may not be significant in many cases) is enough to have this very significant effect on # of transactions completed. This is especially the case given that the forecast tool predicted transactions at 98% accuracy on average. It seems more likely to me that this paper is really revealing how the law impacted managers ability to react to the chain’s scheduling software algorithm.
If the result is plausible, it’s quite the indictment on the sophistication or this firm or shows a market opportunity to build tools for retailers to make better decisions. Compare it your article about Uber’s sophistication in matching labor to demand in a way accepted by drivers. It seems like bringing Uber-level sophistication to this problem could obviate the impact of a fair labor law. Given how onerous employees right find scheduling adjustments to be and how successful Uber has been at motivating people to accept adjustments, it’s sad that retail has been so bad at this that they invited a governmental intervention.
I think the authors have a subsequent paper focusing on LA where they show a similar effect on productivity. Some of it, comes, from the inability to address last minute absenteeism. But I also tend to agree on the lack of sophistication of software in this sector.
Wharton's Prof Barbara Khan has written extensively on the Retail/Online Hybrid model. Engaging with a real customer service person is increasingly a premium experience. If that's the only route to buy the product then they'll capture that value, otherwise they are simply subsiding the online retailer. For Fast food , this comes down to supply chain, no JIT workforce means either increase "Inventory" of people or sell less. Either eats into slim margins on juicy burgers. The demise of the subsidised fast food industry in the US may not be all bad, but the best in class operationally with high Margins will come out on top - "I'm lovin it". I am always amazed at anti immigration politicians who have no issue with free trade , outsourcing and "Virutal immigration" - but it's normally out of sight though not on Zoom.
Is the productivity impact really plausible? I seemed so unlikely to me that I read the paper and was even less convinced. Before the law managers were making some shift adjustments >10 days in advance, some 7-10 days in advance, but virtually none 0-7 days in advance. The law shifted ~1/6 of adjustments from the 7-10 day bucket to the >10 day bucket. To believe that this change in manager behavior is impacting store productivity, one has to believe that a) there is something magic about the information available 7-10 days before the shift but that the information that arises <7 days either has no value or is inexplicably not being utilized by managers, b) the changes that managers are making (the paper doesn’t describe these well, but it seems likely that the total staffing impact in a particular hour may not be significant in many cases) is enough to have this very significant effect on # of transactions completed. This is especially the case given that the forecast tool predicted transactions at 98% accuracy on average. It seems more likely to me that this paper is really revealing how the law impacted managers ability to react to the chain’s scheduling software algorithm.
If the result is plausible, it’s quite the indictment on the sophistication or this firm or shows a market opportunity to build tools for retailers to make better decisions. Compare it your article about Uber’s sophistication in matching labor to demand in a way accepted by drivers. It seems like bringing Uber-level sophistication to this problem could obviate the impact of a fair labor law. Given how onerous employees right find scheduling adjustments to be and how successful Uber has been at motivating people to accept adjustments, it’s sad that retail has been so bad at this that they invited a governmental intervention.
I think the authors have a subsequent paper focusing on LA where they show a similar effect on productivity. Some of it, comes, from the inability to address last minute absenteeism. But I also tend to agree on the lack of sophistication of software in this sector.
Wharton's Prof Barbara Khan has written extensively on the Retail/Online Hybrid model. Engaging with a real customer service person is increasingly a premium experience. If that's the only route to buy the product then they'll capture that value, otherwise they are simply subsiding the online retailer. For Fast food , this comes down to supply chain, no JIT workforce means either increase "Inventory" of people or sell less. Either eats into slim margins on juicy burgers. The demise of the subsidised fast food industry in the US may not be all bad, but the best in class operationally with high Margins will come out on top - "I'm lovin it". I am always amazed at anti immigration politicians who have no issue with free trade , outsourcing and "Virutal immigration" - but it's normally out of sight though not on Zoom.
Completely agree!