On Call Scheduling Laws Protect Some Workers More Than Others

The practice of scheduling retail workers for call-in shifts is getting more attention from government officials out of concern that the practice may violate on call scheduling laws.

Several on call scheduling laws on the books already protect employees who are sent home early from shifts they showed up to work.

A New York state law requires employers to pay workers at least four hours’ worth of wages for each shift they show up for, even if the worker is sent home early.

That law and others like it are meant to compensate workers for having to make themselves available for that shift, say advocates. Similar on call scheduling laws, known as reporting time pay laws, are on the books in several other jurisdictions.

Addressing Real-World Practices with On Call Scheduling Laws

While these on call scheduling laws may help workers who are sent home early from a shift they showed up for, they may not do much for those who were told before the shift not to come in at all.

Some retailers make a practice of having employees call in shortly before their shift is scheduled to begin, to get the final word as to whether they need to come in to work that shift or not.

This sort of on call scheduling can disrupt worker’s lives in ways that may not be immediately apparent. To make themselves available for an on-call shift, an employee may need to schedule other personal or professional commitments such as school, other jobs, and child or elder care.

If the employee ends up being told not to come in for that shift, they lose the chance to earn money in exchange for having made that time available to their employer.

By one measure, at least 10 percent of employees in the U.S. are scheduled on an on call or irregular basis. The practice is more widespread in retail, where the number of on call employees increases to 25 percent.

N.Y. Attorney General Takes Action

In April 2015, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman contacted over a dozen major retailers like Gap, Sears, J. Crew and Abercrombie & Fitch, requesting information about their scheduling practices.

Schneiderman specifically inquired about the practice of scheduling workers for call-in shifts, for which the workers may never get the chance to show up.

That inquiry led several of the retailers contacted to end the practice of on call scheduling, according to Schneiderman’s office.

Schneiderman repeated his inquiry this past April to several other major retailers, this time joined by representatives of attorneys general from seven other states and the District of Columbia.

While Schneiderman’s letters apparently did not say outright whether the practice in question violates any on call scheduling laws, he noted that on call scheduling is unfair to the worker, depriving them of the opportunity to plan for other use of their time.

He also noted that on call scheduling is “not a business necessity, as we see from the many retailers that no longer use this unjust method of scheduling work hours.”

Schneiderman also noted that workers subject to on call scheduling generally experience “higher incidences of adverse health effects, overall stress, and strain on family life than workers who enjoy the stability of knowing their schedules reasonably in advance.”