Bath & Body Works Ends On Call Scheduling Practices

 Bath & Body Works, which is owned by L Brands Inc., will end the controversial practice of on call scheduling in its U.S. stores, the company recently announced.

Retailers using on call scheduling, require store employees to show up for work or stay home with little notice, based on the store traffic and sales for that day.

This system helps companies’ flexibility with their staffing needs, but leaves workers with unpredictable work schedules and incomes.

The Bath & Body Works decision comes five months after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman warned L Brands and 12 other retailers that on call scheduling may violate a state law that says employees who report to work for a scheduled shift are entitled to at least four hours of pay at minimum wage, even if they are sent home.

Labor laws in California have a similar statute that stats employees must be paid for half of their usual time — two to four hours — if they are required to come in to work but are not needed or work less than their normal job schedules.

“Employees deserve stable and reliable work schedules to adequately plan for childcare, transportation, and other basic needs. I commend Bath & Body Works for taking this important step,” Schneiderman states.

Schneiderman also questioned retailers Target, GAP, Ann Inc., Burlington Stores Inc., Crocs Inc., Sears Holdings Corp, Kmart, JCPenney, Hollister, TJ Maxx and Marshall’s, Urban Outfitters, Madewell, and Williams-Sonoma Inc. about their work scheduling practices.

Additionally, Starbucks publicly announced that they will be ending their “clopening” shifts, where employees close stores and then have to return a few hours later to open the stores for the following day.

About On Call Scheduling

On call scheduling practices optimize profitability for companies, allowing them to save on payroll on slow days. However, they make employees’ personal lives and financial situations unstable. Workers are given very little notice, leaving them almost no time to make family arrangements or schedule another paying job for the day.

Essentially, on call scheduling is disruptive. It leads to erratic schedules, erratic income, and trouble scheduling other jobs or child care around retail shifts that the employee may not even work. Also, the practice may be illegal, depending on how many hours an employee works.

This trend of companies renouncing the practice happened to start after Schneiderman launched his investigation into the scheduling practices of several large retail companies.

Over 25% of retail workers have an unstable or irregular work schedule.  A report last year by researchers at the University of Chicago examined the prevalence of unpredictable work schedules among young adults, and found that 41% receive their work schedules a week or less in advance, and half have no input into the timing of their hours.

This scheduling practice, while beneficial for an employer, makes it stressful for employees to make arrangements for child care, transportation, school or second jobs.  Furthermore, the irregularity of on call scheduling can have a profound financial impact on workers, as their income fluctuates because the on call work is not guaranteed and can make it difficult to plan for the future.

Federal law requires that employees are paid for time that is under the control of the employer and that benefits the employer. If the employee does not have the ability to spend his or her time, however, he or she wants because of employment duties, the employee must be paid for that time.

If you worked at a California retail store that used an on-call/call-in scheduling policy, you may have a legal claim.