Re: ayrt

(Anonymous) 2018-04-03 07:24 pm (UTC)(link)
it is how on-call works, but it's not reasonable for retail. the closest on-call should get to retail is having a programmer who works with the POS system available for tech support or something, there's no reason to have on-call retail shifts.

ayrt

(Anonymous) 2018-04-03 07:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Sure, but if that's being cited as why David's is shady, you'd have to call like every retail company shady.

Re: ayrt

(Anonymous) 2018-04-03 07:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Except it's not every retail company. It's only the shady ones who do it.

da

(Anonymous) 2018-04-03 09:33 pm (UTC)(link)
afaik they're not talking about the kind of "on-call" where your shift lead can call you and see if you can cover a shift for someone.

they're talking about on-call where management says that you MUST be available to come in at any point during a given time period, or there will be some form of consequences.

Re: ayrt

(Anonymous) 2018-04-03 09:55 pm (UTC)(link)
tbh i'm perfectly fine with calling them shady.

Re: ayrt

(Anonymous) 2018-04-05 02:43 am (UTC)(link)
I have no desire to support any company that does this to their retail employees or unskilled labor positions of any kind. It is shady as fuck.