Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
IT

This Factory Was Severely Short On Workers. Then It Offered Flexible Work. (npr.org) 65

"Flexible, app-based scheduling lets large pools of part-time workers choose four-hour shifts and even select the type of work they prefer," writes long-time Slashdot reader Tony Isaac. While the system started during the pandemic when factories faced severe labor shortages, the model is now "supplying hundreds of trained workers each week... while giving people — from retirees to sidejob hustlers to longtime employees — control over their hours."

NPR says it's attracting "people who may not be seeking a traditional career in the industry or even a 40-hour workweek," It's a change that manufacturers including Stanley Black & Decker and Georgia-Pacific are embracing... Today, in any given week, about 450 flexible workers — roughly half the pool — pick up shifts at the [GE Appliances] plant, with workers putting in an average of 24 hours a week. Their contributions have been key to GE Appliances' $180 million expansion of the Georgia plant, completed last year, which added 600 new jobs... [Darcy Duvall, the plant's director of human resources operations] has also come to see that many workers prize flexibility despite the significant trade-offs — like lower pay and almost no benefits. MyWorkChoice employees can opt into their own group healthcare plan, but few do... The flexible work option has also helped GE Appliances keep longtime employees with decades of experience on the job.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

This Factory Was Severely Short On Workers. Then It Offered Flexible Work.

Comments Filter:
  • So Not Shocking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by plstubblefield ( 999355 ) on Saturday July 11, 2026 @02:53PM (#66233244)

    So US management is *finally* learning that the 5-day, 40-hour workweek was not bestowed from upon high? That given a choice, many people would prefer work/life balance to higher wages? Color me unsurprised...

    • Re:So Not Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite ( 721679 ) on Saturday July 11, 2026 @03:59PM (#66233334)

      So US management is *finally* learning that the 5-day, 40-hour workweek was not bestowed from upon high? That given a choice, many people would prefer work/life balance to higher wages? Color me unsurprised...

      Interesting view. I (from northern Europe) read the article as trying to rose taint full time jobs not paying a living wage necessitating a second job and likewise retirees not having enough pension funds to actually stop working. Perhaps I'm being prejudice against less organized societies.

      • and likewise retirees not having enough pension funds

        In the vast majority of cases, companies no longer have pensions. They probably have a 401(K), which is a type of retirement account, and requires the person to make financial decisions such as how much to have deducted from each paycheck and what investment tool to purchase with that money. Companies generally, but not always, have a matching amount which is added. Some simply give a set amount each year into a person's 401(K).

        At this point, the only

        • Some union jobs that are not government also have pensions. Not all of them, but some. Mine does and it's looking like I'll need it when Congress "fixes" social security.

      • by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Perhaps I'm being prejudice against less organized societies.

        We consider what we are used to as more advanced. So yes, we are biased. Some prefer receiving lower wages and getting a company pension. Others prefer a higher wage and managing their retirement account privately. Both fulfill the same role. Neither more advanced. Each just better fits for different personalities.

      • by kenh ( 9056 )

        They are cheering on a system that yes, allows a worker to supplement their income, but also gets a large share of the needed factory work done by workers who don't put in enough hours in a week to qualify/earn subsidized healthcare benefits.

        The employer, according to the summary, fills about half their available shifts with workers doing less than 30 hours/week - that is the threshold for requiring subsidized healthcare.

        I would be very interested to find if it is the workers that choose to work fewer than

    • by djp2204 ( 713741 ) on Saturday July 11, 2026 @05:05PM (#66233432)

      Part time pay and no health or retirement benefits

      How can we lose?

    • That doesn't mean they get paid 40 hours of wages for doing 20 hours of work. It just means much greater scheduling flexibility.

    • Flexible Work seems Part Time Work w/ digitalization. US management prefers part time workers that do not require fringe benefits such as health care, retirement plan matching contributions, educational reimbursement, etc. Flexibility in scheduling part time work is hardly anything new. It merely seems to have gone digital. Its more convenient than having to give a manager your new school schedule for the quarter, or getting your manager to sign off when you and a coworker swap some hours this week, etc.
    • So US management is *finally* learning that the 5-day, 40-hour workweek was not bestowed from upon high?

      It is bestowed from upon high: Washington DC and various state capitals. Labor law enshrines eight hour days, five day workweeks as the One True Schedule.

      This is why I find all the restrictions on gig work so odious. Clearly some people prefer flexibility over a 8x5 work schedule. Why in the world would we want to force both employers and employees into a schedule neither one is thrilled by?

      • by kenh ( 9056 )

        I believe that more "gig workers" are hustling trying to turn an easy to get job (food delivery, ride share driver) into something resembling a living wage because they can't find other, better-paying, more stable work, than are students, retirees, and empty nesters trying to make a few bucks in their spare time. I have no proof, but that is my impression based on my experience.

        • I believe that more "gig workers" are hustling trying to turn an easy to get job (food delivery, ride share driver) into something resembling a living wage because they can't find other, better-paying, more stable work, than are students, retirees, and empty nesters trying to make a few bucks in their spare time. I have no proof, but that is my impression based on my experience.

          That's the crux of the difference of opinions when people talk about gig work.

          (Side note: if a job is easy to get, it's not going to pay super well. Supply and demand, and all that.)

          My understanding based on interviews with actual gig workers is substantial numbers of them are just supplementing their income with gig work. The canonical examples are students who need beer money and retirees who want to supplement retirement income and get out of the house for a bit.

          I have no doubt there are also people who

    • by kenh ( 9056 )

      Healthcare is the motivation, not simply appealing to workers desires for flexible hours.

      Today, in any given week, about 450 flexible workers — roughly half the pool — pick up shifts at the [GE Appliances] plant, with workers putting in an average of 24 hours a week.

      With roughly half the workers working less than 25 hours a week, the employer is off the hook for subsidized healthcare - if all shifts were covered by 40 hour/week workers, healthcare costs would more than double versus this massively-flexible part-time labor scheme.

      "Flexible, app-based scheduling lets large pools of part-time workers choose four-hour shifts and even select the type of work they prefer,"

      Another key part of this arrangement is the interchangeability of the work offered - when a production worker can be taught any position in, say, a half-ho

      • by BranMan ( 29917 )

        Yet another key part of this arrangement is scale - GE has 450 workers in this "pool", so, on average, there is plenty of coverage for all the work GE needs doing.

        Smaller employers cannot make use of this - with a smaller pool of say 50 workers, there will be many times when the workers availability (and unavailability) will leave gaps in the work schedule.

        Also, the employer must, to some degree, be able to "batch" the work, and not have hard deadlines, so that having more labor at some times and less at ot

  • Blue collar gets paid by effort put in, white collar gets paid by end result produced.

    A century ago, number or wrench turns per shift accurately captured the former. Today, babysitting a cnc isn't as easily translated into a measurement of productivity.

    There's obviously a whole continuum in between but it's unsurprising that traditionally blue collar work is adopting white collar trappings.

    • The true difference is that the white collar sets the wages for the blue collar that actually physically works for a living, which is backwards IMHO.
    • If we had a factory around here, this would be a good thing (full-time would push me out of the income bracket for my cheap apartment).

    • by kenh ( 9056 )

      Today, babysitting a cnc isn't as easily translated into a measurement of productivity.

      What? You really can't imagine a way to measure the productivity of a factory line worker (as in your example, someone "babysitting a CNC")?

      Uh, how about widgets per hour/shift?

      Blue collar workers, as you refer to them, aren't typically compensated just based on their time on the factory floor - the extreme counter-example to your assumption would be an Amazon warehouse worker or driver, whose productivity is constantly monitored over several metrics...

  • Presumably it can help fill undesirable shifts by offering higher pay, but it would seem like you need a huge pool of people to make it work.

    • by kenh ( 9056 )

      Presumably it can help fill undesirable shifts by offering higher pay, but it would seem like you need a huge pool of people to make it work.

      You need a huge pool of available workers, and work needs to be fairly generalized - easily interchangeable. Candidates need to be able to drop in to almost any available position with minimal training.

      With hundreds of potential workers competing for a limited number of shifts, this will let the employer avoid raising wages, as there will always be someone willing to work for the lower rate, given a large enough pool.

      In this very specific example, I wonder what the impact was in this town when a couple hund

  • by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Saturday July 11, 2026 @03:13PM (#66233268)

    With low pay, no benefits and no commitment? Sounds like the magic that will attract and keep high-quality, skilled labor that will create an yuge competitive advantage.

    A story that is truly hard not to take at face value, lol.

    • by kenh ( 9056 )

      These are likely low-skill jobs, watching production lines turn out hand tools, not highly-skilled office workers/management.

      This proves the line worker is an easily replaceable cog in the machine...

    • There's nothing else in these areas... it's factory work or Dollar General cashier.

  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Saturday July 11, 2026 @03:23PM (#66233282)

    That factory will stop looking for full time workers now that they've discovered the desperate will take underpaid part time slots that don't require benefits.

    We should be looking at this story with horror, not admiration.

    • by Art Challenor ( 2621733 ) on Saturday July 11, 2026 @03:47PM (#66233312)
      Few things are universally good or bad - despite the desire of the press and politics to simplify. For someone looking to pick up a little extra income (school hours, evening, weekend) it's probably good thing (almost certainly better than any of the driving gigs). For anyone who is doing this because they just can't get full-time, with benefits, work this truly sucks.

      A significant part of the problem is that the US, pretty much alone amongst first world countries, ties benefits, particularly health care to employment. Break that connection and this doesn't suck quite as badly.
  • by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Saturday July 11, 2026 @04:22PM (#66233368) Homepage

    This is the death of Unions being played out in real-time. Low wages, no benefits, no promises of tomorrow, everyone for themself.

    • Keep in mind, before the change, they couldn't get people to sign up. In other words, they considered flexibility to be *more* important than full-time work. That's how I read the story.

    • I know... paying the Union $75 a month (IAMAW) for them to not really even fight for the employees of a major manufacturer really helped us in the long run when the factory shut down and put a couple thousand out of work.

  • by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Saturday July 11, 2026 @04:27PM (#66233378)

    Have been doing this for years.

    • Have been doing this for years.

      One group it is good for is those nearing retirement who might like to reduce their hours for a while first, or retire and pick up some part time work for extra income for the first little while. Good for the companies to have some skilled part-timers to fill in for temporary needs as well, no training required. As someone who retired and then continued to do some part time contract work for my former employer it definitely worked well for myself. I was in IT but with the shortage of health care workers

  • by Provocateur ( 133110 ) <shedied&gmail,com> on Saturday July 11, 2026 @04:44PM (#66233408) Homepage

    The Race to the Bottom continues

    • I don't know. If this were true, why did the factories struggle to get people to sign up when they offered only full-time jobs, and now that they offer a-la-carte shifts, people are jumping at the chance? If it were really such a bad thing, people wouldn't be showing up.

      • Chances are, those full-time jobs would effectively quash their food stamps and medicaid because some places have a clause where those benefits go once you exceed 40 hours or so.

        But gig shifts will let you maintain SNAP or EBT, and medicaid. The employer won't have to set aside some budget for benefits they offer regular employees for these "temp" workers

        • According to job postings, full-time entry level factory floor jobs at the GE Appliances plant offer close to $20 an hour, plus health insurance. That is certainly more than what those people could get from food stamps and Medicaid.

  • Rona (think the Canadian equivalent of Lowe's and Homedepot) has been doing this for 20+ years. They hire either students or retired people. They hire way more than they need and let everyone choose the shifts they want. Kids get mentored and retired people have something to do. Plus you actually get staff at the stores that can explain things.

    Rona was purchased by Lowe's a few years ago, rebranded Lowe's and is now being rerebranded Rona.
  • There was a push in some factories to adopt a "30/40" approach. Schedule people for 30 hours, pay them for 40. There will be no real change in actual productivity (it may improve a bit), you can run three solid shifts and idle the machines to save power.

    The pilot programs worked a treat. Probably didn't survive management coming in and not realizing that the 30 hours part was the critical part, went back to normal hours with a brief overall gain that quickly faded.

    The forty hour workweek was designed with a

  • I suppose some people like that arrangement. Glad I'm retired.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...