Out of Sync

7 Conclusionsignificant proportion of workers – particularlyA among the growing part-time workforce – face anintolerable set of working conditions, including a rangeof volatile scheduling practices. These workers’ scheduleswreak havoc on their personal and family lives,leaving them struggling to make ends meet. Despiteworkers’ best efforts to hang on to their jobs, too oftenthe conditions under which they are working make itvirtually impossible to stay on the job. Some have nochoice but to quit a job when their child care providerswill no longer accommodate the unpredictability thatis passed on from parents’ work schedules to children’slives. Others must choose between continuing a jobtraining or higher education program that offers promisefor better career options down the line or holdingonto a job that makes no allowances for regularly scheduledclasses. Still others find themselves late for workone too many times when an erratic schedule makesnavigating public transportation or juggling a second jobimpossible; such workers are fired for situations that arefar from under their control. When these workers experiencejoblessness, the UI system should offer a safety netas it does to other involuntarily unemployed workers.But the UI system has not caught up with the realitiesof today’s labor market; as a result, it often fails workerswhen they are most in need.UI law, policy, and agency practices leave manyworkers in the lurch when they experience volatilescheduling practices. Among the failings is the ironicfact that, while workers who experience a significantchange in their working conditions may be able to leavetheir jobs and maintain eligibility for UI, the experienceof volatility, is often not recognized under UI law.Further, workers employed in industries with the worstlabor practices are doubly disadvantaged: not onlyare these workers forced to toil under bad conditions,their “choice” to accept a job in an industry characterizedby the routine presence of these conditions oftendisqualifies them from benefits should they ultimatelybe forced to leave the job. Yet, “choices” for low-wageworkers are far from free under current labor marketconditions; to perceive continued employment in a jobwith a volatile schedule as “acquiescence” to the unjustconditions workers face is simply unfair. And widespreadrequirements that workers “explore alternativesto quitting with their employers” prior to leaving workare often unrealistic and fail to recognize the powerdynamics in the workplace. Additional provisions andpractices related to testing periods and trial periodsalso make UI difficult to access for some of today’s mostvulnerable workers. Finally, rules regarding partialUI benefits, which could be an important resource forthose who face fluctuating hours, are often out of dateand afford extremely limited benefits.It is not just formal rules, but state agency practicesthat often negatively affect workers with volatile schedules.Frequently, for volatile scheduling situations,adjudicators determine how existing UI rules – notnecessarily written with volatile scheduling in mind –will apply. Because of this variability, further researchfocusing on state UI agency practices is needed inorder to gain a better sense of the nature and extent ofthe UI challenges workers with volatile schedules areexperiencing.But given what we do know, based on legal research,policy analysis, and interviews with agencies and advocates,it is clearly time for states to update their UI rulesto reflect the realities of a labor market increasinglycharacterized by erratic, unstable, and unpredictablejob schedules. Such volatility is widespread, and despitepromising efforts to move legislation that would curbsome of the worst forms of volatile scheduling practices,it is imperative that we repair the safety net for theworkers who are likely to continue experiencing theseconditions for some time to come.18 NELP | HOW UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE RULES FAIL WORKERS WITH VOLATILE JOB SCHEDULES