A Third of Stitch Fix Employees Quit After New CEO Ends Flexible Work Hours (buzzfeednews.com) 70
Hundreds of workers at the personal styling service Stitch Fix have quit their jobs after incoming CEO Elizabeth Spaulding announced earlier this month that employees would no longer be allowed to work any hours they choose, according to interviews with half a dozen former and current employees. BuzzFeed News reports: The changes to the company's scheduling policies led to an exodus of around a third of its stylists, part- and full-time employees who work from home selecting clothing items for customers. "It was a gut punch," said Kara Calagera, who used the extra income from Stitch Fix to pay her mortgage and car insurance. Keeping the job "wasn't feasible without the flexibility." For years, Stitch Fix has attracted employees who -- because they have part-time jobs, stay home with kids, or have a disability -- needed flexible, remote work. Until now, the company allowed employees who could provide their own computer and internet to work from home, some for as little as five hours per week, recommending and sending Stitch Fix clothing to customers at any time of day.
But in an email sent to staff earlier this month, the company informed stylists that employees would now be required to work at least 20 hours per week on a set schedule during regular business hours; their log-on and log-off times would be tracked, and stylists would at least temporarily no longer be allowed to become full-time employees. Those who couldn't work within the new rules were offered a $1,000 bonus to quit, provided they agreed to sign a nondisclosure agreement that promised, among other things, they would not sue the company. Some employees, citing the company's expanding use of computer-generated clothing recommendations, said that the recent workforce reductions made them feel like their jobs have shifted from styling clients to training an algorithm that will replace them.
Stitch Fix acknowledged that recent changes were inconvenient for some staffers but said the shift would help the company expand the variety of "styling services" it offers. "Our Stylists are instrumental in building relationships with clients and creating the highly personalized experience Stitch Fix is known for," a spokesperson said via email. But employees across the company are working together to track how many have quit since the August 2 announcement, connecting on social media and sharing internal staffing numbers in each region: a tally from earlier this week found that around 1,500 stylists had left following the policy change.
But in an email sent to staff earlier this month, the company informed stylists that employees would now be required to work at least 20 hours per week on a set schedule during regular business hours; their log-on and log-off times would be tracked, and stylists would at least temporarily no longer be allowed to become full-time employees. Those who couldn't work within the new rules were offered a $1,000 bonus to quit, provided they agreed to sign a nondisclosure agreement that promised, among other things, they would not sue the company. Some employees, citing the company's expanding use of computer-generated clothing recommendations, said that the recent workforce reductions made them feel like their jobs have shifted from styling clients to training an algorithm that will replace them.
Stitch Fix acknowledged that recent changes were inconvenient for some staffers but said the shift would help the company expand the variety of "styling services" it offers. "Our Stylists are instrumental in building relationships with clients and creating the highly personalized experience Stitch Fix is known for," a spokesperson said via email. But employees across the company are working together to track how many have quit since the August 2 announcement, connecting on social media and sharing internal staffing numbers in each region: a tally from earlier this week found that around 1,500 stylists had left following the policy change.
Re: (Score:2)
But, what will Slashdot do without it's editors?
Re:We are all doing that (Score:4, Informative)
But, what will Slashdot do without it's editors?
"Same thing we do every night, Pinky: Try to take over the world!"
Re: (Score:2)
what will Slashdot do without it's editors?
Learn the difference between its and it's ??
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
English is a terrible language and people should stop trying to learn it. Doing so only encourages the creation of more English teachers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vi malgajigas min. La angla ec ne estas literumita fonetike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
True, but I've found in the past that for some reason most people "don't get it" with that way of thinking - I think it's because "is" and "has" are both verbs that finish in "s", so it's still unclear to them how to "translate" it. For me it mostly just comes naturally (I pick up on it immediately if it's not right just looking at it, without really even thinking about it).
That's why I think using the possessive pronouns trick ("his" -> "its" vs. "he's" -> "it's") helps some people a bit more (a bit
Re: (Score:1)
But, what will Slashdot do without it's editors?
I would hope it would finally start posting fewer dupes, however if the current editors are training the AI, I fear it would actually get worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uphold the high standard of *its* users, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
We are all training the AIs to replace us and thank god i'd rather the machines do the work.
While it would be nice to have machines do all the heavy or redundant labor, not all currently doing that labor have the abilities to be trained to fix those machines, nor will that many repair personnel be required. What are we to do with the 70 or more percent of the workforce that no longer have a job or the skills to acquire a job?
Re: (Score:1)
What is with all these companies (Score:3)
trying to destroy their business models with new arbitrary/stupid policies?
Re: (Score:2)
trying to destroy their business models with new arbitrary/stupid policies?
I'm guessing the remaining 66%, that were willing to work at least 20 hours a week during business hours, will be happy to pick up the slack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is with all these companies (Score:4, Interesting)
There are management and admin overhead costs for every employee. If an employee is working 5 hours per week, which some of them were, then they aren't worth keeping.
The company is offering $1000 bonuses to encourage marginal employees to leave, so it clearly sees them as having negative value.
Re:What is with all these companies (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming the people leaving are the weak ones. How do you know that?
The people who stay might just be the desperate ones needing a job and thus are available during regular office hours. The ones that quit have other options and are using it as a supplementary income
It's just like people who require their employees to return to the office - you're not culling the mediocre workers here - the good workers know their talent will get them hired elsewhere so they leave, while the mediocre workers who know getting a new job isn't so easy, will just acquiesce
Re:What is with all these companies (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. In fact, it has been shown that when a business starts faltering, the best and most competent are the ones who leave first. The one's you would want to get rid of stick it out because they have no other options.
Re: (Score:1)
It's just like people who require their employees to return to the office - you're not culling the mediocre workers here - the good workers know their talent will get them hired elsewhere so they leave, while the mediocre workers who know getting a new job isn't so easy, will just acquiesce
Well, both things happen ... superstars who can just get a remote job in their niche instantly will leave, sure, but also people who just think they are superstars and are in for a surprise. And the mediocre and fearful stay, sure, but also people who are just realistic about it not being quite so sure of a thing for their field, who just don't like the odds or perceived odds.
But yes, companies are shooting themselves in the foot with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's plausible, I suppose. Either way, it means that they are unfulfilled at their job.
Why would a person who can supposedly easily find another job continue to work at a job that they do not like?
Re: (Score:2)
Because in fact if they were as strong as they might believe themselves to be, and they are dissatisfied with their job enough that they aren't willing to endure a regular commute to work, then one would think they would have found another job even *before* covid19 happened.
People who wait to initiate a new job search until an announcement is made that they need to come back into the office are probably not as all-that as you may t
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "may" about this. Whenever a company does a demented change that pisses off its employees, it is always the best ones leaving. Losing a third may well kill this company.
Re: (Score:3)
The company is offering $1000 bonuses to encourage marginal employees to leave, so it clearly sees them as having negative value.
With this addendum:
Meaning the company believes those employees may have valid grievances, worth more than $1,000 each ...
Re: (Score:2)
Every severance pay package I have ever seen included an agreement not to sue.
That is standard practice.
Re: (Score:3)
Every severance pay package I have ever seen included an agreement not to sue.
That is standard practice.
Get let go a lot do you? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Note that it's never the "useless" employees that leave on their own. Never. The people who leave on their own are the ones that are not only motivated to do something about their situation but also the ones that can find other jobs.
What's left is the ones that don't get their asses off their seat even if you torch their chair with a flame thrower because they know they're essentially unemployable if they had to find a new job.
Yeah, that's the ones you like to retain...
Re: (Score:3)
Ms. Spaulding's mentor is Marissa Mayer.
Re: (Score:2)
Ms. Spaulding's mentor is Marissa Mayer.
Well... they probably had similar stylists anyway -- which Stitch Fix probably just let go ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Useless managers notice that their subjects notice that they are useless and try to turn back the clock to a moment when it wasn't obvious to everyone yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe because the workers did something we all just say we'll do. Actions speak louder than words and all that.
Re:This is /. why do we care about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Feels more like a plug to advertise whatever this company is
Slashdot is the wrong place to advertise a styling service.
I got my wardrobe from the $5 clearance rack at Walmart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is /. why do we care about this? (Score:5, Funny)
You are too high falutin for me, I get all my fashions at Goodwill.
My boss once invited the office to a formal dinner party at his house.
I didn't own a suit, so I went to Goodwill and bought one for $3.50.
At the dinner, one of my coworkers told me he paid three hundred dollars for his suit.
I replied, "I paid three-fifty for mine."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actual " Anonymous Coward", you've been here forever.
Re: (Score:2)
A bunch of nerds are employed.
Convenient way to do mass layoffs. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like they have been building a database of people's shopping habits and now have enough information that the stylists are no longer needed. I read somewhere that they were turning over around $2bn/year. That's a lot of data to train their AI with.
However, their approach seems rather inefficient. Wouldn't this process get rid of the bottom third who can't handle 20 hours/week, and the top third who can readily find an alternative employer. Leaving behind what's referred to as the Golgafrincham B frac
Re: (Score:2)
For all we know they actual did do that analysis and found that people working low hours and inconsistent times were the low performers.
New CEO destroys startup (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hahahaha. No one in a C-level ever really gets "fired" in the way rank-and-file employees do. To them, getting fired is the same as one of us winning the lottery as far as financial impact.
Asshole CEO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
>> The thing about capitalism and free markets is, it tells you exactly how much you are worth to your fellow humans and under what circumstances.
"The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor." - Martin Luther King Jr.
If free markets are such a good thing, why does the ruling class avoid them at all costs?
Sounds like this Dilbert comic... (Score:1)
https://dilbert.com/strip/1998... [dilbert.com]
how does it matter when they work? (Score:2)
Seriously?
This is a curated clothing retailer. They pick what clothes go with your preferences and then send you that stuff.
How does it possibly matter if they're doing it at 9 pm from home after the kids are asleep?
Re: (Score:2)
It matters not at all. The CEO is an idiot. Not the only one in that position. Probably has just destroyed the company, although it will take a while to die.