The great resignation—where is the hired help?
- Thread starter AndyG
- Start date
What if we asked nicely? I know my industry has a huge knowledge gap between the idiots doing the work now (myself) and the knowledgeable folks (like you) retiring. I guess my industry stopped being cool for a while in the 80s. Haha.I said "almost"....
You apparently do not know why companies do not provide benefits within a month.
Here is what happens, a guy with experience is job shopping, you hire him and invest in training, workers comp, etc. He finds a better job, quits and you absorb all the benefit costs. The health benefit (by far the most costly benefit) is the only one not required, so it is not a loss. My company shells out 70k in health care a year, we have 5 employees (and I am one of them). Shitty benefits are not the companies fault. Talk to the guy the left voted in 2008.
All that and even I would not work for a company that did not immediately provide GOOD BENEFITS. In fact, I would not work for them with GOOD BENEFITS. I am in the "un-employable" category at this point.
It all comes down to negotiation, perceived value and also what stage you are at in your career.
How many weeks of vacation is one of those items. Interestingly I was talking to a guy who I hired when I was at another company than I am now. I brought him on with 4 weeks of vacation, he's been there for 3 years, and he told me yesterday that they updated their HR software and now due to his years of service they moved him back to 3. He's the kind of person who they'd be dead in the water without, he needs to give them an ultimatum to have it restored but he's not that kind of person and will take it without complaining.
That's the type of thing that makes people sign union cards - just sayin'
My ex-employer - who overall was the BEST employer anyone could EVER hope for, managed to really piss me off once. Ever hear of a wonky work schedule called 9/80? You work 9 hours a day Monday through Thursday, then 8 hours on one Friday, and the other Friday you have off.
Management wanted it, and stacked things up such that it would pass the mandatory worker election. To be fair, I think most of the employees were in favor of it as well. I was not. I raised so much bloody Hell about it that they were afraid I was going to skew the election, so they made me exempt from it and I was allowed to continue working 5 eight hour days. Win-win. It even got better when I transferred to the IT department a couple of years later as I was on site on the "black Fridays" when most were not - so I could work on people's computers without impacting their workflow. People REALLY liked that - and so did I because it was quiet and I could get more done!
But at the time, I would have signed a Union card - and so would have a couple of other people.
I'm a big fan of negotiating employment. I've done quite a bit of hiring and I can say nobody I've hired tries to negotiate anything useful.
Someone asked me my opinion of a job offer they had, base pay was $150k/year and an additional $30k in bonus potential. I said go back to them and say that it's obvious they are willing to pay $180k/year so let's do that and forget a bonus was suggested. They rewrote the contract and that person signed for $180k. It's not hard but people rarely do it.
I think it depends on the business. Here where I work the bonus is tied to the business performance for the year, and approved by the owners (Farmers). There is no "opt out" unless you want to be in a lower pay grade.
On other notes, minimum wage in Seattle is at $15, and the local fast food places can't find enough workers. My first job in the area I earned $4.25 (the minimum then). How times have changed. Every year minimum wage goes up in the area.... (Washington state is a bit lower at $13.75 but it too is increasing to $14.49 1/1/22.)
Actually it was...
Despite corporatist attempts at convincing the general working public otherwise, it literally has been since its inception. FDR said so multiple times (and specifically in references to a 40 hour work week), even before the passage of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.
With comments like these, it's hard to take your rants seriously man.
Is it possible you have sample bias? Meaning that you are simply hiring those folks more likely to leave, miss work, or mooch off the family? I mean, there are always exceptions to the rule, but by and large, the workforce today is more productive while being the most short-handed in all of modern US history. Your rant seems more like Tucker Carlson talking points rather than real-world experiences that I've seen or experienced.
I can't speak for @Soterios but if you're serious about being receptive to ideas, I'm certainly happy to suggest a few (but we will have to have some more info...)
Since credentials seem important to you, I figure there is some value getting those out of the way. I've ran my own business (HSE consulting) very successfully for ~6 years and have been a part of two smaller companies (1 startup, 1 still very green) that did very well and eventually had large buyouts (which actually led to my consulting business). I've also worked for extremely large companies (with +60,000 employees worldwide) to medium sized ones as well. In a variety of roles, I've managed >100 people across a variety of industries (everything from service/retail to project managers on $MM projects).
Personally, I've done everything from being a weekend dishwasher, to back-up cook, a lab manager, an environmental engineer, and even Jolly Ol' Saint Nick at the mall. Professionally I've worked in medium-warehousing, high-volume chemical manufacturing, for the DoD as a contractor, scrap metal recycling, industrial gas, research & development, project management & execution, public health research, and the semiconductor world. I think it would be fair to say that I've certainly seen various industries and my advice would come from a conglomerate of experiences and a multitude of industries.
So with that said, what industry are you in? What's your annual revenue? What's your current margins? What's your current labor costs? Share as much or as little as you'd like - I'm not going to pry, just trying to get a large enough picture to make meaningful suggestions.
Stepping away from the company/industry background, have you held any exit interviews? What is the demographic of your current labor market?
From a business model standpoint, how have you adapted since the company has matured? Based on your previous comments, I'm guessing high-volume, low-margin. Have you adjusted market expectations/targets based on demand and what do those demands look like? How do you rank among your competitors? Speaking relatively to company size and revenue, who would be the "world class" company within your industry?
I can tell you this already - SoCal is one of the MOST challenging regions we have had for employees at all levels - entry to professional - across the entire country. The only other region that poses a similar challenge (and maybe even slightly worse) would be the Houston Industrial Corridor.
This is hardly something specific to your company or industry.
One solution - and perhaps the most obvious off the top of my head - is that this product does not make fiscal sense to keep manufacturing or utilizing in your process - or perhaps requires a replacement/redesign. We can dig into this more as we go through some of your comments to the above.
See comment above... Remember, people don't leave bad jobs, they tend to leave bad bosses. The same applies to new hires.
I read a great article. https://www.deseret.com/2021/11/8/2...oover-institution-housing-crisis-middle-class
that I think accurately tells what has happened.
that I think accurately tells what has happened.
This much I'll agree with - I had a job that I *loved*, but it eventually fell under a boss who was a complete micromanaging idiot. To the point of where we designed things around him. When the opportunity came up to transfer to the IT dept, it was a no brainer.
I'm not sure what industries or companies you've worked for, but every company I worked for has a near identical training and induction program for new employees regardless of their experience. Intel is the same. So is Samsung. So is Bayer. There are many others.
Experience dictates what position and generally what responsibilities you'll have. It has very little to do with training/induction.
In my current company, if we hire a new driver with <2 years on the road or a driver with 3,000,000+ miles - they both go through the same training and induction.
If employers think that hiring and training workers are too expensive, then wait until the find out how expensive it is to continually hire new employees. If you're unwilling to invest in your workers are day one, you should be hiring different workers.
And many of us tend to think of things from the perspective of the employer. What happens when you shift to thinking about the employee? What is a company or boss sucks? Is that not also wasted time, wages, etc?
I've been fortunate enough to be involved in some excellent "front line" training over the years. One of the things that consistently stands out is how common this scenario is:
- Bob is a great mechanic; timely, does his work properly with little error, and is good with paperwork/administrative tasks of his job
- The company Bob works for needs a new service manager; GM say "Bob is the best mechanic, so lets make him the Service Manager - he deserves it!"
- Bob suffers incredibly in his new role; he hasn't been taught the skills to be a successful service manager and few of his skills and attributes that make him a good mechanic transfer to being a good service manager. Bob eventually quits, the company hires an outside hire, who starts a cycle of high attrition and turnover.
Personally I've seen it many times myself. My opportunity to become a Lab Manager was because a "Bob" had left the position. Having a good mentor on my side, I took the role with stipulations (training!) and some other things that were important to me (that I learned from my time as a R&D Chemist in the same lab).
Some remarkably alarming statistics in that article...
It really echos why I get disgusted by comments of "people don't work hard nowadays", without keeping things in context (particularly when speaking across generations). It wasn't too long ago when a typical "middle class" job at a GM plant or mill would allow dad to work a fairly regular schedule, while mom would stay home and raise 2-3 kids on a comfortable salary, while the company pension took care of the worker after years of reliable service. Similarly, corporations paid their share of taxes, infrastructure and the economy was built and prospered...
Something definitely changed, though I certainly refuse to believe that it was the "work ethic" of later generations that so many are quick to point at.
Alarming enough that I'd like to see references to the source data... they may be true but they are hard to believe without data.
The "Peter Principle". I actually was in charge of running "the whole thing" for about 2 years, and found out that I did NOT really like being a lead. I'm a good second, but get stressed out in the first spot. So I stepped back (most employers will NOT allow that!), and another guy took a crack at it. He was an idiot before he was put in charge. For awhile, it looked like he was going to grow into the position, but eventually he "slipped backwards" into micromanaging and overall incompetence. I've had a lot of bosses over the years, with the exception of the guy we're discussing, they all were good to great to even fantastic. This guy was an idiot, first class. Nice guy, but an idiot. They did eventually let him go after he fucked the whole department up, but I had transferred out by then.
Seems to be an excerpt from a book:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/154164753X/?tag=wranglerorg-20
Some of the stats I've checked so far seem to be based on at least some searchable study:
"60% of Americans collect more payments from the government than they pay out in federal income taxes, in health care entitlements, tax credits and exemptions, federally backed student and commercial loans, housing supplements, food subsidies, disability and unemployment assistance, and legal help."
—>https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-transfer-income-they-pay-taxes/
"But otherwise, 21st century American “peasants” — currently perhaps about 46% of the population — usually die with a net worth of less than $10,000, both receiving and bequeathing little, if any, inheritance."
—> https://news.mit.edu/2012/end-of-life-financial-study-0803
"the national debt is now near $30 trillion"
—> https://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/#:~:text=What is the current U.S.,trillions as of February 2020.
I'm almost curious to use an Audible Credit to listen to it and see what direction he goes down... the title of the book seems to be more finger pointing rather than process-pointing.
Unfortunately both the first two (not going to dispute the debt lol) are just re-using data from another source, and the data from the original sources and the requotes are from 2012, so almost 10 years old.
Very interesting though and definitely a way of looking at it as I haven't before. I'll be looking into it more I want to understand more about how they got there. As a fifth quintile household, it's umm... depressing in some ways lol.
I'd be very curious to know how those numbers look today in a very different economy than we had back on 2012.
Way too much for me to reply too, You think different than me, I respect that. None of your comments and replies have any base in my world. All good though. Carry on, call it a defeat, I submit.
I don't want to sound un appreciative. I started to reply and realized I have Grainger on hold, four BOL's to print, A guy with a broken mill waiting for me to fix, etc.
Last edited:
Similar threads
