Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like these days they do not. Is it good for business or does it even matter that there's a new employee to train every few months? It seems like the employers' mentality today is that there are several people available to replace you at any given time. They don't seem to care about replacement costs, training, etc., though it has been my experience that a lot of employers don't really spend much in these areas anyways. My employer never trained me. They post job ads on Craigslist, which costs them nothing. Their biggest expense is travelling to interview candidates. So given the low cost to replace employees and the glut of unemployed candidates, it would seem that companies don't seem very averse to high turnover rates. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Location: Stuck on the East Coast, hoping to head West
4,640 posts, read 11,938,904 times
Reputation: 9885
No, I don't think they care.
Also, I've been seeing a trend towards hiring short-term employees without advertising the job as such. For example, my employer has been hiring employees when we sign a new client and then laying off (whoever's making the best salary--new hires or not) when the contract ends. These jobs are definitely not advertised as such although you can figure it out during the interview process if you ask the write questions.
Depends how easily replaceable you are. Right now, in most fields, they can replace you very easily and with contact it can be as easy as 1 phone call. In some cases corporate execs implement policies that cause high turnover and the managers are stuck going crazy trying to deal with the turnover.
Basically, these days a lot of American businesses are doing rather stupid, short-sighted things that wind up hurting them in the long-run but increase profits in the short term. That is all the CEO's care about. If they can show an increase in profitability even if the company colapses in 5 years, that is fine with them as they have their golden parachutes. Many of them want to fleece the company for everything they can right now and then bail when the crap hits the fan.
oddly enough, i was just reading [for the first time] the book 'fast food nation' last night, and they had an interesting section on this. the author was speaking specifically about fast food and slaughterhouse workers, but i'm sure it could apply in many other situations.
Quote:
Q: How do fast food restaurants benefit from "de-skilled" jobs and from high turnover among their employees?
A: A reliance on cheap labor has been crucial to the fast food industry's success. It's no accident that the industry's highest rate of growth occurred during a period when the real value of the U.S. minimum wage declined by about 40 percent. The chains have worked hard to "de-skill" the jobs in their kitchens by imposing strict rules on how everything must be done, selling highly processed food that enters the restaurant already frozen or freeze-dried and easy to reheat, and relying on complex kitchen machinery to do as much of the work as possible. Instead of employing skilled short-order cooks, the chains try to employ unskilled workers who will do exactly as they're told. The chains are willing to put up with turnover rates of 300 to 400 percent in order to keep their labor costs low. It doesn't really matter to them who comes or goes, since this system treats all workers as though they're interchangeable. Author Interview with Eric Schlosser from HarperCollins Publishers
another point that he brought up was the fact that most workers didn't qualify for any bennies for the first 6-12 months, so having them leave before that period of time was reached was a good thing for the employer.
I've worked for a few companies who obviously didn't give a crap about turnover. Their 'training' programs definitely showed that, because they never went into detail...just enough to let you do the job moderately well.
I'm lucky that the company I work for has virtually zero turnover. We like our employees to know the customers, know the industry and know the company well. Can't have that if you're re-training employees every 3 months. Plus, my industry is pretty complicated and specialized and it's virtually impossible to have someone just step in and take over.
You are a number, a liability, and a resource. All those things have a common denominator that says it all. You are no longer a human being.
It's easier to treat numbers and resources poorly. Leave the human being thing out of it completely.
No, they don't care. And in return, your main responsibility is to look out for you. You don't owe them a thing.
This. I don't feel any sense of loyalty to my current employer and they sure don't care if I leave. I have an interview with another company on Wednesday and I'm looking forward to it big time.
It isn't easy to staff these jobs at my company when they do need to hire, either. But they don't care because they make the rest of us take up the slack. I'm doing the work of 2-3 people right now.
It seems like these days they do not. Is it good for business or does it even matter that there's a new employee to train every few months?...given the low cost to replace employees and the glut of unemployed candidates, it would seem that companies don't seem very averse to high turnover rates. Do you agree or disagree with that?
I think it depends on your line of work and the demand
for your particular occupation.
It's much harder to replace a nurse every few months
than it would be to replace a truck driver for example.
Nurses are intregal in any health setting while truck
drivers are a dime a dozen.
This holds true for any field where the supply of
specific skills outweighs the demand for that skill.
When it does the job market thins and pay scales drop
for that particular occupation.
It also depends on the company, ours take employees leaving as a sign of problem within the company. You put in your 4 weeks notice and within a few days, you will be in front of a management - labor panel trying to find out why, what can be done better, where did they fail in making your job meaningful for you, was it something that can be fixed.
I think it depends on your line of work and the demand
for your particular occupation.
It's much harder to replace a nurse every few months
than it would be to replace a truck driver for example.
Nurses are intregal in any health setting while truck
drivers are a dime a dozen.
This holds true for any field where the supply of
specific skills outweighs the demand for that skill.
When it does the job market thins and pay scales drop
for that particular occupation.
GM1258, I resemble that remark! Yep, there are far more truck drivers available than jobs (along with the fact that drivers frequently move from company to company, hoping for a better deal). There are carriers (mostly that provide high levels of service and/or additional services than transportation) that pay premium wages but even guys with outstanding safety records and excellent job skills are still plentiful. So why should carriers pay more than low wages? Other than cos=nstantly frustrate the lower management levels, the big guys at a carrier don't give a darn...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
re: turnover
