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.
Nah we’ll just have to take mr. Confortis word for it.
I don't particularly doubt that Mr. Conforti has had a string of potentially unreliable younger workers. If we're talking 18-23, for a low wage, low skilled job, then I think it's completely plausible.
Now, do I think it's the right conclusion, based on that anecdotal evidence alone, that young workers are being displaced by older workers (55+) at a record pace due to their abundantly and comparative strong work ethic? Absolutely not. That seems to be the angle that OP was driving at, and I think he's sorely mistaken.
I don't particularly doubt that Mr. Conforti has had a string of potentially unreliable younger workers. If we're talking 18-23, for a low wage, low skilled job, then I think it's completely plausible.
Now, do I think it's the right conclusion, based on that anecdotal evidence alone, that young workers are being displaced by older workers (55+) at a record pace due to their abundantly and comparative strong work ethic? Absolutely not. That seems to be the angle that OP was driving at, and I think he's sorely mistaken.
I agree but it’s basically trash level click bait. First time workers perform worse than older workers who are already hardened by the workforce and who could possibly be there for potentially non financial reasons (social interaction, sense of accomplishment, ect) and will possibly be higher performing.
But maybe the hiring managers issue in this case is his motivational skill as a manager, his recruiting, or his treatment attitude towards younger workers. Maybe he lets past exp trigger him faster and treats people poorly and drives the same outcome over and over. We won’t know because it’s just his useless word.
I agree but it’s basically trash level click bait. First time workers care less older workers who are already hardened by the workforce and who could possibly be there for potentially non financial reasons (social interaction, sense of accomplishment, ect) and will possibly be higher performing.
That's generally been my experience on this forum across the board. If you're looking for deep, practical, meaningful analysis, this doesn't seem to be like the place. Those who provide those kind of insights or ideas don't show up here very frequently.
Why would they pay more if they don't need to. And if the workers are not going to stand up and do something about it, then they don't need to. We also have no idea what they are actually paying or if it is anywhere near the minimum. He simply said it used to pay "reasonably well" which could mean anything depending on the person and the industry.
*shrug* They don't have to pay more, but thousands of employers aren't paying more right now and they're hurting for people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threestep2
OP is in public sector.
The real world is a different ball game.
A company purpose is generally to create revenue.
You know, I just saw a meme that asks "Would you flip burgers for $350,000 a year? You would? Sounds like people are OK with working; it's the money that's a problem."
If the company purpose is to create money, then maybe they better get used to a little less of it. Because with 0 employees you get 0 revenue. I see a lot of bonehead companies today whose CEOs are making billions, but don't want to give up a million or so to raise their basic pay. They can't seem to understand that less than what they're used to is better than the nothing they're going to get if all the employees leave and the company folds. And you know what? That applies in any job, public sector or no.
Because the company is not a benevolent beast. It is instead a collection of people who are concerned about their bonus and salary at the end of the day.
Hence, your career growth is in your own hands.
Agreed. But the company is more than likely in competition with other companies and one of those will raise their salaries. Then guess what happens.
And you know who isn't concerned with the employees' bonuses and growth? The CEO.
The company is not only not a benevolent beast, it's also not a company. It's a dictatorship where the person on top takes as much as he wants and usually throws crumbs to the people underneath him.
*shrug* They don't have to pay more, but thousands of employers aren't paying more right now and they're hurting for people.
You know, I just saw a meme that asks "Would you flip burgers for $350,000 a year? You would? Sounds like people are OK with working; it's the money that's a problem."
If the company purpose is to create money, then maybe they better get used to a little less of it. Because with 0 employees you get 0 revenue. I see a lot of bonehead companies today whose CEOs are making billions, but don't want to give up a million or so to raise their basic pay. They can't seem to understand that less than what they're used to is better than the nothing they're going to get if all the employees leave and the company folds. And you know what? That applies in any job, public sector or no.
We need unions back, big time.
Very few CEOs make billions:>)
Could you run an international company? What do you know about pay structure, development and firing?
Do the math - where does a million go with 100k employees. Remember taxes and other deductions?
Please name large corporation with a CEO making billions which went out of business because the burger flipper quality of employees walked out?
Agreed. But the company is more than likely in competition with other companies and one of those will raise their salaries. Then guess what happens.
And you know who isn't concerned with the employees' bonuses and growth? The CEO.
The company is not only not a benevolent beast, it's also not a company. It's a dictatorship where the person on top takes as much as he wants and usually throws crumbs to the people underneath him.
And then comes benefits, branding, commute, ... . There is so much more to retention and recruiting.
Very few CEOs make billions:>)
Could you run an international company? What do you know about pay structure, development and firing?
Do the math - where does a million go with 100k employees. Remember taxes and other deductions?
Please name large corporation with a CEO making billions which went out of business because the burger flipper quality of employees walked out?
Most of the armchair experts who know better how to run corporations than corporate management have never owned a business of any kind and couldn't manage a lemonade stand.
And what would your critical thinking 36 year old self think of talking to your old self at age 18-23?
I've grown a lot in the last fifteen years, but I was not that scatterbrained at that age.
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.
