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 adds company value if it is cost-saving to have someone in-house sealing envelopes, rather than hiring an outside mail service to do this.
Profit companies are not concerned with employee "self growth" unless it contributes to their bottom line.
It is all about making money for the company. Employee "self growth" is encouraged as a means to improve employee performance, satisfaction, and retention - i.e. keep employee hiring/training costs minimized so that the company keeps making money.
Actually companies tend to make more money through paying for "self growth" IF the employee wants it rather than the employee ponies up for it. Why, less turnover and the cost that comes from replacing employees. The current trend of hiring for the now and not for later, leads to people jumping when they are no longer enjoying it. Please read this article Employers Should Take Responsibility for Employee Development | The EvoLLLution and tell me that you still think minimizing will make long-term money over investing in the now.
You mean they're supposed to actually care about what's in it for their employer? No one from their college said anything about THAT.
Pretty clear that a whole lot of employers see their young applicants very differently. After all, the wage premium paid for higher education has been rising steadily, forcing the return on investment in education to go steadily hiigher as well. This is one reason why so many young people have chosen to stay in or return to school instead of settling for a spot in the labor force.
...but I have my own life to build and understand that my employer would never go the extra distance for me.
In a broader perspective, it's a chicken-or-the-egg sort of thing, but history shows that it was employers who began the back-stabbing. Then they complained that their employees weren't being loyal anymore. These days, the employers who give a fig about any employee not related by blood or marriage are few and far between. Employees have and should exercise every right to take care of #1 first. If that means ***-kissing to work one's way up the corporate ladder, fine. But it doesn't take a genius to realize how uncertain and fraught with peril that path will be. If that means feathering some back up nests in case of the all too frequent, that's exactly what people should do.
I'm curious to know what effect that had on you. Do you have a job now? Do you think you are a good worker? Are you ambitious and ready to do what it takes to be successful? Or do you hope to be supported by others as long as possible? Serious questions. I worked since I was 13, so it's hard for me to put myself in the mindset of someone who didn't.
I'm not the person you asked, but my parents didn't really want me to get a job in high school (and got some flack for it from my relatives who insisted that their kids work). For me, it worked out fine. My parents felt that school was my job until I graduated college, so that should be my focus.
In college I held 3 internships (some paid, some not) and got an offer for a decent full-time job in my field before graduation. I've worked ever since, lived on my own since graduation, paid off some of my (modest) student loans, put myself through a part-time graduate school program, managed to save enough funds to take at least one big international trip per year, and two years ago purchased my own home (even in this crazy expensive area, which still amazes me). Professionally, I moved to a new position while in grad school that I love, and have been working my way up the ladder for the past several years. So yes, I think I am a good worker and ready to do what it takes to be successful. I absolutely do not hope or want to be supported by others as long as possible.
Overall, while parents do play a role I think it also depends on the type of person. Even though I didn't work much while in school, the option of just staying at home and living off my parents never occurred to me. My job was to go to school, study hard and graduate with a useful degree, get a good job, and move out. For me, it worked, probably because I've always been goal-driven so being "static" just wouldn't sit well with me. My parents recognized this, and felt the most efficient use of my time was to focus on my education since that would have more long-term benefit than bagging groceries.
Actually companies tend to make more money through paying for "self growth" IF the employee wants it rather than the employee ponies up for it. Why, less turnover and the cost that comes from replacing employees. The current trend of hiring for the now and not for later, leads to people jumping when they are no longer enjoying it. Please read this article Employers Should Take Responsibility for Employee Development | The EvoLLLution and tell me that you still think minimizing will make long-term money over investing in the now.
How is what you posted any different from my previous opinion that "Employee self growth is encouraged as a means to improve employee performance, satisfaction, and retention - i.e. keep employee hiring/training costs minimized so that the company keeps making money."
My point is that companies do not invest in employee self growth for some altruistic purposes - they do it (at least they should do it) with the end (short-term or long-term) company profits in mind.
I think in 14 or so pages of comments, a lot has already been said about the topic. But all I can really add is a general sentiment that too many employers have probably focused so much on cutting/controlling costs that they've lost sight of the added value a content, adequately compensated employee brings to their businesses.
There's a pervasive mentality out there in today's business world that your goal should always be; Expand! Grow! Buy out the competition! In reality, that often causes a successful business to struggle, when it gets spread so thin, the owners can no longer really keep an eye on how some of the branches are being run. It also means companies inherit a customer database from the competition who aren't necessarily a great fit. They tend to lose quite a few of those inherited customers -- making a merger or takeover a worse value than it appeared on paper.
IMO, many would do better to just pay their staff a little better, or spend a bit more on training for them -- and make their good stores into great stores. Sure, it won't let them brag that they have "25 locations in the metro area!" or what-not, but they won't have to scrape the bottom of the barrel hiring cheap, disposable labor to staff all of them, and do a mediocre job at the whole thing.
Lazier? Who knows, I guess maybe if having a paid job is the only determination if a teen is lazy, then i guess so. But I do not agree that having a job is the only thing that determines of someone is lazy or not. As a teen and now, I knew plenty that did not have jobs, but were very active in activities, either school, church, or community organizations.
As for jobs, back in the day, we teens (well guys) would work sod farms, hay, mow grass, trim trees, or get hooked up as general labor with other friends' dads' who owned construction/plumbing/excavation companies. I not sure what girls did, I know a couple that worked at the grocery store and worked as a waitress.
Now all of that is gone; all the sod farm, hay stacking, mowing, etc, has been replaced by labor from south of the US border. What you use to see, numerous teens out there folding and stacking sod, mowing grass, etc, now is not done by the teens anymore. Any job at the grocery store and restaurants seem to not want teens, but adults with "open availability", which really interfere with teens ability to work around other schedules they may have like school.
How is what you posted any different from my previous opinion that "Employee self growth is encouraged as a means to improve employee performance, satisfaction, and retention - i.e. keep employee hiring/training costs minimized so that the company keeps making money."
It depends on the motives of the company if it is all about the short-term company profits at the expense of long-term growth company growth.
Quote:
My point is that companies do not invest in employee self growth for some altruistic purposes - they do it (at least they should do it) with the end (short-term or long-term) company profits in mind.
Many aren't because they feel that employees will leave and besides they feel they can get "turn key" employees. However most of the stuff they actually ask for they can only get from recent previous employees or current employees in that role. If you apply for an auto-CAD role with say Punk Motors an they want Catia 4 use in a Six Sigma setting and you worked for Cubs Motors Catia 3 in a Six Sigma setting or Catia 4 in a simila TQM setting, it would likely mean a strike against you getting the job at Punk Motors.
Quote:
And what is the point about sealing envelopes?
That point was going back to the previous point about a useless job that adds little value. They are basically administrative assistants that get paid for letter writing and sealing them
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.
