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.
You see employers mindsets within this post. For years, employers in Florida have been screwing over their employees by paying extremely low wages, little to no health care, and my favorite, firing them when they're up for a raise or promotion and replacing them with another low income employee.
The employers can't keep good, hard working, and loyal employees because they constantly screw them over to the point that they stop wanting to work hard or eventually just quit and find another, then there is the start to the endless crap employers spout about "lazy parasites" and my favorite, "I pay what they're worth!"
Before casting stones at the working class citizens, employers in Florida need to take a good, long, hard look in the mirror. You'll get a better work force with a decent wage and good working conditions, until then, you're stuck with unmotivated people that'll quit when something better comes along !
A few points to consider.......
A. Employees are NOT entitled to benefits such as health care. It is a luxury/perk that some larger businesses provide. But if a guy is making 25K a year working in a warehouse, chances are his "warehouse abilities" are easily replaced and certainly doesn't need to be retained long term with expensive perks.
B. Employees go home on Friday with their check, the employer goes home with whatver is leftover after payroll, expenses like Work's Comp, payroll taxes and overhead. Employees don't care if the WC rates rose, if a client didn't pay their bill, if the rent went up etc......They just want their check and roll out the door. So before you start proclaiming low wages/lack of benefits are the issue you may want to consider the whole picture.
C. Your last point is the truly the problem......pay better/good working conditions = better work force............This isn't reality for 2 reasons: There is no correlation between higher wages and better job performance unless it is commission based and even if an employee is being paid top dollar, they will bail if someone offers more so in essence you can never over-compensate an employee since they will always leave for a better offer!
I had an employee for 10 years. He never missed a day of work, was very fast at his job (arguably too fast at times) and he was making $800 a week (over 40K a year) plus a week's paid vacation/$1000 Christmas bonus ($100 for every year of employment, 10 yrs = $1,000).
This guy was hard on the trucks, yet drove his personal vehicles like he was on his way to church. I couldn't keep tires on the trucks and his fuel burn was 20% higher than the other employees. Old behavior for a 50 year old guy. His job paid per stop, not per hour so he felt to work as fast as possible would result in getting done earlier with the same pay at the end of the day. He equated the idea with the movie Cool Hand Luke (Paul Newman prison movie), they were oiling a dirt road and if they hustled they could relax the rest of the day since their was no more oil to cover. I dealt with this issue for years, it would come and go based on how busy his personal life would be (example, new girlfriend = faster work to get home, no girlfriend = do a better job at work).
I warned extensively that this job was irreplaceable in the current economy. I knew what the job should pay, wages are in a holding pattern, maybe even lower than in the boom of 2004-2007 (where it seems everyone made 50K a year). I then caught him really shortening his stops, 7am he was on his 5th stop (should have been on 2nd or 3rd)....customers were calling saying he was barely here etc.
I cut him. New hire was 25, eager to work and made $200 a week less (instant 10K in my pocket for a worker that was doing a better job!). He then bounced from job to job, never receiving a dollar in unemployement benefits from me but everytime he became unemployed at subsequent jobs I got notice (UE keeps employers on the hook for 3 years, as in every job pays a portion of the UE benefits for 3 years so I kept getting notices as a former employer but didn't pay anything). I have heard through mutual acquaintances that he can't seem to get anything over $10 an hour (50% of what I paid him) and a recent DUI has really killed his job prospects (no DL). It has been 3 years, I am ahead over $30,000 in wages alone nevermind equipment, raises, bonuses etc. I would easily say 35K would be closer to accurate.
As an employer, getting rid of someone that was clearly not working in my best interest suddenly a bad thing? Would providing more benefits (health insurance for example) made him a better worker? Giving a job to a college kid that worked harder for less wrong? I would give those questions the 3 NO's as answers....... College kid is making 31K a year ($600 a week) and through his own admission has never had a job that paid that much.
Remember folks this is America, freedom should be both ways from the employer and employee's standpoint. I believe you need to hire the best candidate available for the job and if the former employee is no longer the best canidate then it is time for them to move on......
A. Employees are NOT entitled to benefits such as health care. It is a luxury/perk that some larger businesses provide. But if a guy is making 25K a year working in a warehouse, chances are his "warehouse abilities" are easily replaced and certainly doesn't need to be retained long term with expensive perks.
B. Employees go home on Friday with their check, the employer goes home with whatver is leftover after payroll, expenses like Work's Comp, payroll taxes and overhead. Employees don't care if the WC rates rose, if a client didn't pay their bill, if the rent went up etc......They just want their check and roll out the door. So before you start proclaiming low wages/lack of benefits are the issue you may want to consider the whole picture.
C. Your last point is the truly the problem......pay better/good working conditions = better work force............This isn't reality for 2 reasons: There is no correlation between higher wages and better job performance unless it is commission based and even if an employee is being paid top dollar, they will bail if someone offers more so in essence you can never over-compensate an employee since they will always leave for a better offer!
^^^
This is why I'm glad to be retiring and moving soon. Sheesh.
A. Employees are NOT entitled to benefits such as health care. It is a luxury/perk that some larger businesses provide. But if a guy is making 25K a year working in a warehouse, chances are his "warehouse abilities" are easily replaced and certainly doesn't need to be retained long term with expensive perks.
B. Employees go home on Friday with their check, the employer goes home with whatver is leftover after payroll, expenses like Work's Comp, payroll taxes and overhead. Employees don't care if the WC rates rose, if a client didn't pay their bill, if the rent went up etc......They just want their check and roll out the door. So before you start proclaiming low wages/lack of benefits are the issue you may want to consider the whole picture.
C. Your last point is the truly the problem......pay better/good working conditions = better work force............This isn't reality for 2 reasons: There is no correlation between higher wages and better job performance unless it is commission based and even if an employee is being paid top dollar, they will bail if someone offers more so in essence you can never over-compensate an employee since they will always leave for a better offer!
I had an employee for 10 years. He never missed a day of work, was very fast at his job (arguably too fast at times) and he was making $800 a week (over 40K a year) plus a week's paid vacation/$1000 Christmas bonus ($100 for every year of employment, 10 yrs = $1,000).
This guy was hard on the trucks, yet drove his personal vehicles like he was on his way to church. I couldn't keep tires on the trucks and his fuel burn was 20% higher than the other employees. Old behavior for a 50 year old guy. His job paid per stop, not per hour so he felt to work as fast as possible would result in getting done earlier with the same pay at the end of the day. He equated the idea with the movie Cool Hand Luke (Paul Newman prison movie), they were oiling a dirt road and if they hustled they could relax the rest of the day since their was no more oil to cover. I dealt with this issue for years, it would come and go based on how busy his personal life would be (example, new girlfriend = faster work to get home, no girlfriend = do a better job at work).
I warned extensively that this job was irreplaceable in the current economy. I knew what the job should pay, wages are in a holding pattern, maybe even lower than in the boom of 2004-2007 (where it seems everyone made 50K a year). I then caught him really shortening his stops, 7am he was on his 5th stop (should have been on 2nd or 3rd)....customers were calling saying he was barely here etc.
I cut him. New hire was 25, eager to work and made $200 a week less (instant 10K in my pocket for a worker that was doing a better job!). He then bounced from job to job, never receiving a dollar in unemployement benefits from me but everytime he became unemployed at subsequent jobs I got notice (UE keeps employers on the hook for 3 years, as in every job pays a portion of the UE benefits for 3 years so I kept getting notices as a former employer but didn't pay anything). I have heard through mutual acquaintances that he can't seem to get anything over $10 an hour (50% of what I paid him) and a recent DUI has really killed his job prospects (no DL). It has been 3 years, I am ahead over $30,000 in wages alone nevermind equipment, raises, bonuses etc. I would easily say 35K would be closer to accurate.
As an employer, getting rid of someone that was clearly not working in my best interest suddenly a bad thing? Would providing more benefits (health insurance for example) made him a better worker? Giving a job to a college kid that worked harder for less wrong? I would give those questions the 3 NO's as answers....... College kid is making 31K a year ($600 a week) and through his own admission has never had a job that paid that much.
Remember folks this is America, freedom should be both ways from the employer and employee's standpoint. I believe you need to hire the best candidate available for the job and if the former employee is no longer the best canidate then it is time for them to move on......
This doesn't prove that most workers are lazy and clueless, It's a little interesting that your new employee is a much better employee and you pay him much less than your previous employee that didn't do much, I have to admit, the guy is an idiot to give up $800 a week in Florida.
"Can't stand unemployment laws either. Majority of the states are "at will" states yet doesn't allow freedom for employers to terminate "at will." Why not make everybody sign contracts? If employers can't terminate "at will" employees shouldn't quit "at will."
Employers can terminate an employee for any reason, or no reason, just as long as the reason does not violate the EEO laws. The burden is on the employer to prove the termination was not in violation of EEO laws.
There is no law keeping an employer from making someone sign a contract, that is totally upon the employer to do so.
Firing someone who is on workers comp leave while unable to work would be a very stupid thing to do. You would really open yourself up to many possible suits. Depending on how big the company is, they could also get on FMLA and they cant be fired while on FMLA.
A. Employees are NOT entitled to benefits such as health care. It is a luxury/perk that some larger businesses provide. But if a guy is making 25K a year working in a warehouse, chances are his "warehouse abilities" are easily replaced and certainly doesn't need to be retained long term with expensive perks.
B. Employees go home on Friday with their check, the employer goes home with whatver is leftover after payroll, expenses like Work's Comp, payroll taxes and overhead. Employees don't care if the WC rates rose, if a client didn't pay their bill, if the rent went up etc......They just want their check and roll out the door. So before you start proclaiming low wages/lack of benefits are the issue you may want to consider the whole picture.
C. Your last point is the truly the problem......pay better/good working conditions = better work force............This isn't reality for 2 reasons: There is no correlation between higher wages and better job performance unless it is commission based and even if an employee is being paid top dollar, they will bail if someone offers more so in essence you can never over-compensate an employee since they will always leave for a better offer!
A lot of this post is completely laughable. Especially the part about "better pay does not = better work"...
I dont know when it happened, but at some point over the last 30 or so years, employers began to look at employees as a liability rather than an asset. This is unfortunate and has led to the present situation where employees are basically at war with employers in a lot of situation.
I try to treat my employees with respect and in return, I get respect back. It's earned, and I dont try to take advantage of them. In return, I get quality work. Most of the time anyway. When I dont, I manage the situation and if that dont work, they leave, by force. Most of the time, that is not necessary.
A. Employees are NOT entitled to benefits such as health care. It is a luxury/perk that some larger businesses provide. But if a guy is making 25K a year working in a warehouse, chances are his "warehouse abilities" are easily replaced and certainly doesn't need to be retained long term with expensive perks.
B. Employees go home on Friday with their check, the employer goes home with whatver is leftover after payroll, expenses like Work's Comp, payroll taxes and overhead. Employees don't care if the WC rates rose, if a client didn't pay their bill, if the rent went up etc......They just want their check and roll out the door. So before you start proclaiming low wages/lack of benefits are the issue you may want to consider the whole picture.
C. Your last point is the truly the problem......pay better/good working conditions = better work force............This isn't reality for 2 reasons: There is no correlation between higher wages and better job performance unless it is commission based and even if an employee is being paid top dollar, they will bail if someone offers more so in essence you can never over-compensate an employee since they will always leave for a better offer!
I hate to break it to you but in other states having health benefits at a job isn't considered a perk/luxury it's part of the job package.
I was shocked in talking to people in FL who worked regular white collar office jobs who had no medical benefits. That it isn't the norm here to have medical benefits through your employer.
And if you don't think salary doesn't reflect job performance, well that is just laughable.
In fact anytime I start to get annoyed with some inept office worker in say a doctor's office for example, I stop myself and say they're most likely getting $9 an hour and have no benefits. So don't bite their head off even when they screw up, they don't have it too easy.
A lot of this post is completely laughable. Especially the part about "better pay does not = better work"...
I dont know when it happened, but at some point over the last 30 or so years, employers began to look at employees as a liability rather than an asset. This is unfortunate and has led to the present situation where employees are basically at war with employers in a lot of situation.
Don't be ignorant, almost every job hits a wall of "maximum compensation." For example, a warehouse employee who simply receives/sends out inventory. Not a sales position (where he/she could really improve company's bottom line by increasing sales) nor a customer service position where customer satisfaction can be an attributing factor.
If the job pays 26K a year ($500 a week, $12.50 an hour) there is no way paying that same employee and extra $100 a week will make a better employee! This applies across the board to many jobs which is why Walmart doesn't pay stock people $75,000 a year to stock shelves!
There also becomes a point in time that the same employee can be replaced for a lower wage, this isn't rocket science type jobs here. Clerks, cashiers, stock people, landscapers, etc.....they are all low skill jobs that don't pay a lot because the job can be done by almost any able bodied person. Note the lower wage is the starting rate for that job, so if you have given raises for 10 years, obviously the new hire won't get hired at the former 10 year employee's wage.
Sales positions should be compensated heavily, bring in more money (through increased sales) and absolutely the person doing it should be paid more money.
Unions have exploited employers for "more more more" for decades and have literally ruined businesses due to exorbitant costs (healthcare, pensions etc come to mind). Big business fights back by simply moving the business out of the country letting the unions bully their competitors!
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.
