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.
I agree.. It gets old having to put an hour into an application and then get denied. I mean honestly I apply for jobs that I have all but one skill they are asking for, because you can always be taught how to do it. I really dislike getting denial after denial which I know that it is the economy but after like 5 you get down in the dumps and then your like why try at least that's the way I feel.
I interviewed at this one place one time, they said they were not going to train me on ANYTHING, that because I would have my degree in June that I would be put into the job and be expected to do that. I know that's probably what should be done, but most places give you a few days or a week to "train" to get used to the new systems. At least that's what I would like to think!
This economy is tough I get that, but i believe that everyone deserves a chance, isn't that why they have the 90 day probation period?? We also have to take into consideration, daycare, fuel and housing and food expenses.. Daycare is the one that is the killer because daycare assistance is no longer there for people that actually need it from the state. State assistance is going down very fast.. and i think that everyone should be drug tested, just like a job. Not going to lie, I don't really need assistance but I would be nice because I am trying to better myself by going to school, and getting a degree that is worthless, in my opinion.
I agree.. It gets old having to put an hour into an application and then get denied. I mean honestly I apply for jobs that I have all but one skill they are asking for, because you can always be taught how to do it. I really dislike getting denial after denial which I know that it is the economy but after like 5 you get down in the dumps and then your like why try at least that's the way I feel.
I interviewed at this one place one time, they said they were not going to train me on ANYTHING, that because I would have my degree in June that I would be put into the job and be expected to do that. I know that's probably what should be done, but most places give you a few days or a week to "train" to get used to the new systems. At least that's what I would like to think!
This economy is tough I get that, but i believe that everyone deserves a chance, isn't that why they have the 90 day probation period?? We also have to take into consideration, daycare, fuel and housing and food expenses.. Daycare is the one that is the killer because daycare assistance is no longer there for people that actually need it from the state. State assistance is going down very fast.. and i think that everyone should be drug tested, just like a job. Not going to lie, I don't really need assistance but I would be nice because I am trying to better myself by going to school, and getting a degree that is worthless, in my opinion.
Not exactly. That's not what the probationary period is for and employers aren't really there to give people a chance. They are running a business and want the best they can get. You have to see things from their point of view.
Believe me I sympathize with you on this and I understand how you feel. I have been there myself but I also have been on the other side and the thing is, the one thing for which you were turned down, the one thing you didn't know, is something another candidate who got the job did know. In other words, someone else will have 100% knowledge to your 99%. It's all about the competition. If an employer can hire someone with those 100% skills, that's who is going to get the job. It is going to save him or her that much more time in getting the new employee ready for the job.
If you want to be successful in the job hunting arena, you have to look at things from the employer's point of view. It takes time to train a new person, even in the most basic of areas. It is just not practical for an employer to take the time to train someone, unless it is an entry level job, when another new hire can hit the ground running.
The probationary period is there to show the employee how the job is done at that particular company. It is not necessarily the time in which to teach the new hire how to do the job even if there is only a lack of knowledge of only a small part of it. There are still some companies willing to do partial or full teaching, the last one I worked for did this for some entry level jobs but these are becoming fewer and fewer. Sometimes, temp agencies are good places to get your foot in the door into companies that will do this type of training or will do the training for them and then send you to these companies. That's where we got our employees.
Oh and I must add, these days, an hour spent on filing an application is really not all that long.
Auto Mechanics is largely computer based since OBD-II was standarized in 1996. Data processing again depends on what system. Besides we actually reached "peak" car awhile ago. There's nothing wrong with working with cars but it's not exactly an industry with the same growth it had generations prior. Google has driverless cars coming out in another six or so years and then there's drones.
Driverless cars would still need a mechanic from time to time!
And, already, cars are so complex, complicated, and hard to work on...that many people who used to do their own work no longer do...because they don't have the correct tools, or the knowledge.
I remember a 1968 Ford Galaxie my family owned when I was young. You could climb under the hood of that thing, and stand up inside the engine compartment. You could WORK on a car like that. Nowadays, things are crammed in so tight, and there are so many extra things under there...you can't really work on them much.
Not exactly. That's not what the probationary period is for and employers aren't really there to give people a chance. They are running a business and want the best they can get. You have to see things from their point of view.
Believe me I sympathize with you on this and I understand how you feel. I have been there myself but I also have been on the other side and the thing is, the one thing for which you were turned down, the one thing you didn't know, is something another candidate who got the job did know. In other words, someone else will have 100% knowledge to your 99%. It's all about the competition. If an employer can hire someone with those 100% skills, that's who is going to get the job. It is going to save him or her that much more time in getting the new employee ready for the job.
If you want to be successful in the job hunting arena, you have to look at things from the employer's point of view. It takes time to train a new person, even in the most basic of areas. It is just not practical for an employer to take the time to train someone, unless it is an entry level job, when another new hire can hit the ground running.
The probationary period is there to show the employee how the job is done at that particular company. It is not necessarily the time in which to teach the new hire how to do the job even if there is only a lack of knowledge of only a small part of it. There are still some companies willing to do partial or full teaching, the last one I worked for did this for some entry level jobs but these are becoming fewer and fewer. Sometimes, temp agencies are good places to get your foot in the door into companies that will do this type of training or will do the training for them and then send you to these companies. That's where we got our employees.
Oh and I must add, these days, an hour spent on filing an application is really not all that long.
And if you go for a job LOWER than your skill set, in order to give yourself an edge, they tell you that you're "overqualified" and disqualify you that way.
I am SO GLAD I am not in the job market these days. I'd slit my wrists before I'd go back to that frustration.
But it does make sense. since corporations already pay little or no tax. You'd close all the loopholes corporations currently use...and make them do it THIS way in order to avoid taxes. Then, what you have is a number of employees paying INCOME TAX...which makes up for the tax the government is not getting from the corporations.
This way, you maximize the number of jobs they have to create and maintain in order to continue to enjoy the zero-tax status they currently enjoy by shifting money to Costa Rica and whatnot. Get rid of all the tricky accounting and now ....it becomes for the government better than a zero-sum game, since the amount of taxes employed people would pay in income taxes would be more than the pittance they would lose from corporations who do every trick in the book to pay as little as possible.
Businesses would benefit from having more consumers with money in their pockets and confidence enough to actually spend it.
I see it as a win-win-win.
Well, unfortunately that's not how it actually works. Corporations pay tax, and then the people that get the corporate dividends pay tax again. It's called double taxation. Look it up.
Corporations aren't stupid--they outsource to cut costs and keep the same level of service. If you could get the same widget for less somewhere else, wouldn't you? Hence, why walmart is successful. If most people cared more about the big picture vs lower prices on home goods, we would have some solid American industries left. People voted with their wallet to kill off domestic industries.
You're right that there is no US income tax collected on the employees of the off-shore companies that a corporation may outsource too. But since the overall expense of HR just went down on the corporation side, where do you think that extra money went? It got taxed. Or it was used to build new infrastructure/products/etc which created jobs.
To a certain extent this is a chicken and egg debate--which is more important, employee or employers. And while it is the general comment that it's a toss up, it really isn't. An employer can survive without employees, not the other way around. Employers never start with employees, they start with an idea/product or service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy
Most employees won't do something right? How much are you paying them?
Pay has nothing to do with the quality of work we get. We've played that game. We've paid as much as 30% higher. But for entry-level jobs, it seems like the people are all the same. Don't get me wrong, we've definitely had some great people. But people like that move on to bigger and better things, with our blessing I might add. And then you're on the hunt for another needle in the proverbial haystack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kineticity
If you're paying peanuts... you tend to get monkeys. If more employers realized the truth of this adage, maybe they'd offer a reasonable wage and they'd get better employees.
And if you pay in bags of gold, you get Leprechauns. Reasonable wages they are. Reasonable work is required to get those wages. Employees seem to fail that test regularly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalisiin
My friend who used to manage a video store when those were all over the place used to say: "Minimum wage equals maximum hassles."
It definitely is a hassle, no doubt. But running a business just so you can pay your employees and go home empty handed is a bigger hassle. Most business owners aren't doing this for the sheer joy of smiles on their employees faces. It's not a charity. Do your job, do it right, day-in, day-out, take care of us and we'll take care of you. This is the unwritten contract that every employer has in their head. For some reason it doesn't work out when the 'do your job' part isn't being done by the employee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalisiin
Yup. If you don't pay then enough to give a crap about their job, they probably won't.
The fool is the employer who expects to get maximum effort in return for minimum compensation.
There's a lot of people that won't give a crap no matter how much you pay them. Yes, you cannot expect maximum effort in return for minimum compensation. But if you think increasing the compensation somehow magically increases the effort or employee performance, that's not what employers see every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
It seems obvious from your tone and posts that you treat your employees like parasites and commodities and I can only guess how little you pay them and your hiring selection system. It is no wonder you have a disengaged work force. When employees are underpaid, and there is no meritocracy in place, and the company is constantly looking for more ways to [bleep] them you end up with a workforce that just doesn't really care and does the minimum to get by or worse some get so angry they quietly sabotage you [actively disengaged]. That was the situation at my last employer and I was glad to be rid of them.
It's kind of comical that you've attacked me this way. Every time I was directly in charge of employees, I had a core group of great employees who said I was a great person to work for and was really great at training. I really care about the people I work with, but I also expect them to do their job. When you're working with the entry level labor force, that in itself is a problem for a vast majority.
Employees should never feel that they have a right to cross ethical and legal boundries because of some perceived vendetta. Everyone can leave a workplace if they feel that it is not the best fit. I've done it myself, and while it's not easy, it is the right thing to do. Using employers to jump on unemployment or other suchs acts of cheating the system are shameful, but extremely common. There was a time in this country where people would starve before they took a handout. That's the personal pride and ethics that's missing--and it's been replaced by an entitlement mentality. Like everyone is supposed to be handed a cell phone and ipad straight out of the womb. Earn it!
Employers can't survive without employees. At least not if they want to continue producing goods and services so they can stay in business. Have you ever tried to run an entire restaurant or factory singlehandedly?
And employers should never feel that they have the right to cross ethical and legal lines because of a disregard for their employees, either, but it happens all the time.
Furthermore, employers should never feel entitled to the labor of their employees to the extent that they they begrudge the employees their wages. But that's basically what's been happening in far too many companies lately. There seems to be this idea that work is somehow a virtue unto itself, and ought to be done for its own sake rather than for any real expectation of more than a purely symbolic remuneration, with payday persisting like some ritualistic charade still enacted for the sake of form long after it has become devoid of genuine function. Our society appears to have exchanged the idea of a mutually beneficial agreement between employer and employee for a philosophy in which it is expected that every worker should be grateful simply for the opportunity to participate in the great capitalistic economic engine that drives wealth to the top of the column, and to pay heed to the question of whether or not the workers' own needs are in fact being met in return is regarded as an act of dire sacrilege.
Last edited by Kineticity; 12-13-2013 at 11:40 PM..
Employers can't survive without employees. At least not if they want to continue producing goods and services so they can stay in business. Have you ever tried to run an entire restaurant or factory singlehandedly?
And employers should never feel that they have the right to cross ethical and legal lines because of a disregard for their employees, either, but it happens all the time.
Furthermore, employers should never feel entitled to the labor of their employees to the extent that they they begrudge the employees their wages. But that's basically what's been happening in far too many companies lately. There seems to be this idea that work is somehow a virtue unto itself, and ought to be done for its own sake rather than for any real expectation of more than a purely symbolic remuneration, with payday persisting like some ritualistic charade still enacted for the sake of form long after it has become devoid of genuine function. Our society appears to have exchanged the idea of a mutually beneficial agreement between employer and employee for a philosophy in which it is expected that every worker should be grateful simply for the opportunity to participate in the great capitalistic economic engine that drives wealth to the top of the column, and to pay heed to the question of whether or not the workers' own needs are in fact being met in return is regarded as an act of dire sacrilege.
Pay has nothing to do with the quality of work we get. We've played that game. We've paid as much as 30% higher. But for entry-level jobs, it seems like the people are all the same. Don't get me wrong, we've definitely had some great people. But people like that move on to bigger and better things, with our blessing I might add. And then you're on the hunt for another needle in the proverbial haystack.
And if you pay in bags of gold, you get Leprechauns. Reasonable wages they are. Reasonable work is required to get those wages. Employees seem to fail that test regularly.
Many of our employees have won industry awards and their work has been cited by the WSJ, NYT, FT, Boston Globe etc. and our company itself has won awards by II and Bloomberg. We pay such employees six digits and we're even in the lower range of our industry. Our best employees get poached regularly but we don't seem to be running out of people to fill their shoes.
My sister in law is the GM of a celebrity restaurant in NYC and they are known for the high quality of service both from their restaurant workers and managers. Their servers are very skilled and successful in cross-selling signature menu items and meeting daily sales targets. Indeed they pay far above the average wages of the restaurant industry. Her case is a good example of how they treat employees. She started out as a server and worked her way up. It was back breaking work but along the way they rotated her and other promising employees to different responsibilities and other restaurants owned by the same company. They even assigned her to London when they opened a branch there and sent her to Dubai to study the feasibility of opening another restaurant in that city. In their company, even a server who is talented and works hard can come a long way.
I don't know what your company is doing but it is wrong to make such blanket statements that employees fail that test regularly or that they won't do the right thing. Maybe such failures happen in your business but definitely not true for all companies. Common denominator for the successful businesses is that they go out of the way to help their best employees succeed - it is not a one-sided relationship.
For me it's gone beyond just a thing with the economy. It's personal now. Like if you tease a dog with a steak long enough you alter it's behavior and it becomes permanently vicious.
Most business owners aren't doing this for the sheer joy of smiles on their employees faces. It's not a charity. Do your job, do it right, day-in, day-out, take care of us and we'll take care of you. This is the unwritten contract that every employer has in their head.
Yeah, and many employers seem to fall down on the "...and we'll take care of you" part of that unwritten contract. and you know I'm right.
No, as a business owner myself, I know it isn't a charity and we do not exist to put smiles on employees faces and go home empty-handed.
I have put inquiries out, recently, on acquiring another company, to expand my own. I was asked...what if that other company has employees, are you going to keep them?
I said...if the work volume and income justify it yes...otherwise, no.
So you're gonna screw those people out of their jobs? Is the next thing I'm asked.
No, I replied...BUT, I am considering acquiring this business in order to grow my business. If there is NOT enough income to pay back the loans I need to buy the company...keep the employees, and also make some money on the deal myself...then, yeah, I have to let the employees go. They will get unemployment, and I hope they will also find new jobs. Letting employees go is NOT something most business owners actually enjoy doing.
But if you don't do it...and as a result, run at a loss...and as a result bankrupt the whole company, then EVERYONE loses their job.
Too many people do not see the employer side of the equation.
But there ARE too many employers out there who have lost touch with the realities of what people need to get paid in order to get by.
By the way, raising the minimum wage does not really do any good. What needs to happen is to find a way to raise everyone's buying power.
Are you better off making 10 bucks an hour...when a pair of shoes cost $50....
or are you better off making $20 an hour...and the same pair of shoes costs you $150?
You're better off, in this scenario, making ten bucks. You need to work only 5 hours to buy the shoes. In the twenty dollar scenario, you have to work 7.5 hours for the same shoes.
This is another concept that many don't take into consideration when talking about raising the minimum wage.
And prices WILL go up if the minimum wage is raised, and here is why:
Current = $7.25/hour
Let's suppose you are currently working at $10.50.
Now they raise the minimum wage to $10/hr.
Are you going to be very happy if your wage does not go up? Before you were $3.25 an hour ahead of minimum, now you're only 50 cents ahead of minimum.
So your non-minimum wage people will be pushing for raises when the minimum gets raised.
If everyone's wage gets raised, prices go up...and nobody actually gains any real buying power.
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.
Earn it!
