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 made an attacking comment following that point. Hence that's what you got in return. No need to get dramatic.
Nice. Lots of empathy there. And you expect an employer to care two hoots about you when you're like this? I know I wouldn't want my guests to be greeted by someone who has a 'too bad for you' attitude.
If someone has that type of money, that's the bigger side of 'small business'. Gross sales in the double digit millions for sure, at least 100+ employees, and a solid structure that's been built by someone else's sweat (the previous generation).
There's an interesting saying about wealth--the first generation builds it, the second grows it, the third blows it.
What I got in return was you saying I said something I didn't and when I challenged you to find where I said it, I got nonsense in return in the above post from someone who lied about what I wrote.
Who's greeting your guests in your 2 penny small business? Certainly not someone of my caliber and education. Dream on! Americans are not your servants. Go back to the 3rd world for that.
As for the generational business, my sister's bosses are not "blowing" it .. they are building it. They are buying other businesses, some failing and saving the jobs of people, instead of being greedy $^$#@ concerned only with how they can nickel and dime employees.
As for your saying about wealth ... Kennedys, Vanderbilts, etc., anyone? Once it's in the trust funds it's hard to "blow" ... don't be jealous.
Who's greeting your guests in your 2 penny small business? Certainly not someone of my caliber and education. Dream on! Americans are not your servants. Go back to the 3rd world for that.
But that is just the problem...they are. Because what many of them WANT is servants, not employees with dignity. And then they complain when they get what they pay for.
Surely, there must be some middle ground here. Businesses, sorry to say, employees, do not have limitless resources to pay you whatever you WISH you made. You have to make a few choices, and do without a few things. As long as those things are not life-necessary, this should not be a problem.
Employees, sorry to say, businesses...also have needs which must be met. It is in your better long-term interest to have employees who are fed well, have adequate medical care so that they do not get sick, have a domicile of some sort where they can go and change clothes, shower, and otherwise get themselves prepared to look their best to represent your business.
The problem is, too many companies (and I speak of large, publicly-traded companies here) do not have any sort of a long-term plan anymore...their vision only goes to the next quarterly stock report. They will do what they must to raise the stock price a point or two in the short term, in order to pad their own pockets and then bail with their golden parachute....before the disastrous consequences of their actions take effect - leaving everyone else behind to clean up the mess they created.
I understand investors (stock holders) want to see a ROI - but it used to be this was a long-term investment that paid off over time.
Day traders have screwed everything for everyone.
It seems to me that these days the function of the CEO is to artificially jack the stock price up as high as possible, and then bail before the bottom falls out. IT should be that the CEO would be responsible for a long-term plan that benefits the company, the investors and, yes, the employees too.
There was a day when "if it is good for GM it is good for America" was true, but those days are gone, perhaps never to return.
But that is just the problem...they are. Because what many of them WANT is servants, not employees with dignity. And then they complain when they get what they pay for.
Surely, there must be some middle ground here. Businesses, sorry to say, employees, do not have limitless resources to pay you whatever you WISH you made. You have to make a few choices, and do without a few things. As long as those things are not life-necessary, this should not be a problem.
Employees, sorry to say, businesses...also have needs which must be met. It is in your better long-term interest to have employees who are fed well, have adequate medical care so that they do not get sick, have a domicile of some sort where they can go and change clothes, shower, and otherwise get themselves prepared to look their best to represent your business.
The problem is, too many companies (and I speak of large, publicly-traded companies here) do not have any sort of a long-term plan anymore...their vision only goes to the next quarterly stock report. They will do what they must to raise the stock price a point or two in the short term, in order to pad their own pockets and then bail with their golden parachute....before the disastrous consequences of their actions take effect - leaving everyone else behind to clean up the mess they created.
I understand investors (stock holders) want to see a ROI - but it used to be this was a long-term investment that paid off over time.
Day traders have screwed everything for everyone.
It seems to me that these days the function of the CEO is to artificially jack the stock price up as high as possible, and then bail before the bottom falls out. IT should be that the CEO would be responsible for a long-term plan that benefits the company, the investors and, yes, the employees too.
There was a day when "if it is good for GM it is good for America" was true, but those days are gone, perhaps never to return.
Believe me, I am well aware of what Multi-Nationals have become.
However, your essay is misplaced as I was answering this degrading personal attack from Samir, who was wishfully (and somewhat hilariously) imagining me as one of his two-bit personal maids or housekeepers, not discussing Big Corporate:
I know I wouldn't want my guests to be greeted by someone who has a 'too bad for you' attitude.
If you do a proper job of interviewing candidates before you hire them, most of the time you will have a fairly good idea of the answers to those questions before you bring someone on. If you don't, then you need to take a good hard look at your interviewing technique.
You can't pay experienced people minimum wage -- which in most cases is far below whatever they earned at their recent previous job and therefore less than what they need in order to live AND less than what they know they are worth (and they have this backed up BY having been paid more in the past)... you can't pay someone like that minimum wage even for a probationary period and expect them to 1) really give a damn about working for you and 2) stick around any longer than it takes them to find a better-paying job.
Honestly, if you've been getting crap employees, it's most likely because you're trying to pay minimum wage to people who are accustomed to making more money than that and who are only taking a job with you because they're desperate to get some kind of paycheck while they continue looking for something better. Minimum wage was never intended to be a 'probationary' wage paid to qualified and experienced employees until you decide whether to keep them. So you're using the wrong tool for the task, and you're blaming the employees when you're the one making the mistake.
You should try paying the employees what you would pay them after this 'probationary' period, except pay them that from day one. My guess is that you'll probably have far better employees, because they won't feel undervalued. What you're doing right now is taking advantage of people. Trust has to go both ways, and you're making it clear that you do not trust your employees. Nobody wants to work for someone who does not trust them or who has no faith in them.
Neither is hiring the best but paying them a McWage. You'll probably make more money if you just hire people and pay them something reasonable from Day One based on their experience. That's what most successful, profitable companies do... at least the ones that want to wind up with a motivated workforce that actually cares about the company. Right now, it sounds like you're just wasting time and money on workforce turnover, what with having to constantly hire and train new people. You could save those training costs if you just hired people who are experienced and paid them what they're worth. If everyone you hire is just working for you temporarily in their own mind because they're looking for something better, you're probably not even getting the best candidates in the first place, and if you've already created a reputation for your company in the local job market as a crappy place to work, with crappy pay and an owner who has a bad attitude toward his employees, it's almost a given that only desperate people are even bothering to apply. Is that really the kind of employee you want to attract?
I doubt very much that everyone is trying to "keep up with the Joneses" these days. On the other hand, if you already bought the car or the house before you got downsized from that good-paying job you used to have, you're kind of stuck with the car payment and the mortgage payment, and you need to be making enough money to pay those expenses. If you've recently gone from earning $45k per year to earning $25k per year and you already had the car loan and the mortgage, money is going to be a problem.
You might want to define "frivolous" here. Is a cellphone frivolous? No, not really. Especially not if it's a person's only phone. How about a car? No, a car isn't frivolous in and of itself. People need to be able to get to and from work, or to look for work. Most people with money problems, especially if they're making low wages, don't have those problems due to "frivolous" expenses; they have them due to a wage they couldn't live on even if they had almost NO expenses.
I'll assume you mean "ate" rather than "hate". Should I also assume you think it's okay to expect everyone to only eat every other day?
See, if you were smart you would've signed up for day labor as soon as you realized you didn't have enough money to eat every day, rather than going on for however long on so little. I've done day labor a couple of times when I've needed to. It's back-breaking, grueling, dirty work and it only pays minimum wage, but it beats the hell out of not eating.
In the short term, yes. In the long term, no one should be expected to work below their capacity forever.
Given your statements regarding what you consider needful vs. frivolous, I'm reluctant to blame your wife for this. Just sayin'.
That's where you're wrong. I know there's this whole mythology of the deadbeat welfare queen... but that's all it is: A myth. The vast majority of people on public assistance are only on it for a short period of time, and 99% of them don't actually want to be on them at all. Most of them are trying to pull themselves up to the next level in life, but it isn't something that happens overnight, and it's often harder than many of us NOT in that situation might think. I've known, and know now, some people in exactly that boat, and I see how they struggle. Every day I have to remember that there but for the grace of God go I.
I admit that our interviewing techniques aren't good enough to catch all the cons. It's an art carving out the bad from the good from the lower end of the scale. There's a lot of garbage to filter through.
We typically will not hire people at less than what they made previously. If we do not think they are worth what they were paid before, we will give them an offer. It is their choice to take this offer.
Giving employees great wages and all the perks of the same employees in the workplace that have earned this is a slap in the face to existing staff. Anyone must earn their way. Prove to us that you're worth what you say you are. We're not going to pay you and then you go, 'oops, sorry' while you count the money we paid you. We've been burned by this technique enough.
Manging turnover is a huge hassle, but some industries just have it. Even the upper end of our industry still faces turnover at not so different rates of attrition. And the money is almost double on that end of the scale. Paying more doesn't solve much in this case.
If someone decided to live at the edge of their earnings and not buffer it with savings, why is that something I have to deal with? Make responsible life choices, and don't expect anyone to 'bail you out' of financial problems with a handout salary. Earn it. And if you can't, lose your stuff, plain and simple.
Absolutely not. People should be able to eat and keep themselves healthy. However, this isn't a God-given right. You have to be willing to earn the food--whether by tilling the soil with your two hands or working to earn money to buy what you need. My example was to show in detail how this can be done--with self-sacrifce and diligence. Instead, it was seen as I expect other people to eat every other day.
If I was smart? LOL! I used every minute of those days when I wasn't working to lay the ground that finally got me the job. If I was toiling in labor, I wouldn't have had the strength to move up as rapidly. It's important to know what to sacrifice and when. Sometimes a little bit of short-tem pain goes a long way to prevent long-term pain.
I've seen too many people that revolve in the system for many years in our area. The system is absolutely clogged with them. It may be different in different parts of the country, but it's decently bad here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy
The restaurant business is a good example. The better restaurants will go through great lengths to keep good servers and hosts who can cross sell signature dishes. They spend more, but they also make more. Mediocre restaurants will only get those who take down orders while those further down can only hire the ones whose mix up the orders and are oblivious to customer needs. Same concept applies to many other retail-service businesses.
If you cannot find as many good enough employees then it has more to do with your business, and not employees. The good employees that you say you cannot find are mostly working elsewhere.
And those two restaurants have the same net profit. So besides avoiding the possible problems of continuous attrition, it doesn't make a difference to a business owner.
Every property in our area has the same issue. The same employees even bounce around to the different properties. To a certain extent, it's the nature of both the industry and the labor pool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalisiin
Still, nobody should be economically forced into that situation.
And yet, people like you want to completely cut off these vital lifelines, because of the few, and I mean few...who abuse them.
You mean like me? On disability for a little over five years. Incidentally, I still have my disabling condition. But I no longer draw disability.
I used my time on disability to learn new skills which would enable me to become self-sufficient IN SPITE of my disabling conditions. And I launched my business in January of this year and haven't looked back. I am off disability. I still get Medicare for now, but when my eligibility for that runs out, I will have to get Obamacare health insurance like everyone else.
And how exactly do you prevent that? No one gave me a handout, nor did I expect one. Times were tough and I beared down and did what had to be done. I didn't have any entitlement attitudes. Humility is important in life, and maybe even moreso in the workplace.
Absolutely not! I would like to see these services serve the people better and actually help them move on to better times in their lives. They are vital for rehabilitating and 'fixing' what the rest of the system messed up. The problem is the system doesn't take into account abuse.
Perfect case in point. The employee that stole money from us got approved for unemployement even when they specificially met a certain criteria that excludes people from approval. I called the fraud hotline to report this and two other grave instances like this that I just became aware of. After being on hold for 10 minutes, it goes to a generic message system. When unemployment offices are more interested in paying out than fraud, the system is broken.
Yes! You are a perfect example of how it's supposed to work. And I'm so happy to hear of a personal story of success in this day and age. Disability is no easy thing to live with, and it takes time to get back on your feet. It's okay if you need help during that time. We all need help like that sometimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but
What I got in return was you saying I said something I didn't and when I challenged you to find where I said it, I got nonsense in return in the above post from someone who lied about what I wrote.
Who's greeting your guests in your 2 penny small business? Certainly not someone of my caliber and education. Dream on! Americans are not your servants. Go back to the 3rd world for that.
As for the generational business, my sister's bosses are not "blowing" it .. they are building it. They are buying other businesses, some failing and saving the jobs of people, instead of being greedy $^$#@ concerned only with how they can nickel and dime employees.
As for your saying about wealth ... Kennedys, Vanderbilts, etc., anyone? Once it's in the trust funds it's hard to "blow" ... don't be jealous.
Shall I quote where you said it? I thought you were 'intelligent' and could go back and find it on your own.
So you can also sling racist remarks--I was born in the US and am a United States citizen. It's great to see your caliber and education on display here.
Great to see your sister's bosses are in the second generation of growing. Even when in trusts, money can still be blown. I've studied this in our own family's estate planning. But someone as educated as you would have known this.
Yes! You are a perfect example of how it's supposed to work. And I'm so happy to hear of a personal story of success in this day and age. Disability is no easy thing to live with, and it takes time to get back on your feet. It's okay if you need help during that time. We all need help like that sometimes.
Well, I had to fight like hell for two years to GET it.
And when I got it I could not wait till the day I was able to get off it.
You can't make a living on it. If not for the generosity of my mom, taking me in...I never would have made it until such time as I got disability....and then acquired new skills....and now, six years later, I am reaping the rewards I never would have had.
The system needs to work faster to get help to people who really DO need it.
I was lucky that I had family that was willing and able to help. Not all of us are so lucky.
And those two restaurants have the same net profit. So besides avoiding the possible problems of continuous attrition, it doesn't make a difference to a business owner.
Every property in our area has the same issue. The same employees even bounce around to the different properties. To a certain extent, it's the nature of both the industry and the labor pool.
Check your assumptions, you seem to be making too many unfounded ones.
The restaurants who pay more and get their employees to produce more are thus more profitable. Some of them open upscale sister locations in other cities. You are wrong to say that it does not make a difference to the owner. But it presupposes that the owners' ambitions are in line with their employees'. Employers with modest ambitions - the ones who are not competent enough to grow their business beyond a sundry operation - will also attract employees of modest ambitions and competencies.
Danny Meyer would never have been able to grow his restaurant into a public company if he ran it like a Dunkin Donuts or Olive Garden franchisee. Do you seriously think they have the same net profit? Seriously.
Somehow you cannot accept that there are better employers than your company. Those are where the better employees work.
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 12-16-2013 at 08:36 PM..
I admit that our interviewing techniques aren't good enough to catch all the cons. It's an art carving out the bad from the good from the lower end of the scale. There's a lot of garbage to filter through.
Then build a better mouse trap or hire better HR and hiring personnel. If you aren't getting the type of people you need and to stay with you, you either are in a high turnover industry or don't run effectively. Most filters are so bad now that they cannot even get the good employees through because of looking for buzzwords and specific experience. So in my opinion, I would say that your company's problem is that your filter is too wide. You need to tighten it so garbage don't get through. You ever hear of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), you are allowing it by letting the garbage in. Time to build a better mouse trap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamirD
We typically will not hire people at less than what they made previously. If we do not think they are worth what they were paid before, we will give them an offer. It is their choice to take this offer.
I agree with you but we also most remember that many people are struggling to find work because their division or company shut down and their skills are irrelevant due to the moore's law of the business world. Is it fair no but it is the way it is and unfortunately many have accepted lower wages because of lack of options. The problem comes when companies want you to be in between entry level and junior level but only pay low end entry level pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamirD
Giving employees great wages and all the perks of the same employees in the workplace that have earned this is a slap in the face to existing staff. Anyone must earn their way. Prove to us that you're worth what you say you are. We're not going to pay you and then you go, 'oops, sorry' while you count the money we paid you. We've been burned by this technique enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamirD
Manging turnover is a huge hassle, but some industries just have it. Even the upper end of our industry still faces turnover at not so different rates of attrition. And the money is almost double on that end of the scale. Paying more doesn't solve much in this case.
Turnover is a hassle and some industries have it no matter what. I would say that is typically retail and restaurants. Those companies have expendable and interchangable employees, it isn't like a football team where you can only find say a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady once every decade to replace the last one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamirD
If someone decided to live at the edge of their earnings and not buffer it with savings, why is that something I have to deal with? Make responsible life choices, and don't expect anyone to 'bail you out' of financial problems with a handout salary. Earn it. And if you can't, lose your stuff, plain and simple.
I think the tone in your post made it like "Well I did it this way, anyone who doesn't is a fool." Can we cut expenses, sure. I know people who can stand to go to less hockey games for instance. However the problem is now what were wants have now become needs. Internet and cell phones are now basic essentials. Why, because traditional mail is slowly dying off and replaced with e-mails and landline phones are going away because people already have a cell phone so why need a landline (case in point, rarely use my landline.) And now just like a car, these are an essential for job hunting. Now am I saying you need the best and most expensive, not at all. The issue is if you buy a 20K car when you have a 50/60K year a job but then get an unexpected reduction in force a year or so out, you still have that 20K car to pay off (because I doubt you paid in full for it.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamirD
Absolutely not. People should be able to eat and keep themselves healthy. However, this isn't a God-given right. You have to be willing to earn the food--whether by tilling the soil with your two hands or working to earn money to buy what you need. My example was to show in detail how this can be done--with self-sacrifce and diligence. Instead, it was seen as I expect other people to eat every other day.
Sadly many people look at it that they can eat ramen noodles and loser's lunch (ham on hand for those who never heard of it) so why can't anyone else? Oh and if you say well I hate Ramen, you are just making an excuse. See my above comment about the tone. When you have that kind of tone, it opens you up to being accused of that logic.
Then build a better mouse trap or hire better HR and hiring personnel. If you aren't getting the type of people you need and to stay with you, you either are in a high turnover industry or don't run effectively. Most filters are so bad now that they cannot even get the good employees through because of looking for buzzwords and specific experience. So in my opinion, I would say that your company's problem is that your filter is too wide. You need to tighten it so garbage don't get through. You ever hear of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), you are allowing it by letting the garbage in. Time to build a better mouse trap.
Exactly mkpunk. Poor managers and business owners are quick to blame employees when the reality is that they are the ones who attract lousy workers. Somehow they cannot come to terms that there are lots of high caliber employees who are working somewhere else, making someone else richer.
If their recruitment people had the least amount of competence, they would know how to filter job applications without resorting to so many processes, tools and second guessing. And if they or their managers were really good enough, they would know how to develop raw talent into successful contributors.
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.
Disability is no easy thing to live with, and it takes time to get back on your feet. It's okay if you need help during that time. We all need help like that sometimes.
