Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2014, 12:28 PM
 
194 posts, read 148,868 times
Reputation: 142

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadWarrior12 View Post
You're missing the fact that the employer also has to pay UE tax on the new employees wages - starting back from zero.

Scenario 1:
1 person works same role all year, I pay 1.5% in UE tax on their first $15K, they make 60K in the year.

Scenario 2:
I go revolving door at same wage, but a new employee every quarter. I pay 6% in UE tax.

Money is also money.
OK, so my original premise was correct. They aren't losing or having to pay more money as much as their senior employees time is being wasted by having to train new employee after new employee. So maybe the language and the wording in the conversation I was listening to needed to be changed in order for it to be accurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2014, 12:32 PM
 
2,283 posts, read 3,857,889 times
Reputation: 3685
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodWayOfDoingThat View Post
OK, so my original premise was correct. They aren't losing or having to pay more money as much as their senior employees time is being wasted by having to train new employee after new employee. So maybe the language and the wording in the conversation I was listening to needed to be changed in order for it to be accurate.
Uh. No. Read again.

1.5% of the first 15K is lower than 6%. For UE tax.

Recruiting and advertising have actual real $$ expenses.

Can't figure out if you're being intentionally obtuse or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 12:34 PM
 
194 posts, read 148,868 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadWarrior12 View Post
Uh. No. Read again.

1.5% of the first 15K is lower than 6%.
Yes, but if it's just that then that doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as they were making it. Especially for people who make 30-40k per year as I stated earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
16,289 posts, read 32,359,422 times
Reputation: 21892
Cost of a new employee:

1. Advertise the job.

2. Cost to interview the employee. Realize that I can be doing something else if I don't have to interview you. Also we have more than one interview. We have a team interview as well and that is more cost. A couple months we had 4 guys that were spending a day interviewing people, lost productivity there.

3, Orientation. We hold them once a month and you can't start working till you have been thru orientation.

4. Background check, drug test, employee verification all takes time and money.

5. Department specific training. Around here that lasts 3 to 6 weeks depending on the job.

6. The Hospital Campus is big and it can take months to learn where everything is. I have been here for almost 17 years and I remember that it took about three months to remember where all the departments are.

I read somewhere that it can cost an employer a years time for new hires. That is a big investment that a company is making in you. The company can see the benefit in keeping you there. They will hopefully even offer an increase after a year because now you are more valuable to the organization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 01:11 PM
 
2,283 posts, read 3,857,889 times
Reputation: 3685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
Cost of a new employee:

1. Advertise the job.

2. Cost to interview the employee. Realize that I can be doing something else if I don't have to interview you. Also we have more than one interview. We have a team interview as well and that is more cost. A couple months we had 4 guys that were spending a day interviewing people, lost productivity there.

3, Orientation. We hold them once a month and you can't start working till you have been thru orientation.

4. Background check, drug test, employee verification all takes time and money.

5. Department specific training. Around here that lasts 3 to 6 weeks depending on the job.

6. The Hospital Campus is big and it can take months to learn where everything is. I have been here for almost 17 years and I remember that it took about three months to remember where all the departments are.

I read somewhere that it can cost an employer a years time for new hires. That is a big investment that a company is making in you. The company can see the benefit in keeping you there. They will hopefully even offer an increase after a year because now you are more valuable to the organization.
OP doesn't recognize lost time as a cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Moku Nui, Hawaii
11,053 posts, read 24,045,477 times
Reputation: 10911
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodWayOfDoingThat View Post
Ah, this makes sense. The cost of the trainer and the trainees/0 production crossed my mind. But unless it's a sales job or a job that directly impacts bottom line, I just find it hard to believe that keeping say... 100 employees around that perform well and get raises each year is less expensive than replacing all 100 employees every few months at their starting hourly wage.
ROTFLMAO Well, that's a new way to run a company. Let me know how it works out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 02:58 PM
 
Location: galaxy far far away
3,110 posts, read 5,388,046 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodWayOfDoingThat View Post
How does a high turn over rate end up costing a company more money? Best I can guess, the only thing I can think of is they're going to have to keep training new people. How is that more expensive then keeping tenured employees around and giving them raises each year?
Training time, lost time having someone doing the job, lost time having to interview and do orientation again, lost information, lost chain of information (why something was done, where the paperwork is, who they talked with,) lost contacts if the employee only worked with one vendor and the vendor doesn't know anyone else, potential loss due to theft of supplies or information (something short termers might do,) loss from litigation due to differences of opinion on why the person left....

need any more?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Kalamalka Lake, B.C.
3,563 posts, read 5,380,477 times
Reputation: 4975
It takes months, perhaps even a few seasons, to bring people as a group working together up to speed.
Here's a simple example not even related to work:
A hundred volunteers started a three day specialty horse show, back in the day.
Everything was done by phone and mail then, and most of the volunteers brought to the show their organizations skills, in sales, office, teaching, insurance, banking, and the professions. In other words, they were adults used to working in a team of some kind. Thousands of hours to put on a three day show.
The first show almost killed us.
The second was fully involved, and we were getting our rubber on the ground.
The third year was a walk. Everyone knew their job, and most importantly, what NOT to do or double check, because it was being handled by someone they knew.
As I said, building a team, even in non-profit, can take months. Expensive in time and/or money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
16,289 posts, read 32,359,422 times
Reputation: 21892
I finally read all these posts and man the OP is a bit confused as to how business works.

It costs lots of money to hire new people. Yes the people that you have handle the hiring process are allready getting paid but now that employee resourse has to spend the dollars the employer is paying them on finding new people, getting them ready for hire, training them, doing everything else to get them started, holding their hand. All that time is time they can not bring in more revenue for the company. No one makes any money when a new employee comes on site. No one is making the company a dime. The company is taking an employee resource off the market so that they can get a new or future employee set up so that they can eventually make money for the place.

The OP seems to think that these people are paid anyway, so no money is lost. But plenty of money is lost, money paid out for a non income producing job function. Time that could be making money is being used because of high turnover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 03:21 PM
 
194 posts, read 148,868 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
I finally read all these posts and man the OP is a bit confused as to how business works.

It costs lots of money to hire new people. Yes the people that you have handle the hiring process are allready getting paid but now that employee resourse has to spend the dollars the employer is paying them on finding new people, getting them ready for hire, training them, doing everything else to get them started, holding their hand. All that time is time they can not bring in more revenue for the company. No one makes any money when a new employee comes on site. No one is making the company a dime. The company is taking an employee resource off the market so that they can get a new or future employee set up so that they can eventually make money for the place.

The OP seems to think that these people are paid anyway, so no money is lost. But plenty of money is lost, money paid out for a non income producing job function. Time that could be making money is being used because of high turnover.
People in HR don't make the company money outside of hiring good salesman or people who can make the company money. That's their main job for large corporations. So the fact that they're finding good people to hire isn't costing the company MORE money, what else could they be doing to generate money for the company besides hiring good people? I just don't follow the logic you guys are losing. Maybe I should write a book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:38 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top