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'm asking to get a fuller understanding of what's going through a competent hiring manager's mind when hiring someone or a group of people to do a job. What if someone quits unexpectedly? Should they hire 2 or 3 extra people so they won't be left high and dry?
I see, and am an aspiring entrepreneur who employs roughly about one person (me). I don't generate enough revenue to even support myself and for the time being I have to work a normal job unfortunately. Regarding the example(s) you gave, I'm not referring to small mom and pop shops. I'm talking about large corporations (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc...)
Is it possible for you to set up a informational interview with a hiring manager, or to get in touch with one through LinkedIn?
When companies started using the term "downsizing" they found a great new way to cut costs and increase profits. The new term is "ramping down"...........same thing, different name. Most stores you go into, including the one I work at, are way understaffed and yet we are asked to do more and more.
One company I worked for had 27 employees at one time and after "downsizing" there were 7 of us left to do the same work, plus the company kept coming up with new ideas that we had to implement. Basically, companies don't want to hear anything and they know they are running stores too lean, but they also know the people who want to keep those jobs will do whatever it takes.
Nope, companies do not have that kind of civic mindset to employ people just to help the economy.
Do you think that companies hire more than they need in order to help the community and economy, or do you believe that they absolutely need the people that they're on boarding? It would make sense for companies to hire a little extra in anticipation of turnover, but do you think it's ever out of the goodness of their heart and to help the community and economy?
Are you freaking kidding me?! Most that i've worked for have purposefully under-staffed and triple people's workloads.
Yes. There's only one that I know of that could reasonable be called private.
Farming.
Subsidies = over production = additional employees to create the over production
But since the feds are involved in it, and like someone already pointed out only the feds do this, then I don't know if farming would count.
The only other industries I can think of are more than just subsidized. They're so dependent on government funds that they should be deemed a government agency. I refer to to the government grant hogs of course. And as we all know, the more you ask for from the government the more you get because you use it or lose it. So the company asks for $2m, gets $1m, only needs $500k. The company is left with money unspent and jobs that are for no one.
This is how some people get $60k a year jobs without having any marketable skills and produce nothing for the economy. The health care field is notorious for this. Rotech, etc. I still have friends in this field. They might make $60k+ a year doing nothing. But they're under contact with the government to only produce so much, so the company must have hired them for public benefit, right?
I worked for Rotech as a temp and saw first hand. The company keeps non-productive permanent employees on paper for X dollars so they don't set off radars by competing companies by having too low prices. They make up the production difference by hiring temps at barely above minimum wage who are the ones who actually fulfill the contract requirements. They operate this way in low income/low cost of living/highly educated areas.
So, you have hypothetical Bob on paper making $90k a year because that's a bit less than Bob would make in the rest of the country and you're in a low cost area. So low cost hypothetical Bob is included in the contract bid. You get the contract because of your low costs. Then you hire and keep Tom for $40k a year because that's darn good money in Detroit (or the outskirts of Nashville). Tom is too drunk to ask for more. You then hire Sally for $30k a year as a temp and work Sally to the bone because Sally is willing to do it since she has student loans to pay and is in Detroit taking care of family. That's $20k per year pure profit for Rotech.
On paper, Tom meets the qualifications of the contract. The government doesn't care if you sub-contract their contract and they wash their hands of that aspect. So if you're audited at any time, you're covered.
How many Toms and Sallies do you think Rotech has?
(A lot)
And it's not just the health care field and agricultural industries. Think H1Bs and all those H1Bs crammed into a hotel room. There are tons of jobs created solely for altruistic reasons.
But government funded, so funded by you, so... Thank you.
Last edited by mrskay662000; 12-20-2014 at 04:54 AM..
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,553 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57723
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekab23
I have seen management hire friends and family for non existent positions, or for positions that don't need to be filled.
The ones I love, are the "invented positions". Meaning upper management created some imaginary job for their neighbor's son in law's cousin. LOL
I have seen this too, mostly in small business, but other than family and friends, companies staff to handle the lowest workload, then use overtime, temps, or simply ask their employees to step it up when busier. A recent trend is Continuous Process Improvement, with many companies establishing a program in-house or bringing in consultants to streamline processes, bring in more automation, go more paperless and in the end, more production with less staff. One example, that we use, is LEAN.
Do you think that companies hire more than they need in order to help the community and economy, or do you believe that they absolutely need the people that they're on boarding? It would make sense for companies to hire a little extra in anticipation of turnover, but do you think it's ever out of the goodness of their heart and to help the community and economy?
Haven't seen that for a long time- if indeed it ever happened. Most companies I've seen around hire the bare minimum number of employees they need to get the job done, or maybe one or two less than that, and push their employees to produce more and more- all without overtime, of course.
Community welfare isn't in the corporate radar these days, except maybe as tax writeoffs.
No, businesses are in business for one reason: to make money. They don't hire excessively for that reason. When times get tough, they layoff or terminate people also.
" They're so dependent on government funds that they should be deemed a government agency. I refer to to the government grant hogs of course. And as we all know, the more you ask for from the government the more you get because you use it or lose it. So the company asks for $2m, gets $1m, only needs $500k. The company is left with money unspent and jobs that are for no one. "
Eh it depends. Subsidies are within corporatations as well. In retail they keep open plenty of stores that run at a loss. Why? Because otherwise it loses face to competition. So they take from one business to cover another. This is what gives liquidity to invest in new ventures.
Amazon for example has not made a profit let alone a dividend. But they pool their money into more and more and they are lucky that for the most part it all works. What was first books, movies and videos expanded to everything under the sun. The warehouse model works.
"This is how some people get $60k a year jobs without having any marketable skills and produce nothing for the economy. The health care field is notorious for this. Rotech, etc. I still have friends in this field. They might make $60k+ a year doing nothing. But they're under contact with the government to only produce so much, so the company must have hired them for public benefit, right? "
It's not a matter of "product nothing for the economy". The fact of the matter is many corporations do not product anything as patents, trademarks, copyrights and licenses largely provide them fees.
The USA used to be a first to invent process. But it changed to first to patent. Why? Because you can patent something and let it sit there and then sue the pants off of people a generation later. It happens ALL the time. Apple suing Samsung..why? Well so they can make money without having to innovate. This is why companies deep down inside fear the internet and mobile devices because frankly they cannot control them. They can no longer control their image let alone their competition. Show me a significant business that does not have a lawyer at least on retainer.
"I worked for Rotech as a temp and saw first hand. The company keeps non-productive permanent employees on paper for X dollars so they don't set off radars by competing companies by having too low prices. They make up the production difference by hiring temps at barely above minimum wage who are the ones who actually fulfill the contract requirements. They operate this way in low income/low cost of living/highly educated areas. "
But that's also with marketing and image. In the northeast Market Basket as a supermarket chain pays very well. Cashiers can make up to $40k a year. It's privately held and there's a whole long thread about the internal family battle that occured earlier this year in the mass forum. But they operate in areas that generally are more urban that have less economic opportunity. Had they operated in more upscale places it would be harder to hire people and the rents would be more expensive.
"On paper, Tom meets the qualifications of the contract. The government doesn't care if you sub-contract their contract and they wash their hands of that aspect. So if you're audited at any time, you're covered. "
Actually they DO care about subcontractors because the hiring practices have to be the same. I worked for a retailer for years and after they earned a GSA contract the old boys network was destroyed.
"But government funded, so funded by you, so... Thank you."
Again though the private sector frankly tries to have it both ways in not funding r&d but funds m&a and then uses patent laws to extract more revenue without actually doing anything.
"A 2014 study from Harvard University, Harvard Business School and the University of Texas concluded that firms forced to pay patent trolls reduce R&D spending, averaging $211 million less than firms having won a lawsuit against a troll.[53] That 2014 study also found that trolls tend to sue firms with fewer attorneys on staff, in effect encouraging firms to invest in legal representation at the expense of technology development"
We all pay for that as well as no organization can really budget for a discovery!
Some do exactly hire more than they and retain say five of a thirty person bring in (often to avoid benefits.) The rest are pink slipped.This happens with call centers actually. Not saying that all companies do but a small number do.
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.
