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.
Starting pay is kind of low but it goes up fast. I'm at almost $16 an hour now. Can't expect to making big money on day one.
It is important to dig into the meaning and significance of various compensation schemes, and as an employee you probably don't have the inside information sufficient to assess the reality of the situation. For example, what has your company done in the last five years when retention was as high as you think it should be? From what you've said, that didn't happen, so you don't know and cannot know. What happens generally is that a seniority ladder is erected, within which there is intense competition for advancement to those higher paying positions, rather than it being effectively automatic as you're trying to make it sound. The end result is the same: The company is still going to expend roughly the same amount of money on labor, playing workers off each other to whatever advantage they can exact. They're not a charity.
And this isn't just an hourly worker phenomenon. Folks in this forum know my first career was as an international management consultant. One of the most remarkable industries, to me, in this regard, was 1990s automotive industry, where turnover correlated with salary advancement - in other words, the exact opposite of what you're saying: The more you jumped ship from company to company and back again, the more you money you earned. In essence, the industry rewarded the "initiative" to find a new job, and "punished" company loyalty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorianRo
Constant turnover costs companies dearly financially. How anyone at the top doesn't do anything about it I'll never understand.
The folks at the top did do something about it. They made it incrementally not true any longer: US productivity has skyrocketed in recent years (especially normalized by wages). That's attributable to what I mentioned earlier: A fundamental change in the structuring of (especially hourly) work, with smaller and smaller scopes of responsibility, making on-boarding costs smaller and smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1alker
The thing is, most jobs do become repetitive after while. Even a medical doctor probably gets bored handing out tylenol and referring the more complicated cases to a specialist.
Indeed, even in healthcare we see this change. My spouse has walking pneumonia. We went to the clinic yesterday. She was seen by a PA - a medical professional with a much narrower scope of responsibility than an MD or DO, and therefore compensated for the same exact work at a much lower rate. The more bits of a physician's job that the industry can pick off and assign to task-specific PAs, and the more bits of an RN's job that the industry can pick off and assigned to task-specific LPNs, the more profit the big corporations providing healthcare services can make.
I don't know what kind of factory the OP works at but you guys saying the entry level should be higher I have to ask by how much?
I worked in two factories as line labor (same company, different products). How much is a person putting bottle caps or glass bottles into boxes worth? Really, how much?
Keeping in mind that there are other employer costs for that employee. How much is that type of unskilled labor worth?
Location: In a perfect world winter does not exist
3,657 posts, read 2,937,139 times
Reputation: 6739
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortel
most companies are in the dark and think it costs them nothing to replace people.
Tell that to the Post Office, the turnover rate is higher than 50 percent for new Mail carrier assistants. At orientation the head of the district came in and told us it takes more than 3 thousand just to get a worker in the door. However once they get their claws on someone they either work them to death with long hours and no days off and many quit. I hear most like the job except for that and their bodies just can't take anymore.
Its to the point where big banners and I mean big banners are up to lure more carriers. Its a never ending cycle of hire than lose them.
Well, after visiting a website (Paycheck city) it seems that for the basis of calculation, the OP seems to be doing 40 reg and 20 OT which can go higher (Weekends) keeping with the pay rate being $16 an hour and $24 for OT....
After a year or so, I'd be wanting a 40 week, not a 60+
I guess it would depend where you live if $16 an hour is good or not. I was making $15 an hour back in 1998 so for me it would not be that great. I don't specifically see per hour as great anyway. Per hour I am making maybe $40 an hour or so. I some times put in extra work.
If the turn over is high but you like what you do then you are probably in a good position for you.
The problem though I see is with the company. It cost money to train people on how to get the job done. With a high turnover they are training a lot of people that are taking that knowledge with them and leaving. Chances are they need to hire even more people then they need. Those that stay will learn what is needed and have the ability to use that extra effort to get even more done than someone only on site for a short time. In the long run it may be costing them more than they are benefiting.
Tell that to the Post Office, the turnover rate is higher than 50 percent for new Mail carrier assistants. At orientation the head of the district came in and told us it takes more than 3 thousand just to get a worker in the door. However once they get their claws on someone they either work them to death with long hours and no days off and many quit. I hear most like the job except for that and their bodies just can't take anymore.
Its to the point where big banners and I mean big banners are up to lure more carriers. Its a never ending cycle of hire than lose them.
I would have guessed postal jobs were declining. I could certainly get away without one coming to my house.
If you have a turnover problem at a company, the problem 9 times out of 10 are the people at the top. Its not the workers. People will stay if they are compensated well enough and treated like humans. Not disposable TRASH
These white collar crooks deserve everything they get. I hope everyone quits and they can't find anyone.
Treat everyone like crap and then they run and go "Oh we can't find any quality hires".. You treat people like used toilet paper and you expect loyalty? Gimme a break
Ok so I've been at this factory for a couple years. I see temps come and go all the time here. Can't even get people to stick around for 1 week anymore. Some don't even stay on the job for 2 days. Granted, the job starts at $10-$11 an hour which isn't much to start but you gotta stick with it if you're gonna get permanent and start making solid money. I'm making $800-$1300 per week which is fantastic pay but I struggled through that entry level stuff and got permanent. You're not going to get anywhere sticking around for 2 days..
Well, people are different, and taking a job and realizing you truly don't enjoy that job, or feel it's not worth the money you are being paid, or just seeing it as a dead end place is normal. By the way not everyone thinks $800-$1300 per week which works out to be $41,600 or $67,600 per year if one works all year round is fantastic pay. Different strokes.
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.
