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've now worked for several companies where the turnover is more than 50% per year and I'm not even exaggerating. Half the people who join leave before 1 year. The companies are, of course, perfectly aware of this fact, and don't seem to care (or else they'd be doing something to change it). The main reason people leave is because the pay is below industry standard and there's no advancement.
Am I correct in thinking that some companies have done the math and believe it's a better business policy to stack the decks with "entry-level" employees than it is to pay competitive wages for more advanced positions?
I think it's basically short-sightedness and lack of imagination. It's hard to quantify the value of a veteran employee's skills and knowledge, and that can make it easy for some to under-value.
That's an assumption on your part and not a good one. You are presuming that there is a profitable and effectively way of incentivizing employees guaranteeing that they will stay. That's not necessarily the case.
One of the best, relatively contained examples of this I've seen (the data shared with me by a colleague who did the research) was the labor marketplace for theme park workers in Orlando FL in the mid 1990s. Employee retention was falling as the parks vigorously competed with each other for the very best performers, wait staff, etc. All that the incentivizing you alluded to did was create a price war. It increased the price of labor internally, but also boosted the expectation of compensation for those who were looking to jump to another employer. So the only way to attract better talent was to offer even more compensation. Churn continued as the various parks continued to try to retain or steal the best talent with better and better compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaldDuth
The main reason people leave is because the pay is below industry standard and there's no advancement.
The main reason why pay is below the industry standard is because the industry standard is being boosted by the churn. It's a vicious circle.
The lesson to learn is the one taught in the 1983 film War Games, "The only winning move is not to play."
I see this a ton in my profession especially with the use of temp agencies which pretty much guarantees high turnover and worker disengagement.
The end result is that most people (~50%) in the profession have less than 5 years experience. The profession is attempting to adapt to being a race to the bottom by making methods as standardized and automated as possible and making the equipment as dummy proof, rugged, and simple to use as possible and buying maintenance warranties on all the equipment to compensate for the fact that most of the entry level employees left don't know how to fix or maintain the instruments and break them frequently.
However, it still takes skill to troubleshoot, apply. interpret, and adapt methods. Also one doesn't always want to wait a few day for a maintenance technician to repair the equipment broken by the underpaid and under-trained staff especially in the high throughput labs where equipment is running 24/7.
In the end I think the profession is going to implode as more and more potential workers are hearing about and turning away from the poor conditions in the field and the field will be unable to attract workers with the caliber of skill and intelligence they need hence the screaming for more h1b's to abuse in place of the dwindling number of native born highly intelligent suckers.
My company has the same problem. Most employees don't stick around for more than 2 years at least. Just in the last 2-3 months our small little operation has already had 3-4 people quit due to low morale and all the crap they are putting up with from management. Management treats everyone like field hands who should just be "happy to have a job".
From my understanding, high turnovers costs companies a ****TON of money. And they don't do crap about it. You're bleeding from the company by running everyone off at record pace. Management needs to be held accountable for high turnover and our corporate office just looks the other way.
Most people quit due to low morale and poor treatment. THis stuff can be easily fixed for the better yet nothing ever gets done about it. HR, corporate office just sit there while the mis management, poor treatment, high turnover continues year after year. Maybe pay is below industry market, but a little extra incentives and better treatment can offset that in many cases
Another major problem I commented on in another tread and comes up over and over is companies do not do anything about bad managers. In many cases managers can bully, demean, micromanage, overwork and drive out one worker after another and there are no consequences.
Another major problem I commented on in another tread and comes up over and over is companies do not do anything about bad managers.
To which I replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The existence of golden parachutes itself point to a general recognition of where the real problem with corporations rest: With the shareholders, who cannot be trusted to live up to their commitments they make to leaders. Golden parachutes recognize that more often than otherwise, when things go south, either [a] it is the result of normal variation of performance and the vagaries of the marketplace, and investors are arrogant and vindictive cretins who need their pound of flesh when they don't get the quarterly results they demand, [b] it is the result of the shareholders being unwilling to authorize the kind of widespread changes that the CEO wants to implement, or [c] the executive made mistakes, but the shareholders operate in an environment within which they can act without accountability for the draconian nature of the sanction that they would impose. Like many other things it boils down to the nature of the individual in society who cannot control their blood thirst impulse.
(And, of course, this provides folks a link back to that other thread so that they can review all the comments made there and perhaps add some of their own thoughts.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
In many cases managers can bully, demean, micromanage, overwork and drive out one worker after another and there are no consequences.
It makes employees feel good to say managers are bad, and of course there are bad managers, but there are nowhere near as many bad managers as employees try to make it seem like in online forums, and the most likely reason why managers are how they are is because how they are is good for the companies for which they work.
I think it's basically short-sightedness and lack of imagination. It's hard to quantify the value of a veteran employee's skills and knowledge, and that can make it easy for some to under-value.
Its an employers market right now. This would not have happened in, lets say, the mid 90's.
There is a surplus of qualified people thereby making it profitable to exploit them for a short time at lower wages, then watch them move on. When the paradigm shifts to an employee market, things will change. It a cycle that has been going on for as long as capitalism has.
Its an employers market right now. This would not have happened in, lets say, the mid 90's.
There is a surplus of qualified people thereby making it profitable to exploit them for a short time at lower wages, then watch them move on. When the paradigm shifts to an employee market, things will change. It a cycle that has been going on for as long as capitalism has.
I think there more to it than that.
Long-time employees can have a whole lot to offer an employer, making them very much worth the higher salary, depending on the field. It's just that if you're somewhere burning though folks every one, two, three years... there's not many chances for that value to make itself seen.
Long-time employees can have a whole lot to offer an employer, making them very much worth the higher salary, depending on the field. It's just that if you're somewhere burning though folks every one, two, three years... there's not many chances for that value to make itself seen.
I totally agree. There is no better teacher than experience, but I don't think companies today—who are most likely staffed by newer, less experienced individuals—understand the "whole picture" concept.
I was with XEROX when they went that route . . . "Encouraging" higher paid, experienced individuals to retire, then replacing them with new people at half the wage. It was/has been disasterous. XEROX's stock was splitting back in the late 90's-00's, now that are competing with pikers like Ricoh.
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.
