"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
But yes, I should not have said that. I should have said ....committed a
"Chuckie."

There's hope for you. Yes, if you needed to add an insult to your
acknowledgement of
typo, you *should* restrict that insult to persons involved in the
discussion.



Thanks for the tip. You are, after all, the master.

OK, so when you hire the person to sweep the floor, take out the trash, move
the dirt, dig the hole, carry the bricks or whatever other non skilled job
you can think of. You hire the guy because he looks like he has the ability
to do the job. After 6 months it becomes obvious that this person is not
going to be able to do any job except the one you hired him for, do you
recommend he be fired even though he is able to do the job you hired him
for?

I would never hire anybody simply to do the most menial job in the joint
forever. (Maybe a charity case, a person with some sort of mild disability or
what not- different story). Part of the job is to grow out of it- if a guy or
gal can't do that, he or she would not being doing what I had hired them to do.
You always need somebody to sweep the floor, dump the trash, etc- but that
should be a person just passing through on the way to something more rewarding
in the company as soon as they are able. I never hired anybody without a vision
of their first promotion or two already in mind, and a commitment to outline a
path by which they could achieve advancement. You don't make serious money on
the cheap help.

Now what if you hire a salesman and he is able to do the job, and is able to
sell the average number of cars that is sold on your lot. After 2 years it
becomes obvious that he is never going to become a manager, and 50% of your
employees will always sell more than he does. You know in your heart that
he will always be an average performer, do you fire him?

When it comes to a commission salesperson, it's a lot like employing an
athlete. Some guys are going to sell anything that isn't nailed down- every
Eskimo in town is going to order *two* icemakers, and be grateful. Those guys
are the Pedro Martinez,
Alex Rodriguez sort of people that exist in any field, and you can't count on
having an entire sales crew made up of people at that level. Aren't enough to
go around, and they tend to get bitchy with each other if there are too many
"stars" on the floor at any one time.

Do you fire the average performer? Depends on what average is.
Is that average guy closing every second or third decent prospect and making
$90,000 a year? I'd say that average was acceptable in most fields and leave
him or her well enough alone, unless they are some sort of high maintenance
character creating trouble elsewhere.

If the average salesperson is closing at a 15 or 20 percent ratio and making
$35,000 a year, the problem most likely isn't with the salesman at all. There
are more likely some serious problems with the business model, the sales
training and supervision, or maybe the corporate atmosphere isn't sufficiently
motivating.
You want your commission structure to be competitive, and you want your
commission salespeople to make boatloads of money.

Step one: Create a business atmosphere with a positive charge and genuine
opportunity.

Step two: Hire managers who can hire salespeople able to capitalize on the
opportunity.

Step three: Examine results of step two. Repeat if necessary.

I am glad that most employers do not follow you recommendations, since there
are millions of people who either because of lack of motivation, medical
problems, mental health problems, mentally challenged with extremely low
IQ's would never get a job. Also most of our produce would not be
harvested, ditches would not get dug, etc, because the people we hired for
those jobs would all eventually be promoted out of the job. Our economy
would suffer, millions more people would be on welfare, and unemployed.

This would be a lose lose situation for the non skilled worker and the
country.

I have seen supermarkets chains who deliberately hire mentally challenged
people (retards) to bag groceries. These people are dependable, enjoy what
they are doing and are able to do the job with a little extra training.
They love being able to chat with the shoppers, it is the ideal job. They
will never get beyond an entry level job, but it is a win win for everyone,
the company, the employee and the country. The company also gets a tax
break because the government is trying to encourage hiring people who once
were considered unhireable.

While your recommendations might be very advantageous for an individual
company, if it was used a model for all people employed in the US, you would
see millions more people living on the streets and millions of jobs not
being done.

I personally can not imagine the quality of the salesman you hired to sweep
the floors or pick up the trash until he was ready to sell cars. I can not
imagine the quality of the mechanic who was willing to park and wash cars
till he was able to learn how to be a mechanic.

There are millions of people in the US who want a simple minded job, they
want to work their 8 hrs, go home drink a beer, eat dinner and screw their
wife. The fact that you do not understand this means you have lived a very
sheltered life.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
OK, so when you hire the person to sweep the floor, take out the trash,
move
the dirt, dig the hole, carry the bricks or whatever other non skilled job
you can think of. You hire the guy because he looks like he has the
ability
to do the job. After 6 months it becomes obvious that this person is not
going to be able to do any job except the one you hired him for, do you
recommend he be fired even though he is able to do the job you hired him
for?

I would never hire anybody simply to do the most menial job in the joint
forever. (Maybe a charity case, a person with some sort of mild disability
or
what not- different story). Part of the job is to grow out of it- if a guy
or
gal can't do that, he or she would not being doing what I had hired them
to do.
You always need somebody to sweep the floor, dump the trash, etc- but that
should be a person just passing through on the way to something more
rewarding
in the company as soon as they are able. I never hired anybody without a
vision
of their first promotion or two already in mind, and a commitment to
outline a
path by which they could achieve advancement. You don't make serious money
on
the cheap help.

Now what if you hire a salesman and he is able to do the job, and is able
to
sell the average number of cars that is sold on your lot. After 2 years
it
becomes obvious that he is never going to become a manager, and 50% of
your
employees will always sell more than he does. You know in your heart that
he will always be an average performer, do you fire him?

When it comes to a commission salesperson, it's a lot like employing an
athlete. Some guys are going to sell anything that isn't nailed down-
every
Eskimo in town is going to order *two* icemakers, and be grateful. Those
guys
are the Pedro Martinez,
Alex Rodriguez sort of people that exist in any field, and you can't count
on
having an entire sales crew made up of people at that level. Aren't enough
to
go around, and they tend to get bitchy with each other if there are too
many
"stars" on the floor at any one time.

Do you fire the average performer? Depends on what average is.
Is that average guy closing every second or third decent prospect and
making
$90,000 a year? I'd say that average was acceptable in most fields and
leave
him or her well enough alone, unless they are some sort of high
maintenance
character creating trouble elsewhere.

If the average salesperson is closing at a 15 or 20 percent ratio and
making
$35,000 a year, the problem most likely isn't with the salesman at all.
There
are more likely some serious problems with the business model, the sales
training and supervision, or maybe the corporate atmosphere isn't
sufficiently
motivating.
You want your commission structure to be competitive, and you want your
commission salespeople to make boatloads of money.

Step one: Create a business atmosphere with a positive charge and genuine
opportunity.

Step two: Hire managers who can hire salespeople able to capitalize on the
opportunity.

Step three: Examine results of step two. Repeat if necessary.

I personally can not imagine the quality of the salesman you hired to sweep
the floors or pick up the trash until he was ready to sell cars.

You missed the point. I would hire guys who were only able to do menial jobs
when they came aboard and give them opportunities to become more skilled and
capable.

As far as the quality of my salespeople went, we were top dealer in five states
with one major franchise several years in a row and consistently in the top
three nationally with another. Most of the guys have gone on to become GM's and
dealers in their own right. Hiring the right guys makes a huge difference.



I am glad that most employers do not follow you recommendations, since there
are millions of people who either because of lack of motivation, medical
problems, mental health problems, mentally challenged with extremely low
IQ's would never get a job.

Nor is any business required to offer employment to the undermotivated, the
physically incapable, the emotionally unstable, or the mentally inept.

Also most of our produce would not be
harvested, ditches would not get dug, etc, because the people we hired for
those jobs would all eventually be promoted out of the job. Our economy
would suffer, millions more people would be on welfare, and unemployed.


Not at all. Promoting the capable energizes the economy and creates even more
opportunity for everybody. If you have a ditch digger who should be working as
a leadman, it's inefficient to keep him stuck in the ditch digger job. Promote
him. Build a second crew around him, and you'll need even more ditch diggers
(which will reduce unemployment). Your company will also be able to do more
work, increasing profits.

This would be a lose lose situation for the non skilled worker and the
country.

There is nothing that says a company must allow an unskilled worker to remain
unskilled. It makes sense to provide a path for workers to grow. A company
cannot prosper when most of the employees are being held back.

A guy or gal who has no desire to rise above the lowest possible level would
not be the sort of person I would hire. That's not heartless, IMO. Deliberately
staffing up with undermotivated people who have no desire to get up to a higher
rung, in order to keep wages depressed, is heartless, as well as short-sighted.



I have seen supermarkets chains who deliberately hire mentally challenged
people (retards) to bag groceries. These people are dependable, enjoy what
they are doing and are able to do the job with a little extra training.

And every one of those people is a little human success story. Some of them
could never rise above bagging groceries under any circumstance.

That charity comes at a real cost to the business, however. With all the grunt
level jobs filled by folks who *cannot* advance to a position where they create
more value for the company, there are fewer opportunities for bright and eager
youngsters who might prove, through experience, to be darn good grocers and an
asset to the firm.

While your recommendations might be very advantageous for an individual
company, if it was used a model for all people employed in the US, you would
see millions more people living on the streets and millions of jobs not
being done.

See my comment about promoting the ditch digger to leadman.

I can not
imagine the quality of the mechanic who was willing to park and wash cars
till he was able to learn how to be a mechanic.

He wasn't a mechanic when he was washing cars. but you want to find a "dream"
employee? Look for the guy or gal who walks in and says, "I'll take any job
you've got, just to get in the door. I'm confident I'll demonstrate enough
value to your firm that I will be promoted very quickly, no matter where I
start." The challenge with managing that type of person is that you do need to
be able to move them up as they legitimately earn it- or else they will be
working for the guy down the street.

There are millions of people in the US who want a simple minded job, they
want to work their 8 hrs, go home drink a beer, eat dinner and screw their
wife. The fact that you do not understand this means you have lived a very
sheltered life.

The fact that you would make such a presumptive statement indicates you don't
know a damn thing about my life- but don't worry, I won't bore you with all the
gory, boring details. We're discussing the efficiency of hiring capable people
for a decent wage vs. hiring the incapable for the legal minimum, not my
biography. :-)

We have gotten so far from where this discussion started I think we need to
go back to the beginning.

You stated that the businessmen in San Diego who were hiring unskilled
workers were crooks for not paying a living wage. I asked you what you
thought was the solution for these unskilled workers earning minimum wage.
You solution was to only hire those who have the ability to be promoted 2 or
3 levels in your company and as their skills increase you pay them
accordingly. If they do not have the ability to move up in your
organization you should not hire them. Companies should not hire anyone who
does not want to move up.

What should we as a society do for those people who do not have the desire
or the ability to move up?
What should we do when an honest hard working immigrant (either legal or
illegal) wants to work picking produce or digging ditches. In construction
and farming, 2 or 3 levels promotion is middle management. If we don't
believe they can move up to middle management we just don't hire them?

In your car dealership when you hired a janitor, what jobs were you planning
to promote him to?

What do we do for all these people who can not meet your requirements for
employment. .


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I personally can not imagine the quality of the salesman you hired to
sweep
the floors or pick up the trash until he was ready to sell cars.

You missed the point. I would hire guys who were only able to do menial
jobs
when they came aboard and give them opportunities to become more skilled
and
capable.

As far as the quality of my salespeople went, we were top dealer in five
states
with one major franchise several years in a row and consistently in the
top
three nationally with another. Most of the guys have gone on to become
GM's and
dealers in their own right. Hiring the right guys makes a huge difference.



I am glad that most employers do not follow you recommendations, since
there
are millions of people who either because of lack of motivation, medical
problems, mental health problems, mentally challenged with extremely low
IQ's would never get a job.

Nor is any business required to offer employment to the undermotivated,
the
physically incapable, the emotionally unstable, or the mentally inept.

Also most of our produce would not be
harvested, ditches would not get dug, etc, because the people we hired for
those jobs would all eventually be promoted out of the job. Our economy
would suffer, millions more people would be on welfare, and unemployed.


Not at all. Promoting the capable energizes the economy and creates even
more
opportunity for everybody. If you have a ditch digger who should be
working as
a leadman, it's inefficient to keep him stuck in the ditch digger job.
Promote
him. Build a second crew around him, and you'll need even more ditch
diggers
(which will reduce unemployment). Your company will also be able to do
more
work, increasing profits.

This would be a lose lose situation for the non skilled worker and the
country.

There is nothing that says a company must allow an unskilled worker to
remain
unskilled. It makes sense to provide a path for workers to grow. A company
cannot prosper when most of the employees are being held back.

A guy or gal who has no desire to rise above the lowest possible level
would
not be the sort of person I would hire. That's not heartless, IMO.
Deliberately
staffing up with undermotivated people who have no desire to get up to a
higher
rung, in order to keep wages depressed, is heartless, as well as
short-sighted.



I have seen supermarkets chains who deliberately hire mentally challenged
people (retards) to bag groceries. These people are dependable, enjoy
what
they are doing and are able to do the job with a little extra training.

And every one of those people is a little human success story. Some of
them
could never rise above bagging groceries under any circumstance.

That charity comes at a real cost to the business, however. With all the
grunt
level jobs filled by folks who *cannot* advance to a position where they
create
more value for the company, there are fewer opportunities for bright and
eager
youngsters who might prove, through experience, to be darn good grocers
and an
asset to the firm.

While your recommendations might be very advantageous for an individual
company, if it was used a model for all people employed in the US, you
would
see millions more people living on the streets and millions of jobs not
being done.

See my comment about promoting the ditch digger to leadman.

I can not
imagine the quality of the mechanic who was willing to park and wash cars
till he was able to learn how to be a mechanic.

He wasn't a mechanic when he was washing cars. but you want to find a
"dream"
employee? Look for the guy or gal who walks in and says, "I'll take any
job
you've got, just to get in the door. I'm confident I'll demonstrate enough
value to your firm that I will be promoted very quickly, no matter where I
start." The challenge with managing that type of person is that you do
need to
be able to move them up as they legitimately earn it- or else they will be
working for the guy down the street.

There are millions of people in the US who want a simple minded job, they
want to work their 8 hrs, go home drink a beer, eat dinner and screw their
wife. The fact that you do not understand this means you have lived a
very
sheltered life.

The fact that you would make such a presumptive statement indicates you
don't
know a damn thing about my life- but don't worry, I won't bore you with
all the
gory, boring details. We're discussing the efficiency of hiring capable
people
for a decent wage vs. hiring the incapable for the legal minimum, not my
biography. :-)

Can someone pass the popcorn?

Any cold ones in the fridge?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
Was it not all you lefties that were against any controls on illegal
immigration to the USA?

Nice sentence, fella.





George W. Bush...Armed, Dangerous, and Stupid...
Just What the Terrorists Want & America Deserves

Better than yours. And was it not you lefties that wanted all the illegals
signed up to vote?

What should we as a society do for those people who do not have the desire
or the ability to move up?

Employment is not a contract between a worker and "society", but rather between
a worker and an employer.

What society should do is prevent the unequal status of the
applicant/supplicant desperate for work and the potential employer with the job
from becoming an abusive situation. The lower the wages paid to an employee,
the greater the dependence that employee will have on the public trough.
Mini-wage sets a realistic standard that says, "you will pay at least this
pittance, to offset at least some of the living expenses and keep your people
out of the trough as much as possible." It shouldn't be the taxpayer's
responsibility to provide virtually all the basic needs for a family just so an
employer can get by with paying a predatory wage.

What should we do when an honest hard working immigrant (either legal or
illegal) wants to work picking produce or digging ditches.

See above. Asking society to provde food, shelter, and other basic services to
an employee so that you, the employer, can work that person on the double cheap
is just plain wrong. It's just a surely a raid on the public treasury for the
benefit of a private individual (the employer) as the stereotypical welfare
woman cranking out 15 kids to stay on the dole most of her life.


In construction
and farming, 2 or 3 levels promotion is middle management. If we don't
believe they can move up to middle management we just don't hire them?

You don't oridnarily hire a lot of permanent workers in farming. When you have
a crop to pick, you take all willing and capable hands. You don't worry about
30 days down the road, harvest will be over by then.

When you do hire those willing and capable hands, it should be done legally and
at a rate equal to or above the state minimum.

In your car dealership when you hired a janitor, what jobs were you planning
to promote him to?

Janitors were outside contractors. I would imagine a beginning janitor would be
able to work up to crew chief, or what not, before long- but I never direclty
hired janitors.

Menial laborers were typically "lot boys."
Good ones could work up to slightly less menial jobs in the shop, take some
technical classes and buy some tools, and eventually make a decent middle class
income as a technician. Those proving unworthy of promotion typically didn't
last long- chronic absenteeism, showing up to drunk to work, burning a phat one
out behind the detail shop, etc. "Next!"


What do we do for all these people who can not meet your requirements for
employment.

We don't do anything for them. No need. There are plenty of guys who believe
that hiring as cheaply as possible is the only way to go, and they can't be too
picky about what they get. The guys who don't want to pay anything and those
who don't want to work very hard deserve each other, and they do seem to find
one another more often than not.

All we do is be sure that the employer doesn't take such extreme advantage of
his superior economic power that his sick, starving, homeless workers create a
huge drain on everybody else.

An employer with a growing business is always in a position to provide
opportunities to bright, energetic, talented people who will grow along with
the business and make everybody in sight richer along the way. It isn't the
employers responsibilty to waste those opportunities on the dull, the
undermotivated, or the unqualified. The culls should go to the guys who run a
business so badly that a worker isn't empowered to produce enough wealth for
both himself and his employer.

Ever notice that it is usually the same guys who call for the elimination of
minimum wage laws who also call for an end to all public assistance for food,
shelter, or medical care?

You might ask some of them what should be done with the working poor.....

"better they should die, and decrease the surplus population" Ebenezer
Scrooge, "A Christmas Carol", by Charles Dickens

Anyone lacking a close up perspective might enjoy reading a book called
"Nickled and Dimed, on Not Getting By in America."

John S wrote:

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:15:33 -0500, "JimH" wrote:

Though I supported Bush, I wrote that I would accept and support Kerry as
President. That is the American way.
So how are you supporting your favorite BabyBush? Pay up when he raises the
taxes to pay for the next war? Enlist in your great army so you can kill
'the enemy' in a conflict you (and BabyBush with you) know nothing about,
but think you can solve with violence? Or will you send your children
(actually I would prefer that, much better darwinist selection).

Face it, you can't do anything when BabyBush starts the next war, you cant
even vote against him when the next election comes.

That is what a Democracy is all
about. I am 57 years old. I have come to learn that above all, I am an
American and fully trust and believe in the electoral process and a
representative form of government.

Well believing is all that is left to you, because knowing is out of the
question. You can believe that the world turns around your fasisct state,
that some guy in the sky determines your life, that there is life on mars
or that the world is flat actually. And best of all you are free to believe
so, for now.


I have traveled the world (much on business) and there is no place I would
rather live than the good old USA.

When others come of age, they too will share my views.

And another brilliant argument! You are right because you know you are
right! And you know that it is right to show off your patriotism, and to
make your neighbors do the same. Did you do your marching 'for freedom'
yet?

[...please learn to quote...]

--
Kind regards,

Jelle

Back to boating please. Your political view will not convince anybody, nor
will mine.

JimH wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
BTW: I see you conveniently cut off your initial insult when you
responded
to me.

Somebody accused me of losing.
I said it was better to lose than to be lost.

How is that an insult, me2?

You just don't get it. It is always the other person and never you.

He got it very well. That is exactly the game you are playing. You jump on
it anytime you can blame somebody else.

--
kind regards,

Jelle