| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. :-) |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. :-) |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let me try this another way, let's assume you owned a construction company
who needed unskilled labor for short periods of time. Your needs would vary, from needing no unskilled labor to needing 50 short term unskilled employees. Do you think society/government should mandate that you keep these people on the payroll for the full 52 weeks and pay them a respectable income, even if their services is not needed? Society/government also mandates that we just increase the minimum wages so that all an employees earn a living wage. This living wage would pay for food, health care, clothes, transportation and all basic needs. Should we pay them $15/hr, $20 hr. $30/hr? What should we pay them? The income an individual needs to live on is less than a 6 person family, should we make the minimum wage based upon the number of people the person needs to support? How about the 16 yr old kid working at McDonalds, since he lives with his family, his needs are substantially less, should he earn enough the same amount as a 6 person family or should be provide a tiered system of minimum wage? What about the short term employees such as the produce pickers, should we insist that the company providing these services pay them for 52 weeks? Should we make sure we do not allow temporary work permits for Mexican's to work these short term jobs? If we allow the temp. workers to come in the US for the harvest season in the US, after the harvest is over they go back to Mexico. Should we pay these people enough to live comfortable in Mexico or the US? Remember, if we increase the money supply without a corresponding increase in productivity we end up with the kind of inflation we saw in the south during the civil war and Germany saw during WW2. Unfortunately, anytime you increase the money supply without an increase in production, you have more money chasing after the same amount of good and services and you will have inflation. My point is there is no easy solution. While the marketplace is a very brutal way to determine the value of goods and services, no one has found a better way to do it. Communism was an attempt to solve the problems you and many of us are concerned about, but it is a failed experiment. Socialism was tried by in Great Britain after the war. This was another attempt to correct these inequities in the marketplace. Their economy suffered as the result, causing many industries to fail, and a larger segment of the population to lose their jobs and end up on the dole. GB ended up dismantling much of their government corporations so society as a whole would benefit. I wish there was a better way to spread the wealth, but in the last 6000 years, society has never found a better way, even though many have tried. Economists would tell you that laws to have employers provide the safety net now provided by the government is the most inefficient way to provide these services. The average citizen would still be paying for these services by paying more for all goods and services. Instead of paying taxes to the government, we would be paying the tax to companies via higher prices. It would transfer the cost/tax from the government now provided this safety net, to the private sector. As crazy as it sounds, economists would tell you, the cheapest way to provide this safety net, is to give it to them. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... 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." |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let me try this another way, let's assume you owned a construction company
who needed unskilled labor for short periods of time. Your needs would vary, from needing no unskilled labor to needing 50 short term unskilled employees. Do you think society/government should mandate that you keep these people on the payroll for the full 52 weeks and pay them a respectable income, even if their services is not needed? Of course not. Society/government also mandates that we just increase the minimum wages so that all an employees earn a living wage. You build the rest of your argument around this false premise, so there is little else to respond to. The government does not mandate that employers pay a "living wage", or enough to meet all the expenses any family could run up by having a dozen kids or living a lavish lifestyle. The purpose of a minimum wage is to assign at least that much responsibility for the survival and support of an employee, measured in dollars, to the employer rather than to the taxpayer-funded social safety net. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chuck, do you think increasing the minimum wage will slow down the
illegal immigration across our southern border? Or, will it just become worse? If the situation is so bad, why do we get three million illegals a year? John H I believe an employer should follow all the applicable laws regarding hiring and employment, and that nobody should be expected to work for less than the legal minimum. The minimum wage is a state's right issue, (over and above the $5 something federal requirement), so nobody can say that across the board the miniwage has to be increased. An individual working 40 hours a week ought to be able to, in the spirit of fairness, live an an adequate shelter, enjoy adequate nutrition, and obtain the most fundamental basic necessities of life. Those necessities don't include a new car, (or maybe even any car) a 35" plasma TV, etc.Nobody realistically expects the people on the bottom rung to be awarded a luxurious lifestyle- but if a person is offering his life's energy to an employer it shouldn't fall to society at large to get that person off the street and fed at least a subsistence diet. Our $7 + miniwage around here might sound like a lot of money to somebody living where rents are still $350 a month- but it takes some creative arranging to stretch $14,000 a year in an economy where marginally liveable apartments are $700-1000 a month. Different states and local economies have different costs and pay scales. |
Hybrid Mode
