Originally Posted by G-19
Then it must be something else. With so many people out of work, I just can't see a business not having an abundance of qualified applicants. Unless there was a problem with the job. Like you said it is a cashiers position, not a high skilled labor position. It don't take much to qualify to be a cashier. So finding qualified applicants should be easy. Heck, most high school kids could do it.
However, If you have a reputation of firing people or for being a tyrant it could drive the better applicants to look for a more secure job or a place with better working conditions. A lot of people would rather take a little less money for better working conditions or job security. Word of mouth travels fast and far.
You might want to take a look at your competitors and see how they operate and what kind of employees they attract. If they seem to be getting better employees, then ask yourself "What are they doing that I am not?" Then work to correct those areas.
I am not trying to insult you, really I'm not. But instead of just saying there are no qualified workers out there maybe you should consider why no qualified workers want to work for you. Just because you hang a "help wanted sign" don't mean people will flock to you. You have to give them a reason to want to work for you.
Sometimes the problem is not with everyone else.
You might be spot on. Even the best employees will feel insecure if they start seeing everyone around them getting cut. I have left a job because of that. Had a boss that fired people when they messed up a lot. Although I was doing my job, and I understood why he fired some of them, often it was for simply mistakes, and I was always worried because I knew one mess up, I would be fired with bad reference, and I'm not perfect, so I found a new job.
It seems that many employers think that because the economy is bad, they can ask higher qualified people to do a job beneath them, pay them a lot less, then treat them like dirt. Then they wonder why they can't keep or even get anyone decent to apply. Before I even consider applying for a job, I research the company, and in my business, like you said, word travels. There are some companies that are on the "do not work for" list for having a bad reputation. Especially if you have a reputation for messing with people's pay.
Originally Posted by dwhite53
My wife and I have a theory that most of the people layed off over the past 4 years where "dead weight". People that just weren't worth keeping around.
Everyone tells me it's very difficult to find GOOD help.
So that's what's out there.
All the Best,
For some people, the company they worked for became the dead weight. I was layed off last spring because the company was bought out and the new owner brought in his own people. He kept a few people there, the one's that were the lowest wage and the one's he liked, but got rid of me and a couple others. The people he brought in were his buddies. It was an automotive repair and service shop. The people he kept weren't the best, trust me. I guess he found out why they were lower in pay because he just went out of business. Yup, he bought a business that had been there for 25 years and managed to close it down in 8 months!
Originally Posted by DaneA
Yes, I hired two last week. It took about 100 applications or more. Part of my issues is that I'm very picky. Over the last 3-4 years I have maintained a 85%+ retention rate (employees that last more than a year).
My previous boss and I used to have many discussions on this same topic. I agree that many businesses used the cover of a bad economy to shed dead weight.
If you were hunting for rabbits, would you aim at the sky? If it's a minimum wage job, don't expect perfectionist. However, hiring a cashier or anything like that, someone with great people skills might be worth a few extra bucks. It's kind of like going out to eat. The food might be great, but if the service sucks, it can ruin the experience. Right?
The other store I worked in before, we were a "low volume store" and we had the highest rating in the area for customer service, and always made high numbers. Investigations were done thinking someone was paying people to call in on the line to give artificial ratings. We also had the highest paid cashiers, which got the manager in trouble, but we had some great cashiers that customers would often go by the registers first just to say hi.
Originally Posted by jopela
I totally agree with the concept behind this thread even if I am late to the game. I have been trying to fill 2 $35,000 a year no experience needed we will train you positions for months now and I can't find anyone worth a second look. All I ask for is common sense, self motivation, and the ability to learn. Some of my recent winners are:
Me: so do you have any questions for me?
Applicant: My wife did not give me any to ask
Me: So are you interested in the position I discribed
A: it sounts like too much work to me
(It is a desk job)
Me: What are you looking for in a job
A: To sit back and collect a paycheck
Me: Tell me about (ring)
A: Hello (answers her phone)
I really think companies used the economy as a cover to cut dead weght. Not everyone out there is horrible, just most of them.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Most of them are just doing their minimum to keep their unemployment check coming. Schools today I don't think are teaching about PRESENTATION which is so important. Just as long as they can pass that CRTC test and the exit exams. However, if they can't even present themselves, they won't be able to work either.
Originally Posted by SevenSixtyTwo
Companies have been doing that for decades. Hire too many people and then weed out the dead weight. Seems like a pretty effective way to promote productivity by competing employees wanting to keep their jobs knowing someone is getting the axe at any moment.
Yes, but often they forget to take care of their good employees.
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds
That's a very expensive way to go about things. I doubt most successful companies employ that tactic.
What happens is, when the economy is robust and growing the labor pool gets tight and quality of candidates goes down. Once hired and trained there are sunk costs to consider (recruiting, training). A "good enough" employee might not be worth firing when labor is in tight supply but he might not be the guy you'd choose again.
Then when the economy cools headcount needs to shrink and/or the labor pool improves and the company's options are different.
I've watched the oil business expand and contract several times and I'm watching my own industry deal with Obamacare. Though there are certainly some innocent casualties along the way, generally speaking strong horses get retained and the weaker one's get cut loose.
Then, when hiring starts again companies trade employees before they dip into the UE pool because everyone knows that the UE pool often contains less desirable employees.
You are right, high turnover is not good for a company. A company that is one month hiring, next month firing is a sign of an unstable company, and the more desirable employees will find more desirable employers.
Originally Posted by SevenSixtyTwo
That's what I meant. As the economy picks up, more hiring. When the economy cools, less productive employees are the first to go. I've watched it evolve several times over the past 30 years. It works great except when someone's brother in law or beer drinkin' buddy is kept in favor of more qualified employees. That happens a lot too. Unfortunately, that happens a lot with probates applying for union membership. Not worth a damn on the job but a good friend and beer drinking buddy so he gets the signatures needed to become a member. Then we have to put up with him until the company fires him. Down here that's pretty easy to do. Apparently, up north it's not so easy.
Damn good ole boy system reaks in the South. I think it's everywhere, but especially here. The old expersion "it's not what you know, it's who you know". I have worked with as well as known many people that would not have a job if they weren't so good at being buddy buddy.