This is why you shouldn't pay burger flippers 15 an hour

[dannyboys]

People who work in MW jobs have a few 'saleable' things to offer employers. Grooming, honesty, team player, prompt, clean and sober, hard working and most important performing to the best of their ability. 'Head down tail up'.
If you can't figure out how to take orders be the best fucking parking lot cleaner in the world and you'll always have a job.
There is a young man whose only job is to maintain all the flower beds at small local mall. He's not that bright. Those flower beds are in absolutely impeccable condition year round. The owner of the mall told me he pays the young man $20 an hour for a forty hour week year round.
Sounds crazy to some BUT that mall brings in thousands more customers to spend their money at the small business in the mall because the flower beds are so beautiful. They give the impression that if the flower beds are so excellent then the small business must be the same quality. Every small business in the mall is doing well because the mall owner has always 'bought right' when signing leases. He veted every business owner intensely before signing any lease. Very few business have closed in five years.
The young man was hired temporarily at minimum wage frankly because someone who knew the young man asked the owner to give him a chance. After three months the mall owner had received so many compliments on the flower beds has gave the young man a three dollar raise. After a year the young man was earning $20 an hour. Next month he is getting a raise to $24 an hour. He is worth every penny.
The business owners in the mall all pay a portion of the young man's wages and are delighted to do so. Everyone's a winner!
Insider Pro Tip:
If you are living in a small town chances are about 100% that every business owner who will hire MW workers all belong to the local COC. The business owners all know each other. They have dinner together. Golf together. Etc.
Anyone applying for a MW job must go to the interview impeccably well groomed. Look people in the eye when conversing. Don't fucking fidget! Have a proper concise resume. Have a good reason why they want the job.
"I see by your resume you are currently working for Wendy's. Why do you want to leave Wendy's and come to work for me?" The applicant better have a good reason.
"Hi Bill. I have Tony Wallace's application in front of me. He says he wants more hours than he is getting at your place. What's up with him? So he's a good employee and you're going to miss him but you just don't have the hours for him. Is that right? THANKS A LOT ASSHOLE! LOL. In other words he's a fucking loser who has been caught stealing and you just fired him!".
(If Tony was that great an employee Bill would have figured out how to give Tony more hours in order to keep him)
A little 'Inner FF' for you all. LOL

 

[Wyatt earp]

The CEO's are the ones who made the choices that earned the company the profits, why /shouldn't/ they get a bonus off it? You think a MW'er should be paid more based on simply showing up, yet a person who actually causes the companies success /doesn't/ deserve anything?

You're not even being rational son.

. The problem of wealth sharing doesn't end with a MW employee. There has been a long trend towards creating a communist socialist system in a lot of companies where it comes to not paying employee's with a proper structural pay system anymore, and also offering them a progressive benefit package that grows with the employee's as they grow with the companies... How many employee's have lost pay and benefits since the 80's, and then their jobs because of the so called downsizing, cutbacks, and their jobs moving over seas or illegals taking over their jobs in which politicians said were only working the jobs Americans won't do ? Sick situation.

Businesses are not built to "wealth share" that's a liberal idea. In the capitalist mind, those are called "charities," not "businesses." Businesses have one purpose, to make money, because if you're not making money then it's not worth the risk and hassle of running the business, period. You cannot change the ideological "point" of an entity to be what you "want" and expect everyone on the planet to just play along with the fantasy.

. So sharing the wealth at all, is something CEO's and their staffs wish they didn't have to do at all ? So no matter how hard the workers work to help a company be successful, they are to be looked down upon by the upper levels as if they are slaves glad to be living on the plantation ? No one is saying to pay anyone more than their worth, but just be fair and everyone is happy.

Why can't you liberals ver ever comprehend " a living wage ""fair wage" is subjective to the person?

It changes across the country



.

 

[dannyboys]

The CEO's are the ones who made the choices that earned the company the profits, why /shouldn't/ they get a bonus off it? You think a MW'er should be paid more based on simply showing up, yet a person who actually causes the companies success /doesn't/ deserve anything?

You're not even being rational son.

. The problem of wealth sharing doesn't end with a MW employee. There has been a long trend towards creating a communist socialist system in a lot of companies where it comes to not paying employee's with a proper structural pay system anymore, and also offering them a progressive benefit package that grows with the employee's as they grow with the companies... How many employee's have lost pay and benefits since the 80's, and then their jobs because of the so called downsizing, cutbacks, and their jobs moving over seas or illegals taking over their jobs in which politicians said were only working the jobs Americans won't do ? Sick situation.

Businesses are not built to "wealth share" that's a liberal idea. In the capitalist mind, those are called "charities," not "businesses." Businesses have one purpose, to make money, because if you're not making money then it's not worth the risk and hassle of running the business, period. You cannot change the ideological "point" of an entity to be what you "want" and expect everyone on the planet to just play along with the fantasy.

. So sharing the wealth at all, is something CEO's and their staffs wish they didn't have to do at all ? So no matter how hard the workers work to help a company be successful, they are to be looked down upon by the upper levels as if they are slaves glad to be living on the plantation ? No one is saying to pay anyone more than their worth, but just be fair and everyone is happy.

The cream always rises in any business.
I once had an employee who I saw immediately was executive material. I asked her to move into a higher wage position with more responsibility. She respectfully turned own my offer. She said she was content doing what she was doing and getting paid accordingly.
I could have reacted in a number of ways.
I choose to thank her for her candor. I asked if she would be willing to train people to do her job properly and I would pay her extra for the time she was doing the training. This worked for her perfectly. Over a few years she trained a few dozen employees to do as fine a job as she was doing. These workers were employed at other locations.
Excellent staff are extremely hard to find and keep. The most important thing in keeping excellent staff is not the money. It's 100% about the employee feeling they are valued for what they do.

 

[EverCurious]

So sharing the wealth at all, is something CEO's and their staffs wish they didn't have to do at all ? So no matter how hard the workers work to help a company be successful, they are to be looked down upon by the upper levels as if they are slaves glad to be living on the plantation ? No one is saying to pay anyone more than their worth, but just be fair and everyone is happy.

No, the harder an employee works, the more 'valuable' to the company they become - aka the higher their retention value - and thus the more pay they are worth to the company.

If you merely "do your job" then you are /not/ increasing your /value/ to the company and therefore do not /earn/ more of the profits of the business. If however, you work hard and show that you are /valuable/ to the company's future success, then they will /pay/ you more and be more willing to move you up the ladder of "importance" to the businesses continued operation.

Again, a MW worker is interchangeable for any other MW worker - /anyone/ can do that job. However, the higher up the ladder you go, the more "specialized" to the /specific's/ that businesses needs you become, and the more "specialized to the specific needs of a company" an employee is the higher their "value" to the company.

 

[dannyboys]

So sharing the wealth at all, is something CEO's and their staffs wish they didn't have to do at all ? So no matter how hard the workers work to help a company be successful, they are to be looked down upon by the upper levels as if they are slaves glad to be living on the plantation ? No one is saying to pay anyone more than their worth, but just be fair and everyone is happy.

No, the harder an employee works, the more 'valuable' to the company they become - aka the higher their retention value - and thus the more pay they are worth to the company.

If you merely "do your job" then you are /not/ increasing your /value/ to the company and therefore do not /earn/ more of the profits of the business. If however, you work hard and show that you are /valuable/ to the company's future success, then they will /pay/ you more and be more willing to move you up the ladder of "importance" to the businesses continued operation.

Again, a MW worker is interchangeable for any other MW worker - /anyone/ can do that job. However, the higher up the ladder you go, the more "specialized" to the /specific's/ that businesses needs you become, and the more "specialized to the specific needs of a company" an employee is the higher their "value" to the company.

What you are saying is the total antithesis to what LIBs believe. They believe 'no one is any smarter than anyone else.
IQ doesn't exist. The Bell Curve is rigged.
Everyone deserves a participation trophy.
The word 'competition' should be removed the the dictionary.
'Mediocre' is good enough.
The races all have the same general IQs.
The top ten percent of income earners all got there unfairly. And even if they didn't they ought to be supporting those who couldn't or wouldn't compete.
It never ends with these LIB assholes.
Now the radical LIB government funded NPR is accusing dear old Rick Bayless of "cultural appropriation" and making GOD FORBID money by showing 'non-mexicans!' how to make fucking tacos and burritos!
That's right. Rick it turns out has been stealing the culture of mexican food!

 

[beagle9]

The CEO's are the ones who made the choices that earned the company the profits, why /shouldn't/ they get a bonus off it? You think a MW'er should be paid more based on simply showing up, yet a person who actually causes the companies success /doesn't/ deserve anything?

You're not even being rational son.

. The problem of wealth sharing doesn't end with a MW employee. There has been a long trend towards creating a communist socialist system in a lot of companies where it comes to not paying employee's with a proper structural pay system anymore, and also offering them a progressive benefit package that grows with the employee's as they grow with the companies... How many employee's have lost pay and benefits since the 80's, and then their jobs because of the so called downsizing, cutbacks, and their jobs moving over seas or illegals taking over their jobs in which politicians said were only working the jobs Americans won't do ? Sick situation.

Businesses are not built to "wealth share" that's a liberal idea. In the capitalist mind, those are called "charities," not "businesses." Businesses have one purpose, to make money, because if you're not making money then it's not worth the risk and hassle of running the business, period. You cannot change the ideological "point" of an entity to be what you "want" and expect everyone on the planet to just play along with the fantasy.

. So sharing the wealth at all, is something CEO's and their staffs wish they didn't have to do at all ? So no matter how hard the workers work to help a company be successful, they are to be looked down upon by the upper levels as if they are slaves glad to be living on the plantation ? No one is saying to pay anyone more than their worth, but just be fair and everyone is happy.

Why can't you liberals ver ever comprehend " a living wage ""fair wage" is subjective to the person?

It changes across the country



.

. Why are you calling me a liberal ? How about learn to comprehend all that you read, and not just read bits and pieces before you spout off your mouth, and then stick your foot into it.

 

[beagle9]

So sharing the wealth at all, is something CEO's and their staffs wish they didn't have to do at all ? So no matter how hard the workers work to help a company be successful, they are to be looked down upon by the upper levels as if they are slaves glad to be living on the plantation ? No one is saying to pay anyone more than their worth, but just be fair and everyone is happy.

No, the harder an employee works, the more 'valuable' to the company they become - aka the higher their retention value - and thus the more pay they are worth to the company.

If you merely "do your job" then you are /not/ increasing your /value/ to the company and therefore do not /earn/ more of the profits of the business. If however, you work hard and show that you are /valuable/ to the company's future success, then they will /pay/ you more and be more willing to move you up the ladder of "importance" to the businesses continued operation.

Again, a MW worker is interchangeable for any other MW worker - /anyone/ can do that job. However, the higher up the ladder you go, the more "specialized" to the /specific's/ that businesses needs you become, and the more "specialized to the specific needs of a company" an employee is the higher their "value" to the company.

. I agree with what you say here, but it isn't always the case that MW'gers are simply interchangeable based upon the minimum wage payscale. Some people don't even make it in some job skills or jobs in which they are hired for, and this regardless of what pay they start out with, but another new employee might make it even though they started at MW level.. No one is as interchangeable as companies or corporations wish that they were. There is value in each individual, it's just a matter of them finally fitting in where they belong in life.

 

[jc456]

I'll tell you "people" something. I don't work in fast food, but people who do, do a lot more then "flip burgers". That's a term used by those who are clueless

I flipped burgers as a kid. What else do you think they do?

 

[jc456]

I'll tell you "people" something. I don't work in fast food, but people who do, do a lot more then "flip burgers". That's a term used by those who are clueless

Damn straight...they also open bags, take pieces of paper and wrap something with it, push buttons and wait for it to beep back...sophisticated stuff for sure.

mop the floors, clean the toilets scrub the counters. Shit I do at home for free.

 

[beagle9]

I'll tell you "people" something. I don't work in fast food, but people who do, do a lot more then "flip burgers". That's a term used by those who are clueless

Damn straight...they also open bags, take pieces of paper and wrap something with it, push buttons and wait for it to beep back...sophisticated stuff for sure.

mop the floors, clean the toilets scrub the counters. Shit I do at home for free.

. If you got a wife, you ain't doing all that for free..

 

[jc456]

I'll tell you "people" something. I don't work in fast food, but people who do, do a lot more then "flip burgers". That's a term used by those who are clueless

Damn straight...they also open bags, take pieces of paper and wrap something with it, push buttons and wait for it to beep back...sophisticated stuff for sure.

mop the floors, clean the toilets scrub the counters. Shit I do at home for free.

. If you got a wife, you ain't doing all that for free..

well I know I get nothing for the work.

 

[tigerred59]

80% of the jobs in this country are all service industry jobs, just about....and that includes the burger flippers that I hope spit on your shit when you come in, moron.

I've heard about this.. That's why I won't order food served by blacks in the ghetto areas of town.

Here's where you are gonna find a problem, most fast food places, especially in the hood is made before your eyes, where you can see straight out, what's being made....regardless of where you buy your food, hood or the hieghts......However, in these up scale venues, resturants, etc...all made in the back...where nasty white mf's reign, so if I was you....I'd keep a eye on Becky and Tom....nigga's and hispanics are doing the dishes.

 

[EverCurious]

I agree with what you say here, but it isn't always the case that MW'gers are simply interchangeable based upon the minimum wage payscale. Some people don't even make it in some job skills or jobs in which they are hired for, and this regardless of what pay they start out with, but another new employee might make it even though they started at MW level.. No one is as interchangeable as companies or corporations wish that they were. There is value in each individual, it's just a matter of them finally fitting in where they belong in life.

That would be the individual employee's "retention" value as I said. However, one does not automatically earn "retention" value with the company when hired to do a job, it's more of an earned thing. With the presumption that an employee has low skills, their retention value to the company is based on a long list of attributes, but these are the major points:

Is the employee "reliable" - do they show up for work on time? do they call in if they're going to be late? does this happen a lot? are they sick/not making it to work a lot? do they do /all/ the work they are asked to do? without complaining? glad to do it?

Is the employee "personable" - do they get along with their co-workers? do they respect their co-workers? do they get along with their managers? do they respect their managers? In the case of a position that must interact with customers; do they smile when helping customers? do they act and speak in a way that reflects the company well to it's customers? do they insure the customer is satisfied with the service the employee provided them? do the customers in general seem to like the employee?

Is the employee "available" - are they flexible with their work time or are they only willing/able to work certain shifts? are they constantly changing their shifts with other employees because they have "other" things they have to do? (The latter here is kind of preliminary logistics stuff, it matters to employees when considering longer term or upward mobilization - if an employee can only seem to work a day shift, then the employer might not consider them for a night assistant shift manager opening kind of thing.)

Is the employee "dedicated" - do they do their work reliably? on time? do they notice little things that are failing to be done by other employees? do they ignore it or do they attempt to resolve the loose strings? tell their manager? fix it themselves? (The latter matters to the employer because it says something about if said employee would be able to work without supervision. It also speaks toward the employee's ability to handle more responsibilities, as well as their attitude toward making sure the business is running smoothly.)


The first two aspects are quite frankly the bare minimum's and they are generally /expected/ by employers. Failing to show you can handle those two minimums puts you on the "let these employees go first" list (or as I call it the "meh" list,) in some jobs not being able to achieve one or both of them acceptably will get you fired regardless. For example, I will not tolerate an employee who causes drama with other employee's, its not fair to my employees and it's not fair to my customers. If a new hire is causing, or having trouble, with their co-workers, I'll give them a warning chat to try to resolve the problem, maybe even chat with their manager about it to try to figure out what the problem is (note no one "in authority" can really talk to other employees about a specific employee's actions; it puts a bad taste in all the employees mouths if they think your are going behind their backs and talking about them with their "peers," the best we can really do in management is ask the employees open ended questions like "Is anything bothering you?" "are you enjoying working here" etc., so we typically can only ask their manager if they know what is happening between the conflicting co-workers - its a small bit of the managers job) Anyway, if whatever the conflict is can't be resolved easily, or if it can't be figured out, I usually just get rid of the new guy because it's not worth my time and - yeah, here it is, this "new guy" can be replaced very easily. (Yes, I admit that it's not always the new guys fault, I have on occasion found it was a previous hire who was mucking up the works - I fired them when I figured it out. I've also called up the previously fired "new guy" and offered them back the position if they had generally passed, or seemed like they would pass, the rest of the first two minimums.)

Now the last two aspects are kind of where "retention" value begins to really deviate from one generic low skill worker to another. Even so, these are just minor tic-mark's in the employee's favor as they are not exactly impressive or rare talents. They are not "worthless," but by the same token they are not really be-all or end-all factors when we're talking about a low skill worker. Unless I have a "pressing" need to move employee's around (like say I've got another more skilled person who's quitting and I need to fill their position by moving someone else up,) these things have a pretty low "retention" value. The chances that I'll find someone else with the basic first two points, and a tic's or two from the second two points is pretty high, so other than the hassle of having to a) temporary cover w/e position they are handling again, and b) drop a "now hiring" sign/post and go through the interviewing process again, it's kind of a non-value. There's some subjective flex to it, if their manager likes the kid, they'll have a higher retention value, if their manager doesn't like them then they'll have less, etc. (Another part of management's job; assessing employee's potentials.) Or, like if we've put some money into training classes of some kind (note that typically only "classes" require any money, most often the manger is expected to train, or they have to be around to cover things while a "peer" employee trains the new hire.)

It's honestly not until an employee has worked somewhere for like 6mos (low end) to a year or more that there really starts to be a "measurable" value deviation. This is roughly the stage when we start considering investing in a specific employee because it's a turning point when they start becoming harder to replace with just any other low skill worker off the street; it's when we start planning on keeping this employee. (You'll notice that a lot of companies start paying benefits after 6mos, medical, 401k matching, stock options, etc. are an investment in the employee that actually cost the employer "money" in some form or another - these things are a non-monetary "raise" that marks the first stages of "investment" in the employee.) Anyway, by this time they've earned a little "tenure" with us - we should have an idea that they are a good fit for the company and there is no thought of having to fire them or desire to let them go, they should know their job, as well as have a general idea of whats up with other employee's job duties, they should have "earned" a number of tic's from all four of the aspects above, they should have some "respect" from other employee's - maybe they're helping train new employees, maybe they're the one the other employee's ask for help, maybe they are the one the other employees choose to talk to [about whatever.] (These ones are tic's toward a possible future supervisory/management position.) We should have some "trust" in them, ranging from minor stuff like we're confident they'll do their tasks well even if we're not paying attention (more advanced "reliability"), to bigger stuff like we trust them to handle the money without supervision (count tills, put the opening amounts in other employee's tills, maybe even do the menial tasks necessary for opening or closing the store, or we might trust them with a key to the building so they could do those things without supervision.

Retention value factors in this stage are mostly "trust" (as I just mentioned,) "usefulness," and "potential" - maybe we can put them on drive-through or counter because they've learned both. If they have an "available" tic we can call them up in an emergency to fill a shift if someone else calls in sick, or perhaps we could move them around to different shifts if we needed to. If they have a "dedicated" tic, maybe we don't need to pay another employee as much to supervise them or more commonly, our manager doesn't have to "babysit" them so /they/ aren't working as hard (a happy manager is a loyal manager who cares about our businesses well being.) Maybe we consider them a particularly good employee and don't want to risk losing them to a higher paying job offer, or perhaps we think this employee is a good candidate to move up to a higher position (this is a key point where the employee typically gets what I like to call a "retention" raise - if we have a position we'd like to see them in we might pay to send them to a class to learn w/e specialized skill(s) would be required for said higher position we have open, or that we think might open up.) Again some subjective factors play in, I have given employee's raises because the rumor is they might have to quit for some reason, because I discovered they had been doing someone else's job without being asked, even gave one employee a raise because their dog passed away (a less stressed employee [that I plan to keep] is a more productive employee.)

After this stage, we're not typically talking about a "low skill" employee anymore; with 1 1/2 - 2 years of experience in a particular position an employee can typically start to ply a bit more hiring value out of the little MW gold star I mentioned. This is another stage when employer's might start having a "concern" that the employee they want to keep might leave and they would lose something of "value" to them. If they've been grooming, or have invested money into training, that employee then they'll typically offer another "retention" raise.

----

All that said, I do think it should be mentioned that quite a few companies outside of fast food joints, and other jobs with high turn-over rates, practice what I call "paying it forward" - this means that they hire an employee with a promise of "scheduled" raises, and there is an automatic premise that the employee will be staying with the company. This happens typically when the company has to put money into training the employee right off the bat just to do the job, usually upon hire they'll inform the employee that they will get a raise of x amount after 3mos and another after 6mos (sometimes they call this a "trial period.") This is an attempt to protect the initial investment they are going to be making into the employees training. Or they might offer full benefits upon hire to attract candidates for a long term position or career with them. By informing an employee that they have scheduled raises coming they essentially increase the employee's desire to stick it out and the likelihood that the employee isn't going to just randomly quit or be out looking for another job that might pay a little bit more. A lot of the time it's a sort of "secret code" to an employee that this isn't a "temporary" or "first job" type position, the company itself is hoping that you're going to stay with them. These are the jobs you /want/ to get into, the only cavort is that if it's a smaller business then it's likely to be a lot longer between raises but there's other benefits.

An extended note on small businesses -- your mom & pop stores, they do not hire very often and they do not typically have large profits so you don't really get "raises" when you move "up the ladder" with them. The trade off is that you have really high job security and it's typically a far more "enjoyable" job - they will usually bend over backward to accommodate your specific needs and genuinely try to keep you happy; like buying things you want for the place (a really nice chair, an apple if you don't like PCs, or similar "comforts",) or they'll be more than understanding of time off for things that most other places wouldn't (like birthday's, dinner date's, concert's, etc.,) they'll also give you a lot more say in how the business operates from day to day. They try to pay as best they can, however, you are unlikely to get any kind of regular raises with them. Thing is that with mom & pops they are almost always grooming you to be their manager, or if they already have a young manager or their children will take over when they retire, a key player in their business - and often instead of raises they'll give stuff like discounts or free stuff or even a share of the profits or ownership in the business itself. Small businesses like these are places where an employee has to make a decision that they can live with the written pay rate for the long term in exchange for the "quality" of the job. (Personally working for a small businesses vs corporate is by far my favorite, there's not as much money potential but there is a hell of a lot of freedom and genuine enjoyment to be had. - When you love your work, it's no longer a job - you basically get paid to enjoy yourself all day and there's a lot to be said for that heh)

 

[beagle9]

I'll tell you "people" something. I don't work in fast food, but people who do, do a lot more then "flip burgers". That's a term used by those who are clueless

Damn straight...they also open bags, take pieces of paper and wrap something with it, push buttons and wait for it to beep back...sophisticated stuff for sure.

mop the floors, clean the toilets scrub the counters. Shit I do at home for free.

. If you got a wife, you ain't doing all that for free..

well I know I get nothing for the work.

. No rewards eh ?

 

[beagle9]

I agree with what you say here, but it isn't always the case that MW'gers are simply interchangeable based upon the minimum wage payscale. Some people don't even make it in some job skills or jobs in which they are hired for, and this regardless of what pay they start out with, but another new employee might make it even though they started at MW level.. No one is as interchangeable as companies or corporations wish that they were. There is value in each individual, it's just a matter of them finally fitting in where they belong in life.

That would be the individual employee's "retention" value as I said. However, one does not automatically earn "retention" value with the company when hired to do a job, it's more of an earned thing. With the presumption that an employee has low skills, their retention value to the company is based on a long list of attributes, but these are the major points:

Is the employee "reliable" - do they show up for work on time? do they call in if they're going to be late? does this happen a lot? are they sick/not making it to work a lot? do they do /all/ the work they are asked to do? without complaining? glad to do it?

Is the employee "personable" - do they get along with their co-workers? do they respect their co-workers? do they get along with their managers? do they respect their managers? In the case of a position that must interact with customers; do they smile when helping customers? do they act and speak in a way that reflects the company well to it's customers? do they insure the customer is satisfied with the service the employee provided them? do the customers in general seem to like the employee?

Is the employee "available" - are they flexible with their work time or are they only willing/able to work certain shifts? are they constantly changing their shifts with other employees because they have "other" things they have to do? (The latter here is kind of preliminary logistics stuff, it matters to employees when considering longer term or upward mobilization - if an employee can only seem to work a day shift, then the employer might not consider them for a night assistant shift manager opening kind of thing.)

Is the employee "dedicated" - do they do their work reliably? on time? do they notice little things that are failing to be done by other employees? do they ignore it or do they attempt to resolve the loose strings? tell their manager? fix it themselves? (The latter matters to the employer because it says something about if said employee would be able to work without supervision. It also speaks toward the employee's ability to handle more responsibilities, as well as their attitude toward making sure the business is running smoothly.)


The first two aspects are quite frankly the bare minimum's and they are generally /expected/ by employers. Failing to show you can handle those two minimums puts you on the "let these employees go first" list (or as I call it the "meh" list,) in some jobs not being able to achieve one or both of them acceptably will get you fired regardless. For example, I will not tolerate an employee who causes drama with other employee's, its not fair to my employees and it's not fair to my customers. If a new hire is causing, or having trouble, with their co-workers, I'll give them a warning chat to try to resolve the problem, maybe even chat with their manager about it to try to figure out what the problem is (note no one "in authority" can really talk to other employees about a specific employee's actions; it puts a bad taste in all the employees mouths if they think your are going behind their backs and talking about them with their "peers," the best we can really do in management is ask the employees open ended questions like "Is anything bothering you?" "are you enjoying working here" etc., so we typically can only ask their manager if they know what is happening between the conflicting co-workers - its a small bit of the managers job) Anyway, if whatever the conflict is can't be resolved easily, or if it can't be figured out, I usually just get rid of the new guy because it's not worth my time and - yeah, here it is, this "new guy" can be replaced very easily. (Yes, I admit that it's not always the new guys fault, I have on occasion found it was a previous hire who was mucking up the works - I fired them when I figured it out. I've also called up the previously fired "new guy" and offered them back the position if they had generally passed, or seemed like they would pass, the rest of the first two minimums.)

Now the last two aspects are kind of where "retention" value begins to really deviate from one generic low skill worker to another. Even so, these are just minor tic-mark's in the employee's favor as they are not exactly impressive or rare talents. They are not "worthless," but by the same token they are not really be-all or end-all factors when we're talking about a low skill worker. Unless I have a "pressing" need to move employee's around (like say I've got another more skilled person who's quitting and I need to fill their position by moving someone else up,) these things have a pretty low "retention" value. The chances that I'll find someone else with the basic first two points, and a tic's or two from the second two points is pretty high, so other than the hassle of having to a) temporary cover w/e position they are handling again, and b) drop a "now hiring" sign/post and go through the interviewing process again, it's kind of a non-value. There's some subjective flex to it, if their manager likes the kid, they'll have a higher retention value, if their manager doesn't like them then they'll have less, etc. (Another part of management's job; assessing employee's potentials.) Or, like if we've put some money into training classes of some kind (note that typically only "classes" require any money, most often the manger is expected to train, or they have to be around to cover things while a "peer" employee trains the new hire.)

It's honestly not until an employee has worked somewhere for like 6mos (low end) to a year or more that there really starts to be a "measurable" value deviation. This is roughly the stage when we start considering investing in a specific employee because it's a turning point when they start becoming harder to replace with just any other low skill worker off the street; it's when we start planning on keeping this employee. (You'll notice that a lot of companies start paying benefits after 6mos, medical, 401k matching, stock options, etc. are an investment in the employee that actually cost the employer "money" in some form or another - these things are a non-monetary "raise" that marks the first stages of "investment" in the employee.) Anyway, by this time they've earned a little "tenure" with us - we should have an idea that they are a good fit for the company and there is no thought of having to fire them or desire to let them go, they should know their job, as well as have a general idea of whats up with other employee's job duties, they should have "earned" a number of tic's from all four of the aspects above, they should have some "respect" from other employee's - maybe they're helping train new employees, maybe they're the one the other employee's ask for help, maybe they are the one the other employees choose to talk to [about whatever.] (These ones are tic's toward a possible future supervisory/management position.) We should have some "trust" in them, ranging from minor stuff like we're confident they'll do their tasks well even if we're not paying attention (more advanced "reliability"), to bigger stuff like we trust them to handle the money without supervision (count tills, put the opening amounts in other employee's tills, maybe even do the menial tasks necessary for opening or closing the store, or we might trust them with a key to the building so they could do those things without supervision.

Retention value factors in this stage are mostly "trust" (as I just mentioned,) "usefulness," and "potential" - maybe we can put them on drive-through or counter because they've learned both. If they have an "available" tic we can call them up in an emergency to fill a shift if someone else calls in sick, or perhaps we could move them around to different shifts if we needed to. If they have a "dedicated" tic, maybe we don't need to pay another employee as much to supervise them or more commonly, our manager doesn't have to "babysit" them so /they/ aren't working as hard (a happy manager is a loyal manager who cares about our businesses well being.) Maybe we consider them a particularly good employee and don't want to risk losing them to a higher paying job offer, or perhaps we think this employee is a good candidate to move up to a higher position (this is a key point where the employee typically gets what I like to call a "retention" raise - if we have a position we'd like to see them in we might pay to send them to a class to learn w/e specialized skill(s) would be required for said higher position we have open, or that we think might open up.) Again some subjective factors play in, I have given employee's raises because the rumor is they might have to quit for some reason, because I discovered they had been doing someone else's job without being asked, even gave one employee a raise because their dog passed away (a less stressed employee [that I plan to keep] is a more productive employee.)

After this stage, we're not typically talking about a "low skill" employee anymore; with 1 1/2 - 2 years of experience in a particular position an employee can typically start to ply a bit more hiring value out of the little MW gold star I mentioned. This is another stage when employer's might start having a "concern" that the employee they want to keep might leave and they would lose something of "value" to them. If they've been grooming, or have invested money into training, that employee then they'll typically offer another "retention" raise.

----

All that said, I do think it should be mentioned that quite a few companies outside of fast food joints, and other jobs with high turn-over rates, practice what I call "paying it forward" - this means that they hire an employee with a promise of "scheduled" raises, and there is an automatic premise that the employee will be staying with the company. This happens typically when the company has to put money into training the employee right off the bat just to do the job, usually upon hire they'll inform the employee that they will get a raise of x amount after 3mos and another after 6mos (sometimes they call this a "trial period.") This is an attempt to protect the initial investment they are going to be making into the employees training. Or they might offer full benefits upon hire to attract candidates for a long term position or career with them. By informing an employee that they have scheduled raises coming they essentially increase the employee's desire to stick it out and the likelihood that the employee isn't going to just randomly quit or be out looking for another job that might pay a little bit more. A lot of the time it's a sort of "secret code" to an employee that this isn't a "temporary" or "first job" type position, the company itself is hoping that you're going to stay with them. These are the jobs you /want/ to get into, the only cavort is that if it's a smaller business then it's likely to be a lot longer between raises but there's other benefits.

An extended note on small businesses -- your mom & pop stores, they do not hire very often and they do not typically have large profits so you don't really get "raises" when you move "up the ladder" with them. The trade off is that you have really high job security and it's typically a far more "enjoyable" job - they will usually bend over backward to accommodate your specific needs and genuinely try to keep you happy; like buying things you want for the place (a really nice chair, an apple if you don't like PCs, or similar "comforts",) or they'll be more than understanding of time off for things that most other places wouldn't (like birthday's, dinner date's, concert's, etc.,) they'll also give you a lot more say in how the business operates from day to day. They try to pay as best they can, however, you are unlikely to get any kind of regular raises with them. Thing is that with mom & pops they are almost always grooming you to be their manager, or if they already have a young manager or their children will take over when they retire, a key player in their business - and often instead of raises they'll give stuff like discounts or free stuff or even a share of the profits or ownership in the business itself. Small businesses like these are places where an employee has to make a decision that they can live with the written pay rate for the long term in exchange for the "quality" of the job. (Personally working for a small businesses vs corporate is by far my favorite, there's not as much money potential but there is a hell of a lot of freedom and genuine enjoyment to be had. - When you love your work, it's no longer a job - you basically get paid to enjoy yourself all day and there's a lot to be said for that heh)

. Great read and reply... You are very smart in this area... Not sure if your old school, but you sure sound like you are. Thanks for the read... I understood because I am on the same page with you.

 

[Asclepias]

I don't think we should pay one man at the top 1,500,000 bucks per year! At least the burger flipper is doing the hard work.

You arent paying the man at the top. The people that own the company do that so they can attract top talent. One thing I firmly believe in is that you should be paid what your worth is to the person who is paying you. If you want higher pay then you need to become more talented.

 

[beagle9]

I don't think we should pay one man at the top 1,500,000 bucks per year! At least the burger flipper is doing the hard work.

You arent paying the man at the top. The people that own the company do that so they can attract top talent. One thing I firmly believe in is that you should be paid what your worth is to who is paying you. If you want higher pay then you need to become more talented.

. Or just become more stable and consistent in what ever you do. And if you do these things, then rewards should be in order no matter what rung of the latter your on. Some corps and companies love a socialist communist approach, where they want class levels working, where as if your in a class they have placed you in, then you can't work your way out unless they decide to open up and let you out of the class they have placed you in. In some cases it is that corps are tempted to work people as cheap as they can for as long as they can, and if the government kicks in and subsidizes the workers pay they love that even more.

 

[EverCurious]

Great read and reply... You are very smart in this area... Not sure if your old school, but you sure sound like you are. Thanks for the read... I understood because I am on the same page with you.

Yeah I'm pretty old school. My billing is generally "right hand" to the owner and I've been doing it... {shit >.<} almost 30 years now. Been a self-sold interim exec for the last 10-15 - spotty though cause I just work when I want to. I still win just about every contract because I haven't /needed/ the money since I was 20-25 so I can underbid just about anyone out there if I'm motivated to buy something special. My competitors hate me so much, I get "nasty" emails from em asking what I'm buying and how long I'm going to be working whenever I randomly pop out of "retirement" heh

I've done far too much of this stuff, I've watched the work-force change, specially over the past 10ish. The quality of labor is going to hell, but at least for now you can still find those little pearls mixed in - usually with military/corp/SE parents. I keep the faith that there's always gonna be some, of course that means the majority are, and I know it's not nice, but throw away's. I've not worked fast food, no way I'd be able to handle that big a pile of trash (and it's usually the leadership's fault not employees per say,) but I've seen the ones trying to move up and I'm just like... uf dah... I've actually written letters to all the fast food exec's asking them to straighten their shit cause the rest of us in the business world are tired of trying to fix their shit (to be fair the box stores are almost as guilty.) idk they're all kinda apathetic, its like a mental shift from where they used to be like a jumping board for employees and now they're like... practically useless to the rest of us - hell half the time you can't even count that experience as saying the employee shows up on time anymore. Meh it's no so much that I wouldn't hire em, but I kind know I'm going to have to just start over from scratch. I often wonder if it's caused by the fact that a lot of these places /aren't/ "American," like they don't have the national investment so they could give two shits if the employee moves up or not - idk I won't work for them... I'll do big US oil Exxon (had a little stint with BP meh on them, pays excellent but they're employees are assholes where I was heh), I'll do a few of the global's like IBM and ASUS (though mostly cause I'm an Asus fangirl,) but no way I'm touching like Home Depot heh I tend to prefer smaller businesses these days, not just mom&pops, but sub-50 employee joints, they're usually really hurting so it's a "feel good" win for me. Shrug

 

[EverCurious]

I don't think we should pay one man at the top 1,500,000 bucks per year! At least the burger flipper is doing the hard work.

You arent paying the man at the top. The people that own the company do that so they can attract top talent. One thing I firmly believe in is that you should be paid what your worth is to who is paying you. If you want higher pay then you need to become more talented.

. Or just become more stable and consistent in what ever you do. And if you do these things, then rewards should be in order no matter what rung of the latter your on. Some corps and companies love a socialist communist approach, where they want class levels working, where as if your in a class they have placed you in, then you can't work your way out unless they decide to open up and let you out of the class they have placed you in. In some cases it is that corps are tempted to work people as cheap as they can for as long as they can, and if the government kicks in and subsidizes the workers pay they love that even more.

That's along the lines of my "thoughts" on box-stores. They just don't give two shits, they want x done and that's it for the bulk of their employees. I mean you can snag some decent upper management out of them, but the rest of em we've gotta rebuild from the ground up. Basic shit too, like "you are the face of our company, go buy some shirts that don't have a cartoon on it" Meh, I guess on the plus side the majority of employees still listen at least, some of them though, they just have attitudes that are impossible to re-train. I suppose that's always been around, maybe I just notice it more cause I'm getting old

 

[dannyboys]

I could have hired any number of young people with degrees to 'flip burgers'.
I quickly realised they were a bunch of spoiled brats always pissed off because they found themselves flipping burgers instead of being in that great paying prestige job telling people how medieval shoes were made.
These assholes were always fomenting unrest with a employees who only had grade twelve. Always trying to bring their 'LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION'/Socialist myths into my businesses.
It's the same today. Show me one young university graduate who is 'happy in their work' serving grossly overpriced burnt coffee to fucking soccer moms.
"HI SANDY!!!!! I didn't know you work here! Ya. We were in 'Medieval Studies' together. Remember?".
(Ya bitch! I married a fucking plumber! That's why I'm driving this Escalade! HAAA HAAAA!)