Employees Are Quitting Instead of Giving Up Working from Home

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I think as far as entry level positions... you do really get what you pay for.

Lets say I pay someone $12 an hr to do a job which is a whopping $25k a year... aka below poverty line... i genuinely have no expectations of them outside of basic button clicking... i dont expect much loyalty from them either. It sucks and is what our country has gotten used to but it is what it is.

Now, paying these people $15 an hr... thats when shit will really hit the fan.

I think a 401k with a decent vesting is a good thing to do for entry level workers. It gives them a path to a piece of the pie; an investment in the pie. And some day they may even thank you!

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

This type of generalisation amazes me.

You are right, it is a generalization...

Originally Posted by Alfisti

People slack, they just will, especially entry level types.

...but so is this.

I also think you are missing a key point: It's always the bosses/manager's fault. They are in charge. If you scapegoat the underlings, then you will never filter out a cancer of a boss. You will be dealing with symptoms instead of the disease itself.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by chassis

The "entry level" comments are interesting.

I think what "entry level" means in this thread is "no education and minimum hourly wage less than full workweek" positions and workers who take them. The employees are bottom of the barrel because the jobs themselves are bottom of the barrel. Birds of a feather stick together.

College educated, indeed master's degree educated, "entry level" professionals bust their stones day in and day out when starting their careers, as a general rule. And get paid well.

I'm talking entry level as far as trades or college grads entry level. And definitely not minimum wage.

If every college educated entry level employee you've had busts their ass every day, you are one lucky person.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by tdott

Doesn't sound like there is enough delegation of responsibilities if training a new hire is taking away from other area of the business and advancing the company.

Whether you want to believe it or not, new hires cost the company resources at a higher rate than established employees. This is true at nearly every level.

And why didn't i think of that? To just go hire the best of the best.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by CTinline-six

I'm not sure what field of work you are in, but in IT it's pretty obvious when people are/are not getting their work done from home. If they aren't getting the work done, they won't be working for the company. Also, sending inappropriate messages to female coworkers would be grounds for immediate dismissal. If an employee needs to be "watched" in order to be kept in check, it sounds like the company standards are too lax.

Yeah my brain was breaking trying to figure out dudes logic. Like none of that is solved bringing everyone in, you deal with the issue at hand. LOL, dude was probably saying inappropriate things IN THE OFFICE beforehand and now just got caught in a text.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

I can tell you guys dont hire/manage entry level positions.

Insurance adjusters, which is what I was referring to in my original reply, aren't entry level positions. This is the core function of the business: insurance claims and handling. When most of the money goes to ancillary functions like legal, then you know there is a flaw in the model. It no longer becomes about insurance or the client, but about litigation. Not that legal fees are not going to be significant, but when the main function of the business suffers, what kind of operation are they really running?

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

Churning through employees is not a good model for success

The problem is, companies are relying too much on "entry level" aka CHEAP labor to handle crucial functions of their company. Churning through "entry level" employees should not impact our model of success because of it's very nature. Turnover is supposed to be high. We gain little loyalty with entry level positions. We need to incentivize advancement through more than just pay.

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

unless you have an unlimited supply of potential employees or you have a very small need for entry level people.

You solved the problem. Change the model so it relies less on entry level people. Cheap, Good, Fast... chose 2.

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

It takes time and money to train a new employee. Time and money that can go towards improving other areas of the business including retaining and advancing your good employees.

Good employees cost money. Filtering costs money. Again, Good, Cheap, Fast, choose 2.

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

There has been a shortage of workers for a while now, and an even greater shortage of quality workers. For every 1 good entry level guy i hire, theres 2-3 trash ones that either take a lot of work to get to competent, or just don't last long. Unfortunately, despite paying more than most basic jobs, its still a pain in the ass to get people to work.

I don't want to minimize your situation. I think this is a very valid argument and a real problem, I just think our expectations have to be realistic and our management style needs to account for that.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

What kind of horseshit is that? Everything costs money, if you are delegating supervisors to manage entry level workers then yeah it affects other areas because it is a cost item that could be used elsewhere.

jesus.

So having a high value individual manage them is better? Then that person complains when they are taken away from high value work?

Doesn't seem effective to me.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by jmg

If you scapegoat the underlings, then you will never filter out a cancer of a boss. You will be dealing with symptoms instead of the disease itself.

Who is scapegoating anyone????? I don't get your entire angle. Some people do not have a suitable work ethic, they need to be monitored, coached and worked with and if they continue to slack, removed. It is that simple.

This entire angle that all employees are angels working for the big bad corporation is absolute garbage.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by tdott

So having a high value individual manage them is better? Then that person complains when they are taken away from high value work?

Doesn't seem effective to me.

SO much stupid in this thread.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Who is scapegoating anyone????? I don't get your entire angle. Some people do not have a suitable work ethic, they need to be monitored, coached and worked with and if they continue to slack, removed. It is that simple.

This entire angle that all employees are angels working for the big bad corporation is absolute garbage.

Who is saying that employees are angels?

I think the jist here is tbat for a minimum or low wage, you get what you get and you will always have slacking / turnover. The pandemic free handouts just made this worse.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I think the jist here is tbat for a minimum or low wage, you get what you get and you will always have slacking / turnover. The pandemic free handouts just made this worse.

No one is arguing with that. The comments i refer to are those that suggest I should have 450 entry level staff work unsupervised and just rely on their goodwill to do their job. Good luck with that approach.

[dscabra]

I consider myself lucky when it comes to managing my staff. I have several recent college graduates as well as some more experienced engineers on my team. We pay the entry-level engineers with a four-year degree a very competitive wage ($80K and up) and get some amazingly talented young engineers. As a manager, my job is to define the work and the schedule and let the team get it done. We do daily meetings - agile scrum style - where I ask each person three basic questions:

1. What did you accomplish yesterday?
2. What are you working on today?
3. Is anything blocking your progress?

My success is based on how well I get the team to meet our obligations (schedule and budget) and deliver products that work. It's only happened once where I've had an engineer that was not able to produce. I worked with him to help him find another position within the company that was better suited to his skills and it worked out well for both he and my team.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Who is scapegoating anyone????? I don't get your entire angle.

I said this:

Originally Posted by jmg

If babysitting is a major component of the manager's jobs, then the problem is with the managers. Managing is not babysitting. The laziness and ineptitude of the managers to create and manage a team without babysitting is not a reason to revert to an outdated work model.

You replied this:

Originally Posted by Alfisti

This type of generalisation amazes me. People slack, they just will, especially entry level types.

You are scapegoating the employee rather than looking at it from the perspective that it's the manager's ultimate responsibility how their underlings perform. Managers are not there to babysit. They are the leaders for their team, and a team wins and loses together as one unit.

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Some people do not have a suitable work ethic, they need to be monitored, coached and worked with and if they continue to slack, removed. It is that simple.

Monitored to what extent? Spying on emails and internet activity? Timing lunch breaks with a stopwatch? Timing coffee breaks? Taking note of who is sitting at their desks?

Treat people like children and they will behave like children.

To me, "monitoring" should be limited to getting the workload done and that's it. People can "slack off' all they want so long as the work gets done and it's high quality work. I'm not here to babysit children who need to clock in when they come in the morning. If you want to show up at 10am instead of 9am, fine, just stay late or make sure the work is done. There is a difference between monitoring their work and babysitting. You can monitor someone's work remotely, you can work with people or coach over a zoom meeting or phone call. You don't need to watch the clock, that micromanaging mickey mouse bullshit. It's for insecure managers who don't trust their subordinates because they are poor leaders. Attitude reflects leadership.

Originally Posted by Alfisti

This entire angle that all employees are angels working for the big bad corporation is absolute garbage.

I never said that. Aren't managers employees too? Why can't we hold them responsible for their subordinates?

FYI I am a self-employed business owner. I've been leading teams for over a decade in my field. I'm successful because of those under me, not in spite of them. Their failures as employees and subordinates are my failure as a CEO/Team Leader/Manager. The sooner I started believing that, the faster I became a better leader, the more I surrounded myself with high quality team members.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

No one is arguing with that. The comments i refer to are those that suggest I should have 450 entry level staff work unsupervised and just rely on their goodwill to do their job. Good luck with that approach.

That's a gross exaggeration of an opposing point of view. If that is what you think I was saying, then the problem is your interpretation, not what I was saying.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by jmg

That's a gross exaggeration of an opposing point of view. If that is what you think I was saying, then the problem is your interpretation, not what I was saying.

Opposite applies.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by jmg

Insurance adjusters, which is what I was referring to in my original reply, aren't entry level positions. This is the core function of the business: insurance claims and handling. When most of the money goes to ancillary functions like legal, then you know there is a flaw in the model. It no longer becomes about insurance or the client, but about litigation. Not that legal fees are not going to be significant, but when the main function of the business suffers, what kind of operation are they really running?

And there is the thing. I am hiring either people fresh out of trade school or something similar, or even people with just a HS diploma as my "Entry Level" field guys or people fresh out of college or the field for my office guys. Field guys obviously cant work from home, so they are irrelevant to the convo, but the office guys, especially the fresh out of school with barely any experience, are where they need to be "babysat". And not babysat like you defined it in a later post, where I'm watching when they go on break, or for how long, or if they are showing up late/leaving early, etc. but babysat in the sense of are they getting their work done when it needs to be done, are they getting it done correctly and why arent they if they arent.

This is where I prefer to have them in office because its a lot easier to see if they are putting in the time working and maybe the workload is too much or too complicated for them right now, or are they slacking off throughout the day/leaving early/or whatever that is causing them to not perform. If youre just measuring performance by what they are turning in on time and correctly, youre missing what could be the underlying issue.

The problem is, companies are relying too much on "entry level" aka CHEAP labor to handle crucial functions of their company. Churning through "entry level" employees should not impact our model of success because of it's very nature. Turnover is supposed to be high. We gain little loyalty with entry level positions. We need to incentivize advancement through more than just pay.

This is certainly the case with some companies, especially huge corporations where they have people lining up to come work for them. But every company ive worked for (10-20M/yr revenue up to billions/yr) has treated entry level positions as the stepping stone to get in to the company and get established. As for myself, I treat them the same way. Im not having entry level guys run projects, but as they get more experience and prove they can handle more and more responsibilities, they get more and will manage small portions of projects.

You solved the problem. Change the model so it relies less on entry level people. Cheap, Good, Fast... chose 2.

most businesses need entry level positions. Doesnt make sense for someone with a high salary to waste time doing mundane tasks that a cheap guy should be able to do. Even if it takes someone making $30/hr 3 hours to do something, its a lot more cost effective than having someone making 100+ do it for an hour, and gives that 30/hr guy experience.

Good employees cost money. Filtering costs money. Again, Good, Cheap, Fast, choose 2.

Good employees do cost money. Entry level positions arent for them. A good employee is going to outgrow that entry level position quickly, but you will still need someone to fill that role.

I don't want to minimize your situation. I think this is a very valid argument and a real problem, I just think our expectations have to be realistic and our management style needs to account for that.

Management styles definitely need to adapt to the current climate of the workforce, but employees also need to realize that at the end of the day, they need to be flexible as well and they arent the only one that matters at the company. What they think works best for them, doesnt necessarily work best for others or the company.

[F32Fleet]

My employer is seeing a lack of meaningful collaboration and employees are getting silo'd. We have two large footprints (DC, Texas) so they're rotating employees back in Sept. I'm going to be WAH until further notice. I personally don't like it because I can no longer justify waking up early to hit the gym and avoid morning traffic I don't eat as healthy. . Now it's no gym but light afternoon runs and calisthenics. At least I'm saving a lot of money.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Opposite applies.

I asked you to clarify what you meant by "monitor" to avoid misinterpretation. You just assumed what I said suggested something it didn't without clarification.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

And there is the thing. I am hiring either people fresh out of trade school or something similar, or even people with just a HS diploma as my "Entry Level" field guys or people fresh out of college or the field for my office guys. Field guys obviously cant work from home, so they are irrelevant to the convo, but the office guys, especially the fresh out of school with barely any experience, are where they need to be "babysat". And not babysat like you defined it in a later post, where I'm watching when they go on break, or for how long, or if they are showing up late/leaving early, etc. but babysat in the sense of are they getting their work done when it needs to be done, are they getting it done correctly and why arent they if they arent.

This is where I prefer to have them in office because its a lot easier to see if they are putting in the time working and maybe the workload is too much or too complicated for them right now, or are they slacking off throughout the day/leaving early/or whatever that is causing them to not perform. If youre just measuring performance by what they are turning in on time and correctly, youre missing what could be the underlying issue.

This is certainly the case with some companies, especially huge corporations where they have people lining up to come work for them. But every company ive worked for (10-20M/yr revenue up to billions/yr) has treated entry level positions as the stepping stone to get in to the company and get established. As for myself, I treat them the same way. Im not having entry level guys run projects, but as they get more experience and prove they can handle more and more responsibilities, they get more and will manage small portions of projects.

most businesses need entry level positions. Doesnt make sense for someone with a high salary to waste time doing mundane tasks that a cheap guy should be able to do. Even if it takes someone making $30/hr 3 hours to do something, its a lot more cost effective than having someone making 100+ do it for an hour, and gives that 30/hr guy experience.

Good employees do cost money. Entry level positions arent for them. A good employee is going to outgrow that entry level position quickly, but you will still need someone to fill that role.

Management styles definitely need to adapt to the current climate of the workforce, but employees also need to realize that at the end of the day, they need to be flexible as well and they arent the only one that matters at the company. What they think works best for them, doesnt necessarily work best for others or the company.

All good arguments. Thanks for the perspective. I think you are doing it right when good employees more up from entry level quickly. I think we have to weigh what's good for the company vs what makes it simply easier for management to manage vs what makes it impossible. We assume things are impossible before we really analyze what simply takeS a small amount of adjustment to make WFH really work to the benefit to more people.

[4Hockey4]

This thread sums up why I make a living consulting, from the politics side, to how busy I have stayed for 10+ years.

carry on.....

[sspade]

Anyone else's company make the switch to Rippling software for HR related? Supposedly geared towards a remote workforce according to the ads Ive seen. Im hoping this is a good sign towards being remote indefinitely. Fingers and toes crossed.