Yeah, like, we had three jobs all lined up right across the state line in Chicago. Then Illinois raised its damned income tax and suddenly all three clients called up and said that since they had to pay more tax they didn’t think they could afford us any more, so sorry, they were canceling.
Like you said - guess the clients canceled because we suddenly got lazy. :rolleyes:
At least I’m getting a break on next month’s rent due to helping to fix the building septic tank. Now THAT will motivate you to get a better job…!
Would your friends hire someone who had no experience in electrical or masonry? Suppose a teacher or a nurse or a receptionist was laid off and asked one of your friends for work? Can you honestly say they’d be doing electrical work or laying bricks the next day?
You need a license to be an electrician but I think you can help them out with no training. Of course those helper jobs probably pay $10 an hour (or around that) Don’t know about a license for brick masons, never heard of one but I don’t know much about construction.
Sixty-eight hours a week is not a job. Sixty-eight hours a week is hell. A few times a year I work such hours for a two or three weeks at a time because the work is there and I have to grab it when I can. Then I need a week off each time to recuperate. No personal offense intended but I find employers who ask such hours of workers all the time rather disgusting. Part of the reason of the labor movement was to rescue us from such horrible schedules.
The whole mindset that anyone who does not want to work 12 hours a day five days a week and then another full day on a weekend is somehow lazy is both baffling and repulsive. No one should have to work like that for more than a short period.
I honestly feel sorry for anyone who has to work for someone who wants such insane hours from employees each week. Why can’t you ask people to work a standard, normal, rational, reasonably sane forty hour work week?
No, there are some things you can’t do without specific training or licensing. But all worksites need help of a sort that doesn’t require it. I got started cleaning up worksites, running errands, and keeping tools organized for the more advanced guys. I then started being the person who showed up first to set up the tools for the day. I load nailguns, maintain tools, and help move crap. I remove things like wallpaper and take down broken plaster from walls so they can be re-done. Rod out drains and replace toilets. Last summer I started learning to mix mud and they started letting me operate the power saws. Basically, you start as a cleaning person/go-fer and work up to informal apprentice. This winter I got put in a small room with drywall, measuring tools, and various cutting implements and told to have my first go at hanging it on my own. I’ve helped re-wire two buildings. There’s a lot you can do under the supervision of someone licensed. Some of it is effing hard - hauling roofing materials up a ladder, for example, for eight hours in the summer sun. Not everyone is physically capable of doing this, but there usually is SOME work for folks who aren’t strong as oxes.
The thing is, you can’t complain about being dirty. You can’t complain about being cold, or hot, or tired. A woman in her mid-40’s is not expected to keep up physically with a 25 year old man, but she better be humping to the extent she is able to. And god help a new 20 year old kid who can’t keep up with her (happened two summers ago, young man could NOT keep up even with the middle-aged women. He lost the job).
So yes, someone unskilled CAN get work in the construction industry. It’s also true those jobs don’t pay much. Of course they don’t, they’re the bottom of the rung, entry-level jobs. Well, if you were a teacher and now you’re working in construction you are changing your career, and you have to start over from the bottom. If the guys who lay bricks for a living suddenly decide at the age of 40 they want to be teachers they have to go through the appropriate training/internships and they will have to start at the bottom with the 23 year old college grads, right? The guys getting top wages for working in the trades started with craps jobs just like everyone else.
If I worked full time at my current pay rate I’d make between $16,000 and $20,000 a year (some jobs pay slightly more than others). That’s not a lot of money BUT I could live on that. I could pay my bills and buy my food without needing assistance. I would even be able to save a little. Why? Because I am amazingly frugal. And I don’t smoke, drink hardly at all, don’t do drugs, don’t gamble… few or no vices. The problem in this area, as I said, is lack of work, not lack of will to work.
If you’ve never NOT had a job, then how do you know what it’s like? :dubious:
My father free-lanced while he was on unemployment. (If another funeral home needed extra help, they’d call him up) It took him over a year to get another job. He had a wife and kids to support, and made more money that way. Doing that kind of thing also helped him establish connections, MUCH better than working at some kind of unskilled job, that wouldn’t have supported our family.
Now, my parents most likely considered all the options – but since I was only eleven at the time, I wasn’t exactly in on all the details. But my father has NEVER been lazy – now that he manages his own place, he gets a lot of business.
(He was laid off because his boss was, at the time, committing insurance fraud. Again, I don’t know all that much about the situation there – like I said, I was only eleven)
Note – I’m not saying he was OWED a job. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit here and let someone call him “lazy” because he was on unemployment. Saying, “well, if he couldn’t find a job in three months, blah blah blah,” well, you obviously don’t know jackshit about the funeral business.
(BTW, I’m guessing your response will be to point out MY employment history. Go for it. I don’t give a shit. But attack my family and I’m out for blood – metaphorically speaking, mods!)
So were we. A guy working for me planned his honeymoon while at work after dinner - it was fine with me, since we were all salaried and it was not like we were getting any more money for sticking around.
However, I doubt that leeway involved reading to your kids before they go to bed, being home for dinner with your family, or being with your spouse or SO.
As for your other comment, sure, quitting a job in this economy is insane - but maybe some people think it is less insane than working that long. One of our directors was know for nearly missing the birth of his child because he wanted to be in one more meeting. I decided I preferred being sane and married to whatever this company could give me. I had no trouble changing, and I’m still at the same place 15 years later, happy, sane, and well-paid.
Well the reason I put my post in the form of a question was that it was conceivable to me that there was some alternate explanation to “just being evil” for the 65 hour work weeks. But I did want to point out that there are moral issues with asking people to spend virtually their entire waking hours working for you. Issues which you clearly do not see, or more likely, choose not to see.
Like others, I am having all sorts of problems understanding why you simply do not hire more people to work shorter hours, to solve your turnover problem. I know it seems scandalous to you that people should want lives of their own, but really, that’s the same impulse that ended slavery … it was finally understood that every human being deserved to live lives of their own. And frankly, making your people work 65 hours a week is bad for the economy. When are they supposed to buy the goods and services they can now afford? Where will the new innovative businesses and services that will create new jobs come from if everyone is spending all their waking hours at work? Those innovators have to come from somewhere, most often, they come from the middle class.
I don’t know what to tell ya, Broomstick. Sounds like you’re playing the victim card. You also have an excuse for every and any suggestion to improve your life (based on this and other similar threads you’ve participated in). You appear to be self-defeating; in my opinion, your situation is less likely due to “circumstances beyond your control,” and more likely due to your self-defeating attitude and mindset. I hope the best for you.
I’m honestly starting to think that your company doesn’t have the slightest idea of what it is doing.
Just for fun, I ran your company’s “business plan” past my father, who has 40+ years of engineering and office management experience, and who’s even worked as a personnel manager. His response: “For what they’re paying in overtime, they could run two 40-hour shifts instead of one 68-hour shift, and get 12 extra hours a week. I have no idea why they’d run a 68-hour shift.” Nor do I, frankly, unless there’s something you’re not telling me.
We tried hiring people for shorter hours,we tried running a weekend shift where they work 36hrs and get paid for 40. Guess what… it don’t work. People still calling in taking days off. How many days does one get to abuse the system before you fire them? How is walking out of a job back onto the unemployment line helping the economy? They are buying cars, paying on their houses and not going into foreclosure. They are not on welfare, child support payments are being made etc… But I guess thats bad for the economy. I don’t blame people for not wanting to work all the hours. The people I have a problem with are the ones who come in complaining how bad it is just trying to support their family, work for 2 days and quit knowing the hours and that their family’s welfare is in play. Where is the morales in that? Take the job, don’t take it it’s up to them. But don’t bitch when the bills aren’t paid, You had your chance.
And your company’s solution to this was to pay people 82 hours a week for 68 hours per week work? Um…OK.
Please tell me what company you work for, so I know never to buy any product, car, or other piece of equipment which your company’s products might be conceivably used.
Yes, instead of answering the difficult questions I asked you go back to blaming the victim tactics.
Really, you’ve already decided that the poor must have done something wrong and therefore somehow deserve it, and it will never ever happen to you that you will find that you have the choice of either accepting aid or simply not eating.
As I said - I hope you never have to experience that in person. I don’t think you’d do well under those circumstances with such an inflexible mind set. Perhaps you will find a way to eat your pride.
As for me - I probably work harder now that I am underemployed than I ever did in a professional job. Regardless, I keep slogging away. Your disdain for me does not prevent me from working to improve my situation.
What I find puzzling is that I am doing EXACTLY what you said you would do in my situation… yet you say it’s not enough?
And really - I would LOVE to know where you live that the construction trades are booming. You haven’t answered that, either.
He’s correct… The problem is getting enough people to work. That is what boggles me. We run two shifts. I’m not keeping anything from you. This company has been around since 1912 so I think they have a clue of what’s going on. I think people need to wake up and realize the abuse of the system is more of a problem than what they thought.
I’m more inclined to think there is something ELSE wrong with your “system” that is driving people away than just long hours. You can always find someone willing to work the hours, but your turnover rate is insane. You really need to look at everything, including possible abuse by lower management like shift supervisors.
So what you are saying is cause we work the hours we do that our product is sub par? Look back at some of my earlier posts, you will see a few of our customers.
Look, if your plant can’t retain employees, despite a 9% unemployment rate, maybe the problem is you. Just like you have no obligation to provide a job to for every lazy asshole, workers have no obligation to crank out widgets for your crappy company.
If people quit after the training, the likely explanation is they accepted the job at first, and then they got a good look at the hellscape you’ve created, and decided that it wasn’t worth it. I’m sure your company would prefer it if nobody had any savings or insurance or family they could fall back on, and the lazy assholes had to accept whatever crap your company was dishing out.
But people do have alternatives. They won’t work at a horrible job because they aren’t yet starving on the street.
It reminds me a lot of Microsoft. They used to hire contractors and expect them to work 50-60 hour weeks. Then they discovered that, shockingly, it’s cheaper to hire two guys to work 40 hours a week than it is to hire one guy to work 60 hours a week, and you get almost twice as much work out of them to the bargain. Death-marches don’t work. It’s one thing if it’s a month before ship, and there’s no way to slip, and the product is going out the door on ship date no matter what. But that’s for a month, and then people get to go home.
Expect people to work 60 hours a week indefinately, and they just fucking won’t do it, except in two cases. One, where the alternative is starvation or literal beatings. Except here in 2010 America, even with 9% unemployment, nobody is going to starve, and the 13th Amendment made slavery illegal. The other scenario is where the workers are professional workaholics who fucking love their jobs so much that they’d rather be at work than doing anything else. You can get scientists and engineers and doctors and architects and developers and executives and creative types to pour their heart and soul and life into their jobs, because working isn’t work to them, it’s fun.
But you can’t get some poor slob to spent 68 hours sitting on some assembly line attaching tab A to slot B and love it.
Like you say, the workers have a choice, do the fucking job or hit the bricks. And your company has a choice, provide a decent working environment or constantly lose employees. You don’t have any loyalty to those lazy assholes, so why the fuck should they have any loyalty to your crappy company? You complain that the widgets HAVE to go out, but it ain’t anybody else’s responsibility, it’s yours. And if your company doesn’t like they way it’s workers treat them, the company can hit the bricks.
Your company is in a death spiral, where it can’t retain workers due to the heavy workload, and the response is to pile more work on every new worker, which means they quit. Great plan there, sparky. And of course, given the chaos you describe, I have to imagine your company is mismanaged in all sorts of other ways. With the high turnover, you treat your employees as disposable, and then act all surprised when the quit. Hey, they’re disposable to you, you’re disposable to them. Your threat is that you can find another guy to do their job if they don’t like the working conditions. Except, wow, it turns out you can’t find another guy to do their job.
And so, supply and demand, you’re going to have to sweeten the deal if you want people to keep working at your miserable shithole of a company. Welcome to the free market. Your suppliers are raising prices on you, and you can either find cheaper suppliers, or you can pay the higher prices. Since you can’t retain your suppliers longer than a few days, looks like you better start looking at treating your suppliers better, or learn to do without.
Is the calling in sick rate worse, or better than your industry standard?
If it’s worse, why is it worse?
Seems to me a lot of your problem is simply management’s insistence that anybody who doesn’t work 28 hours a week more than the industry standard is “lazy” and should be treated that way. That doesn’t really speak highly of the way management treats its workers, IMHO. (And having a “solution” for high turnover and low payroll-to-hours worked ratio that will only make both of them worse doesn’t speak to management’s business smarts, either.) Seriously, your company’s solution to the problem of “we’re not getting enough dedicated workers at 40 hours a week” was “let’s see how many dedicated workers we can find at 68 hours a week”? If the people you found were too “lazy” to work a 40-hour week, what the hell were you guys thinking that that same labor pool could hack a 68-hour week?