Employer Rant

[whodunit]

So, I see a position advertised in our local rag. It is closer to home (maybe 38 mile round trip versus 124) and states "very competitive pay and benefits".

I'm thinking that if they could get at least close to what I am currently making, I might make the jump and be able to save on gas and 2.5 driving time every day. So, I modify my resume and send it with a cover letter.

I happened to drive by the business, so I stopped in to see if they had received my resume. They had, but I was told they already interviewed someone and if that person didn't work out, they would have more interviews.

She also told me what the starting pay was- $3.26 an hour less than I make now. I was kind of flabbergasted. I didn't even bother asking about the benefits.

I am also looking for a second job as mine just ended a few weeks ago. It's amazing to see what employers want for minimum wage. Things like being available for all shifts including weekends; experience; excellent customer service skills; able to complete detailed and complicated paperwork; drug-free, etc.

So, essentially employers seem to want it all, but without decent compensation. Sometimes I am surprised I'm not a Democrat.

And for the record, my current job does not require anything other than a high school diploma and three weeks of training. This other job doesn't require any education, but I would need driver license endorsements. It's also a good size company that employs 10,000 people.

[tgmr05]

Originally Posted by whodunit

So, I see a position advertised in our local rag. It is closer to home (maybe 38 mile round trip versus 124) and states "very competitive pay and benefits".

I'm thinking that if they could get at least close to what I am currently making, I might make the jump and be able to save on gas and 2.5 driving time every day. So, I modify my resume and send it with a cover letter.

I happened to drive by the business, so I stopped in to see if they had received my resume. They had, but I was told they already interviewed someone and if that person didn't work out, they would have more interviews.

She also told me what the starting pay was- $3.26 an hour less than I make now. I was kind of flabbergasted. I didn't even bother asking about the benefits.

I am also looking for a second job as mine just ended a few weeks ago. It's amazing to see what employers want for minimum wage. Things like being available for all shifts including weekends; experience; excellent customer service skills; able to complete detailed and complicated paperwork; drug-free, etc.

So, essentially employers seem to want it all, but without decent compensation. Sometimes I am surprised I'm not a Democrat.

Those stinking employers, expecting someone to work for their pay, be available to work when the business is open, have some experience, be able to read and write, and my gosh not be a drug addict. Waaayyy too harsh. Gone are the good ole days when folks could paid for doing nothing, work only limited hours based on whatever each person wanted to work so they could watch their important tv shows or whatever, and smoke crack all day long.....

Sure it is tougher, now, to get a simple job. There are more unemployed in the US than the population of Germany.

Don't like it, become the employer, and then see the reality of what it is really like......

[MO_cows]

The current market works in favor of the employers. More people needing jobs than there are jobs available means they can offer less pay and benefits and demand more. Supply and demand.

Friend of mine is currently looking for work and it is amazing the level of responsibility one is expected to take on for $8 to $10 an hour. Read the job description and you would expect it to be closer to $18/hour, but no. But as long as this many people are hungry for a job, they will get their positions filled.

[sammyd]

you have to let your resume talk for you.
I was offered a job 2 months ago at a lower rate than the one I was looking to leave.
Got the old "we have another guy we're looking at as well" line.
Told em I needed 2 bucks more an hour or they could let the other guy have it.
Next day I got a call and they gave me the pay I wanted.

[whodunit]

I don't have a problem working for my pay. I do have a problem with a business advertising "very competitive pay" and wasting my time when it's barely a living wage. "Better than minimum" would have been more accurate.

I also have a problem with them running an advertisement when they have essentially made their choice. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. I've applied for jobs as soon as they were posted, only to find out through the grapevine that they already had someone in mind.

Then to top it off the insult and waste of my time, I've found out that someone else got the job when I saw them actually doing the job- no call, no rejection letter, nothing...yet, they would have demanded that I provided courteous service for their customers. Well try treating your potential employees with courtesy.

As far as the hours of availability I was mainly thinking of employers advertising for part-time work, but demanding that employees be available at all times. So, the employer is getting full-time availability for part-time pay. I don't know many people these days who just work for the fun of it. If the best I can get is a part-time job, I am certainly going to want two of them. What happens when I can't work for one because I have committed to the other?

As far as experience, employers want the world but don't want to pay for it. I have yet found a position that advertised a salary range with "DOE" after it, actually start at anything other than the bottom number.

All in all, just some basic courtesy and truth in advertising would be nice.

[Hollowdweller]

Middle class wages have been falling for the last 30 years.

Corporate profits way up.

The decline of union membership as well as gov't programs extending food stamps, and health insurance to children of low wage parents and things like the earned income tax credit have basically allowed the gov't to subsidize the low wages paid by companies.

Without the gov't making up the difference in crucial areas you'd see people joining unions and demanding a larger share of the profits of the companies they work for.

In 2010, the top one-fifth of U.S. households collected 50.3% of all the nation's income, up from 49.9% in 2006. The lowest-earning one-fifth of households collected just 3.3% of the nation's income, down from 3.4% in 2006.

That leaves the three-fifths of households in between — a common definition of a broad middle class. It collected 46.3% of the income last year, down from 46.7% in 2006.

Analysts call it the middle-class squeeze.

The data are the latest signs of a trend that dates to the 1970s, says Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. Back then, 53% of the nation's income went to the middle class.

She says that during the 2000s, households in the middle class began losing ground because their incomes were not growing. The recent recession made it worse as employers cut work hours, furloughed workers, froze salaries or imposed layoffs. At the same time, the value of family assets, such as homes, went down.

Middle class' share of income shrinks

So, essentially employers seem to want it all, but without decent compensation. Sometimes I am surprised I'm not a Democrat.

And as long as you aren't the trend will continue

[Trixie]

Lots of things have contributed to the decline of wages - not the least is the huge influx of illegals from south of the border. They have been a big part of the reason our wages of dropped. They can work contract labor, no taxes have to be matched, they don't have to have benefits (the taxpayers are furnishing these).

[emdeengee]

It is easiest to blame the illegals but who hires them? Businesses, companies, corporations and individuals. All are breaking the law and since they get away with it why would they hire a citizen at a living wage? No jobs, no illegals.

[whodunit]

Is it too much to ask that employers willingly share the wealth? I don't want employers to be forced into it, but that they simply recognize that without their employees they get nothing. Does anyone know of such companies?

[chickenista]

Originally Posted by MO_cows

The current market works in favor of the employers. More people needing jobs than there are jobs available means they can offer less pay and benefits and demand more. Supply and demand.
.

Yep.
It is a hirer's market and if you don't want the job there are 100 people waiting in line behind yhou that will gladly take whatever small amount of pay they can get.

And it will get worse.
Longer hours, no 15 minute breaks etc... and if you don't like it, then someone will again gladly take your place.


And I don't mena 'you', but the generalized 'you that implies whomever and all beings.

[whodunit]

I think we are there now. I see some unfair practices going on in my job, but I don't dare say anything to anyone who matters. If they want you gone, they will find a way.

[whodunit]

I at least have to give some credit to the place I applied for. She said they would call either way and she did earlier today. When I asked about part-time work, she said they don't have part-time, but she would keep her ears open and let me know if she heard anything.

[Harry Chickpea]

(Yawn) See the Thread on Capitalism in S&EP/Current Events. Pay attention to my last post in particular.

[texican]

Supply and Demand has always been a cruel mistress...

When employer demand is high and labor is low, wages and benefits traditionally go higher. (Little work and lots of unemployed) When there's little work and lots of unemployed, bennies disappear and wages drop.

If you owned your own business, would you pay more or less to potential employees, if there were a hundred people applying for one job?

The only benefit I ever expected from an employer was to get paid on time and the check didn't bounce.

Do hope you find something... lots of areas are still suffering... at least in a lot of blue states...

[pancho]

I can't speak of all places, only the places I have worked.
The last place I worked for 20 years. When I started working there a person was hired for the job because their experience and education showed they were qualified for the job. Their work ethic once hired for the job made them a valuable employee.
In the last 5-10 years things changed. People were hired because of who they were or who they knew. When they couldn't do the job private contractors were brought in to do it for them. The day I decided to call it quits, 75% of the workers had absolutely no experience, education, or skills needed for the job they were hired for. They were hired simply because of their color or who they knew or were related to. Private contractors had taken over much of the job that was supposedly the job of the employees.

[Classof66]

I was a hostess in a local restaurant for several years. It was a second job for me, irregular hours, but unlike the waitresses, mimium wage. I got so much an hour guaranteed. It is a fairly prosperous town, county seat, about 3500. Often times, we needed an additional bus person, or dishwasher. No one wanted these jobs. Customers often inquired about them, many had teenagers looking for part time jobs, and our busy times like Saturday nights, would have worked out good for a kid. The kid would work a night or two and quit, or not show up. Too hot, two dirty, too icky, too hard.

So, we had several young men from Mexico. They lived together in an apartment. I'm sure they were illegals, but they worked, smiled at people, and even sent money back home to their families! They got the job done. They bought bikes for transportation and seemed to stay out of trouble.

I can't see my own grandkids or neighbor kids wanting to do these jobs. We did have better luck with local girls waitressing, so I doubt it was the owners. I always liked them, I was middle aged and friendly, tried to be good for their business. And, I was dependable. They bent over backwards for me.

Funny thing is, a teenager could learn so much working in a kitchen like that. It would be wonderful training for someone aspiring to be a chef. Just seeing what goes in the garbage teaches a lot about food service and economics.

[Michael W. Smith]

Originally Posted by whodunit

Is it too much to ask that employers willingly share the wealth? I don't want employers to be forced into it, but that they simply recognize that without their employees they get nothing.

Usually before the wealth is shared, the employer wants to make sure you are a "keeper" and worthy of sharing the wealth. As has been said, if you owned a business and 100 people show up for a job - would you pay top dollar for an employee that you don't even know if it will work out? Or would you instead offer a lower amount? Out of those 100 people, many of them will take the lower pay, and if that one doesn't work out - there are still many to call back.

Now, once you are working for a company and prove your worth, then yes, the company will probably share the wealth (if there is any wealth to share).

[plowjockey]

Originally Posted by whodunit

Is it too much to ask that employers willingly share the wealth? I don't want employers to be forced into it, but that they simply recognize that without their employees they get nothing. Does anyone know of such companies?

As an employee, you want a share of the "wealth", from running a business.

But, are you willing to take a share the huge risk, huge expenses and endless major hassles, of running a business, also?

As for needing employees, many sucessful companies, try to automate production and oursource services, as much as possible, to have a few employees as possible, as they are often more of a liability, than an asset, any more.

[MO_cows]

Originally Posted by Michael W. Smith

Usually before the wealth is shared, the employer wants to make sure you are a "keeper" and worthy of sharing the wealth. As has been said, if you owned a business and 100 people show up for a job - would you pay top dollar for an employee that you don't even know if it will work out? Or would you instead offer a lower amount? Out of those 100 people, many of them will take the lower pay, and if that one doesn't work out - there are still many to call back.

Now, once you are working for a company and prove your worth, then yes, the company will probably share the wealth (if there is any wealth to share).

Bullspit. A few companies give bonuses, have some form of profit sharing and "share the wealth", others don't. I think there are more that don't. How many companies downsized or reorganized and put 1000s of "little people" out of work, then still gave their top brass, who had mismanaged the company into that position in the first place, lottery-jackpot-size bonuses?? Remember the bailed out companies making the news for doing just that?

There is healthy greed that drives people and businesses to succeed, then there is unhealthy greed as in, I'm gonna get mine no matter what. We have too much of the unhealthy type of greed these days.

There is a business near where I live that has chronic turnover. They constantly let people go between 45 and 60 days on the job and re-hire. Why? Because the health insurance kicks in at 60 days, that's why. Also they can report them as "probationary" on their filing to the state unemployment office and not have to pay unemployment insurance on them, either. Even though the people fired can file for unemployment; it just means the taxpayers cover more of it and the company less. That's the kind of shennanigans companies routinely pull today, where 20 years ago only the most fly by night outfits would dream of doing this. Are they teaching it at Harvard business school or something?

The mutual respect and loyalty between employers and employees is going away like the dinosaurs.

[whodunit]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

But, are you willing to take a share the huge risk, huge expenses and endless major hassles, of running a business, also?

True in some cases, but not in others. My wife worked for a grocer for years without a raise while she watched the owner (second generation- inherited from dear old dad) play golf in Mexico every year.

There are several cases like this in our small town- old money. Businesses that have been paid for several times over, but they just continue paying the least they can get away with.

I understand how the market works- if there are more workers than positions, then they can get away with paying less. My question is should they MORALLY do so?

Sadly you rarely, if ever, hear of business owners who decide to take less or no profit in the short-term to save their workers until things get better.

About the only time I heard about it was when I was in college. I went to a very small private religious college and heard rumors that professors often took cuts in pay to keep the doors open.