This part of this thread has me thinking about turnover, wages, mobility in the workplace, and inentional understaffing - bare-minimum staffing IS understaffing, by the way.
(*Note: Given the usage and context, I'm interpreting her usage of professionalism as proficiency, standards, etc - rather than the other, crappy usage, emphasizing language and conduct in accordance with white, middle-class values - and I'm adopting it for this thread.)
This is also not specific to the industry she is discussing.
How much professionalism is lost by paying people less than living wages and overworking them by asking them to cover structural gaps in staffing, all but ensuring high-turnover at the levels that actually do things?
How much professionalism is lost by paying people less than living wages and overworking them by asking them to cover structural gaps in staffing, all but ensuring high-turnover at the levels that actually do things?
I'll elaborate. In low level jobs, you see a lot of people who suck at what they do*. Every one of those jobs I've worked at has a couple people kicking ass and keeping things afloat.
Inevitably, those people get lost. They burn out. They get promoted - good for them**!
Inevitably, those people get lost. They burn out. They get promoted - good for them**!
They get sick of being the backbone of their operation, working twice as hard as they should, possibly working an assload of overtime, and barely making enough to live.
*Now, let's talk about those people who suck. Some of them suck at the specific thing they're asked to do. They'd be better in another role, in another industry. Some of them suck because they (understandably) don't give a fuck, because they're being paid shit and hate their job.
Some of them suck, but could eventually be solid with enough experience in the role. Some of them would probably suck at most things and would probably still suck if they worked there ten years. We still love them, but not everyone is competent.
Turnover is about the same in all of those groups, competent or not, in low-paying jobs I've had. When you're staffed at bare minimum levels, even firing the guy who sucks and does half of what's expected means everyone else has to work harder.
And, hiring is hard - there's no guarantee their replacement will be better. And, while the people who kick ass are easy to spot within days on the job, it's tough to distinguish people who will suck for a while, then improve from people who will always suck.
(A lot of people who are good at their jobs are also dicks and resent having to cover for people who suck, who should've been fired months ago, but who manage to stick around. And that's another reason many leave.)
Whatever the reason, there's a lot of turnover in low-paying jobs. And veteran people who have been in the job for a long time are SO MUCH better than they were when they were newish (unless the job is so crushing it breaks people - like telemarketing).
But, if you're good at your job and it pays shit, you want to move up or move out, right? You want to be able to pay bills, have a family, or afford whatever weird ass thing you're into, right?
**A lot of people who are great at their jobs suck as managers. They're hard workers. They know how to do things. Motivating people, teaching, leading, organization, compliance - these are all skills that are totally unrelated to being good at stocking shelves quickly,
or processing claims, or fixing things, or making things, or selling things, etc.
You could hire from outside, but experienced managers are expensive and minimal staffing means low-level managers often have to also do things and definitely have to know how to direct others.
You could hire from outside, but experienced managers are expensive and minimal staffing means low-level managers often have to also do things and definitely have to know how to direct others.
So, no, you're hiring internally and hoping the person can succeed in the new, totally different role. Many won't. Maybe half. The ones that do, though, good for them, right?
Ehhhhh, no. Not really.
Ehhhhh, no. Not really.
Low level management are some of the most exploited motherfuckers I've seen. They still make pretty shit money, only now they're either salaried - meaning they can work unlimited OT at no extra cost to the company - or they get a dollar pay raise and a ton of OT.
Either way, most shit jobs aren't big on paying 1.5x wages to entry level workers, many of whom suck. They'd rather have those low level managers work crazy hours covering all their staffing fuckups.
They dangle promotions to keep them grinding until they crash. The burnout factor is even higher.
And the next level up? Maybe they're actually trained as management. Or, maybe they're great kiss-asses. So, management sucks and is inexperienced. The workers are also usually not that experienced.
There's a lot of inefficiency. A lot of fuckups.
There's a lot of inefficiency. A lot of fuckups.
Things have to be simplified to the extreme.
How much more efficient and proficient could our operations be across the board if we paid everyone a decent wage and staffed with enough cushion to account for sick time, vacation, leave time, and turnover?
How much more efficient and proficient could our operations be across the board if we paid everyone a decent wage and staffed with enough cushion to account for sick time, vacation, leave time, and turnover?
And staffed to a sustainable level of invidual productivity - not peak?
