Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:38AM   Printer-friendly
from the real-costs dept.

The other day, we discussed a company that sees its workers as assets to be cherished and nurtured. Sadly, there are a lot of companies that see their employees as "human resources" to be used up and cast off. Maybe those enterprises need a better means to evaluate the wisdom of that tack.

Common Dreams reports

Employee turnover costs businesses millions of dollars each year. However, many employers don't accurately track this expense, which could be reduced by improving workplace conditions. To help business owners understand the cost of turnover, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) have released an updated turnover calculator.[1] This dynamic tool allows employers to calculate turnover costs by responding to 10 simple questions.

When employees leave or are laid off, companies incur numerous expenses searching for and on-boarding their replacements; these include advertising, recruiting, background checks, benefits administration, training, and lost productivity while new employees become proficient at their jobs. Taken together, these costs can have serious implications for bottom lines. The turnover calculator allows businesses to input wages; weekly hours; and recruiting, hiring, and training costs to determine the financial impact for different categories of workers.

[1] The link(s) in the article redirect. I have provided a direct link in the summary.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:28PM (#185164)

    Why wouldn't you want to become the "better" job and attract talent from other companies?

    So your solution to the problem seems merely to put the shoe on the other foot?
    You do realize that you've just suggested that being part of the problem is, somehow, a solution?

    The net result is that nobody will have any incentive to spend any money on training, which is EXACTLY the problem the GP (Crawford) was complaining about.

    I fail to see how your statements logically follow from the GP's suggestion. How would striving to be a better company and employer than others lead to not spending money on training? And how would striving to be a better company make one part of the problem? The problem is that shit companies are shit companies and treat their employees like replaceable garbage, the problem is not that some companies are not shit companies that don't treat their employees like replaceable garbage.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:10PM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:10PM (#185188) Journal

    I fail to see how your statements logically follow from the GP's suggestion. How would striving to be a better company and employer than others lead to not spending money on training?

    Follow the thread. Its all english, and not that hard.

    Hiring talent away from others who spent money to train them, relieves you of having to provide training yourself.
    It also discourages others from paying for training, because they know the employees will immediately leave.

    The net result is the prospective employees have to acquire their own training.

    Crawford starts his argument by saying employees might feel some loyalty if they got on the job training.
    My position, and apparently yours also, is that the lack of loyalty is PRECISELY why employers prefer not to train.

    It costs two or three times as much to hire a raw recruit, suffer their incompetence by throwing one or two OTHER employees into the task of mentoring them, then handle their work load for them when you send them off for training which you pay for, only to have them say, "Well, I got this new thing on my resume, Kthanksbye. All that time and money (and effort on the part of mentors) and ZERO return on investment.

    I've seen many fellow employees pull this stunt. (4 out of the shop of 12 that I worked in back then). Don't tell me it's always the employers fault. I applied for training a year after these clowns pulled that stunt, and was told by management that training was simply not cost effective, and they got burned way too many times, and the training budget was being cut.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by Tramii on Tuesday May 19 2015, @11:13PM

      by Tramii (920) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @11:13PM (#185240)

      A company that refuses to train their own people is a company that doesn't care about it's employees. I was never implying that a "better" company should rely on stealing trained employees. I was saying that a company should strive to be a place where people desire to work. If a company cannot keep it's employees after training them, it *is* absolutely the fault of the company.

      Why do you think those employees left the second they got their training? In general, people don't arbitrarily switch jobs. If they do switch, it's because the new job offers a significant advantage over their current job. More pay. Increased benefits. Shorter commute. Whatever. If your company couldn't keep people to stick around after training, it was because they offered poor pay/working conditions.

      Companies simply don't want to invest any more. They want instant, tangible results that can be recorded on a spreadsheet. Too bad real life doesn't work that way. Training doesn't make any sense to them because, on paper, it looks more expensive. They will do anything to make a few more bucks, and then complain when their employees do the exact same thing!

      The lack of loyalty is due to companies treating workers like shit. It's caused by companies refusing to invest in their employees. Now, of course, companies use the poor loyalty as an excuse to continue to treat their employees like shit. So it's a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:03AM

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:03AM (#185265) Journal

        First, I was replying to the AC, not to you. Its important to follow the context of the thread.

        Second:

        Why do you think those employees left the second they got their training? In general, people don't arbitrarily switch jobs.

        Yes they do.
        People will switch jobs for 100 bucks a month difference.

        Decent employees do stick around after their employer shells out $10,000 for schooling. I've always felt an obligation to stick around at least a year after being sent to school.

        But I've seen a lot of employees jump ship within a month of putting that training on their resume. Training they didn't pay for, and training they never actually practiced for their current employer.

        Employers have started adding a training pay-back clause in hiring agreements PRECISELY because the practice of jumping ship is way more common than you seem to think. And it stands up in Court [businessmanagementdaily.com]

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday May 20 2015, @04:55PM

          by Tramii (920) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @04:55PM (#185587)

          Why do you think those employees left the second they got their training? In general, people don't arbitrarily switch jobs.

          Yes they do.
          People will switch jobs for 100 bucks a month difference.

          Increasing your income is NOT an arbitrary reason. 100 extra dollars a month is significant.
          (Well, maybe not for some people, but for many it is.)