reply on: Full-Time Jobs Fall Again as Total Employment Flatlines in April \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Satosora 7 May \ parent \ on: Full-Time Jobs Fall Again as Total Employment Flatlines in April econ

Interesting. I always thought it was a precarious situation. Not that I ever worried about being fired. Only the one time when I shut down the plant on accident. I did see many people keep their jobs, even though they were inadequate. Cant seem too remember if they were part of a protected class. I do know they were paranoid and always watching over their shoulder.

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 7 May

There are other reasons to keep unimpressive employees. I often had to choose from a very small number of applicants, because I wasn't allowed to offer competitive pay. When there are no replacements, you just keep limping along with whoever you can get.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 7 May

I guess that is true. The warm body theory comes back. I have always wondered why companies dont pay competitively, especially when they are so profitable. Isnt it better long term to have good employees?

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 7 May

Penny wise and pound foolish

I wondered that a lot when I was younger and worked retail. I did about 4x the work of the other employees (and it's not like I was trying particularly hard, there just wasn't anything else to do). I often wondered why they didn't pay people like me twice as much, hire half as many, and get twice as much done.

I think the answer is that there are far fewer good employees than you probably think.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 7 May

I have heard a theory that 3 out of 10 people are important for the company. Being one of the 3 is very important, but it doesnt mean you will be promoted.