Staffing Issues for Summer of 2021

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

You just spent a few pages on justifying what I'm suggesting is a problem—essentially criticizing the low people on the totem and praising the high.

Unions exist BECAUSE owners weren't/aren't doing the right thing. My father lost a finger to a machine that he had told management to add safety gear to years earlier. Once OSHA moved in, guess which machine got a safety apparatus?

In the first decade I was a teacher, the highest raise was 1%. One contract had 0, 0, 1/2% raises, and those were WITH a union. Can you imagine what the district would've asked us to do/take without one?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Unions HAD a great purpose when they started. Conditions were bad and wages abusive. For the most part, that is no longer true. Most issues unions were created to address have been enshrined in law and federal and state watchdogs such as OSHA. Beyond that, most businessmen are MUCH more enlightened about employees and the relationship between good working conditions and productivity. To build the best, most profitable company, you need skilled and happy employees with an excellent work ethic.

You mention a contract with 0, 0, 1/2% raises and bemoan the small size of the increases. I would ask what individual employees did to EARN such increases? Show up? Keep breathing? What standards were in place to evaluate their efforts to justify their pay increases? Nothing! Because the best to the worst teacher got the same raises, per the contract. Sure, they might have had a yearly "evaluation" but it was mostly meaningless because nothing was tied to the outcome. Such raises are inflationary by their nature.

When the companies I worked for did evaluations they were measured against a uniform scale of expectations based on their current position. For example, new, recent grad employees were not expected to show much leadership skills. Their entry jobs did not give them much chance to do so. All employees ended up in various positions on a "ladder", the best at the top. Junior employees could be high on the ladder if they exceeded expectations for their job. All employees had full access to the evaluation form and it was made clear in the evaluation what areas might be substandard and what areas were room for growth. Growth opportunities were presented during the next year.

If slow times hit, the worst performing employees, the lowest on the ladder, were laid off, not the least senior as in many contract jobs. The most productive people were retained.

In summary, efforts were rewarded. Benefits were generous. There was no union to push the issue. In current times, skilled and focused workers are paid more and generally treated well. Skilled employees could easily change companies and the management knew it and respected it. I have no problem with unions protecting those in unfair situations but their focus on raises for all, no matter what, is not healthy. They should be focused on helping their workers build the best skills for their job and then making sure the employer has fair and uniform evaluations, a competitive wage scale for their industry, and fair working conditions.

I am NOT criticizing the "low people" on the totem pole. I am pointing out that THEY have the responsibility to improve their condition and raise their pay by working hard, learning new skills, showing initiative, and having a good work ethic. The company has the responsibility to recognize and reward such efforts that make the company stronger and more profitable. If the company does not, well, the skills the employee has mastered are portable to a new job. Unions COULD enhance the process but, IMO, as they currently act, they mostly do not.

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Unions HAD a great purpose when they started. Conditions were bad and wages abusive. For the most part, that is no longer true. Most issues unions were created to address have been enshrined in law and federal and state watchdogs such as OSHA. Beyond that, most businessmen are MUCH more enlightened about employees and the relationship between good working conditions and productivity. To build the best, most profitable company, you need skilled and happy employees with an excellent work ethic.

You mention a contract with 0, 0, 1/2% raises and bemoan the small size of the increases. I would ask what individual employees did to EARN such increases? Show up? Keep breathing? What standards were in place to evaluate their efforts to justify their pay increases? Nothing! Because the best to the worst teacher got the same raises, per the contract. Sure, they might have had a yearly "evaluation" but it was mostly meaningless because nothing was tied to the outcome. Such raises are inflationary by their nature.

When the companies I worked for did evaluations they were measured against a uniform scale of expectations based on their current position. For example, new, recent grad employees were not expected to show much leadership skills. Their entry jobs did not give them much chance to do so. All employees ended up in various positions on a "ladder", the best at the top. Junior employees could be high on the ladder if they exceeded expectations for their job. All employees had full access to the evaluation form and it was made clear in the evaluation what areas might be substandard and what areas were room for growth. Growth opportunities were presented during the next year.

If slow times hit, the worst performing employees, the lowest on the ladder, were laid off, not the least senior as in many contract jobs. The most productive people were retained.

In summary, efforts were rewarded. Benefits were generous. There was no union to push the issue. In current times, skilled and focused workers are paid more and generally treated well. Skilled employees could easily change companies and the management knew it and respected it. I have no problem with unions protecting those in unfair situations but their focus on raises for all, no matter what, is not healthy. They should be focused on helping their workers build the best skills for their job and then making sure the employer has fair and uniform evaluations, a competitive wage scale for their industry, and fair working conditions.

I am NOT criticizing the "low people" on the totem pole. I am pointing out that THEY have the responsibility to improve their condition and raise their pay by working hard, learning new skills, showing initiative, and having a good work ethic. The company has the responsibility to recognize and reward such efforts that make the company stronger and more profitable. If the company does not, well, the skills the employee has mastered are portable to a new job. Unions COULD enhance the process but, IMO, as they currently act, they mostly do not.

Well, laddering isn’t the be all, end all either. I worked at a place where the laddering was done, not by merit, but by favoritism. I watched my place on the ladder (which was not told to employees unless they went to HR) change based on which projects or group leaders were favored. For several years, I was laddered against my group leader’s sister-in-law. Had absolutely nothing to do with my job performance.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app