Isn't ten times more expensive to recruit/train/employ someone new than it is to maintain the existing employee? I've heard that somewhere, but can't recall where.

 

Not that much but it is more expensive. Not sure what that has to do with getting same benefits as Microsoft CEO.

There always has been and always will be businesses that have little regard for employees. My experience is that as we've seen better educated managers and workforce this has declined and will continue to do so. The smart managers understand the costs involved in replacing employees and how valuable a good employee is. Obviously the problem is greatest in those areas where the employees have few options.

My bet is a vast majority will use them up within the first two months.

Not that much but it is more expensive. Not sure what that has to do with getting same benefits as Microsoft CEO.

 

A previous post said something about it being easier to replace a Super 8 employee than the Microsoft CEO. My point was that no matter who you replace, it's going to cost the company quite a bit of money. If you offer some sick days to you employees, theoretically there would be less turnover and therefore less money spent on training.

A previous post said something about it being easier to replace a Super 8 employee than the Microsoft CEO. My point was that no matter who you replace, it's going to cost the company quite a bit of money. If you offer some sick days to you employees, theoretically there would be less turnover and therefore less money spent on training.

Many, many jobs require virtually no formal training - so replacement costs do depend on whom is replaced. A high turnover rate in a restaurant wait staff or a road clean-up crew is not a big issue. A high turnover rate at a custom software firm is a threat to the company's viability. That is why some companies offer higher salaries and better benefits, including paid sick days, to retain employees.

 

Regardless, it is not the government's role in a capitalist economy to micro-manage the operations of businesses. Socialism continues its slow march forward in America.

Or you might have fewer people getting sick from people who come to work sick b/c they have no sick days.

 

I get paid sick days, and I have accumalted over 100 ( at about 10 a year) why am I not getting sick more often?

 

I don't know, maybe because your company has some buy back program when you retire? Can it be argued that the fact that you have accumulated so many sick days supports the proposition that sick day benefits aren't needed?

A previous post said something about it being easier to replace a Super 8 employee than the Microsoft CEO. My point was that no matter who you replace, it's going to cost the company quite a bit of money. If you offer some sick days to you employees, theoretically there would be less turnover and therefore less money spent on training.

 

No argument here. I was taking issue with the super 8 employee receiving the same benefits as the Microsoft CEO.

Many, many jobs require virtually no formal training - so replacement costs do depend on whom is replaced. A high turnover rate in a restaurant wait staff or a road clean-up crew is not a big issue. A high turnover rate at a custom software firm is a threat to the company's viability. That is why some companies offer higher salaries and better benefits, including paid sick days, to retain employees.

 

Regardless, it is not the government's role in a capitalist economy to micro-manage the operations of businesses. Socialism continues its slow march forward in America.

 

Agreed. The Nanny State is here unfortunately. "Please take care of me so I don't have to be responsible for myself". Takes a village my foot. It takes you to be responsible for you.

If private enterprise had its way, it would abuse the employees (just like it did in the early days of the industrial revolution). Let's not act like companies grant vacations and sick days out of the goodness of their hearts. If some businesses had their d'ruthers, the help would be working 60-70 hour weeks with no vacations, sick days, etc.

 

 

Jim, with all respect, I couldn't disagree with you more. I practice law now, but I've ran three companies (that had lots of employees) so I think I know what I'm talking about. Any company that abuses its employees isn't going to be in business very long in this day and age. The companies I ran provided benefits much greater than were required. Why? Because we realized that the most valuable asset in any business is its employees. And if you want the best employees, you take care of them and offer the benefits needed to attract and retain the best employees out there. Any any poorly managed company that doesn't take care of its employees is going to lose the good ones to companies that take care of their employees, and those poorly managed companies will go out of business. Some may take longer others to go out of business, but they'll go out of business eventually.

 

This is a much different era than the Industrial Revolution. People are better educated; much more mobile and able to move great distances to find decent jobs; and information concerning available jobs is much more accessible via the internet. Furthermore, business is much more competitive today. You lose some good employees because you treat them poorly and your competitors across the country and the globe focus in on your customers like sharks with blood in the water.

If private enterprise had its way, it would abuse the employees (just like it did in the early days of the industrial revolution). Let's not act like companies grant vacations and sick days out of the goodness of their hearts. If some businesses had their d'ruthers, the help would be working 60-70 hour weeks with no vacations, sick days, etc.

 

I disagree. Are there some? Absolutely. But not all corporations are 'evil' Jim. Companies grant vacations and sick days as benefits and a way to attract employees in a competitive market.

Agreed. The Nanny State is here unfortunately. "Please take care of me so I don't have to be responsible for myself". Takes a village my foot. It takes you to be responsible for you.

 

You know, I think that "takes a village" quote is very roundly misinterpreted. It does take a village. I remember years ago when my sons were around 11 or 12 I started letting them drive our boat back to the dock for groceries, ice, gas etc. Someone asked me if I was worried about it since they were pretty young. I said no for three reasons. First, they knew how to drive a boat. Second, they were very responsible kids. Third, too many people on the lake knew them and the boat. I'd hear about it if they got out of line. In other words, it takes a village to raise a child. The same is true for how your kids behave out in public. The neighbors help.

Jim, with all respect, I couldn't disagree with you more. I practice law now, but I've ran three companies (that had lots of employees) so I think I know what I'm talking about. Any company that abuses its employees isn't going to be in business very long in this day and age. The companies I ran provided benefits much greater than were required. Why? Because we realized that the most valuable asset in any business is its employees. And if you want the best employees, you take care of them and offer the benefits needed to attract and retain the best employees out there. Any any poorly managed company that doesn't take care of its employees is going to lose the good ones to companies that take care of their employees, and those poorly managed companies will go out of business. Some may take longer others to go out of business, but they'll go out of business eventually.

 

This is a much different era than the Industrial Revolution. People are better educated; much more mobile and able to move great distances to find decent jobs; and information concerning available jobs is much more accessible via the internet. Furthermore, business is much more competitive today. You lose some good employees because you treat them poorly and your competitors across the country and the globe focus in on your customers like sharks with blood in the water.

 

 

I'm not too sure about that LN. I've watched the manufacturing companies in our town lay them hundreds and more at a time. No benefits. No backpay. Nothing. This past month the local American Furniture Plant announced it was laying off 200 workers by the middle of September. Then they came in last week and took another 20 beyond that and told them to pack their stuff, they were being let go. One lady in my church had worked for them for 28 years. No notice. Nothing.

 

I watched various textile companies ask the employees to take some hits to pay, benefits, etc. in order to stay afloat. They did. They were then rewarded with closed doors when they went to work one day and security refusing to let anyone in the building.

 

I'm glad you ran your business the way you did. I have found that to be the exception much more than the rule however.

I'll jump in here on LN's side. I've worked with many, many companies in my 30 years in business and the more successful ones operated like he indicated. The great majority provided benefits far in excess of what was required. Even today many people do not realize that holiday and vacation are not required benefits absent an agreement. Yet many more companies than not offer them. Why? Competition for valuable employees. The key is the marketplace in which the company operates.

Or you might have fewer people getting sick from people who come to work sick b/c they have no sick days.

 

I get paid sick days, and I have accumalted over 100 ( at about 10 a year) why am I not getting sick more often?

 

 

Can I assume that you will one day be able to "cash in" your unused sick days sometime down the road? If so, what do you think about employers that offer sick days but they do not roll over each year (which might be the most likely case with this new law). Do you think most people will not use their sick days in that scenario?

You know, I think that "takes a village" quote is very roundly misinterpreted. It does take a village. I remember years ago when my sons were around 11 or 12 I started letting them drive our boat back to the dock for groceries, ice, gas etc. Someone asked me if I was worried about it since they were pretty young. I said no for three reasons. First, they knew how to drive a boat. Second, they were very responsible kids. Third, too many people on the lake knew them and the boat. I'd hear about it if they got out of line. In other words, it takes a village to raise a child. The same is true for how your kids behave out in public. The neighbors help.

 

I understand your point. But I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting the quote or you are. I always understood it to mean the Village has some responsibility to raise the child. Which I disagree with. Looking out for and helping is one thing; being responsible to do so is another. Using your example, would you feel it was your neighbors' fault in whole or in part if they saw your sons doing something stupid in the boat, yet failed to tell you about it, and thereafter your sons hurt themselves acting recklessly in the boat? I would not. Not at all. And maybe you don't either.