DDM, in a global work force, why would any company care about employee health?
Retail in particular WANTS high turnover rates, so they can get maximum performance out of someone, that burns out in three-five years, and gets replaced by the next minimum wager.
Who wants a healthy low wage employee that stays for years, and keeps getting raises?
Originally posted by cdtm
DDM, in a global work force, why would any company care about employee health?Retail in particular WANTS high turnover rates, so they can get maximum performance out of someone, that burns out in three-five years, and gets replaced by the next minimum wager.
Who wants a healthy low wage employee that stays for years, and keeps getting raises?
Originally posted by cdtm
DDM, in a global work force, why would any company care about employee health?
All of them if they knew how to run a proper business.
Healthy employees equals productive employees. Productive employees have better ideas, produce more work, work longer hours, have higher job satisfaction, and give you as the employer a better bang for your buck.
It's a widely studied topic.
https://academic.oup.com/occmed/article/58/8/522/1466121
Why do you think we have not implemented a very much highly favorable capitalistic Universal Healthcare Option? If it saves money for companies, improves employee morale, improves employee productivity, and saves Americans trillions in taxpayer dollars, why aren't we implementing it pronto? Seems like a no-brainer, right?
Originally posted by cdtm
Retail in particular WANTS high turnover rates, so they can get maximum performance out of someone, that burns out in three-five years, and gets replaced by the next minimum wager.
I don't have the data but that's not actually how it works in the real world. In the real world, low-wage jobs do not keep raises on pace with longevity in positions unless the individual is particularly pesky about raises. The short of it is you are better off continually changing employers in low-wage jobs to keep up with the pace for what new-employees get paid.
It's only when you inject unions into the equation (unions are primarily anti-capitlistic in nature and are what you're hinting at), that's when you get overly inflated wages based on position longevity.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-new-low-wage-reality-for-older-americans/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3813007/
Originally posted by cdtm
Who wants a healthy low wage employee that stays for years, and keeps getting raises?
Anyone who knows anything about the negative costs of attrition and hiring. Gartner has done research on this particular topic for decades and it costs anywhere between $8,000 and $50,000 to acquire a new employee.
Attrition is one of the least favorable outcomes for any capitalist system. It costs far too much to recruit and hire people even at the lowest of low jobs. The higher your attrition, the more it costs you, per person, to hire.
Originally posted by cdtmCompanies in America lose billions of dollars every year due to people calling out, going on medical leave etc. It's actually a huge problem from both an operating cost and efficiency perspective, and it's part of why a lot of companies have over years been slowly relaxing the pressure they put on making you come to work even if you don't feel well. If you're sick and you come to work anyway you risk making other workers sick.
DDM, in a global work force, why would any company care about employee health?Retail in particular WANTS high turnover rates, so they can get maximum performance out of someone, that burns out in three-five years, and gets replaced by the next minimum wager.
Who wants a healthy low wage employee that stays for years, and keeps getting raises?
"If you're sick, STAY HOME" signs are plastered all over the building I work in, as an anecdote.
Bernie refuses to call Maduro a dictator then deflects to Teump.
This guys time has past and socialism has gotten to his head
Originally posted by Chuck_SchumerWhy should he be so dedicated to a party that ****ed him over?
I think we're going to see a repeat of 2016 DNC with Warren replacing Hillary and splitting the vote between Sanders.If he knew what was good for the Dems with that following of his, Bernie wouldn't be jeopardizing the primaries again.
Also, why's he so much more of a liability than Warren?
Did anyone see Bernie saying bread lines were a good thing?
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Did anyone see Bernie saying bread lines were a good thing?
Wow.
Try talking to literally anyone who lived it.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Did anyone see Bernie saying bread lines were a good thing?
Sounds like he's praising the public services available for the needy, not the conditions of poverty and hunger themselves.