[Coach]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I don't mind answering questions.

1/3-1/2 productivity is where new hires settled at after a 4 month season of work (of which the first few weeks is training with zero productivity). The university students and longer tenured high school students (who also got near to $15/hr) were usually near the 1/2 level and the high school/beginning university students were closer to the 1/3 level.

Like I said, there are extra costs (including using a permanent employee's time and salary to check/supervise the work of these students as well as payroll remittances beyond their $/hr cost), so breaking even in terms of base salary isn't really breaking even.

Regarding the employees state of overwork, and consulting them, we have consulted and they are neutral over-all with some significant variance among the individuals. Some definitely want the extra cash but can understand why there is a business case for the old way, some are happier with more time with their families but will work more if the business needs them, so what management chooses is positive for some either way and has morale costs either way.

Thanks for the answers, these things all make sense.

Regarding whether the business can absorb the cost and make a healthy profit, we could but we will not. The board, which I chair is legally beholden to our shareholders to maximize profits and grow the value of the business so instruct we (management) to do so. If we can do that by hiring cheap low-value labour we will, if it's better to over-work our high-value core employees, we will do that.

I think this whole philosophy is where people like myself mainly differ from people like yourself. It reduces your employee to a unit of work, which they are in the eyes of the business. But theyre also people. I'm glad that you consult your employees about management decisions like this, but you're talking about either A) overworking people or B) underpaying people when you could meet a happy medium while taking minimal or even negligible hit to your business. Not judging the way you do business, as it's the way all do business, I just disagree with the personal philosophy of it.

Also, $16 is $4 more than $12, not $3. These students will cost us a minimum 1/3 more than they did a couple years ago and won't produce any more than they did in the past.

But your break even is $15 (as per your $45/hr OT). Even with those admitted added costs, does that bring the break even point down to $12? The training period and payroll stuff cuts 20% off their potential wages? Again this is assuming they work at minimum production. This is my issue with people using economic theories to prove their points, either way. Those theories you (and all businesses) preach assume businesses use this extra utility for labour, not profit. If your investment, profit, savings are consistent, the extra productivity (the $3 between $12 and $15) should be going to your labour.

When I was a student I worked part time at the bank I ended up with a full time position with after school ended. It was $12 to start. I eventually negotiated to $14. Both I thought were complete garbage, as I saw postings for DQ at $16, but I wanted the experience and the future value of a potential position. But if I could have done the same or similar job elsewhere for $16, I (and people like me) would have been flocking there, and thus, you get a pick of probably the most productive people, likely pushing their value beyond what you pay them.