I don't think it would always be that cut and dry, especially today where there are other mechanisms of keeping workers loyal/minimizing their power (stock options with vesting schedules, non-competes in some states, etc) having a differentiated workforce that isn't a commodity your competitors could tap into could be better
I agree, employers like to reduce cost by acquiring loyalty and encourage workers to look negatively at a lack of loyalty.
For example complaints from management, "Hey, these job hoppers sure make the work harder." They could pay more as Ford did, but it's an attempt to color perceptions and purchase compliance (e.g. less turnover) at reduced cost.
Not sure why you were down voted, this is a very valid point.
I ran the numbers for our customer service department and made the case for higher wages- our turnover isn't extreme but it is still expensive. Running the numbers, if we paid $1.50 more per hour we'd be in the upper end of our market, and assuming turnover dropped by 50% we would be saving money.
Response from the CEO was essentially 'they aren't loyal enough'. To be blunt, I don't blame them for looking for better jobs, I wouldn't accept abuse from customers for the wage they are paying. Unfortunately, the CEO looks at it as a moral failing in those employees, vs. the fact that they aren't paid enough to give a shit. I lean libertarian, but it seems simple enough to me that paying people a decent wage can be good for the business. Asking for loyalty to a company is BS- I like my job, but the only reason I do it is that they pay me. I'm certainly not willing to volunteer to do this for free, and I wouldn't expect that the people manning customer support are any different.
Expecting loyalty is ridiculous- its stupid that capitalists expect their employees to not be financially-motivated. Simply said, who is really motivated to be loyal to a company for shit wages?
There are lots of things that contribute to enjoyable work. Giving people the feeling their time isn't worth anything is probably the best deterrent. Stuff like: being late to pick people up; having them show if there is nothing to do and have them sit and wait for 8 hours doing absolutely nothing; similarly, having people sit and wait after the work is done (Extra points if they also act as if they did you a huge favor!); shit tools and materials requiring a lot of extra work every day to save 10 euro; insufficient time to do a decent job; treating any kind of communication as disruptive.
In a call center you give people 30 sec to 2 min to recover after a bunch of calls. If you take that specific moment to complaint people don't know how fast to gtfo.
Oh, he is very much of the Reagan school and thinks that he has earned it.
Like I said, I lean libertarian, but flashy displays of wealth are IMO tacky. It's worse when you are flexing on CSRs that make $12/hr. Our CEO has made displays of how much money he has on the floor, and he seems to think it will motivate them.
Not my department, but I can understand why the customer service managers are pissed off by that. They have enough trouble with retention. It is somewhat disgusting to see a multimillionaire lord his wealth over people making barely over minimum wage. I know these folks, some of them are check-to-check. Answering emails is a horrible job, I wouldn't do it for $100/hr. That additional abuse is unwarranted.
