[quote=SK in CV] Maybe, if their employer paid them 25% more, there would be much less turnover, they’d save recruiting and training costs, and their employees wouldn’t have to live 12 people to a house. They might even have enough income so that don’t need SNAP or Medicaid. And the employer would probably decrease their costs.
The short-sightedness of some business operators is truly mind-numbing.[/quote]
Yes, that’s my point. Are they that short sighted? That incompetent? Oblivious, like the person driving around ten minutes trying to save a couple cents a gallon on gas? Or are they that cynical and jaded and they’ve actually run the numbers?
I really don’t think they’ve run the numbers. Other than the most basic, if we increase wages $1/hr across 3000 employees, that’s $6 million a year.
Not stopping to think they’re spending $10+ million on new hire training a year. They’re spending how much on hiring bonuses? They’re spending how many millions on compliance? etc.
They lost a 1/3rd of their staff on the raid. New management’s response was a massive media campaign, newspaper campaign, billboard compaign, pound the pavement town visit campaign, refugee hiring campaign, hiring bonuses, rework the operations to support multiple languages to replace ~600 workers and then expand another 1000.
All that instead of saying “hey, let’s try $2/hr more, it’s only $6 million and maybe it’ll slow down our $12 million new hire training expenses due to attrition and cut down on our 6% injury rate”.
