Comments by Cursechez
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on November 7 at 2:45 p.m.
Natchez will still find a way to monkey wrench this good news for them.
No good business goes unpunished in Natchez.
Posted on September 27 at 11:18 a.m.
"Posted by consider_reason (anonymous) on September 26, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Certified retirement community."
Translation: "Natchez - Where people come to die."
Posted on September 26 at 10:58 p.m.
Never thought I would come to think of Natchez being as bad or worse than Ferriday.
If the Histerical Society wouldn't chase off every industry and business wanting to locate here, the murderer might have been working a job that night instead of killing a neighbor.
Posted on July 27 at 12:30 a.m.
"Posted by iluvntz2 (anonymous) on July 26, 2009 at 11:03 p.m.
Several posters are saying that they get poor quality employees because they pay minimum wage. The salary paid is no excuse for someone to do a poor job. No matter what you are being paid, if you accepted the job, you should give it your best everyday."
You're right, getting paid minimum wage is NO excuse for doing a shoddy job. You accept the job, you own up to it or quit or get fired. Nobody here has said that such workers should be paid more for their poor performance.
You're missing the nuance of the argument. It's not that those poorly-performing workers have a right to slack off, steal, come to work high, not show up, or be rude to customers because they're not being paid enough. Being paid more wouldn't likely improve their performance much.
The argument is that quality workers with the character to perform as desired will not make themselves available to those employers to begin with because the low wages do not compensate adequately for the quality, value, dedication, and efficiency of their work. $7/hr is generally not an appreciative wage for someone who takes pride in their work, professional reputation, and the caliber of their customer service.
Such employers are therefore generally limited to the lowest common denominator to choose from, which trends to be the most dysfunctional and least reliable of the labor pool evident by the complaints of employers in this story.
The quality workers that these employers want are too busy elsewhere getting paid for their labor and service, or otherwise too busy packing to move somewhere with employers that do pay a living wage.
Posted on July 26 at 8:56 p.m.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on July 26, 2009 at 8:10 p.m.
"You know what the job paid when you hired on if you didn't like it don't take the job"
That's the whole point scotty; the type of workers employers here want won't take it at the wages being offered. The only caliber of worker that remains available in the labor pool for that wage is what employers have such enormous trouble with.
Limit the wage to minimum-ish, and you limit the quality of your labor pool.
PS - It's no longer 1979. These kids are spoiled, lazy, unmotivated, coddled, and entitled as a direct result of their parenting, or lack thereof.
There are good workers out there but, like me, they're moving away because they can't make a living here competing with a thousand others who'll do the same job (albeit, very poorly) for minimum wage.
If I was to apply to Walmart and mark down $13/hr under "Required Salary," what do you think the employer would do?
Wonder what all I can do, all that I know, and how valuable I must be as an honest, drug-free, professional, punctual employee? Wonder how hard I would work not to lose such a great-paying job? Wonder how much more money they will make when productivity for that position rises 75% overnight and customers are actually served, grateful, and happily return to spend more money?
He or she is more likely to think "he's nuts, there are a thousand others waiting in line who will work for minimum wage! Ha! Good luck with that $13/hr requirement around here."
I say good luck with that dysfunctional labor pool waiting in line behind me.
Pay me $13/hr and you'll get more work, service, efficiency, and productivity from that expense than you will the 4 people you're paying minimum wage to run from customers while hollering "not my department" or sitting down on the boxes in the aisle texting on their iphone.
Yet paying for quality workers would be 'cost-prohibitive'.
As I said above, business most often gets stuck with the labor it deserves.
Posted on July 26 at 6:54 p.m.
Further..
Business owners/managers are scratching their heads and "can't put our finger on it" why they are having so much in the way of labor problems and productivity.
It never occurs to them that paying minimum wage gets you the minimum of a functional person (most of the time; I'm sure there are some stoners in the warehouse that could pass as cadavers). They're the only ones dumb enough to put up with that kind of work and degradation for minimum wage, no benefits, and an overlord of a boss/company that has a slave-owner mentality.
You act like paying your employee a dollar more an hour is robbing food from your kids' mouths and threatening you with bankruptcy, yet you'll give half of your customers 10% off and let your entitled relatives loot the store of product.
This labor & work issue goes BOTH ways. Treat your employees with dignity, respect, and PAY THEM like you appreciate them, and you'll attract a much better labor pool and you will no longer have to babysit morons through a job application and interview as you'll have far fewer positions opening.
Have a look in the mirror while you're scratching your head about your labor problems. Business most often gets stuck with the labor its deserves.
Posted on July 26 at 3:07 p.m.
I would like to add to this comment of mine:
"but how much is 70% turnover, poor productivity, employee theft, and atrocious "customer service" costing you?"
---If I had a dollar for every person whom has said in my presence, "I will NEVER go back to the Natchez Walmart. Those people are HORRIBLE!" I'd have enough money to finally move away from here.
Posted on July 26 at 2:49 p.m.
Honest, drug-free, professional, hard-working people are the minority around here, and won't do such menial, thankless jobs for minimum wage.
If you want quality workers, you're going to have to pay for them. You get what you pay for, or at least you have the right to ask for such a high-quality worker if you pay for them.
If you pay good wages you will have your pick of the area's labor force. Sure, it will cost you a couple hundred extra dollars a week per employee, but how much is 70% turnover, poor productivity, employee theft, and atrocious "customer service" costing you?
I'd be happy to stock those Walmart shelves for $13/hr 40 hrs a week because then I could pay my bills with a job that doesn't require much brainpower.
I've been self-employed, I'm educated, I have a CDL, I don't do drugs, I believe in doing things right the first time, and I can figure out just about anything; I have a brain.
As such, I won't even apply for a job at $7/hr. I'm worth more than that and I will leave such a job the instant a better, higher-paying job is offered.
That's why you don't have quality candidates to employ. If you pay bananas, you'll only get monkeys throwing their own poop at your customers.
Posted on March 17 at 9:47 a.m.
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on March 17, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. "Guess, I should take Gov'mint accounting/financial analysis."
Fuzzy Math 101
Voodoo Economics 201
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on November 7 at 2:49 p.m.
Smaller the brainpool, more abundant the scams.
On Banks warn of scam calls