As much As I agree that pto needs to be required, it’s simply pure white collar thinking to think that more people don’t need to be hired to cover for vacations. In blue collar, labor jobs, the employer needs to hire temp workers (as my area does) or give other employees considerably more hours(some locals have flex employees that do pt most of the year and ft during vacation periods). The employer is out the wages it costs to pay the cover, it is not free. And the employer should be paying that.
New employees cost real money. Posted this yesterday:
Advertising, interviewing, HR and IT onboarding, extra unemployment taxes on the initial income, training, all that stacks. Also, consider how useless a new employee is vs. one that’s been on task for some time. And that employee is taking valuable time from an experienced worker!
People are a pain in the ass, I’m sure we’ll agree. :) More people, more pain in the ass. The woman who handled scheduling at Lowe’s caught grief every day. Well fuck me, she’s not trained in HR and has to deal with 200 people’s wants and needs. I felt sorry for her.
But back on topic,
The employer is out the wages it costs to pay the cover
That’s the point I can’t get my head around. The employer is already paying X people for Y job. Someone getting PTO costs them nothing as the remaining people work harder to cover. Does that make sense? I feel my argument is lacking common sense I’m not seeing.
Does that make sense? I feel my argument is lacking common sense I’m not seeing.
There’s a couple issues with it. For specialized trainings, you’ll only have a few people with them, and with vacations you’ll need more. Training costs money.
People will not work harder to cover. Longer, sometimes. Harder, rarely. The company still needs to make certain timelines. There’s an extent to witch employees can work “harder”. The more people off, the less you can just cover it with working harder.
If you’re not going to hire people, the longer hours the employees work to do the work will be paid at over time rates. Those are not cheap
As much As I agree that pto needs to be required, it’s simply pure white collar thinking to think that more people don’t need to be hired to cover for vacations. In blue collar, labor jobs, the employer needs to hire temp workers (as my area does) or give other employees considerably more hours(some locals have flex employees that do pt most of the year and ft during vacation periods). The employer is out the wages it costs to pay the cover, it is not free. And the employer should be paying that.
New employees cost real money. Posted this yesterday:
People are a pain in the ass, I’m sure we’ll agree. :) More people, more pain in the ass. The woman who handled scheduling at Lowe’s caught grief every day. Well fuck me, she’s not trained in HR and has to deal with 200 people’s wants and needs. I felt sorry for her.
But back on topic,
That’s the point I can’t get my head around. The employer is already paying X people for Y job. Someone getting PTO costs them nothing as the remaining people work harder to cover. Does that make sense? I feel my argument is lacking common sense I’m not seeing.
There’s a couple issues with it. For specialized trainings, you’ll only have a few people with them, and with vacations you’ll need more. Training costs money.
People will not work harder to cover. Longer, sometimes. Harder, rarely. The company still needs to make certain timelines. There’s an extent to witch employees can work “harder”. The more people off, the less you can just cover it with working harder.
If you’re not going to hire people, the longer hours the employees work to do the work will be paid at over time rates. Those are not cheap