3 ms·
That just means the worker is not as valuable to the company and easier to replace, so they have no incentive to "rate, engage and more importantly retain" the
by fatjokes 9y ago
That just means the worker is not as valuable to the company and easier to replace, so they have no incentive to "rate, engage and more importantly retain" the individuals. Why would a business want to pay the premiums (longer vacation, high pay) associated with long-tenure, non-essential personnel? More experience, institutional knowledge, etc. all make an employee more valuable. But how much of that do you need for janitorial duties?
- JetSpiegel 9y agoIf janitors don't matter, why have them in the first place? Why is Apple wasting shareholders' money on non-essential personnel? If they had no janitors the productivity for other workers would be 0 (think of the smell), so I would argue janitors are essential personnel.
- fatjokes 9y agoReductio ad absurdum. I'm not arguing for zero or even few janitors. Just that they're more interchangeable and thus have less negotiating power.