4 ms·

> In this case it seems Ford was helping to decide that the workers would be skilled labourers When given a choice, employers would far prefer to commoditize t

by whack 7y ago

> In this case it seems Ford was helping to decide that the workers would be skilled labourers When given a choice, employers would far prefer to commoditize their employees. It gives them far more power in the relationship and lowers their costs. Skilled workers are treated as such, not because employers want it, but because the circumstances don't give them a better choice. > there'd be a training cost (what the article calls "a costly break-in period") and high enough wages to reduce turnover so as to amortise that cost. This is exactly what the article says as well. Ford paid his employees very well to reduce turnover and its associated costs. Not because he was trying to create additional demand for his cars.

mjw1007 7y ago
He could be doing both. NB I have no reason to suppose the story is actually true. Very likely it isn't. But the motivation the story claims Ford had does make sense. He was in a position to influence other employers' decisions by reputation, not just via the price mechanism. If there's one equilibrium where factory workers in general end up as unskilled labourers, and another where they end up as skilled, the latter is better for Ford because of the products he happens to sell.
vikramkr 7y ago
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
- state_less 7y ago
  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.
  - zrobotics 7y ago
    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?
    - Talanes 7y ago
      And yet when it comes time to discuss his pay, I'm sure the CEO does not describe himself as "not engendering loyalty."
      - zrobotics 7y ago
        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.
    - 7y ago

by whack 7y ago

mjw1007 7y ago

He could be doing both. NB I have no reason to suppose the story is actually true. Very likely it isn't. But the motivation the story claims Ford had does make sense. He was in a position to influence other employers' decisions by reputation, not just via the price mechanism. If there's one equilibrium where factory workers in general end up as unskilled labourers, and another where they end up as skilled, the latter is better for Ford because of the products he happens to sell.

vikramkr 7y ago

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

state_less 7y ago
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.
- zrobotics 7y ago
  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?
  - Talanes 7y ago
    And yet when it comes time to discuss his pay, I'm sure the CEO does not describe himself as "not engendering loyalty."
    - zrobotics 7y ago
      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.
  - 7y ago