4 ms·
It is more cost effective for Kellogg's to do mandatory overtime than it is for them to recruit and train new hires and pay for benefits etc.
by nvr219 5y ago
It is more cost effective for Kellogg's to do mandatory overtime than it is for them to recruit and train new hires and pay for benefits etc.
- zdragnar 5y agoAssuming that overtime is paid time and a half, that usually works out to the cost of hiring new employees (depending on benefits, employees typically cosy between 133-160% of their salary, iirc). If employees argue these are bad working conditions, then it should be reflected in staff turnover, which would be additional incentive for the company to hire more to alleviate the problem. There is definitely something else at play than simple cost effectiveness.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoWe do not have enough information about the pay the come to any conclusions. Is there a defined benefit pension component? Is it already included in the quoted wages? What is the value of the health insurance subsidies? Etc.
- tcmart14 5y agoA lot of the current strikes are over the two-tiered systems and companies are using the two tiered systems to slowly push out the unions. Two-tiered systems allow some workers to be full union members, but new hires not with the promise that one day they may become union members. Non-union members are mostly making way below those of union counter parts doing the same job. Then what happens, someone from the union retires, so a lot comes open for a non-union member, but the company never fills it. They can meet their promise with the union of "we have 5,000 union jobs on paper," but they don't actually have 5,000 union workers because they are not filling them.