5 ms·

There would probably need to be a case study to see if overworking, booting, and hiring new workers is more cost effective than investing in better work conditi

There would probably need to be a case study to see if overworking, booting, and hiring new workers is more cost effective than investing in better work conditions. My money is on better work conditions being a better investment long term. It'd reduce turnover. Less time hiring/training new employees, and the employees you keep are happier, stick around longer, and become more efficient at their job through experience.

Jensson 5y ago
> My money is on better work conditions being a better investment long term. It'd reduce turnover. Less time hiring/training new employees, and the employees you keep are happier, stick around longer, and become more efficient at their job through experience. You might have noticed that most companies don't care about these things, because it doesn't matter much for them. For software engineers or equivalent, sure it matters a lot, but for unskilled workers that needs minimal training? Then it doesn't matter much, as even today we see that basically no company cares about their minimum wage workers conditions.
- kempbellt 5y ago
  > You might have noticed that most companies don't care about these things I've noticed the opposite. Even when I worked retail jobs (minimum wage) in high-school and college, those employers considered morale the be an important aspect of a productive work environment. We'd have company BBQs, random pizza days, birthday recognition (sometimes with cake), etc. They gave us the proper tools to do our jobs, including gloves/box cutters/shirts/etc. Typically if you told a manger you needed something (work related), they would get it for you. Things chugged along fairly well. Reducing turnover was an active goal because it cost them time and money to hire and retrain new people, even for basic tasks.
  - edoceo 5y ago
    Good ol' Survivorship Bias.
    - kempbellt 5y ago
      Got anything to actually contribute to the conversation besides a trite lazy dismissal? OP suggested that I had "noticed" their perspective and I shared my opposing experience.
      - edoceo 5y ago
        Yea. Up-thread I suggested you read history around the 10 hours laws in England.
        kempbellt 5y ago
        Not sure how "read history" is a contribution to a discussion about the cost-effectiveness of abusing workers vs investing in better work conditions. A history lesson on "we used to do things this way, but then we made a law that says we can't anymore" isn't an analysis. It just tells me that people got fed up with being overworked and lobbied for a law against it. Not that their employers were making informed decisions. It's akin to the broken "butts-in-seats" culture that has been slowly dying. Many employers are realizing that more hours at a desk isn't always a net gain in the long term.
edoceo 5y ago
Perhaps study the history of the 10 hours laws in England like 100 years ago? Documented points where the factory knew of the dangers and did nothing, fought to do nothing, cause the worker was replaceable. And nearly endless supply of Irish to literally work themselves to death. It's depressing. I have zero sympathy for Capital when they have to sacrifice Profit for Ethical/Moral treatment of Labour.

Jensson 5y ago

> My money is on better work conditions being a better investment long term. It'd reduce turnover. Less time hiring/training new employees, and the employees you keep are happier, stick around longer, and become more efficient at their job through experience. You might have noticed that most companies don't care about these things, because it doesn't matter much for them. For software engineers or equivalent, sure it matters a lot, but for unskilled workers that needs minimal training? Then it doesn't matter much, as even today we see that basically no company cares about their minimum wage workers conditions.

kempbellt 5y ago
> You might have noticed that most companies don't care about these things I've noticed the opposite. Even when I worked retail jobs (minimum wage) in high-school and college, those employers considered morale the be an important aspect of a productive work environment. We'd have company BBQs, random pizza days, birthday recognition (sometimes with cake), etc. They gave us the proper tools to do our jobs, including gloves/box cutters/shirts/etc. Typically if you told a manger you needed something (work related), they would get it for you. Things chugged along fairly well. Reducing turnover was an active goal because it cost them time and money to hire and retrain new people, even for basic tasks.
- edoceo 5y ago
  Good ol' Survivorship Bias.
  - kempbellt 5y ago
    Got anything to actually contribute to the conversation besides a trite lazy dismissal? OP suggested that I had "noticed" their perspective and I shared my opposing experience.
    - edoceo 5y ago
      Yea. Up-thread I suggested you read history around the 10 hours laws in England.
      - kempbellt 5y ago
        Not sure how "read history" is a contribution to a discussion about the cost-effectiveness of abusing workers vs investing in better work conditions. A history lesson on "we used to do things this way, but then we made a law that says we can't anymore" isn't an analysis. It just tells me that people got fed up with being overworked and lobbied for a law against it. Not that their employers were making informed decisions. It's akin to the broken "butts-in-seats" culture that has been slowly dying. Many employers are realizing that more hours at a desk isn't always a net gain in the long term.

edoceo 5y ago

Perhaps study the history of the 10 hours laws in England like 100 years ago? Documented points where the factory knew of the dangers and did nothing, fought to do nothing, cause the worker was replaceable. And nearly endless supply of Irish to literally work themselves to death. It's depressing. I have zero sympathy for Capital when they have to sacrifice Profit for Ethical/Moral treatment of Labour.