4 ms·

> We also had a lot of safety issues at that store that were not handled well. I don’t know how to deal with someone overdosing or people verbally abusing us ev

> We also had a lot of safety issues at that store that were not handled well. I don’t know how to deal with someone overdosing or people verbally abusing us every day. Why don't companies invest in better managers? It seems like it could help make their stores operate more efficiently and at the same time it would reduce the chances that the employees form a union, which is costly to the business.

beckingz 4y ago
Good managers can make more elsewhere?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nopenopenopeno 4y ago
The priority of profit
mschuster91 4y ago
Because "managers" are often barely older than their staff. It's simply vastly cheaper to operate that way.
- rhacker 4y ago
  Managers can and often are younger than their employees.
sam0x17 4y ago
> Why don't companies invest in better managers $$$$ But they should.
skyyler 4y ago
If employees unionising is particularly costly to business, could it be because the employees are being exploited? If paying your lowest tier workers a living wage and good benefits would disrupt the business, could it be that your business relies on suffering to exist?
- antisthenes 4y ago
  By that standard, ~50-60% of the restaurant industry shouldn't exist. Which, honestly, maybe it shouldn't.
  - chaosharmonic 4y ago
    I mean, the restaurant industry is getting hit disproportionately by employees leaving in droves...
- bloody-crow 4y ago
  Businesses typically pay market rate. If this rate creates suffering situations, it's a problem of the market, not particular employer. If living wage is substantially different from the market rate, employer cannot afford it without going out of business. Employers don't have infinite money, they have checks and balances. Paying employees more would require different pricing model, for example. If your pricing is far enough from what customer is ready to pay, customer is not paying and you end up out of business. Basically, employer's responsibility is to pay market rate, not living wage. If there's a disconnect, it needs to be addressed on the legislation level, not individual employer level.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    market rate is a function of the availability of labor. not a function of the profitability of a business. a low market rate means that there are a lot of poor schmucks willing to work for scraps. if a business can not survive without paying a living wage then it should not exist in the first place. no amount of legislation can fix that
jmugan 4y ago
I don't know what a better manager is going to do in that kind of situation. You need a medical and mental health staff and a social worker.
hn_version_0023 4y ago
I've always assumed it was because of what I perceive to be an overall decline in workplace training. Employees are supposed to come fully trained, so they can hit the ground running. The only training done is the absolute bare minimum required by law, if any is required at all. Is it possible to calculate the possible return on investment in training? Maybe? It is most certainly possible to calculate the cost of training, and that sum comes right out of profits, so it doesn't happen, given the other is unknown. This is the way of things in corporate America. Profit above all. Apologies for my cynicism, but I'm finding it harder and harder to exist in the status quo.
floxy 4y ago
Sounds like they need a bouncer at that location.
pxue 4y ago
It's because in corporate, people managers are promoted from excellent ICs. However, not all good ICs are good people managers. Software is lucky that we can go Architecure route for promotion instead of a Engineering Manager route. This is not the case for most other professions.
legitster 4y ago
Starbucks does a lot of promotions from within. A manager at a corporate location probably started as a barista. Which is honestly better than bringing in corporate managers who have no experience anyway.
willcipriano 4y ago
If you are a great manager do you really want to solve the "homeless guy overdosed in the bathroom" problem every week? Especially given that you can't practically do anything about it as the restroom policy flows down from corporate? It's all responsibility and no authority. You probably don't even have much discretion or visibility when it comes to how employees are rewarded. Bonus, it pays considerbly less than anything else you can do.
blooalien 4y ago
> "Why don't companies invest in better managers?" … Because the more you invest down at the levels where it really matters, the less you have left to line the pockets of the ultra-rich alphabet soup at the upper levels. Gotta pay for those multi-million dollar "bonus/severance packages" and all that junk somehow right?

beckingz 4y ago

Good managers can make more elsewhere?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nopenopenopeno 4y ago

The priority of profit

mschuster91 4y ago

Because "managers" are often barely older than their staff. It's simply vastly cheaper to operate that way.

rhacker 4y ago
Managers can and often are younger than their employees.

sam0x17 4y ago

> Why don't companies invest in better managers $$$$ But they should.

skyyler 4y ago

If employees unionising is particularly costly to business, could it be because the employees are being exploited? If paying your lowest tier workers a living wage and good benefits would disrupt the business, could it be that your business relies on suffering to exist?

antisthenes 4y ago
By that standard, ~50-60% of the restaurant industry shouldn't exist. Which, honestly, maybe it shouldn't.
- chaosharmonic 4y ago
  I mean, the restaurant industry is getting hit disproportionately by employees leaving in droves...
bloody-crow 4y ago
Businesses typically pay market rate. If this rate creates suffering situations, it's a problem of the market, not particular employer. If living wage is substantially different from the market rate, employer cannot afford it without going out of business. Employers don't have infinite money, they have checks and balances. Paying employees more would require different pricing model, for example. If your pricing is far enough from what customer is ready to pay, customer is not paying and you end up out of business. Basically, employer's responsibility is to pay market rate, not living wage. If there's a disconnect, it needs to be addressed on the legislation level, not individual employer level.
- em-bee 4y ago
  market rate is a function of the availability of labor. not a function of the profitability of a business. a low market rate means that there are a lot of poor schmucks willing to work for scraps. if a business can not survive without paying a living wage then it should not exist in the first place. no amount of legislation can fix that

jmugan 4y ago

I don't know what a better manager is going to do in that kind of situation. You need a medical and mental health staff and a social worker.

hn_version_0023 4y ago

I've always assumed it was because of what I perceive to be an overall decline in workplace training. Employees are supposed to come fully trained, so they can hit the ground running. The only training done is the absolute bare minimum required by law, if any is required at all. Is it possible to calculate the possible return on investment in training? Maybe? It is most certainly possible to calculate the cost of training, and that sum comes right out of profits, so it doesn't happen, given the other is unknown. This is the way of things in corporate America. Profit above all. Apologies for my cynicism, but I'm finding it harder and harder to exist in the status quo.

floxy 4y ago

Sounds like they need a bouncer at that location.

pxue 4y ago

It's because in corporate, people managers are promoted from excellent ICs. However, not all good ICs are good people managers. Software is lucky that we can go Architecure route for promotion instead of a Engineering Manager route. This is not the case for most other professions.

legitster 4y ago

Starbucks does a lot of promotions from within. A manager at a corporate location probably started as a barista. Which is honestly better than bringing in corporate managers who have no experience anyway.

willcipriano 4y ago

If you are a great manager do you really want to solve the "homeless guy overdosed in the bathroom" problem every week? Especially given that you can't practically do anything about it as the restroom policy flows down from corporate? It's all responsibility and no authority. You probably don't even have much discretion or visibility when it comes to how employees are rewarded. Bonus, it pays considerbly less than anything else you can do.

blooalien 4y ago

> "Why don't companies invest in better managers?" … Because the more you invest down at the levels where it really matters, the less you have left to line the pockets of the ultra-rich alphabet soup at the upper levels. Gotta pay for those multi-million dollar "bonus/severance packages" and all that junk somehow right?