3 ms·

The headline here on HN is a bit misleading, the article is really about spending more on your employees in the aggregate (eg. by hiring more of them, spending

The headline here on HN is a bit misleading, the article is really about spending more on your employees in the aggregate (eg. by hiring more of them, spending more on training, etc) than paying individual employees more. In any case, I know this doesn't count as data but there is a growing number of establishments (retail stores, coffee shops, etc) I just don't go to anymore because I know the lines are going to be overly long due to understaffing. It is not okay to make customers wait 10+ minutes in line so you can save a handful of multiples of 8 bucks an hour. And if you do this you may well save a tiny bit of money in the short term, but eventually the customers will just go elsewhere and those customers are unlikely to come back for a long time even after you fix the problem. (tl;dr -- FU, Vons stores in San Diego). ps. I realize having to wait 10-ish minutes in line for fresh produce and other groceries is the epitome of a first world problem, but I still reserve the right to point it out as a failing business strategy.

jfoutz 15y ago
No, they come right out and say the four case study retail companies pay their employees more: "They pay their employees more; they have more full-time workers and more salespeople on the floor; and they invest more in training them."
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  I'm not saying they said nothing about paying employees more, but that clearly isn't the focus of the article, thus the headline is still very misleading.
astrofinch 15y ago
And additionally, the article says nothing about businesses outside retail.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  I've seen this in many businesses. My two favourite restaurants are always near-fully staffed, one of them regardless of the time of day. 6am on a Tuesday or 6pm on a Friday night, they have just as many staff working. Even in these normally 'off' times, they'll have around 80% capacity, often workers for the cable companies, etc. who want to be in and out fast but get good food. And they are. I've been in on those off times and you can get your food in under 5 minutes because they're prepping everything. Even better, when you tell them you're done, they're back with the bill in under a minute. I've never gotten service like that at a chain-restaurant, because even in their off-times they've barely got any staff. You wait longer for your food, you wait longer for you bills and god forbid you want a refill on your drink, because they'll never pass you at this time of day.
andyking 15y ago
I'm reminded here of a piece I read here on HN just the other day - about jobs being obsolete, or something. We're now living in a world where a lot of jobs are being automated away, and we don't need as many people in employment as we did, say, 30 years ago. Having automated away menial and administrative tasks, smart companies are now spending some of their vast profits on employees who are nice to have, rather than absolutely necessary for the running of the business. A few extra shop workers to save people waiting in line, a few extra people at the end of the phone. I'd much rather live in that world, than the alternative, which is a few people having jobs and the rest in the dole queue.

jfoutz 15y ago

No, they come right out and say the four case study retail companies pay their employees more: "They pay their employees more; they have more full-time workers and more salespeople on the floor; and they invest more in training them."

georgemcbay 15y ago
I'm not saying they said nothing about paying employees more, but that clearly isn't the focus of the article, thus the headline is still very misleading.

astrofinch 15y ago

And additionally, the article says nothing about businesses outside retail.

electromagnetic 15y ago
I've seen this in many businesses. My two favourite restaurants are always near-fully staffed, one of them regardless of the time of day. 6am on a Tuesday or 6pm on a Friday night, they have just as many staff working. Even in these normally 'off' times, they'll have around 80% capacity, often workers for the cable companies, etc. who want to be in and out fast but get good food. And they are. I've been in on those off times and you can get your food in under 5 minutes because they're prepping everything. Even better, when you tell them you're done, they're back with the bill in under a minute. I've never gotten service like that at a chain-restaurant, because even in their off-times they've barely got any staff. You wait longer for your food, you wait longer for you bills and god forbid you want a refill on your drink, because they'll never pass you at this time of day.

andyking 15y ago

I'm reminded here of a piece I read here on HN just the other day - about jobs being obsolete, or something. We're now living in a world where a lot of jobs are being automated away, and we don't need as many people in employment as we did, say, 30 years ago. Having automated away menial and administrative tasks, smart companies are now spending some of their vast profits on employees who are nice to have, rather than absolutely necessary for the running of the business. A few extra shop workers to save people waiting in line, a few extra people at the end of the phone. I'd much rather live in that world, than the alternative, which is a few people having jobs and the rest in the dole queue.