Unemployment but do people want to work?

[L00b]

People offer crap salaries and conditions and then wonder why people won't work for them.

I hope that was not a comment directed at my company, as otherwise it just shows what a prejudiced poster you are

 

How would you know whether our salaries & conditions are 'crap', or fair, or above-market?

 

You are aware that there is a difference between (even-) above-market and unrealistic, right?

 

Now, answer my earlier question (fast turning into a SF meme, this): I want £100k to do your job, are my expectations realistic?

[Cyclone]

Who are you to say what a unrealistic expectation is?

 

When you're the one doing the hiring, you're the only person who can decide that.

[Mecky]

When you're the one doing the hiring, you're the only person who can decide that.

 

Then you get nobody working for you

[whiteowl]

I hope that was not a comment directed at my company, as otherwise it just shows what a prejudiced poster you are

 

How would you know whether our salaries & conditions are 'crap', or fair, or above-market?

 

You are aware that there is a difference between (even-) above-market and unrealistic, right?

 

Now, answer my earlier question (fast turning into a SF meme, this): I want £100k to do your job, are my expectations realistic?

 

As people don't know your business/industry/salary offered, it's impossible to say whether you were offering a fair rate of pay or not.

The only information you have given is that it took 12 months to get somebody (including looking overseas) which suggests it's possibly not.

[L00b]

As people don't know your business/industry/salary offered, it's impossible to say whether you were offering a fair rate of pay or not.

Exactly. So it would seem rather pointless to provide an opinion about it, one way or the other, don't you think?

The only information you have given is that it took 12 months to get somebody (including looking overseas) which suggests it's possibly not.

A fair comment, but nevertheless incorrect. You have to factor in the specificities of the job and industry: it's not one where just any other graduate (or even part-qualified, for matter) can walk in - far from it.

 

That said, it's also not one which usually takes 12 months to fill (3 to 4 months is more the norm for a 'green' starter, up to 6 months when we're talking part-qualifieds who have to work notice periods (industry standard is 3 months these days)).

 

I can't help it if far too few want to come work in Sheffield and, for those who do, most expect to be paid as if they were going to work for a UK Top 5 firm based in High Holborn. I'm just relating the anecdote in the context of the thread, nothing more. Feel free to keep picking at my posts if it amuses you

[whiteowl]

Exactly. So it would seem rather pointless to provide an opinion about it, one way or the other, don't you think?

A fair comment, but nevertheless incorrect. You have to factor in the specificities of the job and industry: it's not one where just any other graduate (or even part-qualified, for matter) can walk in - far from it.

 

That said, it's also not one which usually takes 12 months to fill (3 to 4 months is more the norm for a 'green' starter, up to 6 months when we're talking part-qualifieds who have to work notice periods (industry standard is 3 months these days)).

 

I can't help it if far too few want to come work in Sheffield and, for those who do, most expect to be paid as if they were going to work for a UK Top 5 firm based in High Holborn. I'm just relating the anecdote in the context of the thread, nothing more. Feel free to keep picking at my posts if it amuses you

 

Fair enough, perhaps the question should be why qualified people don't want to work in Sheffield then. But I'll leave that for another thread

[Mecky]

As people don't know your business/industry/salary offered, it's impossible to say whether you were offering a fair rate of pay or not.

The only information you have given is that it took 12 months to get somebody (including looking overseas) which suggests it's possibly not.

 

Whether it's fair or not, or what people are prepared to accept as a salary is not really the issue. Employees want to earn as much as they can, employers want to pay them as little as possible. Never the twain shall meet. What person would not leave their own job for more salary, unless they were tied in by length of service etc?

[Anna B]

Whether it's fair or not, or what people are prepared to accept as a salary is not really the issue. Employees want to earn as much as they can, employers want to pay them as little as possible. Never the twain shall meet. What person would not leave their own job for more salary, unless they were tied in by length of service etc?

 

 

It's not just about pay, money is only the start, it's about valuing your employees and treating them well.

 

Back in the 60's and 70's a lot of the big companies and works had excellent facilities for their workers; subsidised canteens, social clubs, sports teams, trips out, pastoral care, and the older established workers would take the younger ones under their wing and show them how to behave. There was also job security and mutual respect.

 

I can't imagine that happening now. It all seems to be about exploitation.

[L00b]

Whether it's fair or not, or what people are prepared to accept as a salary is not really the issue. Employees want to earn as much as they can, employers want to pay them as little as possible. Never the twain shall meet.

 

Still not answered my question, Mecky

What person would not leave their own job for more salary, unless they were tied in by length of service etc?

Me.

 

I moved back from Dublin in 2008 for less money.

 

I could move to Philips in the Netherlands tomorrow, for a sizeable salary uplift. I could also move back to France, to Paris, for close to double my salary.

 

But I'm happy here. Perfect work/life balance, fabulously diverse and hands-on workload, family well settled and happy = not bothered about upsetting all this for just money...which simply can't buy all this.

Back in the 60's and 70's a lot of the big companies and works had excellent facilities for their workers; subsidised canteens, social clubs, sports teams, trips out, pastoral care, and the older established workers would take the younger ones under their wing and show them how to behave.

You can't have your cake and eating it, Anna B: in those days, large companies were more profitable (less global competition, more protectionism), paid less taxes (less tax outlets/budgets/tax dependents), and thus could afford to be paternalistic.

 

A few economical crises and a lot of further intrusion/interference by the State (most countries, not just GB) later, most companies simply can't afford to be paternalistic anymore.

Edited June 24, 2013 by L00b

[Anna B]

 

Still not answered my question, Mecky

Me.

 

I moved back from Dublin in 2008 for less money.

 

I could move to Philips in the Netherlands tomorrow, for a sizeable salary uplift. I could also move back to France, to Paris, for close to double my salary.

 

But I'm happy here. Perfect work/life balance, fabulously diverse and hands-on workload, family well settled and happy = not bothered about upsetting all this for just money...which simply can't buy all this.

You can't have your cake and eating it, Anna B: in those days, large companies were more profitable (less global competition, more protectionism), paid less taxes (less tax outlets/budgets/tax dependents), and thus could afford to be paternalistic.

 

A few economical crises and a lot of further intrusion/interference by the State (most countries, not just GB) later, most companies simply can't afford to be paternalistic anymore.

 

Is John Lewis still paternalistic?

 

At one time it had a reputation for being the best employer in Sheffield with myriad schemes for it's workers including hairdressers and massages. Workers were called 'partners' as they all had shares in the company and regular bonuses.

 

Has this changed? Genuine question.