Hiring new workers and pay scale of current workers, what options are there?

[turnworks]

I may or may not have gotten dragged into a meeting recently discussing the lack of quality applicants.

There was discussion on a few different options, posting on different sites, using an employment agency, ect.

One thing that got brought up was to increase the starting pay to attract better quality applicants. I made the mistake of speaking up and saying doing that may causing current workers to leave since the starting pay is more than most make that have 5+ years in.

I got some odd and down right pissed off looks for mentioning it. It was agreed that isn't an issue worth considering.

I've seen some nasty walk outs at other places because of this. I'm really curious as to if even thinking of your current work force in regards to new employees pay, benefits, hours, ect is not common or from a business stand point not good practice?

 

[mhajicek]

Since many skilled in the field were laid off in '08 as if they were commodities, many found other fields, or took early retirement, and discouraged their progeny from entering the field. Add to this the pay scales that have been stagnant for decades (in the face of double digit cost of living increases), and that school teachers and councilors believe that everyone with passing intelligence must go to college for a degree, and there is a significant dearth of qualified people. Two local shops have conspired to monopolize Dunwoody's total graduate output, by offering every student an internship on enrolment.

Seems to me, if you want a decent entry level machinist, you need to start by recruiting highshool kids into an internship / apprenticeship program and training them from zero. Beware that most of them have never held a wrench or screwdriver.

 

[michiganbuck]

We had a guy hired in at a grinding shop years ago. He was an ok/Good grinder hand but did not come with tools. Norman agreed to leave his toolbox open so this new guy could use his tools
About three weeks passed and Norman went into the office on the weekend, to look up this guy's pay rate.
This new guy was making more than Norman and Norman was at top-rate top grinder.
Norman got upset and locked his toolbox. The guy complained, and that he did not want to bring tools from his laid-off job or they might not allow his unemployment checks.
The shop owner said, "I will loan you enough to buy the basic tool from a list I will write for you."
The guy refused "I have enough tools and don't want to buy any more so he walked."
Norman, our top pay guy and top grinder hand still upset went looking for and found another job.

 

[plastikdreams]

I may or may not have gotten dragged into a meeting recently discussing the lack of quality applicants.

There was discussion on a few different options, posting on different sites, using an employment agency, ect.

One thing that got brought up was to increase the starting pay to attract better quality applicants. I made the mistake of speaking up and saying doing that may causing current workers to leave since the starting pay is more than most make that have 5+ years in.

I got some odd and down right pissed off looks for mentioning it. It was agreed that isn't an issue worth considering.

I've seen some nasty walk outs at other places because of this. I'm really curious as to if even thinking of your current work force in regards to new employees pay, benefits, hours, ect is not common or from a business stand point not good practice?

What kind of work, what kind of pay scale?

 

[PDW]

I may or may not have gotten dragged into a meeting recently discussing the lack of quality applicants.

There was discussion on a few different options, posting on different sites, using an employment agency, ect.

One thing that got brought up was to increase the starting pay to attract better quality applicants. I made the mistake of speaking up and saying doing that may causing current workers to leave since the starting pay is more than most make that have 5+ years in.

I got some odd and down right pissed off looks for mentioning it. It was agreed that isn't an issue worth considering.

I've seen some nasty walk outs at other places because of this. I'm really curious as to if even thinking of your current work force in regards to new employees pay, benefits, hours, ect is not common or from a business stand point not good practice?

Could actually do something radical, realise the company needs to pay more to both attract AND keep talent, and give all the employees a rise at the same time as paying more for new hires. That way the existing guys won't get pissed & walk.

Or you can try to keep it secret, treat the existing employees like mushrooms and wonder why they leave.

Shrug. Not my problem.

PDW

 

[Larry Dickman]

It's been a while since I've had a "Job", but the last few places I worked had a policy. If you discuss your pay with anyone, you're fired.

So if Bill comes up bitching about why Joe makes more than him, both Joe and Bill are gone.

 

[Alberic]

I've had trouble with just exactly this issue: insane starting pay requirements for new hires.
So I've started bumping up my long timers at the same time, to make sure they stay above what the new kids are getting. Costs more (now) but it keeps my long timers (and their knowledge) around.
So everybody but me has gotten at least one raise, or possibly 2 in the past 12 months.
Loyalty is a two way street.

Regards,
Brian

 

[apoet]

It's been a while since I've had a "Job", but the last few places I worked had a policy. If you discuss your pay with anyone, you're fired.

So if Bill comes up bitching about why Joe makes more than him, both Joe and Bill are gone.

This seems like a poor solution to the OPs problem. Hiring new employees at higher rates than your existing crew is a recipe for resentment. Eventually someone will find out the discrepancy regardless of policy. I’d suggest paying the existing employees a competitive rate but obviously that’s not a solution the management will care to hear.

 

[Jpg366]

Big problem when Carter was President. We got massive raises, but so did everyone else. No better off, really. 5 years later, companies began laying off old, experienced people. 5 years later, we had lost the knowledge to run and troubleshoot our processes. It took another 10 years to recover, only to start the layoffs again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[turnworks]

All positions at the moment from general labor, machinist, welder, operators ect. Pay isn't union wages but for the work I consider it fair pay.

I personally careless what others make I only cared about what I wanted in the interview. I have no skin in this game and prefer to stay out of out but got dragged into it so I gave them my thoughts and hopefully that will be it.

I would say bringing up the wages to match the new hires to be the best plan but I'm not on the other side of it at this company. Heck for all I know that is the worst idea to make. That's why I'm asking to those that have this choice to make with pulling in new people to get the parts out or ones that have seen it happen for good or bad.

Thanks for taking the time those that have responded.

 

[mhajicek]

It's been a while since I've had a "Job", but the last few places I worked had a policy. If you discuss your pay with anyone, you're fired.

So if Bill comes up bitching about why Joe makes more than him, both Joe and Bill are gone.

That's illegal, and you can be sued over it. Far better to pay everyone what they're worth, and enough to be comfortable. If they're not worth enough to be comfortable, either they shouldn't be working there or you're using them wrong.

Personally, I'm finding it much more efficient to make parts without supporting a management team.

 

[Thunderjet]

That's illegal, and you can be sued over it.

Not here in Mo. or Ks.

Both are "at will" states.

If I tell you you're fired for discussing this or that, then yes, it's illegal to fire the person.

But If I just say, "We no longer need your services, here's two weeks pay." It's all good.

Look it up.

 

[bigjon61]

Not directed at anyone but it's the fucking you get for the fucking you gave. Decades of stagnant and poor wages yet can't figure out why you can't get anyone hired. I am lucky enough to work for a shop that read between the lines when a key guy left and have gotten great raises in the last 6 years. Change of ownership definitely helped that situation but FFS 8 years ago I considered working at the McDonald's for $16/hr managing a bunch of high school drop outs. What's the tolerance on a double cheeseburger? Plus or minus one patty?

 

[idacal]

Why for all thats holy, would you bring in new people and pay them more than those already there? Your old help should be at least a percentage higher than green newbies. if thats what your having to pay to get breathing bodies to show up. you are underpaying your present help. Im sure if I thought about it I could figure out a faster way to kill shop moral and have a total walkout than that. Maybe dont pay the wages for a few pay periods. That might kill it faster.

 

[Thunderjet]

Not directed at anyone but it's the fucking you get for the fucking you gave.

Say's the guy who mortgaged his house to start a shop? (or not)

Says the guy who had to take out a bank note to buy groceries when his "net thirty" turned into 150? (or not)

I'm thinking you never had to sign a payroll check when you knew YOU were eating beans for a week.

Believe it or not some of us actually LIKE to pay well, but are painted into corners, not of our own making.

Lighten up Francis.

 

[Job Shopper TN]

At first glance, I’d be concerned working for a management team that does not consider your existing employees’ morale. One of the worst things they could do is post a job ad for X amount, higher or equal to what existing employees make. Someone will see it and it will spread like wildfire, and you’ll have less employees than you had to start with.

I’m not an owner, low level management really. But I’ve always had a theory of, why not advertise the kind of pay that actually attracts people? Benefits as well (insurance, vacation, etc). Theoretically you should get more applicants than you have openings, which allows you to actually pick and choose the better candidates. That’s how outfits like ORNL/Y12 did it back in the day. Obviously there’s a big difference between ORNL and a private shop but, it doesn’t have to be ORNL wages and bens you offer - just better than your main local competition. (I use ORNL as a general, “well-funded manufacturing facility a la Boeing, so on.)

A shop not far from here is going about the tactic in your original post. Everyone currently there isn’t paid worth a flip. But then they open a job ad for more than what most of their guys make, and hire absolute fools for that rate that don’t even make the cut. They’re rapidly headed for an empty shop after two years of overworking the guys who stayed, then outright spitting in their face.

My last thought, I think people talking about wages is healthy. Not for the employers. And I think it’s inevitable that, at least for employees at similar levels of hierarchy, it will happen. But if you’re being paid unfairly, you shouldn’t really be mad at the guy making more - be mad at your employer for not being fair. Or, take a step back and realize why. I feel the culture of punishing people for discussing wages holds our trade back, as without healthy happy employees we have no trade. A shop should have at least some manner of setting wages, not rigid but not by the seat of management’s pants and how well the bank account is at review time. That can help avoid the entire situation. Proper cost of living adjustments on top of merit-based raises go a long way.

 

[mhajicek]

Not here in Mo. or Ks.

Both are "at will" states.

If I tell you you're fired for discussing this or that, then yes, it's illegal to fire the person.

But If I just say, "We no longer need your services, here's two weeks pay." It's all good.

Look it up.

I have looked it up. MN is at will too, and it's absolutely illegal to fire someone for discussing wages here:

Wage-disclosure protection FAQs | Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry

And nation wide:

Can Employees Discuss Pay and Salaries? - GovDocs

If you've done this since 2014 and not gotten in trouble you got lucky. How do you prove to the court why you fired them, especially if your policies are illegal?

 

[CarbideBob]

I have looked it up. MN is at will too, and it's absolutely illegal to fire someone for discussing wages here:

This is true...but and here is the big loophole. You can fire them if you do not like the color of their tennis shoes.
Just do not say it was because of talking wages or other protected things.
Labor law is complicated.

More to the original. Rasing the base hire should mean all employed get the same benefit, Otherwise you pay system makes no sense.
Base wages are going up and the labor market tight as not seen in a long time. Adapt or die.
Bob

 

[plastikdreams]

Where I'm currently at we have set rates, no matter the position or experience. If the job title pays 21.50/hour that's what you get. I guess in a way it keeps an equilibrium between workers.

 

[DDoug]

I suspect the OP's shop is one of those with a permanent sign out front "We are hiring".....
Local well known low wage shop put a sign out front lately (when all the fast food places
are advertising $15) "Hiring at $11"....uhm yeah.
FWIW we got a Amazon warehouse in 2019 and they advertised $15 starting.