The whole "if we train our employees they'll get poached by another company offering more" attitude is regrettably common and also shows that your management team is incompetent.
-
The whole "if we train our employees they'll get poached by another company offering more" attitude is regrettably common and also shows that your management team is incompetent.
If trained employees are -more valuable- that someone else is going to -pay more for them- then...
....why the fuck aren't you paying them what they're worth in the first place, dipshit?
Not to mention the -screamingly- obvious implication that if you treated your employees with respect, funded their training, and when they had more skill, gave them a raise -for- having that skill,
they would obviously have a reason to want to stick around instead of taking a marginally higher salary elsewhere.
I'm not sure what business school the present paradigm came out of, but I have a feeling the founders ate a whole shitload of wall candy.
-
@munin A component of the company's profitability is exploiting the fact that humans don't want to deal with the stress of being a perfectly agile actor in the labor market
I think it could be argued that that is *immoral*, but it sure is part of how things work
-
I'm not using a moral argument, and the exploit you're referring to is being used -by- the hypothetical poaching company -
Meaning that, by paying workers enough and demonstrating the ability to Get More Money instead of keeping them static, that dynamic works in your favor to -retain- employees.
Thus, the company retains profitability -and- retains expertise that makes them a more adapted for the marketplace, as well as fucking over the other companies that are now struggling to attract talent, or who must make offers ludicrously above market value to acquire yours; this paradigm screws their paradigm over.
Very basic systems thinking.
-
P [email protected] shared this topic
-
@munin That is all true. But I think much of what see today is not management being motivated to make the business successful on that kind of longer timescale, it's "look, we beat our guidance for this quarter!"
-
So, incompetence.
-
@munin And a system of incentives encouraging it
-
But they don't.
That's the thing.
Those 'incentives' only exist if your management team has their heads stuffed completely up their asses and are incapable of making their own decisions, and instead are competing with other businesses on those other business' terms.
What kind of dipshit is fool enough to play into a losing game like that?
This 'incentives' shit is rationalization of "these managers are too incompetent to understand how to run their own business and are asking others how to make themselves easier prey."
-
Contrast Costco's business model that everyone's always so fucking amazed about vs. the "conventional wisdom" rationalizations for a race to the bottom.
-
@munin @recursive but also note Costco's stock price, compared to their competitors and the respective fundamentals.
Stock markets reward behavior that harms customers and employees. Executives understand that their job is to maximize share price. It's not incompetence, and it's not even really incentives. That's the actual job, and most of them are doing it well. Costco is actually the one that's doing the job badly.
-
Stock market performance has nothing to do with company stability, and indicates solely the "investor class" -
so, that group of worthless dipshits who perform no work and create nothing of value, leeching onto companies to extract value from them and exploit their workers in turn -
has irrational "feelings" about a business.
Not to mention that this innovation of stock performance being the sole measure of a company's worth is a Reagan-era idea, and within living memory we have had alternative, far more successful models.
Excusing these paint-eating bastards is not anything I find of interest, frankly.
-
@munin @recursive I'm not excusing them. I agree that this model is harmful to everyone, and it's counterproductive to even the ability to operate as a business. I just recognize that these things are not accidents. They're not failing at their jobs. The job is not to maximize profit. It's to maximize the speculative value of the equity. And as you pointed out, those two things are only loosely connected.
