Current Events > Do some employers have high turnover by design?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like people will get their hours cut no matter how well they perform.

Just their career

Absolutely. When I did ISP tech support, I was told that 98% of people they hired quit within 1 year and 99% quit within 2 years.

CableZL posted...

Absolutely. When I did ISP tech support, I was told that 98% of people they hired quit within 1 year and 99% quit within 2 years.

sounds like a nightmare. How long did you last?

Yes. The best way to make money has nothing to do with hiring people who are talented/want to stick around, but abusing the idea that there will always be more people born and thus there will always be more bricks to put in the wall.

I can see this being why Republicans want to ban abortion. They want more people to fill crap jobs

SwordMaster13X posted...

sounds like a nightmare. How long did you last?

About 4.25 years, which was way too long. The company was shady AF. I had 3 different bosses who were also shady AF. One of them ended up going to prison for identity theft after I quit.

Yes, working in a Public CPA firm you get unusually high for a Junior Associate position, until you learn that you're required to work 65-80hrs a week during tax/busy season and how much it drains you and realize you can't go up any higher unless you get that CPA license. So there's massive turnover and they love it because they can sucker in the next college graduate. I work in the private sector now as a Senior Manager and I'm getting paid way more while working less hours than I did working at a Public CPA firm.

Yes

CableZL posted...

Absolutely. When I did ISP tech support, I was told that 98% of people they hired quit within 1 year and 99% quit within 2 years.

Yeah, I worked at a call center for a while. The place I worked they just didn't give raises unless you got promoted because they just expected the vast majority of people they hired wouldn't stay long.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


its so that they dont have to give payraises and good benefits to employees

its the Amazon model

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


From what I've seen, a lot of companies just flat out ignore the "back end" cost of recruiting/hiring/training. At my last job, I was working 60 - 80 hours/week. They refused to hire any help and I was the only one who understood the network at all. They ended up bringing on a contractor to help me out, but they said he wasn't allowed to have access to the existing network at all because he was just a contractor. I told them that was dumb, but they didn't want to budge.

Because I was working so much, I asked them for a $15k raise. They only gave me a $5k raise. So I quit.

Then when I quit, they wanted me to set aside my whole 2nd to last day to teach him how the network is set up. That's not the kind of thing you can learn in a day and we ended up having to drop everything at 10am because of an outage. They have about 3 network engineers now, but they've been churning through people.

I'm glad I left. The extra $15k still wouldn't have made it worth working 60 - 80 hours all the time.

It's such a waste of money to strive for high turnover.

Ignoring poor bosses and leadership Sometimes the jobs are just shitty by default and there isnt much anyone can do about it.

Prestoff posted...

Yes, working in a Public CPA firm you get unusually high for a Junior Associate position, until you learn that you're required to work 65-80hrs a week during tax/busy season and how much it drains you and realize you can't go up any higher unless you get that CPA license. So there's massive turnover and they love it because they can sucker in the next college graduate. I work in the private sector now as a Senior Manager and I'm getting paid way more while working less hours than I did working at a Public CPA firm.

i am really glad I dont work at a CPA firm but rather a private sector company where we just work 40 hours a week for accounting

Yes, more money for the upper management, with having fewer employees to do more work.