Poll of the Day > So, I haveta hire a guy at work, and, uh

(+) Yeah! (+)

So...I work at a liquor store, right? I work in the slowest store in the district, battling out some place called California Ave closer to the city as for that honor.

I work with 3 people. One is my assistant manager, a guy who is kinda weird and smelly, but he does what he is asked reasonably enough, and he offers good suggestions sometimes. So overall I like him.

The other people are: an 82 year old man and a 42 year old man who is mentally slow to some degree.

Now, while I like a lot of things about those two, I was hoping this new hire could be the go-getter I lack among the regular employees. Somebody who shows drive and ambition. We have four applicants.

My job requires me to hire veterans first if they want the job AND state they can do the things listed in the position requirements.

So, the only person I talked to about hiring was: a 70ish year old, apparently army veteran who only wants 18 hours a week.

...I was prepared to give it to the person with the best interview(including this guy, if it was), but I have to give it to this guy who just wants to work 18 hours a week and may have little actual drive or ambition.

Now, since I work at a store this small and slow, it isn't that big of a deal because it runs fine. However, I really want to train the next generation over here and I can't!

since i never been a manager... what's the difference between hiring one guy for 40 hours or two guys for 18+22 hours?

Lokarin posted...

since i never been a manager... what's the difference between hiring one guy for 40 hours or two guys for 18+22 hours?

Depends on if they could work 18-22 flexibly or it's a specific time frame. The 40 hour guy would be full time and would get whatever benefits the company offers though whereas the lower hour wouldn't receive all that

benefits.

his is state run so there's benefits involved, so hiring two people is exponentially more cost than just one

hera posted...

benefits.

his is state run so there's benefits involved, so hiring two people is exponentially more cost than just one

Ah yeah, didn't think about the state run thing

Permanent part timers get virtually zero benefits except buying into a couple of similar but different vesting options. When they become full time they get way, way more, and the job is actually worth it.

So, cost isn't an issue. I would prefer, mostly, the 40 hour person. I'd rather deal with one person over two, and they can work longer in a given day.

I actually just feel bad for the other 3. They probably are wasting their time. However, their info will be saved, and if somebody here goes elsewhere I can look at them first as previous applicants.