Caught a headline in USA Today about prospering companies not hiring and musing about why not. I think they missed a very possible reason.

Actually I think I have part of the answer as it occured to me regarding county services last week and how their excuse was "more with less" and budget cuts, etc.

I think the employees who have surivved layoffs have been conditioned for several years now to do the work of (take your pick) 2 or 3 or more people. I think they've done it partly as a challenge in some cases, and partly to keep their jobs in other cases.

Because employees have successfully done this and carried on, big boss has seen it and made their efforrts status quo instead of going above and beyond. What was necessary is now expected.

It also seems to me this leads into the higher unemployment numbers in that the workforce has been, and continues to be downsized. If the successful businesses hired 1 or 2 people to ease the load (get it back to what the normal was) more people would be employed.

I also think, no - I know. Service and productivity have suffered. In some cases it's easier to just keep telling the client of the hardship as an excuse. Not a valid reason, an excuse.

dl

If you're talking about government at any and all levels I agree. In the private sector in recent years I see the exact opposite that is one person having to do the job of two or three people in the past.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

No sorry, I tried to say a recent county experience (and other private sector situations now that I think about it) made me think about this. I think it's all over whether gov. or private - 1 person doing the work of 2 or 3 and the employer now deciding that is status quo.

It's happened where I work. I see it where I go and I have friends constantly working more and more.

dl

Personal experience--December 2009, our office had a girl go out on a personal leave of absence. She had a breakdown of sorts and did not return to the office until May 2010.
The other 4 of us in the office covered for her. No help, no assistance....
shortly after she came back, another girl quit. So, we were down one again--they actually did hire someone to replace her, but it took a while. Then end of June 2010, one of other girls left because her husband was transferred out of state. Hired someone else--he couldn't start until end of July 2010. He was worthless in the position and lasted 8 weeks (end of September 2010), didn't hire anyone until the end of October 2010. And she had no experience in the field--so she really wasn't up to speed until end of December 2010. Oh, and the girl that had a breakdown? She quit the end of December 2010! And yet, I was expected to do the job of 2 to 2.5 people. And the powers that be couldn't and don't understand how or why I am behind, and why some of the smaller things that they want done (but aren't necessary for the job to be done correctly...) got short-cutted. And now that we are fully staffed (for all of 6 weeks) the powers that be think everything should be caught up in a week.

Ummmm....Hello? It took a year to get behind. It's going to take a little bit longer than a week to get caught up! Not to mention the intense stress that was involved. I felt like crap because I literally COULD NOT provide the best service possible. There were days that I sat at my desk and cried because I felt like a failure at a job I dearly love. I worked at home in the evenings, I worked on Saturdays, came in early, stayed late and skipped lunch and breaks. I reached a point where I was pretty close to an emotional breakdown myself. My work suffered, my health suffered, my home life and children suffered--because the company I work for wouldn't pony up and hire people, or didn't hire quality people, or wouldn't allow temps to come in and help. Basically the higher ups told us (well me and the other "original" staff member) to suck it up and do whatever we had to, to get the work done.

Yeah--the company wanted everything we had, plus everything else, and some things we didn't have!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I was with one Federal agency until 2008. The agency, once a golden child, was under a hard freeze. People were expected to do the work of 2-3. It was impossible to keep up. Tempers flared and accusations flew. I was lucky my skills could transfer me to another agency. Now, I have hiring authority and have had to make us work short even though we are authorized to hire someone. We have posted two job openings, but the right folks haven't applied. I would rather work short than hire someone who isn't qualified to do what we do.

My husband has worked for a major manufacturing co. for 35 years. This isn't govt. although I think they supply parts to the govt. This place has been under new management several different times. About 8-10 years ago what he did was a two man job. Then they went to one man doing it. They also had another person bring and take away the finished work besides . Now they also, in the last few months, want them to do the 3rd man's job. My hubby has various health problems and is 63. He worked blue collar all his life with heavy lifting,etc. He finally said enough is enough, as he can't take it on his legs and said he was retiring now. It is getting brutal out there in some places. Years ago this place cared about its workers, now they don't give a care if they drive you to an early grave. Hubby said he will miss alot of the people, but not the job!

Companies are trying to turn a buck at the expense of the safety and sanity of their employees in many cases. At one of my DH's plants the workforce was cut by 1/2 a few years ago and the rest of the employees were to just suck it up and take on the additional work. My DH's job is to streamline production to use the least amount of manpower to maximize the profitability of the company. He goes into plants and decides how many people can safely get the job done and then recomends manpower. Anyway, it has been his experience that if he says 15 can do this job safely, the company will RIF 18 and because those who are left are so happy to still have a job of any kind in this day and age will work hard to do the job though safety does become an issue. There isn't an easy answer because the people who are left doing the job of two/three people are working hard to do a good job and the company is making more money with less people.

The companies know that if the employee doesn't want to do the job of two/three people, they can find someone that does.

It doesn't make sense to me and it is unsafe. I do not see a way they will add people when it has been shown that the work can be done with less people. They don't really care how it gets done or at what cost, just that it gets done. JMO/YMMV

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/