Hotspotoutdoors

do you have a retirement plan for your employees???

While I respect everyone's opinion, I would like to present my opinion, and how I run my workplace. I have no problem resisting unions. If the job you're in is working you too hard, not paying you enough, not giving you good enough benefits....find another job.
It does stink when someone gets laid off after working 29 years cuz of "lack of performance" when you know they don't just wanna pay him his pension.
But this is how a free market works. Let's say this same thing happens to Joe. Joe pi$$e$ and moans to his buddies about what happened, who have only been with the company for 10 years. Do you think they're gonna stick around for another 19 years to have the same thing happen to them? If they're smart, no. Then, the company looses a majority of it's experienced employees and has to hire and train a bunch of young guys. The new guys work for a year, hear about what happened to Joe, and they quit.
Trust me, it's not in a company's best interestes to $crew it's employees. While it does happen, it always catches up to them. [/quote] do you have a retirement plan for your employees??? [/quote]
I seems to me that his thinking, is, if you don't like the current conditions, move on...We had a CEO tell us that also.
It sounds like they figure they are doing you a favor keeping you employed.

And Health Care, paid vaction, safe working conditions...........

Matching 401k to %3, then 50% to 6%. .8 days paid vacation for every month worked. $180/month for my family of 3, $500 deductible then 90/10 after that. No accidents involving any sort of injury in almost 2 years, with almost 100 employees, 50 of which are driving and on lawns 6 days a week.

Does that answer your question?

Sorry, two corrections. I pay $180 biweekly ($360/month) and we had one guy roll his ankle this spring on a golf ball in the office. Don't ask....

Ahhh, brings back memories. Form '82 - '96, I was an independent contractor for the strib. I delivered up to 2100 Sunday papers and over 400 daily papers to stores and racks. I also had a few kids delivering locally for me. I had a good thing going until they hired new mgmt. All of a sudden, my cost per paper went up, but the price I charged the stores had to remain the same. Just a nickel hike on 2000 Sunday papers adds up to $5000/yr. Every few months they would come up with a new contract to try and force down my throat. Once my income dropped $15,000/yr., I knew it was time to move on, especially once I heard of all the changes coming. They now go thru a different agent twice a year. When they advertise for one, they brag about the gross sales. It all sounds good unless a person really knows what's involved. A few years ago they contacted me and wanted me to go back to work for them. I gave them a proposal that I knew they wouldn't go along with. A friend of mine took the territory and after her 1 year contract was up, she had made less than $20 net. I can see why they had to file for bankruptcy. They really don't care about anyone but mgmt.

Unionization is fairly useless for many things today when it is so easy to just move the jobs overseas. Hard to bargain when the result is the job is just plain lost to an overseas worker. And we can't always just blame the walmarts, this is an entire business attitude. Hard for us to compete under those conditions, and won't until there are no more 3rd world countries to exploit. And well all know none of our politicians will even suggest laws to make it
.+

So the 6th day is at time/and a half??
This is also the way with many companies...we match the union benefits, just to keep them out.
But then we went thru this unionization mess a couple years ago on this thread.

Actually, our hourly guys are working 50-60 hours a week, with overtime. I'm salary, which really stinks cuz my hourly wage is, well, not much, but it's still enough. But that's always the case with salary. Being that the hourly guys are seasonal (march-end of October) and salary are mostly year-round, we try to get the hourly guys as much $ as possible, without breaking too much into profit.

With all the unemployment, can anybody thing of obsolete jobs???
I had a brother-in-law that was had a cigarette vending machine route. Another friend was a typewriter repairman, and several friends that were teletype operators.
Any others that you can think of??

You mean "management of the month club". Sure, all of the American employers I've had in the last 25 years followed that path. I actually have a notebook of the slogans and sayings and I mark down when I hear them again. Most of them are on a 2-3 year cycle then they repeat; right up there with the consolodate vs diversify nonsense.

I worked for a marketing company for 5.5 years as a project manager and my division changed/re-orged 3 times while I was there. Completely ridiculous, considering nothing really changed. Change is good if you are trying to improve, but a detriment if its done without a purpose. I finally got sick of the 60 hour weeks on salary and left. But that was my choice to make and I am happy I did. Every organization has some good and bad managers, and just because you don't like the direction a company is going or the choices they make, doesn't mean they are doing the wrong thing or they are bad management.

I know of two family run businesses, one small with about 5 employees, and one larger with about 200. Each of these owners have expectations for their employees, but also treat them fairly. They make more money than their employees when times are good, and less when times are bad. Its their butt on the line, so they should benefit from the business to justify the risk. Hopefully in the long run they have more good years than bad and can pull through this recession.

Just a thought on unions since they were mentioned above. I believe they had a time and place, but in the modernized world where work rules are protected by the government, their time has passed. The money and benefits are often not sustainable, and take resources away from R&D and business growth (which is good for everybody in the long run). You are responsible for your retirement, not a business, plan appropriately.

Just wanted to throw this out there as well, its a little off topic, but part of the discussion. I strongly feel that businesses shouldn't be responsible for health insurance, nor do I think the Govt should be running it either. Why is up to the individual to shop for every other kind of insurance, but not health? Why is business burdened with this major elephant in the room? Its not their purpose for existence, nor aids in their business goals, in fact its detrimental 99% of time. I would love to see it available on the open market like car insurance and such. That would be real competition for your money, and I guarantee it would help keep costs down from there unsustainable double digit yearly increases. If you think Govt run health care is the answer, go to the UK or Canada the next time you need something done. My wife has experienced their care first hand. You will encounter waiting lists, system wide staph infections (true fact), doctors on strike (happened while we were in London 4 years ago) and general treatment like going to the DMV. (no offense)

I respect everybody's opions, just wanted to throw my thoughts and experiences out there.

Good luck to everybody during these tough times.
CJH

I got one that will work even better; just don't get sick and everything will work out great?!! We don't even need insurance if we don't get sick right?? Health costs would be controlled under this plan as well...

Is it just me or do others have a feeling it won't. With the openness/easability of oversees work, why/what incentive do companies have to stay here? Along with ALL the regulations of doing business in the US (next up CAP AND TRADE). Our VP of operations told us when we "manufacture" a part in the U.S. 30% of the cost goes to Government regulations. I'm guessing you tie that together with reduced wages, and you have some serious money savings. On the flip side, what if we didn't have WALL STREET? Fact is companies are drivin to appease wall street and their stock. How many times do you hear of a company laying off people and the stock rises? Plus you maintain this battle of the middle class because we want the stock to rise, (because we all think that our ticket to the golden retirement), even though it means putting our neighbors and friends out of work.

In the end when is enough, enough? If your company "made" a 12% profit last year and only is projecting a 6% this year, did they still not MAKE MONEY. Again, just not enough.

Oh and one other thing I've read here...Unions. YOU ARE AWARE THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE THE LARGEST UNION. WHETHER TEACHERS, CITY, COUNTY, FEDERAL, UNIVERSITIES ETC.,!!!

So Fishwater you break your leg water skiing, should your employer have to pay for that? Don't think so.

If your fat and lead an unhealthy lifestyle sitting on the couch eating fried fish all the time, should your employer have to pay for your heart attack? Don't think so.

CJH, you're not grasping my point. If it is up to the individuals to find the correct policy for them, sick folks will quickly find they don't have any options to choose from. They will still be sick, go to the hospital and everybody will pay because no private plan will be available to sick individuals. Under our current scheme of insured groups they have a few options, fewer folks get left out.

Back to your questions.. If I broke my leg I would sue the boat and ski manufacturer, followed by the driver of the boat. I'd sue the fish in the second example, followed by the cooking oil manufacturer.. Seriously now, single payer insurance where the individual pays will never work.

I think you are missing my point. If you have personal health problems, why should a privately owned business have to pay for them? Why should the owner have to foot the bill and hurt the business, potentially threatening the employment of everybody else?

And I will have to disagree with you on the individual plan. Sick folks would be able to find plans, and the majority of people would have plans before they got sick.

Using a car analogy, you don't wait until you are in a car accident to buy insurance. All insurance is defacto group insurance. If you have an accident you don't loose your car insurance. You may have to pay higher rates, but that's a direct result of your indidvidual situation, just like if somebody is accident free, they pay less.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a health insurance debate!!! I just know its killing businesses and its not justified.

The root of our "health care crisis" is quite simple - the consumer isn't paying for the services. Other than our measly co-pays, we have no control over what is charged and paid.

Does anyone here know how we ended up with employer-paid health care? Bueller??

Many decades ago (think Greatest Generation) the government had instituted wage caps. Because the employers were unable to attract the best and brightest by offering more money, they turned to health care, and thus was born a monster.

Of course, the tax breaks for employers soon followed, and the monster grew, and grew, and grew even larger. Legislatures piled on, putting restrictions and requirements and mandates and....... The monster was now quite large and bloated, and demanding even more.....

In response to this "crisis" created largely by government action, some are now proposing a government "solution". Egads, and here I thought the definition of insanity was doing the same thing and expecting a different result!

Here's my idea: Remove the government incentives for business-sponsored health plans, remove the mandates and requirements, and allow insurers to offer insurance to individuals. Allow the insurers to offer actual insurance, as opposed to prepaid health care. Allow the insurers to operate across state lines. Set up a "safety net" for those with pre-existing conditions, and let the market go to work. Finally, allow the individual to set up a HSA.

DING DING DING!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Jackpine - I think you should copy that post and send it to our new Senator. I'd love to hear his response.

CJH,

I understand where you are coming from but I think you're forgetting something. There is no law that requires businesses to finance insurance packages. It comes down to a choice and compensation offering.

If I need to hire someone and I'm looking for good, talented, dependible prospects I'm going to have to open my wallet. There are many ways to do that. I can pay a high wage and leave it at that. I can pay a lower wage but throw in things like group health insurance, vacation plans, retirement/pension plans, etc.

Imagine how much I'd have to pay a potential employee that is wise enough to consider the fact that he/she needs to provide good quality health care for their family. If the individual tries to buy insurance on his own, the price can be staggering BUT if a progressive smart company pools together the buying power of 100s of employees or more and talks to the insurance company, they can get some significantly reduced rates or better policies. Just like I benefit by volume sales, so too will insurance companies therefore, as an employer, if I have half a brain, I'll try to sweeten my compensation package with a good insurance plan.

Employers aren't burdened with the insurance costs, they offer it to attract and keep good help. If they keep their emmployees healthier, it can save plenty in the long haul with fewer lost days and therefore fewer employees needed.

Great idea... Make sure to tell him you plan to post his response on the FM forum..

With all due respect, I think you are smoking rope if you think employers aren't burdened with insurance costs. The two family business I mentioned in my original post have seen 12-14% premium increases yearly, which is unsustainable. All it takes is once case of cancer or triple bypass and your cost run rates are hosed. Both of these companies are considering dropping healthcare, and let me tell you, I doubt they would have trouble finding employees in this environment

Don't bother. they will justsend you the normal political claptrap about how you're opinion is imortant to them but how dare you provide it

I can see your point there. Your last statement says it all. The environment will have a definite impact on how sweet the job offer can or will be. When the insurance rates climb how much do you think the employees will be affected? Something tells me that in most cases it works similar to mine where the employer pays approximately 2/3 of the premium and the employee pays 1/3. If my company decided to drop its share of the cost I'll see it as a cut in pay by a rather significant amount. From there I would have to decide whether to suck up the cost myself, which would be very difficult unless they compensated enough with a wage increase to keep it manageable, or I leave them to train another sucker to take the place of my 20 years of experience. Then, when the business climate rebounds and it will eventually, I will be able to look them in the eye and ask them how badly they need me back.