We Have Enough Evidence: Without Employer-Based Structured OJT, Worker Development Falls Way Short
by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
As a nation, we have become accustomed to kicking the can down the road. Maybe not deliberately, we appear to be locked into that mode with regard to worker development. It is not for lack of resources – billions are spent each year by federal programs, state governments and employers. If one backs away and looks at the big picture, the will is there but it seems more that the resources just are not properly aligned and focused.
Employers have been struggling with the “skills gap” since the 1980’s. Every manner of solution has been tried, but the gap seems to linger and grow. This is due, in large part, to disproportionately more emphasis being placed on preparing future workers for work and not enough on the employer’s vital role in providing the task-specific training once hired, and “upskilling” them through change.
click here to expandEmployers have been led to believe that the solution lies solely with education. While laying the strong foundation upon which to build strong workers is an important part of the solution, if the employer does not immediately begin building on the foundation, the foundation degrades relative to the continually evolving job requirements, and the opportunity is lost.
For nearly all firms, training a worker for the tasks they were hired to perform, once hired, is a mixture of uncoordinated efforts. Read More
The High Cost of Employee Turnover
by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.– Proactive Technologies, Inc.
Most companies are dealing with uncomfortably high levels of turnover. When one separates out those employers that facilitated high turnovers to lower labor costs, there are many reasons for this. However, there is no denying the many costs associated with this that exist and the effects that often compound. These costs are often unknown and unmeasured, but all employers should keep an eye on this challenge and explore its full impact on the organization.
It seems counter-intuitive, but there are some who even recently promoted a business strategy that encouraged employee turnover. In a July 21, 2015 Forbes article entitled “Rethinking Employee Turnover,” author Edward E. Lawler III, “Indeed, the turnover of some employees may end up saving an organization more money than it would cost to replace that employee. The obvious point is that not all turnover should be avoided—some should be sought.” The question is how to determine which ones to keep and which to encourage to leave. Without accurate measures of costs and values of a worker, good employees may be pushed out along with the “bad” and then the true costs of this action realized by the employer after it is too late.
click here to expandLast year, Christina Merhar of ZaneBenefits wrote in her blog entitled “Employee Retention – The Real Cost of Losing an Employee,” “Happy employees help businesses thrive. Frequent voluntary turnover has a negative impact on employee morale, productivity, and company revenue. Recruiting and training a new employee requires staff time and money. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, turnover is highest in industries such as trade and utilities, construction, retail, customer service, hospitality, and service.”
“For the costs associated with the loss of 1 or 2 employees, the company can establish a holistic approach to worker selection, development and retention that will significantly lower both turnover rates and turnover costs, AND increase the value of all employees in that job classification.”
“Studies on the cost of employee turnover are all over the board. Some studies (such as SHRM) predict that every time a business replaces a salaried employee, it costs 6 to 9 months’ salary on average. For a manager making $40,000 a year, that’s $20,000 to $30,000 in recruiting and training expenses. Read More
Cross-Training Workers After Lean Efforts Builds Capacity Using Existing Staff
by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.– Proactive Technologies, Inc.
Lean activities to redesign processes for better efficiency in a department, or between departments, sometimes result in “surplus” workers – partially or in whole units. It is the subjective priority of Lean practitioners since it is a tangible illustration of a successful Lean improvement. Processes that previously needed 3 people to complete may now only need two, if the efficiency were discovered. So what happens to that one person that has valuable acquired expertise, representing a significant investment by the employer? Would the wise outcome of Lean efforts be to just cut that person from the lineup?
The short answer is most likely not. Any efficiency and cost savings brought about by the Lean redesign would be offset by the loss of the expertise for which the investment has already been made. Most likely the reason for the Lean was not in reaction to no return on worker investment, but rather a desire to increase the return on worker investment.
click here to expandIf the worker is reassigned to another department, and no task-based training infrastructure is in place, that reassignment may lower the efficiency there which, again, reduces the gains made by the Lean effort. So part of the Lean effort must be the deliberate cross-training of workers in temporary assignments or longer-term reassignments to other departments that seem to have the need for increased staffing, perhaps as a result of the increased throughput achieved from the Lean effort in the upstream department in the chain.
Another outcome of a lean effort may not include moving personnel, but either equipment or processes out of the Leaned department into another department up or downstream, often without structured training to absorb the new activities and maintain efficiency. Here the loss of gains made are similar if no training on how to perform the processes or run the equipment is provided. Read More
What is So Radical About Workers Asking for a Return of What was Taken From Them? Part 2 of 2
by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
In the Part 1 of this article, I reminisced about the better times for workers several decades ago from my own experience as a young man entering the labor force via manufacturing. If you ask others who were around then, or did a little research, you must have found it was not a fantasy, but the life of a normal American middle-class worker.
Manufacturing was seen as a prestigious position, especially among the lower and middle classes. Someone was fortunate to have a job in manufacturing and could expect hard work but a comfortable life.
click here to expandBefore many employers, especially those listed on Wall Street Exchanges, began to follow neoliberal economics (not to be confused with “liberalism” – which ” is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law“), companies like Hewlett-Packard, IBM, General Electric, as well as their suppliers, were the “gold standard” of employers. Although the steel industry started moving off-shore in the 1970’s, the movement of jobs and decimation of communities seemed to be an isolated occurrence.
Then a series of consequential events set the United States on a path of economic and societal decline for the vast majority of its citizens.
The 1980’s and the War on Labor Unions
The PATCO Air Traffic Controller Strike of 1981 ushered in an unrelenting pattern of legal rulings and legislation that eroded the strength of the labor movement, removing a potent alternative to unprincipled employers. Corporations were emboldened by an infamous 1970 New York Times magazine article in which the Chicago school economist Milton Friedman argued that “businesses’ sole purpose is to generate profit for shareholders. Moreover, he maintained, companies that did adopt “responsible” attitudes would be faced with more binding constraints than companies that did not, rendering them less competitive.”
Supported by right-wing groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council(ALEC), the Heritage Foundation, The Koch Brothers 
and the US Chamber of Commerce, a number of states became “right to work” states, passing laws prohibiting or making it very difficult for labor to organize. Today, 27 states are right to work states, encouraging employers to move their operations there to take advantage of the “pro-business” environment.
According to USA Facts, labor unions declined in strength to 14.3 million, or 10.8%, of US employees in private employment in 2020 – over half of the 20.1% in 1983, when there were 17.7 million employed waged and salaried workers in unions. The number of unionized employees in public sector unions remained relatively constant, at around 35%. Currently there are movements afoot to unionize more of both public and private sector employment, but there are many decades of anti-labor laws in place to overcome. Read More
Read the full December, 2021 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.
Proactive Technologies, Inc.®; PROTECH; Human Resource Management for Tomorrow...Today!® and logo;