I like the first part where you cut hrs instead of laying off simply because for no other reason is good workers are hard to find and expensive to train. Giving workers job stability with decent pay means you'll get their best especially if they get a piece of the action.
The other side is when business is good they can work overtime so you don't have to add more that later likely have to fire as demand drops as does every 3-5 yrs on average in the US.
The second part is how unions, guilds, etc keep people out, not really to teach them. Just start new ones on the drone work and let them advance as they learn.
I'm about to start 6 or more new business' and employees are the biggest problem. Finding good ones is expensive and pays to keep them around. If you have good employees and not enough work, find more work in other areas or upgrading, etc.
I know of 10 different business in RE, EV's, transportation that can be started cheap and make good money. Have a few so if times get bad, you have alt work to keep your workers or you'll pay the price like many now as demand ramps back up.
I tried to do something like this at a previous job. I had an extremely highly skilled technician who I had been training to take on more and more responsibility. Unfortunately, he also had the least amount of seniority, so when it came time to make layoffs, he was the first on the list. It seemed to like a bad idea to lay him off after investing so much time in training him, so I thought perhaps I could work out some kind of Kurzarbeit scheme. This was a mistake. Upper management thought I was being soft-hearted, and the union thought I was trying to screw them. In the end, I had to lay him off. As I had suspected, by the time the company started recalling laid-off workers, he had found another, better job.
The H-1B issue is a separate can of worms in this debate. While I understand that we don't want to lose engineers trained in the U.S. at great expense, I still find it very hard to believe that employers can't find at least some of the same skills within the existing U.S. workforce.
Great example, Beth. I have recently heard stories about fewer workers leaving their jobs because they know how tough the job market has become. One report called them "disgruntled" workers, read: unproductive. It seems to be any business owner worth his/her salt can determine whether or not to keep a productive worker in good times and bad.
TJ, I agree with you on this one. While the concept seems to have appealing aspects, it could add to an underlying resentment among some workers. The drive to achieving productivity and excellence is also not completely linked to time worked.
True, but not in such a destructive way as management. When we do our processes that create the product, we try to make things as simple as possible but we don't compromise performance. We examine the impact of our changes, I've rarely seen management do that. I cannot count the number of times I've heard "We'll monitor the situation" or "We'll see what happens." After that point, action is never taken.
There is one trusim that I have never found not to apply: Management always does what is easy. There are probably a hundred different things that management can do when business begins to fall off, the easiest one is the layoff. It doesn't really take a lot of effort for a layoff, in fact, most of the time I've detected a randomness to the selections as if management took no time to discover who contributes. Generally the pattern is who makes the most money or who's the oldest.
Given past experience, this German method is way past the intelligence level of US management. It's way too much effort.
Employees have a right to view this concept with a bit of skepticism; the concept is almost unheard of in this country. Labor is one of the highest costs to a business; axing people when times get tight is the easiest, if not smartest, thing to do to maintain that bottom line.
Workers would seem to be just another commodity, managers can always get more.
One way companies might improve their image is to not seek H-1B visa workers any more. This concept (training during slow times) is an honest approach, H-1B is not.
The concept proposed would be a breath of fresh air.
During a recession in the 1970s, Hewlett-Packard cut the employee work week and pay by 10% to save jobs. When the economy improved, the work week and pay were restored to 100%. It worked for HP; most employees preferred to "tighten their belts" and keep their jobs.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.