"Living wage" working really well for The Gap

[Tallpine]

They have that issue at my inventory gig. It is almost impossible to get fired, and the payscale is based entirely on "productivity". We have 4 levels: every quarter, corporate checks the average numbers you've been hitting. If they match the next level up, you go up. If they aren't meeting the level you're at, you drop. Those that never advance get kept on so they have bodies (some sites have a minimum staffing requirement)

And some of those "kept as a body" types are just... wow. No call/no shows, unable to do basic counting (seriously: you're scanning tags on clothes. I could train a 5 year old on this). Show up drunk and/or high. And yet they're kept on

Almost thirty years ago I worked for this woodshop place for a while.  It was a bad time economically for both me and everyone else, and I started out sanding doors as a temp at min wage.  After 30 days, they hired me full time and shortly thereafter gave me a 50% raise and different duties.  About a year later a kid that started about the same time that I did was moaning because he was still working at min wage.  I told him that I would have fired him instead 

[MechAg94]

They have that issue at my inventory gig. It is almost impossible to get fired, and the payscale is based entirely on "productivity". We have 4 levels: every quarter, corporate checks the average numbers you've been hitting. If they match the next level up, you go up. If they aren't meeting the level you're at, you drop. Those that never advance get kept on so they have bodies (some sites have a minimum staffing requirement)

And some of those "kept as a body" types are just... wow. No call/no shows, unable to do basic counting (seriously: you're scanning tags on clothes. I could train a 5 year old on this). Show up drunk and/or high. And yet they're kept on

IMO, it is more than just someone's skills.  It is what you mention.  They have to pay everyone that min wage.  The people who show up and try a little don't like getting paid the same as the people described above.  The better people move on to a job that pays better.  If an employer pays a little better, they can be more selective and/or get rid of the people that don't give a damn. 

Of course, there are also issues of management/leadership.  Is the local management trying to build a good team of employees or just fill spots with warm bodies and hope one of them puts out enough work to keep things moving. 

[Firethorn]

Just because you typically have to pay skilled workers more to get them doesn't mean paying an unskilled person more will net better results than paying them what they are worth.

No, but if it's known that you're willing to pay more, you get a better application pool in the first place and can afford to fire the worst performers.

[cordex]

No, but if it's known that you're willing to pay more, you get a better application pool in the first place and can afford to fire the worst performers.

Sure, that can happen.  However, if it were really true that paying high wages always results in superstar employees whose productivity offsets the additional wages then that would be the norm.  That isn't the norm because the real equation is a little more complicated than that and includes size and quality of the available talent pool, hiring and training costs, impact of employee quality on marginal productivity, overall value of the position, and a hundred other things.

I support the right of companies to set their offered salary as high as they want in order to get the best possible applicants.
I support the right of companies to set their offered salary as low as they want in order to get workers they can afford.
I support the right of companies to succeed or fail based on the hiring decisions they make.

I don't think those decisions are best made by government decree.

[Firethorn]

Sure, that can happen.  However, if it were really true that paying high wages always results in superstar employees whose productivity offsets the additional wages then that would be the norm.

Going for the slippery slope, aren't you?  You have a bell curve - paying more lets you get employees from higher up it.

Now I don't think I, or anybody else, have been implying that paying better is the only thing necessary to improve employee quality and productivity.  Hell, there have been complaints here about companies treating employees like crap then wondering why they have no retention. 

Ultimately you have several factors.  Now, remember that this is all 'law of averages'.
1.  An employee that feels he's appreciated is more likely to stay and work harder.  Pay that scales with the work is one way to show appreciation. 
2.  More pay will help retain quality workers.
3.  More pay will help attract quality workers
4.  At some point 'more pay' will cost more than the improvements it brings to the workforce.

Now, thing is, the above requires that you either let the poor performers languish or just plain let them go.  Pure pay and crap treatment otherwise is also detrimental.

I don't think those decisions are best made by government decree.

I agree.  Note the example I used - Walmart.  The example in this thread, The Gap.  Both raised their wages without government direction(though one could say there was government encouragement).  I'm not saying to raise the minimum wage.  But as companies keep discovering and forgetting, how you treat your workers, even the bottom ones, does ultimately affect your business.

Especially if you have a position that requires a fair bit of training, you might want to pay a bit more than minimum wage because if they're 'good', they'll jump ship the moment something better comes up, and now you're out your training.

I don't think those decisions are best made by government decree.

Neither do I. 

[zahc]

No, but if it's known that you're willing to pay more, you get a better application pool in the first place and can afford to fire the worst performers.

But nobody posts the salary in the job description or ads, so how do the superstars know to apply?  They don't, so they probably are back in school trying to get a pointless degree so they can apply for different jobs that still don't post the salary, but which say "degree required" which thus convey some precious little information about what they pay. 9

[KD5NRH]

But nobody posts the salary in the job description or ads, so how do the superstars know to apply?

Basic networking.  I found plenty of better jobs by hanging out in the smoking area of the ones I was rapidly burning out at.

[MechAg94]

Just to make sure and state the obvious, when I talk about increasing pay to get better people, I am normally talking about average pay, not just taking everyone to a min wage.  Whether all this works or not is dependent a lot on local leadership hiring good people, rewarding people that do their job, and taking action on those that are not doing well.  How well a manager does that has a lot of effect on how well he keeps people.  We could also get into local managers playing favorites, giving the raises to the brown nosers, along with any number of things bad managers do. 

Also, none of this is anything we don't already know.  We all see it.  Some have seen the bad examples more than others.  It is just hard sometimes to get it into words. 

[Firethorn]

But nobody posts the salary in the job description or ads, so how do the superstars know to apply?

Huh, places around here post at least their starting pay scales all the time.

[Scout26]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40

[KD5NRH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40

Now go back and read the comments on that video.  The stupid, it burns.