This place is getting chaotic. It is no longer clear to me whether SF is even trying to fix the high turnover at all. Thoughts?
11 replies (most recent on top)
SF needs a Jimmy Hoffa without the gangster affiliation to fight the real gangsters. Once the FBI cleans up what I believe to be a corrupt organization and the whistle-blowers prove such, the next step would be to put them on each and every boardroom to investigate corruption. Then after that, the worker and the average working man may have a chance. Turnover would reduce.
Which is cheaper, retaining good employees, or managing the turnstile with low wage workers? There’s your answer.
You can thank failed executive Robert Yi who is largely responsible for this under the guidance of the bean counter….Yi was finally asked to retire….staffing levels have been going thru this downslide for the last 15 yrs or longer…..meanwhile record setting profits and policies grow
Turnover is quite low in Executive. If you were much smarter and worked much harder you could become one of us.
@1vew. That is the problem they created and they think that is the way to fix it. They are D-MB A$$es..
1zlw+1it7cPrq
They are hoping those who are "quiet fired" care enough about their career and move on.
It's a risk employers have decided to take. They hope to get rid of unmotivated people and aren't left with too much dead weight.
It's called "quiet firing".
An employer sees an employee that isn't qualified for the job, and likely isn't trainable, so they stop promoting them or otherwise don't make their work lives better, hoping they will quit on their own.
It often happens to the younger generations.
Theyve tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
They see claims as a cost only, and what do accountants in charge do with costs? Reduce them at any cost, nevermind any long term side effects.
I feel like theyve been looting claims for a solid decade at this point, replacing the experienced, family environment, for a revolving door of poorly skilled, and hardly trained drones. Its so much less money (which means bigger bonuses for executives!) than having a happy, quality, claims force.
If they had any intention of changing this scenario, they would have made tangible efforts to resolve it, which they havent. Just a few token (super low cost lol) efforts so they can put an article on the home page to appear to care.
Bottom line, our leadership doesnt care about claims beyond efforts to automate it, so why should we care?
It is hilarious that do many people post on here about turnover. Clearly you do not understand that SF is fine with the turnover in claims, Sure they could fix it -they Choose not to do so.
Does anyone know what the pension buyout formula is they use if your pension is not really worth that much per year?
It's a general question that no one will answer at the benefits number.
Turnover will continue until leadership gets off their A$$ and admits their policies are detrimental to the workers in operations. They literally have their head up their A$$ when it comes to training and retaining quality.