What serious company can afford to continuously hire and watch people leave because nobody is trying to keep them here? I've never heard of any company that has managed to grow and stay afloat that way.
It is clear to me as a layman that so much fluctuation of people is more expensive for a company than trying to keep people by giving them better working conditions. For example, Lowe’s hired my colleague who spent a few months here while she learned to do her job. Time and money were invested in her, because someone who has experience would not make the mistakes she made.
And now it’s all lost because she left, and in her place came another person and everything starts from the beginning.
Wasn’t it more logical to keep a person who had already gained some experience and skill?
11 replies (most recent on top)
You’re always going to have high turnover in retail. It’s the nature of the beast. With a c-appy schedule and low pay, there is no incentive to make it a career. That’s why most people that work these jobs are always looking for something better, hence the high turnover.
The employee stock ownership plan( which was great btw) that Lowe’s employees used to have was ended in 2000 when Bob Tillman was CEO. Niblock made a lot of bone-headed decisions during his tenure, but that was not one of them.
There are no tax breaks for hiring during a pandemic.
Lowe’s like the revolving door so they can get the big tax breaks for hiring thousands and thousands of people during the pandemic. But they offer jobs at the lowest rate
I blame this on "Marv" and his bonus obsessed stock price obsessed boot lickers, and the stock holders, who don't want to be bothered by the plight of those who actually get there hands dirty and do that disgusting "thing" called sweat
—-
Don’t blame this on stock holders, Lowe’s WAS an employee owned company that had profit sharing each year. I believe that ended with Nibs (but I’m not sure). Then when hedge funds gained control of the stock, they limited the amount of shares employees could purchase. Probably so former and present employees couldn’t get enough votes to regain control of the company.
The lowe’s employee portal used to be Lowesretirerich.com. They cared employees could purchase stop at 10% below the lowest of the stock prices biannually. If the stock started at $10 a share and ended the quarter at $100 a share employees got stock at $9 a share. If the stock started at $100 and dropped to $10it would still be $9 a share. Then add the profit sharing to the stock plan which was about $3k each year from about 2000 to 2002. It wasn’t a bad company, now it’s bad leadership. There are good companies and bad ones. Lowe’s was growing rapidly when the CEO, Management and Employees all were able to make decent bonuses and share in the companies profits. I remember being told the new way is “better for everyone” because it wasn’t fair that some departments worked hard and bonused while others didn’t. So they tied all bonuses together and lowered the amount. Back then stores with top customer service scores were entered so an hourly employee could win a new car or truck.
Some employees remember “power of pride” which made people want to work at Lowe’s
We've been so short staffed that people are covering 3 departments. Speciality departments have 1 person working all day and customers refuse to wait for help and leave. Constant complaints by customers looking for help.
We're so short staffed at the front end, that even 1 call off causes chaos.
One day this past week the garden center was closed until noon because that cashier, lumber and self checkout were the only openers who came to work. Garden cashier was on a regular register, as was the head cashier.
The saddest part is realizing that there are NO long term goals at corporate. The cost of fully staffing a store is now considered a joke. Employees are looked at as financial liabilities rather than assets. I blame this on "Marv" and his bonus obsessed stock price obsessed boot lickers, and the stock holders, who don't want to be bothered by the plight of those who actually get there hands dirty and do that disgusting "thing" called sweat. I myself, started at Lowes 15 years ago, and was proud to be an employee of a company that really treated there employees as assets. And now, we are looked at by our "esteemed' management lackeys, as overpaid, under worked, bonus-reducing liabilities. Ethics? Morality? Nah, we put up with IGMFU {I Got MINE *UCK YOU}.
Couldn't agree more with what has been posted so far. As a long time Specialist in a large XDT (cross-dock, 3rd party delivery) market I have personally trained at least five part timers and one full timer in the last two years alone. Most stayed less than six months and quickly moved on. Our software "systems" are not easy to learn (even among the younger tech savvy) and a substantial amount of product knowledge must also be learn. For the last several months, them having to listen to the nearly constant "Lowe's is hiring" messaging on the intercom while they have been pleading unsuccessfully for more hours has been the last straw. I already told my DS and specialty ASM that I am done investing so much of my time training new hires particularly when management hounds us Specialists relentlessly on metrics. The place really has gone down hill in a major way and I see very little hope of it changing with our current management.
I was just taking about this with the old plumbing manager from my store. He stopped in since he was in the area and I was the only person that he knew. We talked about the good old days when Lowe’s had department managers and a full staff of associates. When I started with Lowe’s the old timers helped the new associates, now the old timers have been here less than a year and the new associates less than a week.
Back when he was plumbing manager there were 4 full timers and 6 part timers, now we have two full time associates and one part timer that works very little since his hours have been cut severely. Other departments have had cuts as well. When Lowe’s had the PSI associate we had 4 kitchen designers, now we have 1.5, appliances had 4 full time associates and 3 part time. Now they have 2 full time and 1 part time associate.
this has been driving me and i'm sure others crazy for years. We have long heard of the tremendous resources that go into hiring new employees. I tend to doubt the numbers that get bandied about because if those numbers were legit there would be no logic to the indifference as to employee retention. It just does not add up. We recently lost a good employee to a competitor over less than $2/hr and i'm told we did not even attempt to work something out for the employee. The belief that quality and productive employees are easily replaced has long been debunked. So again, IF it cost so much to keep the revolving door rolling is so great why not at least try to retain proven associates?