Who has the most say in hiring employees for chemical production?
Thread Content
The head of human resources in our company used to be the chairman’s secretary; since taking charge of HR, he has started to pressure the senior employees. The salary policies that were in place in the company before are no longer followed, and he even says that he won’t give any salary increases to see how many people will leave. Well, now the question is: 1. What level of turnover is reasonable for personnel in chemical production positions? 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a higher flow rate for production?
1. It is better to have less staff turnover in chemical enterprises. After all, in the chemical industry, it is quite difficult to train skilled operators. Regarding liquidity, it ranges from 3% to 8% (it seems that my previous employer used this range as well); on an annual basis, that’s the figure. 2. A high turnover rate leads to instability in production, employee morale, security, and efficiency. PS—Regarding the salary issue, it’s quite frustrating; your HR manager has a really sharp eye for such things. . See how many of you will go. . .
It’s never been calculated; small companies don’t have something like that. If someone wants to leave, they can go; we’ll hire someone new once they’re gone! In terms of staff turnover, it’s best to have an appropriate ratio; too few means there are no new employees, while too many makes it difficult to manage production!
If it were a small company, it would be fine since getting started would be quick, but I’m worried that in some key positions, the high staff turnover could lead to fluctuations in production. Our current staff turnover rate is around 20%, and we receive several customer complaints every month
The head of human resources in your company has been working with the boss for so many years yet still does things that harm the company. The boss in your company has been getting along with his secretary for all this time without being able to see through her true nature. It’s normal for there to be staff turnover in a company; it’s okay to spend money to retain those who are competent, and it’s fine to dismiss those who aren’t. But formulating policies without putting them into practice is pointless, and it causes serious damage to the company’s reputation.
A company’s corporate culture is very important. As the original poster mentioned, it must be a small company; someone who doesn’t understand the subject matter speaking means that it’s just the first step toward the company’s collapse
It seems that the original poster is referring to small companies – in such places, the HR manager wouldn’t know how to handle HR tasks!
Personnel costs must be cut, because the amount saved is considered their achievement.
Who decides who to hire? The boss, of course! Everyone in the world knows it.
Too much turnover among personnel in chemical production positions is certainly not good, as it’s not easy to train a qualified operator after all
For a chemical company with technical expertise. It is indeed necessary to carefully train employees, truly putting people first. After all, only when the equipment operates smoothly can it bring benefits to the company; it is necessary to motivate those who are not motivated at work, and those who deserve punishment must be punished. But for a small chemical plant, or a chemical enterprise that involves mainly physical labor, the purpose is anyway to exploit workers, so it’s not a big deal.