#58: Goodbye Problems, Hello Joe and Valerie!

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/counter/counter58.phtml

Summary:

Changes at Titan Games.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/counter/counter58.phtml) for more information.

[Bento]

That's great news - the improved sales and all. Considering how hard the economy is hurting lately, its wonderful to hear someone not just getting by but thriving.

As for the cranky employees, it sounds like you were in need for an upgrade in that department as well. I hope everything works out for the best.

[zombie-a-go-go]

So, I pretty much ignored those complaints that my improved and now more profitable store was being more work for my employees, and perhaps I shouldn’t’ve. But, what could I have done? I suppose I could have fired an employee who said “Well, all these improvements are great for you, but now I have more work!” (Cause, I would maintain - they weren’t working more hours, or doing more work!) - or, I suppose, I could have just not made the improvements? I mean, we don’t want employees who are paid to work to, uh, work, do we? (Man, that sounds really stupid when you say it out loud). But, silly me, I wanted to continue to take a paycheck! Anyway, the improvements were made, and our sales are up. Online, retail, in almost every category. Things are great. I mean GREAT - my store has never, ever, been doing better.

This statement pretty much exemplifies poor management skills.

Do you think the Capitalism-Fairy just decided to put some more money in your registers when no one was looking, or did your employees have to - wait for it - work harder to increase your profitability?

You should have been thanking them for shouldering the increased workload that increased your profitability - and words are nice, but profit-sharing through increases in salary or benefits shows that you mean it - but instead you ignored their concerns and now you're ridiculing them in a public forum.

That's a pretty shitty way to treat people, Marcus King.

[Guvmint Helper]

This statement pretty much exemplifies poor management skills.

Do you think the Capitalism-Fairy just decided to put some more money in your registers when no one was looking, or did your employees have to - wait for it - work harder to increase your profitability?

You should have been thanking them for shouldering the increased workload that increased your profitability - and words are nice, but profit-sharing through increases in salary or benefits shows that you mean it - but instead you ignored their concerns and now you're ridiculing them in a public forum.

That's a pretty shitty way to treat people, Marcus King.

staff were earning record sales bonuses

Figured someone would be down on him.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Figured someone would be down on him.

Hey, I'm all for increased profits but if your employees are complaining then it behooves you to address their concerns rather than ignoring them.

[cfarrell]

Figured someone would be down on him.

Unfortunately, the quote about record bonuses was off-hand and lost in a lot of incomprehensible whining about how he couldn't understand how they employees could possibly be having to work more given that they were working the same hours. Same hours, same amount of work, right? Right? Obviously, some people management skills might have helped here. Maybe the employees just felt that now that they were working a lot harder, their thankless low-paying and probably benefit-free job was not as attractive as it was when they weren't that busy, even with the bonuses, and they were fishing for a raise. Who knows? But unless there was a track record of problems, it's unlikely in my experience good employees suddenly turned bad. When people's job description suddenly changes, that change needs to be managed carefully.

[Mataxes]

Carriage returns and paragraphs are your friend.

[Bento]

This statement pretty much exemplifies poor management skills.

Do you think the Capitalism-Fairy just decided to put some more money in your registers when no one was looking, or did your employees have to - wait for it - work harder to increase your profitability?

You should have been thanking them for shouldering the increased workload that increased your profitability - and words are nice, but profit-sharing through increases in salary or benefits shows that you mean it - but instead you ignored their concerns and now you're ridiculing them in a public forum.

That's a pretty shitty way to treat people, Marcus King.

WTF?

Those employees took the job because they agreed on the wage. Just because Marcus starts making more money doesn't automatically mean he HAS TO start paying the employees more. This could be a short-time blip and his business could go back to the same level a year ago. I don't think his employees would be willing to take pay cuts if the business started slacking off...

From the sounds of this and other posts, Marcus made the decision for many years to NOT draw his complete salary, but instead pour any profits back into the business to make it more successful. The only investment any employee has is they work x number of hours for y amount of money. Marcus' employees can only work a limited amount of hours a week while he, his wife and daughter have to pick up all the slack.

If anything, Marcus might consider a profit-sharing plan, where if the business hits revenue goals he could give out a bonus. We had this at a couple of retailers I've work with over the years.

[harmyn]

He did say he was giving Sales Bonuses, which is more than he has to do really - unless they were stipulated at a certain level when the employees were hired. But it also means that the more they worked and sold, the more bonus they would make. If this is the case, then the employees were being rewarded for their hard work - and in a way I personally find the best - based on the amount they were able to sell (i.e. how hard they worked at it) and the overall increase in company activity.

The problem with simply giving out a raise when they complain, is first, there is no guarantee it will sustain; although I certainly hope it does for him - and second - if he and his family are working just as much or more at it than the employees how does that turn into them deserving more. Especially if they are being rude to customers or acting in a highly inappropriate manner for a retail store.

If the employees felt like they were working a great deal harder and this was directly causing the store to boom; then they should have simply talked with him quietly, either individually or together depending on how they got along and were paid, and asked for raises. They would need to make their argument about how they are working harder and doing more in the same amount of time as before and as a result earning him more money, and so they should also receive some additional compensation.

Based solely off my own anecdotal experiences in working in a game store, along with the statement made above about one employee quiting solely because the other one convinced him, I doubt these were the hardest working individuals out there. They simply felt their cushy, fun game store job had become real work. This makes them want to quit. They are fully entitled to do so.

It sounds like it may have worked out to everyone's advantage. The old employees are not forced to work more than they want. The new employees have a job they want and like without minding the workload involved. Owner still gets paid now; all in all, a fair deal. At least to my way of thinking.

[cfarrell]

WTF?

Those employees took the job because they agreed on the wage. Just because Marcus starts making more money doesn't automatically mean he HAS TO start paying the employees more... <snip>

You are totally missing the point of what we're saying here. We're not arguing for some socialist "share the wealth" scheme. What we're saying is, the employee's workload went up. Their job description changed. When they accepted the job, they took the wage and the job that went with it. Now the job is harder, maybe they think they need a higher wage.

If you want to upgrade your fixtures, you have to spend money. That goes for employees too. You can't just take an employee who has been working at a given work or stress load for a certain amount of time, increase that load significantly, and expect to get it for free.

Anyway, this is all moot. Marcus ignored the complaints of his employees, and paid the price for it when they quit. Hopefully the take away message here is that you need to listen to your employees and solve problems before they quit (if you want to keep them), and not after, when minor problems can become major problems; the message here is not that those employees were jerks.

[cfarrell]

... But it also means that the more they worked and sold, the more bonus they would make. If this is the case, then the employees were being rewarded for their hard work - and in a way I personally find the best - based on the amount they were able to sell...

Unfortunately, bonuses based on sales can be problematic. How much an employee can sell is based not only on his or her own skills and energy, but also very heavily on the business cycle and the decisions of management. I agree that it's really tempting in a sales-based job, but you also don't want to lose good employees in a cyclical downturn or during a shift in your business model because the sales aren't there to be made. And in a games store, it seems to me to be really hard to fairly measure how much an employee really contributed to sales.

The problem with simply giving out a raise when they complain, is first, there is no guarantee it will sustain; although I certainly hope it does for him - and second - if he and his family are working just as much or more at it than the employees how does that turn into them deserving more.

Because the employee's salary is based on supply and demand. The owner is the entrepreneur who is taking all the risks, but seeing all the rewards if things pan out. If Titan Games grows, the owner sees the upside, but the employee will still be making whatever they are making, because it's unlikely the supply or demand for low-wage labor will change that much. The fair wage for the owner and the employee might be quite radically different.

If the employees felt like they were working a great deal harder and this was directly causing the store to boom; then they should have simply talked with him quietly, either individually or together depending on how they got along and were paid, and asked for raises.

Um, I think they did complain?

Obviously, it's management that is bearing the most of the risks when employees are dissatisfied, and it's management that has the power to put things right. While the employees themselves could have dealt with this better, that's not the point. The point is that Titan got hurt due to a bad relationship between the management and the employees. Instead of resolving this problem when fixing it might have been easy (even if "fixing" means letting one or both go), he instead got hit at a time when it hurt.

It sounds like it may have worked out to everyone's advantage. The old employees are not forced to work more than they want. The new employees have a job they want and like without minding the workload involved. Owner still gets paid now; all in all, a fair deal. At least to my way of thinking.

I'm sure what you say is true (including the stuff I cut), but there seems little question that it could have worked out better. You'll get better hires when you aren't desperate. If he had listened to his employees instead of ignoring their complaints, he might have been able to either retain a person with some experience or had greater flexibility in hiring, never mind avoided getting hit by two people quitting at a bad time.

[Bento]

You are totally missing the point of what we're saying here. We're not arguing for some socialist "share the wealth" scheme. What we're saying is, the employee's workload went up. Their job description changed. When they accepted the job, they took the wage and the job that went with it. Now the job is harder, maybe they think they need a higher wage.

If you want to upgrade your fixtures, you have to spend money. That goes for employees too. You can't just take an employee who has been working at a given work or stress load for a certain amount of time, increase that load significantly, and expect to get it for free.

Anyway, this is all moot. Marcus ignored the complaints of his employees, and paid the price for it when they quit. Hopefully the take away message here is that you need to listen to your employees and solve problems before they quit (if you want to keep them), and not after, when minor problems can become major problems; the message here is not that those employees were jerks.

No, your arguement still smacks of some kind of socialistic viewpoint. The employee's work didn't change, they just had more to do. Business is about cycles, and sometimes you're busy for weeks or months, and then other times you're not.

I've worked specialty retail and except for new comic day or a big sale weekend, it's a fairly easy job. Yes you need to know the product, but as far as hustling more, I always enjoyed a busy day as it made work go by faster.

Sounds like Marcus had employees used to sitting on their duffs talking about whether Thor or Hulk was stronger and considered good salesmanship to be pointing in the right direction when a customer asked for a product. "No damn it - you walk to the section and put it in their hand!" :D

[D. Archon]

stuff

Apparently you missed the bit where

one of my employee’s cursed at a customer, because they were rude. I had 4 complaints from customers about one staff member being rude to them. In a week.
I know, it's tough to read that entire single paragraph. I know i I kept losing my place in it.:(

Anyway, swearing at customers doesn't fly in a service industry if you want to keep your job. Period. Marcus was right to kick the guy out. As for the rest of your commentary, those guys obviously didn't want to work anyway, so he's better off without them.

[That Idiot]

The employee's work didn't change, they just had more to do.
That guy isn't dead, he's just not alive!

Seriously, the nature of the employees' work did not change, but the amount of work did change.

[graysider]

This statement pretty much exemplifies poor management skills.

Do you think the Capitalism-Fairy just decided to put some more money in your registers when no one was looking, or did your employees have to - wait for it - work harder to increase your profitability?

You should have been thanking them for shouldering the increased workload that increased your profitability - and words are nice, but profit-sharing through increases in salary or benefits shows that you mean it - but instead you ignored their concerns and now you're ridiculing them in a public forum.

That's a pretty shitty way to treat people, Marcus King.

What an ass. This is why I don't read message boards. I'm sure ringing up more customers is really a lot of work.

[kythri]

So, the employees were being paid an hourly wage prior to business increasing.

Business increases significantly, employees are being paid the same wage for the same hours, but are earning bonuses based on those sales, therefore, being paid MORE for their work.

How is Marcus in the wrong here? He hired a couple of slackers who likely took the job because they're lazy gamers (like very many store employees not related to the owner, in my experience).

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. Marcus got rid of a couple of losers, and has now hired a couple of (hopefully) great replacements.