Skilled RV workers.

dspencer wrote:

gemsworld wrote:

4X4Dodger wrote:

This has been the dirty little secret of employment for a long time. Otherwise good folks who know what they are doing AND even entry level ones can't get a job because of the drug test and the background checks.

We are creating a new unemployable underclass with these policies that in my view and in the view of many of the CEO's and managers I speak with need to change. The employers focus should be on, ON THE JOB performance not whether you stole a pack of cigarettes when you were 17 or didnt pay your child support.

...most of the arm-chair quarterbacking I read here is written by people who have never owned or run a manufacturing facility of any size and really dont have a handle on the economics or the issues and difficulties therein.

Seriously?

Go ahead and hire drug impaired individuals to work for you and get back to us a year from now and let us know how it worked for you. That is, if you still have a business.

Having owned a manufacturing facility, I can tell you that I would never allow an impaired employee near a piece of machinery or equipment that could cause serious injury or death to the impaired individual, or to fellow workers. Even if the impaired employee managed to get by without injuries, common sense dictates the impaired employee is bound to produce an inferior product.

Most employers are not concerned about youthful indiscretions when making hiring decisions. They want to make sure there is nothing in the employee's background that could be detrimental to the company. Who is going to hire someone convicted of embezzlement to handle cash or the company's finances? Only a fool. Who's going to hire someone with a history of violence that could go postal on coworkers? Only a fool. By the way, a deadbeat parent does affect the employer when the employer is ordered by the courts to garnish the deadbeat's wages.

Those that can't get employed due to their lifestyle choices and lack of character can only blame themselves. Employers can't be blamed for demanding workers show up to work drug free and sober.

While I'm only a department manager our company has a very strict rule about passing a background check and drug screen. There are no grey areas, it's very simple you pass or fail and we do not deviate period. I am 100% supportive of this rule.

Not being pro or con to this policy, but do you also check for alcohol? The youth of today recreates with marijuana and not a couple of rye and gingers.

Agree with the background and drug policies. If management and trainee are both committed, then anyone can be taught the skills to perform the task hired for. But as the quote Barney added, they say they don't have the time to get them up to speed. I've been in a position to do such training with the first Japanese automaker to set up shop in this country, and have been very successful.

The manufacturer is the one to blame quality issues on. One poster mentioned touring a factory and seeing these guys running around constantly - think of them doing that for 8 + hours a day - what level of quality is present after a few hours on the job? Think of the guy who won't make incentive pay if he correctly uses a hole saw instead of a hammer to make a hole. That's not his fault - he's trying to do an above board job to support himself and family.

Reminds me of a Jetsons cartoon where a guy is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole during basic training test for the space corps. It doesn't fit so he takes a big sledge hammer and smashes it in, obliterating the test in the process. Then some robot zips up and says shows initiative, and promotes the guy to a General.

I've never seen so many solutions. How about you jump in and do it.
Meanwhile, we will keep buying the best in the sub-standard bunch. This way, we can minimize the number of screwups that we have to fix.
BTW You picked a good time to leave us,....Country Coach.

My two centavos:

I went to Sportsmobile to look around. Was extremely impressed on how they were doing work. Nothing was "piecemeal" about what they were doing, be it how the PowerTech generator was mounted under a Sprinter, with the angle of departure known and engineered to minimize chances of it encountering obstacles (the genset was mounted above the axle, and the hitch had a skid wheel, so it an obstacle was significant, the rear hitch would take it, not the generator's enclosure.)

Each hole, when cut, was promptly painted with a primer and followed up with some type of paint around the aperture, so that water intrusion via that hole was kept at bay. Even things like the line between the external fuel fill and the FW tank could be drained so one could be in sub-freezing temperatures, but still have access to water and electricity.

Running high quality can be done. Businesses have had decades to figure out how to get workers to do something, inspect it, correct issues, then repeat until the product is ready to hand over to the customer. Yes, the employee using a screwdriver to punch holes might be faster, but long term, that will cost the company more cash over time due to warranty issues. There needs to be quality inspections and active corrections if a fault is found, and an employee doing the job right with a hole saw shouldn't be punished for doing the job right. The time difference may be less than sixty seconds between punching a hole, versus using the hole saw... but the quality difference will be there for the life of the rig.

As for foreign competition, it is unlikely to happen... the RV market is just too small. Hymer is poking at the US, but they have years to go before they have more than just Roadtrek branded vans in the US market.

Time will tell. If the bottom doesn't fall out of the economy, European companies like Hymer may actually get a solid base of customers because of that style of rig.

They did train workers for Dealers at former factory service, many years ago.
American Coach has some of the best. Many have been there for years from old Fleetwood days. They know where to look and what to do.
Not going to name names. They may have to increase their pay to keep them.
Hard to keep good people.
I've often though of tipping or buying lunch for the whole shebang, they were/are that good, but it isn't allowed.

gemsworld wrote:

4X4Dodger wrote:

This has been the dirty little secret of employment for a long time. Otherwise good folks who know what they are doing AND even entry level ones can't get a job because of the drug test and the background checks.

We are creating a new unemployable underclass with these policies that in my view and in the view of many of the CEO's and managers I speak with need to change. The employers focus should be on, ON THE JOB performance not whether you stole a pack of cigarettes when you were 17 or didnt pay your child support.

...most of the arm-chair quarterbacking I read here is written by people who have never owned or run a manufacturing facility of any size and really dont have a handle on the economics or the issues and difficulties therein.

Seriously?

Go ahead and hire drug impaired individuals to work for you and get back to us a year from now and let us know how it worked for you. That is, if you still have a business.

Having owned a manufacturing facility, I can tell you that I would never allow an impaired employee near a piece of machinery or equipment that could cause serious injury or death to the impaired individual, or to fellow workers. Even if the impaired employee managed to get by without injuries, common sense dictates the impaired employee is bound to produce an inferior product.

Most employers are not concerned about youthful indiscretions when making hiring decisions. They want to make sure there is nothing in the employee's background that could be detrimental to the company. Who is going to hire someone convicted of embezzlement to handle cash or the company's finances? Only a fool. Who's going to hire someone with a history of violence that could go postal on coworkers? Only a fool. By the way, a deadbeat parent does affect the employer when the employer is ordered by the courts to garnish the deadbeat's wages.

Those that can't get employed due to their lifestyle choices and lack of character can only blame themselves. Employers can't be blamed for demanding workers show up to work drug free and sober.

First of all it deosnt seem like you read my post very carefully and you jump to the same conclusions that so many do and they are erroneous and misguided in my opinion.

I never wrote or implied that anyone should be allowed to work impaired for any reason, drugs, alcohol anything...But that clear fact seems to have escaped you.

And simply because a person cannot pass a drug screen does not mean they are going to come to work stoned. No more than it does that a person who has a glass of wine with dinner will go to work drunk.

I do not use drugs or marijuana, although I tried most things when younger. In fact I am in no way a proponent of drug use. It is way too damaging to people and families...

But that is not the issue here.

The issue is the Drug screens, why people fail them, and are we sidelining otherwise very good employees with overly zealous policies on drug screens and background checks.

I and many others in business happen to think we are.

The Australians have a good system to deal with alcohol abuse of workers. Each morning before you get in your truck or operate your machine you have to blow a clean test.

As for the problem with background checks much of this is being driven by the insurance companies. In one company I owned an otherwise very fine young man was turned down for a position because he had stolen a pair of jeans when he was 17. He was at the time of application 22.

When the manager brought the issue to me and said he wanted to hire him anyway I agreed and fought back the insurance company. That Young man later went on to run the department.

We are,with these overzealous policies, creating needless unemployment we are building block by block a permanently unemployable underclass and companies and our society are suffering in the process.

We need to have drug screens and Background checks for many positions, but certainly not all.

We need to be able to apply some common sense management instead of "Zero Tolerance". We need to Manage our employees more effectively rather than handing that responsibility over to third party drug screening and background check companies.

And we need to get back to the long held American ideal of everyone deserves a second chance.

If you are in the market for a job, and you are aware that there is a possibility of a pre-employment drug test, maybe you should cut back til you have a job, just sayin. Most companies don't make a secret of drug testing, (Home Depot has a sign on the main entrance doors to their store), old school it was did you show up for the interview in a suit, did you have a pen, did you have your references and previous employers on a piece of paper so you were prepared to fill out the application. New school is are you smart enough to keep clean for a couple weeks so you can pass the pee test.

I know where we could start drug and alcohol testing 535 people every morning before they start work.

4x4, I'm all for giving someone a second chance. But, in defense of a company that would turn them down, their position might be if he/she stole before and was caught, there's a good chance it wasn't the only time, and they might steal from the company.

As far as drug use, I'm all for zero tolerance. There's all kinds of positions where someone could get hurt or hurt someone else if you're under the influence. If they can't pass a drug test when they're applying and know there's a good chance they'll be tested, then there's a good chance they'll be under the influence on the job.

In today's litigious society they'll probably get hurt then sue because the company hired them knowing they'd be a hazard to themselves. The liability just isn't worth it to an employer.

I've seen a lot of people that had the lingering effects of alcohol. It should be zero tolerance too.