Heh. Okay, brevity isn't my strong suit, but I did keep the landlady stuff down to three shortish paragraphs! ;)
I am usually good with getting feelings about people too, but when I rented this place it was from a property management company who were a dream to deal with. Then my landlady fired them and took over herself in order to cut down on costs, and it has been an absolute nightmare ever since.
If it wasn't going backwards then it would be no problem, but I suppose it's down to the fact that it costs the government slash employers? I'm not sure, but I see both sides
The thing is, it won't actually save them money in the long run. They're just moving the budget from one place to a different place and making it look like they're saving money. I'll maybe get into this in a different post, but my job takes about 12-18 months to hire for (due to security clearances, etc.), and then another 6-12 months to get someone properly trained. As Civilian Members, we're expected to stick with the job for several years, if not to say for an entire career, and we put up with a pretty punishing schedule (12-hour rotating shifts) in exchange for having a steady job with very good benefits.
Being converted to the public service means that employees have a lot more lateral mobility, which is good for the employees but *terrible* for the employers. Why work a schedule that screws up your health if your employer is then not going to take care of you? We're already short-staffed, and we expect to lose at least another 10% of our staff to day jobs when this happens, which means we'll be forever screwed, because we'll lose people faster than we can replace them from now on. So that means our employer will be flushing money down the toilet doing security checks and training for employees who likely won't be staying with us for long enough to make it worth it.
no subject
I am usually good with getting feelings about people too, but when I rented this place it was from a property management company who were a dream to deal with. Then my landlady fired them and took over herself in order to cut down on costs, and it has been an absolute nightmare ever since.
If it wasn't going backwards then it would be no problem, but I suppose it's down to the fact that it costs the government slash employers? I'm not sure, but I see both sides
The thing is, it won't actually save them money in the long run. They're just moving the budget from one place to a different place and making it look like they're saving money. I'll maybe get into this in a different post, but my job takes about 12-18 months to hire for (due to security clearances, etc.), and then another 6-12 months to get someone properly trained. As Civilian Members, we're expected to stick with the job for several years, if not to say for an entire career, and we put up with a pretty punishing schedule (12-hour rotating shifts) in exchange for having a steady job with very good benefits.
Being converted to the public service means that employees have a lot more lateral mobility, which is good for the employees but *terrible* for the employers. Why work a schedule that screws up your health if your employer is then not going to take care of you? We're already short-staffed, and we expect to lose at least another 10% of our staff to day jobs when this happens, which means we'll be forever screwed, because we'll lose people faster than we can replace them from now on. So that means our employer will be flushing money down the toilet doing security checks and training for employees who likely won't be staying with us for long enough to make it worth it.
Oops, that turned into a rant. Sorry! XD