Last month suddenly became very strict, and some people were persuaded to leave. Then some summer workers were recruited, but unexpectedly, the client required a baseline number of employees to work every day, which led to a sudden shortage of staff, making it impossible to arrange the usual six days off per month.

In the past ten days, there have also been people coming to apply for jobs, but after going through the process, none of them returned. What is the reason for this? We do not know.

Tonight, the small group started discussing that due to the staff shortage, it is no longer possible to arrange for everyone to have six days off, so if they work extra, they will be paid overtime.

This immediately caused some dissatisfaction among people, as they initially joined the job because they valued the six days off, and now that six days off is about to disappear, they feel their bottom line has been crossed. They openly started saying in the group that this is a tactic of the leaders, and their intention is to change the six days off into four days off. Many people echoed this sentiment.

However, compared to the inability to arrange six days off, what is more concerning is that the company has recruited many summer workers. When these summer workers leave one day, won't there be even more staff shortages? At that time, won't there be even fewer days off?

Therefore, the issue seems to be about today's days off, but in reality, there are greater hidden dangers behind it. If some people leave because their days off are not satisfied, it will further lead to the current situation spiraling out of control.

At the same time, I believe that the summer workers only cover up some of the current contradictions, which will become more acute over time. If it is already difficult to recruit people now, then after the summer workers leave, recruiting will become even more difficult, and the long-term crisis hidden within this should be a cause for concern.

The reason why there are applicants but not a single person stays is subject to several different interpretations.

The first interpretation is that the salary and benefits are poor, and the environment is bad, which does not meet the applicants' expectations. This is indeed a fact, but for this industry, the vast majority of units are quite similar, so this should not be the most critical factor.

The second interpretation is that the leaders' recruitment is a facade, and they actually do not want to increase staff, hoping to change the six days off to four days off through internal digestion.

Those who hold this view are employees who care about the six days off, as they see it as their bottom line for continuing to serve the company. The company hopes to encroach on their interests through a relatively gentle approach.

The third interpretation is that these applicants see such a harsh environment and cannot tolerate this work model, so they decide not to take the job after a preliminary understanding.

However, based on my observations, I believe that the leaders' recruitment skills also have issues. The leaders did not guide the applicants' thinking but let them choose for themselves, which is a passive negotiation method that instantly makes applicants lose their sense of security.

More critically, the leaders also discussed work model issues with the applicants, and the two sides had disagreements and disputes over this almost academic issue, deviating from the basic purpose of recruitment, which made applicants feel very uncomfortable. They felt strongly rejected even before starting, prompting them to reconsider their choice.

At the same time, having a single recruitment channel is also a serious problem. The leaders did not utilize the role of employee referrals and did not have any incentive policies for referrals, which made colleagues unmotivated to help the company recruit.

Currently, salaries are paid without pay slips or salary details, leading many to doubt their wages. Therefore, even if they are paid for overtime, it is still difficult to gain the trust of employees, as they suspect their interests are being encroached upon to a greater extent.

Moreover, the company has no so-called holiday benefits, nor any team-building benefits, which makes many employees feel that the company is stingy, and the relationship between both parties is merely a naked transactional one. Strangely, the pay for overtime is even lower than the normal working hours, which many find hard to understand. According to labor laws, overtime is usually paid at a higher rate than normal working hours, yet the company does the opposite.

In comparison to low wages and almost no benefits, the increasingly strict and harsh requirements are also a reason for dissatisfaction. Many employees believe that compared to such a harsh penalty system, the wages are completely mismatched with the intensity of the work. This dissatisfaction can be masked by normal days off, but once normal days off are also deprived, whether this deprivation is active or passive, it acts like a fuse igniting emotional resistance.

This may also be why there is a high turnover rate. Staff usually leave within two to three months, and the newly recruited employees often fail to meet the expected requirements. Once there is a surplus of staff, they begin to persuade those who do not meet the expected standards to leave. However, newly recruited employees often have very low loyalty, which objectively increases training costs.

So, how can we better solve such a difficult problem?

First, there should be friendly management of existing staff. High importance should be placed on the issues existing within the current team, resolving conflicts between each other, and if necessary, incentive policies should be established to help them maintain their work state better. For example, if it is currently impossible to take time off, it will inevitably lead to their dissatisfaction. So, should the days worked as overtime be paid only at the normal working rate? Obviously, this does not solve any problems and instead exacerbates the conflict between both parties. I believe that the days worked as overtime can be calculated at double or one and a half times the normal pay, which would reduce the conflict to a controllable range.

Second, the recruitment channels should be expanded, including but not limited to employee referral rewards, so that more people will come for interviews. With this base number of interviewees, the company can quickly replenish the required number of employees. Always thinking of being stingy while expecting to solve all problems through a single recruitment channel is unrealistic.

Third, improve employee benefits to give them a sense of belonging, changing the past situation of competing for interests with employees, and creating a good corporate reputation. Many companies have afternoon tea or snacks, which do not cost the company much but can make employees feel the warmth of the company. At the same time, regularly or irregularly organize team-building activities, and do not always expect employees to pay for them; such activities are not true team-building.

Furthermore, a system that only has penalties and no rewards is problematic, and overly rigid penalty methods are also a very serious issue. Generally speaking, the first time someone makes a mistake, it should be addressed with criticism and education, rather than directly turning into monetary penalties or other losses of benefits. Such rigid penalty methods are not only unrecognized by employees but can also lead to more controversy in practice. Smart leaders always use small favors, while less smart leaders always try to encroach on others' interests.

In summary, this situation is not insurmountable; the key is to break through the mindset and treat employees as partners rather than oppressed slaves.