Letter: Fully staffed vs. 100% staffed
So, I was thinking, and my thoughts have nothing to do with anything. No really, nothing made thoughts come into my head like a snowstorm. The blizzard that is dumping all of these thoughts in my head has nothing to do with anything! So stop waiting around in lines for a ride on my thought chairlift. I have had the great opportunity of living in the valley for over 15 years. It has been interesting watching the trends of employment in this valley.
When I first moved up here there was little demand for employees as retention was high. Today, it seems like wherever you go, staff are complaining about a lack of help due to no hirable workforce. So this begs the question: What is the difference between fully staffed and 100% staffed? For a local bar on a Tuesday lunch shift, fully staffed would be one server/bartender and one cook, while the same bar on Friday night needs a greeter, two bartenders, a few servers, a couple of cooks, maybe a dishwasher and a busser or two and a manager.
Now, customers or lack of customers, dictate the level of being fully staffed. It would be silly for nine people to work Tuesday lunch shift, right? But, what if the restaurant knew that on a Tuesday an alert went out that all the people in the area were going to go to that bar for lunch. Wouldn’t you want the bar to be at 100% staffed and not fully staffed for a Tuesday? I would.
The problem is, when the bar is so successful, it takes for granted its employees. Perhaps if that bar started paying their line-level employees a wage that would allow them to live in the valley, they can be 100% staffed and not just fully staffed, so we can have a Winter Wonderland, Frostbite and have a Long Winter’s Nap. All drinks, look it up people!
Support Local Journalism
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User