This may be true in the aggregate, but where I work its been the opposite. While we are hiring new employees, this has come after some wicked layoffs, where older emplyees-and conceivably higher priced- were laid off and younger, less experienced-and cheaper-employees were hired. Salary, medical and 401K costs are all much less. I heard that this will save about a point off our expense ratio over the course of time.
How did they get away with it? As an example-older Senior Adjuster was laid off and an Adjuster trainee was hired for about half the income about 3 months later after it was discovered that there weren’t enough staff to do the work.
Saw an article in one of the trades where Hiscox USA increased their headcount significantly, but all or almost all the hires were recent college grads as opposed to experienced workers. The CEO was bragging about it in the first 1/3 of the article I read. His logic was that he came from outside of insurance and he got it so why hire and pay for experience. Don’t know his salary, and I’m guessing that its in line with other carriers of the same size so its not like he took less due to his inexperience.
It’ll be a good experiment both there as well as here as to how well that works out over the next several years.
Its not fair, but it is business-I get it-and once you see a couple of carriers doing this, then you’ll see this becoming a real trend amongst carriers.
Personally, I’m being proactive and am reducing costs around our home and life-for instance no family vacation for us this year and we’ve stopped eating out-and am putting a few extra bucks aside for a rainy day. I’m not old enough to retire, but am on the wrong side of 45 and won’t expect that I’ll work for the same money until I do want to quit working.
Well, this certainly is good news? Things ARE improving!
Yeah, but who wants to wait 12 months for things to change? Only to find out that change is whats at the bottom of a pocket?
I guess I’m just excited to see positive prospects instead of the negative ones we’ve had for so long. Call me Pollyanna.
This may be true in the aggregate, but where I work its been the opposite. While we are hiring new employees, this has come after some wicked layoffs, where older emplyees-and conceivably higher priced- were laid off and younger, less experienced-and cheaper-employees were hired. Salary, medical and 401K costs are all much less. I heard that this will save about a point off our expense ratio over the course of time.
How did they get away with it? As an example-older Senior Adjuster was laid off and an Adjuster trainee was hired for about half the income about 3 months later after it was discovered that there weren’t enough staff to do the work.
Saw an article in one of the trades where Hiscox USA increased their headcount significantly, but all or almost all the hires were recent college grads as opposed to experienced workers. The CEO was bragging about it in the first 1/3 of the article I read. His logic was that he came from outside of insurance and he got it so why hire and pay for experience. Don’t know his salary, and I’m guessing that its in line with other carriers of the same size so its not like he took less due to his inexperience.
It’ll be a good experiment both there as well as here as to how well that works out over the next several years.
Its not fair, but it is business-I get it-and once you see a couple of carriers doing this, then you’ll see this becoming a real trend amongst carriers.
Personally, I’m being proactive and am reducing costs around our home and life-for instance no family vacation for us this year and we’ve stopped eating out-and am putting a few extra bucks aside for a rainy day. I’m not old enough to retire, but am on the wrong side of 45 and won’t expect that I’ll work for the same money until I do want to quit working.