Speaking of Politics as usual

[sirs]

Never said they did, merely that from a bottom line standpoint, they apparently help that business in attaining a better bottom line, than without them.  Otherwise businesses wouldn't use them

Many profitable businesses don't.

There ya go.  See, I never said they were required.  Merely that for some businesses, it helps their bottom line.  Not sure why you think it doesn't

[BT]

Merely that for some businesses, it helps their bottom line

And you have a source for that claim?

[sirs]

Same as yours

[BT]

Right off the top of my head i can name two law firms, a printing company, a marketing company and a small government that don't have on staff janitors.

And you have ....

[sirs]

And I can name a few hundred that do

[BT]

And I can name a few hundred that do

Good. And you can also show how the employment of these janitors improved the productivity and profitability of the revenue producing segment of the staff.

Because that was the challenge. Which you apparently can't meet.

[sirs]

Just the same as you are in demonstrating how those other janitors are not hired based solely that they take away from their bottom line

and ditto on the can't meet challenge

[kimba1]

I think the subject of janitors might be approached wrong. that part of the labor is usually part of a building maintenance and has nothing to do with productivity. it`s not like if a door handle breaks you need the cheese maker to replace it that handle. I doubt you want the guy who cleans toilet to also make cheese also.

technically janitors jobs can be done by staff, but at a certain point it simply not gonna happen in a large business.

[kimba1]

upon further thought, a large business will have productivity problems because very few people would pick that business to work in if another does not require you to clean a bathroom.

[BT]

Just the same as you are in demonstrating how those other janitors are not hired based solely that they take away from their bottom line

What is it you are saying. That sentence does not make sense.

Let's make it simple.

Show me how the cost of hiring a janitor is negated and surpassed by the increased productivity from the revenue creating side of the staff.

Show me a study that says so. That is the challenge because that was your claim.

[sirs]

You first show me that the decision, by one of those "off the top of your head places" to not hire any janitors was done so purely based on how it puts their bottom line into the red.  Or I'll make it easier, they're not hired based solely that they take away from the company's bottom line.  That WAS when this tangent started going down hill

[sirs]

Unless I'm wrong, which is entirely possible, neither one of us can show such a "study", since they are merely positions we're holding.  Mine seems far more common sensical, since yours seems to be companies hire janitors simply to hire janitors.  And because some don't, ipso facto, that supposedly proves your point.  Hardly. 

Point now is you can't prove that a janitor is not hired, based solely on their negation to the bottom line of that company.  For some reason, that just makes sense to you.  As is the salseman who should be taking out their own trash, to apparently help that company's bottom line

[BT]

You first show me that the decision, by one of those "off the top of your head places" to not hire any janitors was done so purely based on how it puts their bottom line into the red.

Simple. The cost of the janitor as a full time employee at $15 per hour x 40 hours per week far outweighed the benefits gained by the 1 hour of lost productivity per week to revenue producers who kept their work area tidy. The average office or cubicle takes no more that 15 minutes a week to empty the trash, dust the fixtures and vacuum the floor. Do the math.

In many companies a new or low level employee might volunteer to clean the break room and bathrooms as a way to supplement their paychecks, as they got back on their feet.  Happens all the time in small businesses.

Some businesses might outsource to a cleaning service. But even then the cost would be nowhere near the expense of a full-time janitor.

Now i have never claimed that hiring a janitor would put a firm in the red, that is a misrepresentation once again of my point. What i have said numerous times is that the benefits of hiring a janitor do not outweigh the costs of hiring that same janitor.

[sirs]

So, were both in agreement in that the Janitor hired doesn't ipso-fact cause the company to run in a negative direction.  And that's been my point all along.  In many, if not most, their cost is outweighed by the improved productivity of said company.  (as you say, they "absorb it" because they're making a profit)

And I'd lay off the erroneous misrepresentaion claims, since you won't find one sentence where I accused you of claiming hiring a janitor causes a company to run in the red.  That doesn't help in rebuilding your credibility.  Just FYI

[BT]

  In many, if not most, their cost is outweighed by the improved productivity of said company.

And you still haven't shown me where that is so.

And I'd lay off the erroneous misrepresentaion claims, since you won't find one sentence where I accused you of claiming hiring a janitor causes a company to run in the red.  That doesn't help in rebuilding your credibility.  Just FYI

You did it right here.

You first show me that the decision, by one of those "off the top of your head places" to not hire any janitors was done so purely based on how it puts their bottom line into the red.