100%+ Turnover Rates - What do the Numbers really say?

Mathematically, there can only be "100%" of a whole, so what's with all the 150%, 180%, 200% turnover rates? Is there really such a thing, or is it just bunk?

If a company has 100 employees, that company would have let go or loose, then replace every last one in a year to reach 100% turnover. I think it's quite obvious most trucking companies in business don't have to do this, even the worst.

Ok, then let's look at 100% "driver" turnover rates, again, even the worst of the worst co's have many multi-year "million mile" drivers - obviously "every" driver didn't "quit" that year - so how can they have 100%+ turnover?

Maybe it's the number of tractors owned by the company? This is where the math gets confusing.

A company with 100 trucks may need to "hire" 150 drivers to keep those tractors rolling all year - even though they may have 50 or so veterans who don't leave. IE 150% "turnover"? (Maybe that outfit has 50 or so "gravy accounts" worth having, but the rest are not so good)

Most trucking companies will adjust the number of tractors they lease or buy based on demand. One year a company may have 100 tractors, but invest in 50 more to keep pace with demand. More trucks mean hiring more drivers, and that additional hiring may add to the percentage.

On the flip side, and company may find a need to trim down those numbers - often doing this in subtle ways by changing policies and removing incentives while raising the attrition rate (to negate the need for layoffs and paying unemployment) an example being "forced teaming" in certain areas of the country ( 1 truck now means " 2 positions available).

It becomes confusing when a co. may hire 100 drivers one year, 200 the next, but have a lower "turnover" rate that year since they simply had less "positions" (trucks) to fill that year.

Bottom line, "turnover" rates can be high at most every trucking company for various reasons, but don't get too caught up in these numbers since statistics can't substitute for research when choosing a company.

 

I would say that the training industry has much to do with that. I would say that a good driver can do well wherever they go so I don't let turnover rates bother me.

There is only 3 of the original drivers that were there when I hired on where I am at and most of the rest got fired for not showing up for work. Many went off to greener pastures only to want their job back after a few months.

The job is what you make of it.

 

What to watch are the drivers that have been there for a LONG time. When they start to leave. Start to look for a new job. When at my second job when the #2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 drivers all quit in a 2 week peroid I knew it was time to get the heck out of Dodge. I was 16th at the time. So forget about the newbies look out for the Longtermers When they are leaving the ship is sinking.

 

I beg to differ. Turn over rate is a very good indicator of how a company treats it's drivers.

Let's not confuse turn over rate vs actual number of employees.

If a company only has 300 drivers and they hire 900 drivers this past year. That turn over rate IS 300%. They effectively replaced their entire driver pool 3 times.

This isn't seasonal work.

So what if a company only has 50 gravy accounts ? Does this mean the other 250 drivers can go pound sand ?? No ! It means you have to work harder to keep them moving. That is the job of that company, to take care of all it's drivers. Not just the ones they perceive to be the most valuable....at any given time.

If the company turn over rate is over 100% in a down economy. That's an immediate red flag for me. Because those people didn't just move on to greener pastures....remember I speaking of a down economy...where jobs are tight everywhere.

If they had to fire that many. What does that say of the company's ability to choose it's drivers ??

If they laid them off and idled their equipment, that's another story.

But please don't try to feed me or anyone else this line of horse#### about the numbers not being relevant.

 

No, it isn't - their job is to remain in business, generate profit, and stakeholder value.

They usually don't "fire" much at all, since most will quit and for a number of reasons but most of all because people entering this work can't tolerate the lifestyle.

Again, no they don't - they could just "shut down" those units, sell them or not renew the leases - so now it's 0% turnover.
Does that now suddenly make them a "better company"?

Sure, no problem. They are irrelevant simply because who supplies these numbers?

Only the company's themselves know their "true" turnover rate - talking to some drivers about some company won't give you the answer - they don't know. There is no "turnover DAC" to check it out - so how do you know?

The worst companies will fudge the numbers to make themselves look better, (of course).

All I'm saying is this whole 150%, 200%, 300% turnover idea isn't based in reality - since an otherwise good outfit could have a higher turnover for the year.

This isn't about "defending" any bad or good company - turnover percentages are usually so out of the park that they are not worth looking at as gospel.

 

If a company has 10 positions, and they need to hire 10 people per year to keep those 10 positions filled, they have a 100% turnover rate. It doesn't matter if ALL 10 positions were turned over, or if 1 position was turned over 10 times. Even if they have 5 positions that have "senior" drivers who have been with them for a number of years, but have to fill each of the other 5 positions 3 or 4 times per year due to people quitting (perhaps runs are based on seniority and there may not be steady work for the low guys on the totem pole...or any number of other reasons), they would have a turnover rate between 150% and 200%....hiring 15-20 people per year to keep their 10 positions filled.

Bottom line, each position isn't looked at individually, but rather the company as a whole. How many positions are available vs. how many people they have to hire each year in order to keep those positions filled.

 

Oh ? Profits come whether they have drivers or not...imagine that.

A trucking company offers a service, that is all they offer. In order to provide that service, they must have employees.

You remain profitable by providing said service, at a profitable margin. Not by low balling the people you hire to assist you.

Swift can easily pull a load from coast to coast, with a profit margin of less than 1/2 cent per mile. And make money every day. Lots of money.

No, it makes them a smart company. That's what I would do. I've never ridden a dead horse. Is it profitable ??

Most companies will tell you their turnover rate. SRT gave those numbers upfront, and they were extremely high.

Most major companies 400+ trucks publish a monthly or quarterly news letter. Announcing driver anniversaries...hard to hide those numbers, period.

No they aren't worth taking as gospel. But they are a fact of life. You treat people like ####, they leave.

NO COMPANY ever lost an employee for treating that employee right or paying that employee a good wage. Unless they were so stupid they couldn't figure out a spreadsheet with cost vs profit projections.

Arrow is a prime example of financial stupidity/ ignorance/arrogance, and a complete lack of respect for your fellow human being.

Of course, some of that stupidity falls on our shoulders. Just look at the post on this thread, speaking about how great Arrow is/was. there are others as welll.

http://www.thetruckersreport.com/truckingindustryforum/arrow/16716-info-on-arrow.html

 

I would have to say most companies in any industry have positions that constantly need to be filled. Maybe one position 10 times since "someone" has to clean the toilets ( in a matter of speaking). In other words, there will always be less desirable positions. But how does that make the company a "bad company"?

Or "bad company B" eliminates the number of "positions available" to trim the turnover, does that now make them a "good company"?

 

Emphasis mine...

We're not talking about most companies or any industry.

The company I work for has an about average turnover, as far as trucking companies go. Out of 660 drivers, there are 156 that have been here ONE year or more.

I'm not sure why the turn over rate is what it is. I'm extremely happy with my money, time off, and the people I work with. But I often hear of other drivers NOT making any money here. How that happens, I'm not sure. But there is a reason.

in answer to your last question. Companies can't trim the positions long enough to effect the rates. otherwise they wind up closing the doors.

 

Can't argue with that, there are obviously bad companies with high turnover - and in Arrow's case it seems not enough left in time.

It just seems that a relatively good company trying to grow by adding hundreds of new trucks will face the same turnover problem. Having to sift through the tire kickers and migrant job seekers would boost that number.

Though I don't see where any company (outside publicly held), would publish of even be inclined to publish how many people quit that year. I can understand publishing veteran employees and awards - but not those who quit.

Again, this isn't about defending any obviously bad companies - but the idea of turnover rates and how much weight it should bear on an employment decision.

BTW, I think UPS could let go of hundreds of drivers in a year and probably do, but still have no problems finding plenty of people wanting to work for them.