The recent post about the BBC show on planting has me wondering what the general rookie success rate would be.
I'd be interested to know what some of the senior fore-people would put it at...
We haven't had a rookie on our crew for a long time so I'd have trouble even guessing.
Rookie success rate?
Re: Rookie success rate?
Really hard to say, it depends on the camp/company. Ontario companies sometimes hire as many as 100 to start for a 70 person camp (A&M used to do this), knowing they'd have quitters/firings down to a 60-70 person camp.
Camps that are great at developing rookies might only lose 1 out of every 10. If I had to pick a number for the western interior, I'd guess about 15% of rookies don't work out across the board.
Camps that are great at developing rookies might only lose 1 out of every 10. If I had to pick a number for the western interior, I'd guess about 15% of rookies don't work out across the board.
Re: Rookie success rate?
Retention into second year would be an interesting number as well, though hard to generate as people move companies.
All of my company reviews and experience (The Planting Company, Windfirm, ELF, Folklore, Dynamic, Timberline, Eric Boyd, Wagner, Little Smokey, Leader, plus my lists for summer work and coastal) can be found at the start of the Folklore review due to URL and character limits.
Folklore, 2011: http://tinyurl.com/anl6mkd
Folklore, 2011: http://tinyurl.com/anl6mkd
Re: Rookie success rate?
I would not take that BBC program as doctrine. Brinkman is certainly NOT the reality of the industry. There name has cache in certain circles but by no means in anything else than Dirk,s political connections. For the most part another rookie mill. Just my opinion.
Re: Rookie success rate?
It's a bit dated, but in 2006, I surveyed 730 workers (on-site, in person).
Of these, 15% were rookies, and 12% were second-year workers. This doesn't exactly tell you the retention rate for rookies. However, it does indicate a drop off of 20% of 1st to 2nd year workers. I'm guessing that the actual total drop-off (non-retention) rate for the industry for all rookies is somewhat higher, perhaps in the 30-40% range.
-There are many workers that don't last a week, and they will seldom show up in survey data
-Analyzing retention rates by survey data is problematic. You do have sampling error to deal with. Also, you are not following a cohort from year to year...that is, true retention data would look at a sample of rookies one year, survey them again the next year, and determine how many come back the next year.
-Comparing first to second year workers (in just one year) for a drop off rate is problematic because one year's pool of rookie recruits may be a different size than the previous year (Plus sampling error).
The best approach would be to do a longitudinal study. Sample all possible rookies one year> collect data from them > somehow determine which of the specific individual workers return the following year, and then compare their data with those that do not. This would only require collecting a single item of data from the workers in the second stage of the study (did you return?). It may actually yield some interesting demographic data, but also (depending on when in the season you do the original survey), it may yield interesting data on experience or social data associated with retention.
Of these, 15% were rookies, and 12% were second-year workers. This doesn't exactly tell you the retention rate for rookies. However, it does indicate a drop off of 20% of 1st to 2nd year workers. I'm guessing that the actual total drop-off (non-retention) rate for the industry for all rookies is somewhat higher, perhaps in the 30-40% range.
-There are many workers that don't last a week, and they will seldom show up in survey data
-Analyzing retention rates by survey data is problematic. You do have sampling error to deal with. Also, you are not following a cohort from year to year...that is, true retention data would look at a sample of rookies one year, survey them again the next year, and determine how many come back the next year.
-Comparing first to second year workers (in just one year) for a drop off rate is problematic because one year's pool of rookie recruits may be a different size than the previous year (Plus sampling error).
The best approach would be to do a longitudinal study. Sample all possible rookies one year> collect data from them > somehow determine which of the specific individual workers return the following year, and then compare their data with those that do not. This would only require collecting a single item of data from the workers in the second stage of the study (did you return?). It may actually yield some interesting demographic data, but also (depending on when in the season you do the original survey), it may yield interesting data on experience or social data associated with retention.
-
theBushman
- Replant Forums Highballer
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:12 pm
- Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
- Contact:
Re: Rookie success rate?
Sounds like a national rookie registry to me! I think smaller operations would be able to do some deep thinking and poke at a calculator to get their numbers worked out, but there retention will be higher than at the big rookie mills. If there were ever a final figure, I think it would be a bit of a surprise to any who had guessed.
Re: Rookie success rate?
National Rookie Registry. I love it!
My sample included big and small companies, coastal and interior, and various "styles" of company. It was not a truly random representative sample in the purest statistical sense, but it is probably the best representation of the population to date. My data may likely have under-reported rookie drop-out because I hit many companies mid-season or late-season, after some rookies had left or been fired. However, I also likely captured some rookies that later quit after the survey. Thus, I would stick to the 30-40% attrition rate as a guess FOR THAT ERA.
However, much has changed, and I would hazard to say that many companies do a better job of recruitment and education for rookies. There is more info for new workers to obtain, and better training than there used to be even 9-10 years ago. These factors may have helped reduce rookie attrition. However, there are also countervailing forces that include comparative attractiveness of other jobs, changing expectations of new workers, and changing economic conditions in which the same wage as 10 years ago no longer looks as shiny in today's economy. All things considered, I would estimate the forces reducing rookie attrition as slightly stronger than those increasing attrition.
If I were to make an educated guess, based on past data and current conditions, I would estimate the rookie drop-off rate as closer to the 30 than the 40. You are right though; it will clearly vary from company to company. Those that hire only a few rookies and treat them well will be less likely to lose them.
My sample included big and small companies, coastal and interior, and various "styles" of company. It was not a truly random representative sample in the purest statistical sense, but it is probably the best representation of the population to date. My data may likely have under-reported rookie drop-out because I hit many companies mid-season or late-season, after some rookies had left or been fired. However, I also likely captured some rookies that later quit after the survey. Thus, I would stick to the 30-40% attrition rate as a guess FOR THAT ERA.
However, much has changed, and I would hazard to say that many companies do a better job of recruitment and education for rookies. There is more info for new workers to obtain, and better training than there used to be even 9-10 years ago. These factors may have helped reduce rookie attrition. However, there are also countervailing forces that include comparative attractiveness of other jobs, changing expectations of new workers, and changing economic conditions in which the same wage as 10 years ago no longer looks as shiny in today's economy. All things considered, I would estimate the forces reducing rookie attrition as slightly stronger than those increasing attrition.
If I were to make an educated guess, based on past data and current conditions, I would estimate the rookie drop-off rate as closer to the 30 than the 40. You are right though; it will clearly vary from company to company. Those that hire only a few rookies and treat them well will be less likely to lose them.