ERAC is one of the top entry level employers

[ExERAC656]

Total Estimated Entry Level Hires for 2005
7000
Total Entry Level Hires for 2004:
6500
Total Entry Level Hires for 2003:
6100

Something is going on here... does anyone else see the trend? ERAC is hiring 7% more employee this year than in 2004 yet their employee base is and has not grown all that much over the past 5 years. This must mean that more and more people are growing frustrated with ERAC and leaving, thus the steady rise of new hires each year.

no offense but anyone who doesnt realise erac is a crap place to work deserve to suffer there.If you get sucked in by their lies then you only have yourself to blame....

Think about all those hundreds of ne employees who started today.I can just imagine them saying..."oh shit....why didnt I work harder at college"....

[FormerClone]

Enterprise is a top entry level employer because most of their employees don't stick around very long!

[gp65:(]

They try to mask all of that as "growth".

New grads are too inexperienced to realize this is BS.

ERAC works very hard at keeping up the lie that "Enterprise is a fun and friendly place to work where teamwork rules".

When interviewing, everyone in the branches is all "it's great!" "Awesome" "I love it." What the interviewee doesn't know is that you get PUSHED OUT or FIRED or BLACKBALLED if you say anything negative about the job. It's the equivalent of a gun being put to your head.

[Disgruntled ExERACer]

Can I see the stats on how they are #1 when it comes to "Worst National Retention in the Entry Level Category....ever"?

[gp65:(]

Originally Posted by Disgruntled ExERACer

Can I see the stats on how they are #1 when it comes to "Worst National Retention in the Entry Level Category....ever"?

I wonder if there are any stats available on that.

Interesting....

[FormerClone]

It wouldn't be pretty!

[ExERAC656]

Originally Posted by gp65:(

I wonder if there are any stats available on that.

Interesting....

ERAC doesn't release their actual profits each year, so you think they are going to release any kind of info on their retention?

It has to be pretty easy to figure out...

If they are hiring 7000 new employees this year you have to think that:

50,000 current employees with a 3% growth = 51,500 employee needed.

consider 2% die on are seriouly injured a yearly basis = 1000 employee lost to natural causes
consider 3% retire = 1500 employees lost to retirement

so..

1500 new employees do to natural growth
500 lost to natural causes
1500 lost to retirement

total.. 3500 to replace if retention is 100%.

However ERAC is hiring 7000 so 3500 new hires are do to other circumstances.. ie.. fired, quit. so that means based off the loose figures that 1/2 of the new hires are hired to replace the employees who have quit.

3500 new hires / 50,000 current employees = 7% negative retention rate.

Your numbers are a complete joke....

Without even having to address the rest of this stupid post please tell me where you got the figure about 500 people roughly dying every year at ERAC???????????????????

That means that ERAC is losing 1 in 100 people to death every year or 10 people for each GROUP as an example....as far as I am aware nobody died in the heartland while working at ERAC in the past two years so some groups must be taking a killing (literally)......

Cant you just admit people are leaving ERAC in droves and they need the high recruitment numbers just to stay in business?

[ExERAC656]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Your numbers are a complete joke....

Without even having to address the rest of this stupid post please tell me where you got the figure about 500 people roughly dying every year at ERAC???????????????????

That means that ERAC is losing 1 in 100 people to death every year or 10 people for each GROUP as an example....as far as I am aware nobody died in the heartland while working at ERAC in the past two years so some groups must be taking a killing (literally)......

Cant you just admit people are leaving ERAC in droves and they need the high recruitment numbers just to stay in business?

Woah... I am on your side buddy.. That is what my numbers should support. I never said they were accurate or taken from the US Census Brueau... simply took a shot in the dark. If my numbers are inaccurate it is in the error that ERAC's negative retention rate is higher than 7%.

P.S. - Just because the Heartland Group didn't have anybody die doesn't mean that there aren't a big number of people who do. LOL, aren't there some cities which have more cars than the Heartland Group? ~kidding!