Autobuses confiables reducen la rotacion de empleados de forma dramatica.
Los trabajos estan regresando al centro de las ciudades, pero todavía hay una gran cantidad de ellos en la periferia y los suburbios – lugares difíciles de servir para el transporte público. Eso no es problema si tienes un coche, pero si no tienes, o si tu auto se descompone ese día, puede ser muy grave. La mayoría de nosotros no tenemos la fortaleza para caminar 21 millas al trabajo.
Tu jefe podría decir ‘mala suerte a estos problemas’, pero la verdad es que es en el mejor interés de la compañía el ofrecer facil acceso al trabajo, sin auto, no sólo moralmente sino económicamente. Por un lado, mientras mas empleados potenciales puedan llegar a un sitio de oficinas, más selectivo puede ser un negocio al contratar su fuerza de trabajo, lo que resulta en mejores coincidencias entre el trabajo y el trabajador. Un lugar accesible también ayuda a retener personal: despedir a alguien que con frecuencia llegatarde al trabajo debido al mal tránsportepublico genera nuevos costos sustanciales en términos de encontrar, contratar y capacitar a un reemplazo.
This matter of employee turnover is at the heart of some new research that attempts to quantify just how much a good public bus system is worth to a business, and thus to a community. Economics scholars Dagney Faulk and Michael Hicks of Ball State University analyzed employee turnover rates among manufacturers and retailers in Rust Belt counties with and without bus operations between 1998 and 2010. In a new paper in Urban Studies, they report, quite simply, that “counties with transit systems have lower turnover rates”—a win for workers, businesses, and the broader economy alike.
These results suggest that access to fixed-route bus transit should be a component of the economic development strategy for low-income communities not only for the access to jobs that it provides low-income workers but also for the benefit provided to businesses that hire these workers.
Faulk and Hicks compiled data on transit bus service (as measured by operating expenditures) in 40 counties with small metros (between 50,000 and 125,000 people) across Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They focused on buses, not rail service, because that’s far easier for such cities to implement or alter. The researchers then identified nearby counties without any fixed-route bus service to create a reasonable point of comparison.
Using data from the Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Faulk and Hicks discovered that counties offering bus transit experienced a “modest but not immaterial” drop in employee turnover rates among manufacturers and retailers. That relationship could emerge from a number of factors: better access might have led companies to find workers who had fewer problems getting to the office, or workers who simply found their jobs more enjoyable. In one sample, for every $10 per capita a county spent on its bus operations, employee turnover fell .3 percent, Faulk and Hicks report.
The researchers dove a bit deeper to calculate just what that means to the bottom line. Based on prior research, they assumed a per-worker turnover cost of 16 percent of a salary—expenses related to recruiting and training. Using that figure, as well as the total workers in the counties with transit, Faulk and Hicks estimated that bus service saved the manufacturing sector upwards of $6.1 million a year in turnover costs. The retailing sector saved upwards of $1.9 million.
Those might not seem like earth-shattering numbers spread across an entire industry. But keep in mind these are small metros, and the researchers estimate that the turnover reductions amount to 4 or 5 percent of a bus system’s 2010 operating expenses in these areas, no trivial share. The researchers paint their findings as most relevant to low-income areas, largely because manufacturing and retailing offer modest wages, but the economic benefits of transit on larger and wealthier metros are enormous, too.
That’s something for business leaders in all communities to keep in mind the next time local officials make the case for more transit funding: the money doesn’t just help potential workers find jobs, it helps the jobs keep the workers they find.