The Case for Good Jobs — and Why They’re Good for Business Too | Zeynep Ton | TED

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Shelley Tsang 曾雯海

I am so excited to be here

我很高興能來這裡

跟各位談談不讓人嚮往的工作，

to talk to you about work that is not glamorous,

like cleaning bathrooms,

比如清理浴室、

shelving tomatoes, picking up trash

將蕃茄上架、收垃圾，

or bathing the elderly.

或幫老人洗澡。

During the pandemic,

在疫情期間，

we called the workers who do this work “essential”

我們稱做這些工作的人 是「必要的」，

because our world literally stops without them.

沒有他們，世界就會停止運轉。

Remember how we used to clap for them?

記得我們以前還會為他們拍手嗎？

You know, we've been talking a lot about AI robots,

我們一直在談論人工智慧機器人，

but this work is also unlikely to be automated.

但這些工作不太可能被自動化。

So these jobs are here to stay.

所以這些工作會保留下來。

But a lot of people can do this work.

但是很多人都可以勝任這些工作。

So the wages that are set by the market are low.

因此，市場設定的工資很低。

In fact, market pay is often unlivable pay.

事實上，市場訂的工資 通常難以讓人維持生計。

And tens of millions of essential workers live in a vicious cycle of poverty

數十萬名必要的基層工作者

生活在貧窮和缺乏 尊嚴的惡性循環中，

and lack dignity,

which also hurts their companies.

這也會傷害他們的公司。

Take Janet,

以珍妮特為例，

a full-time hourly manager at a retail chain.

她在零售連鎖店擔任 全職經理，領時薪。

Even as a manager,

即使身為經理，

her low income didn't pay the bills for her and her son,

她的低收入也不夠用來 為她和她兒子支付帳單，

so she had to have a second job.

所以她得找第二份工作。

But she couldn't hold on to her second job

但她無法保住第二份工作， 因為她的工作時間表一直在變。

because her work schedule changed all the time.

One day she might work from 5 pm to 9 pm.

某天她可能要從下午五點 工作到晚上九點。

The next morning, her shift might start at 5 am.

隔天早上，她的班 可能是早上五點開始。

Just imagine her life and imagine how little time she had with her son.

想像一下她的生活，想像一下

她和兒子相處的時間多麼稀少。

"My life is always in a turmoil," Janet told me.

珍妮特告訴我：「我的生活 總是在混亂中。」

She couldn't sleep.

她無法睡覺。

Amazingly, though, she still cared so much about doing a good job at work.

不過，很不可思議的是， 她仍然很在乎要把工作做好。

But even there, she failed in front of her customers all the time.

但即使此，在客人面前 她還是常常失敗。

One day she said to me customers were yelling at her

有一天她跟我說客人對她大吼大叫，

because the checkout line was too long.

因為結帳隊伍排得太長了。

Some walked off, leaving their full baskets.

有些人丟下裝滿 商品的籃子就走人了。

The line was too long

隊伍排太長是因為店裡人手不足。

because there weren't enough workers at the store.

And so many of the workers who were there were new,

且店裡很多員工都是新手，

所以他們動作很慢且犯了很多錯。

so they were slow and made a lot of mistakes.

They put the wrong product on the wrong shelf

他們把產品上架時放錯了位置，

or left expired milk in the fridge.

或者把過期的牛奶留在冷藏櫃裡。

當客戶在結帳時發現有問題，

When customers caught mistakes at the checkout,

cashiers had to call Janet for help every time

收銀員每次都得向珍妮特求助，

because they weren't trusted to adjust prices

因為公司不信任他們，

不讓他們去調整價格 或解決最小的問題。

or even solve the smallest problems.

Controls like that drove people crazy

這種控制會讓人發瘋，

and wasted everyone's time.

也是在浪費每個人的時間。

Janet begged for more staff,

珍妮特請求更多人手，

but her store's poor performance meant even a lower labor budget,

但她的店績效很差， 那就表示員工工資預算很低，

which meant more mistakes and higher turnover.

也表示更多過失且人員流動更頻繁。

So she was always starting from square one

所以她老是要從頭開始，

rehiring, retraining,

重新僱人，重新培訓，

more firefighting.

更多應急處理。

You know, these dynamics are so common in labor-intensive services

在勞動密集的服務行業中 很常見到這類狀況，

like retail stores, restaurants, call centers, nursing homes, hotels,

如零售店、餐廳、 客服中心、安養院、飯店，

that it seems like it's the only way for companies to keep their costs down.

就好像企業只有這種方式 可以壓低成本似的。

But it's not.

但並非如此。

You know, it's true,

的確，珍妮特的公司 並沒有外錢花在勞動力上，

Janet’s company isn’t spending the money on labor,

but they are spending the money --

但他們還是在花錢，

on rehiring,

花在重新僱人、

retraining,

重新培訓上，

on lost sales from long lines,

因隊伍太長失去的業績、空貨架， 和爛服務都等同是在花錢。

empty shelves and poor service.

On all the wasted products and wasted time.

所有浪費的產品和浪費的 時間都等同是在花錢。

Now I'm an operations management professor at MIT.

我是麻省理工學院的營運管理教授。

We can't stand waste or inefficiency in operations.

我們無法忍受營運的浪費或無效率。

So that's the reason that I began researching service operations

這就是我二十六年前 開始研究服務營運的原因。

25 years ago.

But then when I met hardworking people like Janet

但，當我遇到像珍妮特 這種努力工作的人，

who weren't making it,

看到他們無法成功，

their struggles got to my heart.

他們的掙扎會深入我心。

Especially as an immigrant who believes in the American Dream.

且我身為相信美國夢的 移民，更是有感觸。

So figuring out how to improve company performance and jobs

因此，設法改善公司的績效和工作

became my work mission.

就成了我的工作使命。

Now luckily, some companies have already figured this out.

幸運的是，有些公司 已經想出了辦法。

So Jim Sinegal, Costco’s cofounder and my business hero,

詹姆士‧辛尼格 是好市多的共同創辦人

也是我的企業偶像，

visits my class.

他來參訪我的課。

My MBA students are always so curious.

我的企業管理碩士班學生 總是充滿好奇心。

他們說，世界第三大的 零售商好市多怎麼能

They say, how can Costco, the world's third-largest retailer,

afford to pay its workers so much more than other retailers

負擔得起給員工高薪， 遠高於其他零售業者，

and provide its customers the lowest prices?

同時還提供最低價的產品給客人？

Here is how much Costco pays compared to other retailers.

這是好市多和其他零售業者 付給員工的工資。

Huge difference.

差很大。

And Jim's answer is always the same.

而詹姆士的答案總是一樣。

He says, "Paying your fellow workers well isn't altruism.

他說：「發放工資給你的員工 並不是出於利他主義，

It's good business."

它就是個好生意。」

Costco's employee turnover is a fraction of the retail average...

好市多的員工流動率 遠低於零售業的平均值……

eight percent versus 60 percent.

8% 比上 60%。

And its 20-year stock performance is so much higher than other retailers

其二十年的股票表現 也大勝其他零售業者，

or S and P 500.

這裡看的是 S&P 500 指數。

各位可能會說，是啊，但，

You might say, yeah, but Costco is an exception,

好市多只是個例外， 詹姆士‧辛尼格又勇敢又聰明，

Jim Sinegal is brave and brilliant,

and that's the only reason they can keep their costs low and wages high.

而那是他們能夠保持 低成本高工資的唯一原因。

But it's not just Costco.

但不只是好市多。

Others, like Mercadona,

其他業者，如西班牙最大的 連鎖超級市場梅爾卡多納，

Spain's largest supermarket chain;

QuikTrip, a convenience store chain with gas stations,

QuikTrip，一家附設 加油站的連鎖便利商店，

have also turned what's typically considered low-wage,

它們也把通常被認為 低工資、高流動率的工作

high-turnover jobs

into good jobs.

轉換成好工作。

Now these companies all pay their workers more

這些公司付給員工的薪資都比較高，

because absence of sufficient pay guarantees high employee turnover.

因為沒有夠高的薪酬，就肯定 會導致員工的高流動率。

But pay alone is not going to make Janet's job a good one.

但光靠薪酬也無法 把珍妮特的工作變成好工作。

And if all Janet's company did was to pay workers more

如果珍妮特的公司所做的 只有提高員工薪酬，

without raising their productivity,

沒有提升他們的生產力，

then that would mean either higher prices or lower profits.

那就意味著產品價格 會更高或利潤會更低。

Higher pay requires higher productivity.

更高的薪水需要更高的生產力。

And higher productivity requires better work.

要提高的生產力， 就需要把工作做得更好。

Here is how work at Janet's store would be different

如果珍妮特在店裡的工作 要有很大的改變，

if her store operated more like Costco or QuikTrip or Mercadona.

她的店就得像好市多、QuikTrip， 或梅爾卡多納那樣運作。

Everyone's priority would be the customer.

每個人都得把客人放在第一優先。

So when there's a long line at the checkout,

所以當結帳隊伍排得很長時，

someone shelving merchandise would rush over to open a cash register

正在上架產品的人就會 趕過去開一台收銀機，

因為他們都受過跨職務培訓。

because they would be cross-trained.

When there are problems,

遇到問題時，

experienced cashiers would be trusted to solve them quickly.

能相信並授權經驗豐富的 收銀員快速解決問題。

No need to call Janet for help.

不需要向珍妮特尋求協助。

They would also work fast,

他們工作速度也會很快，

not just because they have expertise,

不只是因為他們具有專業技能，

but because corporate would do everything it can to simplify their work.

也是因為企業會盡力 簡化他們的工作。

Janet's store would also operate with slack,

珍妮特的店在營運上也會有餘裕，

meaning having enough staff to take care of the customer,

意即會有足夠的員工來照顧客人、

minimize mistakes,

減少過失，

and do improvement.

及做出改善。

But operating with slack wouldn't work if there are slackers.

但如果有會偷懶的人， 營運上有餘裕也沒有用。

Right?

對吧？因此標準會很高，

So the standards would be high,

and with turnover low,

且當流動率很低時， 珍妮特就會有時間

Janet would have time to develop her team and improve performance.

發展自己的團隊並提升績效。

Now if you think about the work at the store,

想想在這家店裡的工作， 也還是不讓人嚮往。

it's still not glamorous.

And Janet would still go home physically exhausted --

且珍妮特仍然會拖著 疲憊的身體回家——

but not defeated.

但沒有挫敗感。

She would feel valued,

她會覺得有被重視，

and she would take pride in creating a lot of value.

並且她會很自豪能夠創造很多價值。

So what makes a job a good one,

因此，對員工和公司 來說，好工作的條件

both for workers and companies

is not this or that thing, but it's a system.

並不是這件事或那件事，而是系統。

It's a system with two interdependent elements.

這個系統有兩個相互依賴的元素。

One is investment in people:

第一是對人的投資：

pay, schedules, career paths, standards.

薪酬、時間表、職涯發展、標準。

The other is work that's productive and motivating with simplification,

第二是有生產力 又能激勵人心的工作，

以及簡單化、賦權給員工、 有跨職務培訓，且營運有餘裕。

empowerment, cross-training and operating with slack.

I want to make this system,

我把這個系統稱為 好工作系統，我想把它變成

which I call the good job system,

the norm, not the exception.

標準，而不是例外。

So to do that,

為此，

I started a nonprofit called the Good Jobs Institute.

我創立了一間非營利機構， 叫做好工作機構，

And I've been working with my former MBA students,

我與我的前企管碩士學生合作，

and together we have now worked with more than 30 companies

現在我們一起和三十家公司合作，

whose leaders wanted to adopt this system to win with their customers.

這些公司的領導者希望採用 這個系統來贏得客人。

And we have seen small and large companies in different industries do it.

我們見過不同產業中 大大小小的公司成功做到。

A huge part of their success

它們的成功，很大一部分

was their leaders' ability to imagine the workings of their own good-job system,

在於它們的領導者能夠想像

他們自己的好工作系統要如何運作，

and have the courage to adopt it.

且有勇氣採用它。

Let me give you an example.

讓我舉個例子。

In 2017, John Furner became the CEO of Sam’s Club,

2017 年，約翰‧弗納成為 山姆會員店的執行長，

which is Walmart's membership-based model that competes with Costco.

它是沃爾瑪以會員制度為依據 建立的模型，要和好市多競爭。

Now, at the time, Sam’s Club was struggling

當時，山姆會員店的經營很辛苦， 且在許多方面都大大落後好市多：

and way behind Costco in terms of labor productivity,

勞動生產力、會員滿意度、 業績、員工流動率。

member satisfaction, sales, employee turnover.

John was Sam’s Club’s 14th CEO in 34 years.

約翰是山姆會員店三十四年來的 第十四任執行長。

Imagine the performance pressure, right,

可見績效壓力有多大，對吧， 要在在短時間做出成果。

to show results in a short amount of time.

One of the earliest changes that John wanted to make

約翰最先想做的改變之一

was to raise pay five to seven dollars an hour

就是再增加每小時五到七美金的薪酬

from a basis of 15 dollars an hour,

給原本時薪十五美金的

for workers who cut meat,

切肉工人、

who worked in bakery, who led teams.

烘培人員，以及團隊領導者。

But John got pushback.

但約翰遇到反對聲音。

HR said, "Don't do it.

人力資源部門說：「別這樣做。

Last time we raised pay, it didn't reduce turnover."

上次我們提高薪酬結果 並沒有降低流動率。」

Finance said, "Don't do it.

財務部門說：「別這樣做。

這不在預算中。」

It's not in the budget."

There was no way for John to be able to prove with numbers

約翰沒有辦法用數字來證明

that higher pay

更高的薪酬，

and higher pay alone, without the rest of the system

且只有更高的薪酬， 不搭配系統的其他部分，

would pay off.

能帶來好結果。

But he was certain

但他很肯定，

that Sam’s Club couldn’t be a great company if they didn’t raise pay.

如果他們不提高薪酬，山姆會員店 就不可能成為偉大的公司。

You see, to be loved by their customers, their members,

要讓他們被他們的客人、會員喜愛，

they had to have a motivated, capable team

他們必須要有一個 有動力且有能力的團隊，

that can set up for success.

可以為成功做好準備。

That wasn't possible without reducing turnover

不降低流動率就不可能達成，

and reducing turnover wasn't possible without raising pay,

而不提高薪酬就不可能降低流動率，

because people were leaving for jobs that paid a couple more dollars an hour.

因為員工會盪了時薪多出 幾塊錢美金的工作而跳槽。

So just like Jim Sinegal,

因此，和詹姆士‧辛尼格一樣，

John could connect the dots between pay, turnover,

約翰可以看到薪酬、流動率、

生產力，競爭力之間的關聯。

productive work and competitiveness.

So he and his team took a leap of faith.

因此，他和他的團隊 決定本著信念冒險一試。

They raised pay,

他們提高了薪酬，

and they did the hard, bottom-up work to improve productivity and jobs.

且他們從基層向上， 努力改善生產力和工作。

When they announced the first pay raises,

當他們宣布第一次加薪時，

some employees cried.

有些員工哭了。

You know, for workers like Janet,

要知道，對珍妮特這種員工來說，

每小時多幾塊錢美金

a couple more dollars an hour

is the difference between working one or two jobs.

就是做一份工作或兩份工作的差別，

It's the difference between getting enough sleep or not.

能睡飽和無法睡飽的差別。

Having a stable schedule

有穩定的工作時間表

is the difference between spending time with your son or not.

就是有沒有時間陪兒子的差別。

And for Sam’s Club,

而對山姆會員店而言，在前兩年內，

within the first two years,

labor productivity, measured as units sold per hour,

用每小時賣出多少單位 來計算的勞動生產力

increased 16 percent.

增加了 16％。

計時員工的流動率下降了 25%，

Employee turnover dropped 25 percent for hourly workers,

even more for managers.

經理的流動率下降更多。

Sales increased 25 percent without opening new stores.

沒有開設新店面， 業績就增加了 25％。

This type of performance improvement fueled more investment in people

這種績效提升促成了 更多對員工的投資，

and record membership growth.

也讓會員成長創下紀錄。

The once-struggling chain is now a growth engine

曾經經營很困難的連鎖商店

現在成了母公司沃爾瑪的成長引擎，

for its parent company, Walmart,

which too is on a good-jobs journey.

沃爾瑪本身也踏上了 「好工作」之旅。

And John Furner got promoted to be the CEO of Walmart USA.

約翰‧弗納後來晉升為 沃爾瑪美國的執行長。

I'm talking a lot about retail,

我談了很多零售業， 但不只是在零售業。

but it's not just retail.

At Good Jobs Institute,

我們在好工作機構見證了 許多類似的成果，

we've seen similar results, higher productivity, lower turnover,

看到更高的生產力、更低的流動率、 更多客戶的喜愛、更高的業績

more love from customers and higher sales

at restaurants, call centers,

實現在餐廳、客服中心，

even at a pest control company.

甚至還有一家防蟲公司身上。

The success of these courageous early adopters, I hope,

我希望，這些早先採用 此系統的勇敢業者的成功

will make it a lot easier for others to make a bet on their people.

會讓其他業者更願意 把賭注壓在他們的員工身上。

You know, when we think about high-performance organizations,

談到高績績效的組織時，

our first instinct is often to fix the people right?

我們最先的直覺通常 是解決人的問題，對吧？

But it turns out what really needs fixing is their work and their pay.

但事實證明，真正該做的 是解決他們的工作和薪酬問題。

The problem was never Janet.

珍妮特從來就不是問題。

The problem was the system that Janet was stuck in.

問題是讓珍妮特卡在其中的系統。

And if we see jobs like hers not as dead-end jobs,

如果我們不把她這類的工作 視為沒有前途的工作，

but as good jobs that can provide dignity,

而是好工作，且能提供尊嚴、

respect and a decent living,

尊重，以及體面的生活，

we would have more engaged and productive workers.

那我們就會有更多投入 且具有生產力的工作者。

We would have more competitive companies,

就會有更具有競爭力的公司、

a stronger economy,

更強大的經濟，

and a growing, rather than a shrinking, middle class.

以及不斷成長而非 不斷縮水的中產階級。

Tens of millions of essential workers would have hope instead of desperation,

數千萬名基層工作者就會有希望

而不是絕望。

and that will be a blessing for all of us.

這對我們所有人而言都是福氣。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）