The short answer
Turnover in this sector is high, but it is not evenly spread. Measuring by site and by length of service usually shows the problem concentrated in a few sites and in the first few weeks.
Both are addressable, and neither requires a general pay rise.
Measure it properly
- Turnover by site, not just overall.
- Length of service at leaving, grouped.
- Leavers by supervisor.
- Reason for leaving, asked consistently.
- Time from vacancy to a filled, trained replacement.
Point two is the most informative. A large proportion leaving within weeks is an onboarding or expectation problem, not a pay problem.
What the early leavers are telling you
| Pattern | Usual cause |
|---|---|
| Leave in the first week | The job was not as described |
| Leave within a month | No training or support |
| Leave from one site | Site conditions or supervisor |
| Leave after a rota change | Hours no longer workable |
| Leave without notice | Nobody to raise a problem with |
The last row is fixable cheaply. Someone to raise a problem with, who responds, prevents a proportion of sudden departures.
The changes that usually hold people
- Predictable hours, agreed rather than assigned
- Being told about changes in advance
- Someone who responds when there is a problem
- Proper introduction to a site, not just an address
- Being paid correctly and on time, every time
The last point is not negotiable. A single payroll error is a common reason people leave and it is entirely within your control.
Cost it honestly
The cost of replacing someone includes recruitment, training, cover, the supervisor time, and the complaints that follow a site being covered by someone unfamiliar with it.
Costed properly, changes that improve retention are usually cheaper than the turnover they prevent, which makes the case easier to make.