Contractors talk about the labor shortage and about low bidding as two separate complaints. In this episode Brent Oberlink and Aney Bailor make the case that they are one problem wearing two hats, and that the order of operations runs from price to pay to people.
The chain
The argument is straightforward. If you win work on lowest price, there is no room in the job. If there is no room, you cannot pay above standard. If you cannot pay above standard, you get whoever is left, and you get them briefly.
Their phrasing is worth keeping: if you are demanding a higher standard, you should also be paying at a higher standard, and you can only do that if the work is priced to allow it. Everything else in the conversation hangs off that.
What cheap hiring actually costs
The section owners should run their own numbers on is the cost of hiring cheap. Retraining. Rehiring. Fixing work that was done wrong the first time. Liability. Workers comp exposure. Their point is that once you divide all of that across the hours actually worked, the cheap employee was never cheap, and most contractors have never done that arithmetic.
The same logic runs on the customer side. Bring in a low bid crew and you are paying top wage for work that has to be revisited.
Culture is not a poster
On retention, both push back on the idea that younger workers do not want to work. What they see is workers wanting to know who they work for and wanting to be proud of where they land. That means hiring and firing on stated values rather than printing them and hoping.
Brent makes the point that a raise buys goodwill for a while, and then it is just the new normal. Pay gets people in the door and keeps them from leaving over money. What keeps them beyond that is whether the place is worth being part of.
Aney adds the test for whether it is working: your employees should be your cheerleaders. If they are not, either you hired the wrong people or you have not given them what they need to be.
Saying no to the work
The strongest moment is about walking away. Brent describes telling a client they would bid, but they were probably not going to be the lowest bid if the client actually wanted the problems fixed. That client had been burned repeatedly by cheap contractors, turnover and bad equipment, and was ready to hear it.
They took the contract, paid the crew a premium for that specific site, and put better equipment under them. The client stopped bleeding money on the churn.
Aney's framing of it: there is power in saying you care more about your company and your people than about being lowest bid. If you bring that quality of work and that quality of crew, the customer pays for it.
The part that is on the buyer
They are also fair about the other side of the table. Companies that award on lowest bid and then do not enforce their own RFP requirements get exactly what they set up. If a client wants contractors who will still be in business in ten or twenty years, seasoned and safe, those contractors have to be paid enough to still exist.
That is a useful thing for a contractor to be able to say out loud in a bid conversation, and most never do.
Educate or compete on price
The conclusion they land on is that if a customer thinks your work and the cheap bid are the same thing, that is a marketing failure, not a market condition. Nobody has explained the difference.
Their suggestion is to show the map rather than the price: what this costs now, and what it means the customer is not paying next year and the year after. Contractors who cannot make that case will keep competing on the only number left.
Listen to the full episode, or find The Better Contractor Podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.