Let’s Get Specific

Now, let’s get a little more specific about the housing itself. Your housing must include running water, electricity, and heat, and must be free of mold, pests, and insects. I should not have to specify that, yet here we are. I have seen the jobs ads with housing that does not meet at least one of those basic housing rights. I personally know people who lived in rodent infested trailers, friends who had to boil the water in their employer-provided housing before it was potable, and individuals who did not have electricity. That is unacceptable. I know that level of substandard housing is not the norm, but it should not even be out there. Apart from the obvious, here are some more important factors when considering whether you should offer housing:

If you offer communal housing, be prepared for some conflict. Its impossible for a family to live together without some arguments, let alone a handful of perfect strangers. Have a plan to handle conflict and make sure that is communicated to all who live there. Also, realize that communal living, especially with shared bathrooms, means your housing (and possibly hiring) might be gender-specific. Make sure that fits with your target demographic as well as your job description.

Many people come with pets, and there are employees who have turned down jobs because it didn’t allow pets. Make your choices accordingly. If you allow people to have pets, you may be rightly concerned that they may damage your housing. If you don’t want to limit your pool of candidates, consider requiring a pet deposit. This can give you piece of mind that you can recoup some money if you need to make repairs, and it is likely to make your employee think twice before they let their dog chew a hole through your walls. On the note of things people bring with them, lets discuss significant others/overnight guests. This can be a major point of contention with on-site housing. I understand, I really do, that having unfamiliar people around your barn can be concerning and can be a ligitamit safety concern. Before your ban employees living on-site from having relationships, remember the demographic you are likely targeting and be realistic. By age 25, 50% of women in the U.S. are married, and by age 30, 74% of women in the U.S. are married (men fall just a few percentage points behind women in this). That would leave you, the employer, with only 26% of the general population who would qualify for your job, let alone those with horse experience. If you are concerned with guests coming over due to the professionalism/security of your barn, your best bet is to place your on-site housing away from the barn. A separate drive-way, apart from or out of sight of the barn is a good way to allow your employees and your barn some privacy and separation. If that is not possible, have clear cut written rules for your employees to have guests. The place to put this language is in an employment/ housing contract.

Having an employee you trust live on-site does have some very real benefits as well. This is especially true if you yourself do not live on site or travel often. It means you know there is someone there on the off hours, someone to double check that stalls are locked, all of the horses are happy and well, and someone to be there immediately in the event of a disaster, such as a fire. There is also a security benefit, for with someone always on the property, you diminish the window of opportunity for theft or vandilism. There are also a far fewer issues with someone not showing up for work if they live there, a benefit not to be overlooked. Lastly, having on-site housing for your employees also means you can pay them less. This can be very tempting, because labor is one of the costliest aspects of operational finances for a barn, but make sure you really lay out the numbers before you let this persuade you outright.

If you are building or adding an apartment on to a barn, you are still putting money into your future employees. Even worse, that asset you are putting money into can sit empty, earning you no return on your investment. If you are buying a facility with housing already there, you are still paying for it in the cost of purchase. There is no “free lunch” here, as the economists would say. So housing your employees is not you spending less money overall, it is simply putting your money elsewhere. Beyond that, when you are subtracting the value of the housing you are providing from the salary you are offering, keep this in mind: the general rule of thumb is an individual should spend 30% of their annual income on their housing, in some rural areas you can spend less, in some housing-scarce cities you can spend more. That means, as an employer, do not think you can offer half of a normal salary because you offer housing, your target should be right around 30% less than a normal salary. Ask yourself, does that “discount” in your labor cost make it worth it for you?

Lastly, if you offer housing, you also play the role of landlord. You are responsible for if the AC goes out, for drain clogs, for lack of hot water, and the list goes on and on. That means you are not only responsible for managing your barn, your horses, and your employees, but now you also have to contend with managing housing, housing disputes, and the domestic issues that can be associated with that. Having someone live on your property can give you piece of mind, or it can be a headache. If you can offer the kind of housing for the employee demographic you want, if it makes finacial sense for you to do so, and if the pro’s of having someone live on your property outweigh the potential con’s, then by all means, offering housing! If you are not sure you can or want to play landlord, if housing sounds like more headache than its worth, or if you cannot offer what the employee you are looking for probably wants, then let your employees find their own housing. There is no one-size-fits-all-answer here, its different for every situation. It is important to see both sides so you can decide what is right for you.