Pros
Copart's appeal is contingent on which position is held in which region. As a manager of a large facility, there are more tools/opportunities at his/her disposal. Further, these managers may be "responsible" for more (and receive considerable compensation) but overall do less than those at smaller facilities. The salary structure is also something to be desired. However, it is understandable given the company's drive to continue to grow and increase the bottom line. Where Copart lacks in compensation, it is made up through enticing insurance benefits, stock purchasing program, 401K, and potential bonuses for General Manager and above. The company also strives to promote from within. This is tough, however, given much of the current staff (as a result of previous hiring practices) lack the knowledge, professionalism or schooling to promote to higher levels. Copart attempts to offset these challenges through providing some reimbursement for college courses, access to continuous learning material, and Rosetta Stone for those interested.
Cons
Referring back to salary, this is an area of high concern for much of the talent pool. Copart will be the cause of its own demise if there isn't much dedication aimed to the revamping of the salary/promotion structure. It should be inconceivable for someone "off the street" to make a higher salary at the same position as someone being promoted from within. To put it in better perspective, as a result of being promoted, one is unable to be awarded the salary that outside hires would receive. The knowledge of policy and company practices is far too much for one person to learn quickly or even over considerable amounts of time; yet, there are new additions or amendments to policy thrown at yards each week. Surely it's easy to guess who is responsible for knowing all policy (relative to yard operations) and distributing changes (at smaller yards of course), the General Manager. This doesn't seem to be much of a burden until you consider the staffing model. With yards being ran so "tight" and corporate looking to make it "tighter", more weight will fall on the GMs' shoulders. Copart is essentially setting the yards up for failure. For instance, when an employee in a high-knowledge based position, Title Clerk, resigns or goes on leave for an extended amount of time, their work is divided among the other employees at the facility. This increases overtime and stress levels for the other employees. So, a decent General Manager would assume much of the responsibility and incur much of the overtime. Sure, the corporate office may send "help" (at times detrimental to yards), but this is only for a short period of time. If the General Manager does not find a suitable replacement (tough given the low wages for these high stress positions) before the help leaves and results start to weaken, the GM is absolutely accountable. The accountability is no issue, but when there is little to no hiring assistance from Corporate, too much falls on the GM's plate.
