Target to demote 8,000 workers?

[quote name='packerfan10']I think in the post NAFTA age the only way to be competitive with the rest of the world is to lower or get rid of minimum wage + all health and retirement benefits. This would also curve inflation down a bit.[/QUOTE]

I wish the government would just send my family of four a check for $9000 instead of spending $700 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
I think that's his point more or less. It's a destructive cash grab where companies make money by putting the people that support them in the shitter to the point of where workers would more or less have to be volunteers because no one is spending and thus the companies make no money.

I personally don't see how Target thinks this plan is gonna work. They're a yuppie store. They're able to price stuff higher because their clientele likes to think they're better than Wal-Mart. If they lose that base because the stores turn to trash (old workers go, new lower-paid workers come in) then they're going under fast because they can't compete on price with Wal-Mart.
 
Wouldn't surprise me that they'd stoop to Wal Mart level.

This company closed a warehouse last April (it can be read about @ Wiki). A very close person to me lost their job (after 13.5yrs). Over 500 people out of work, losing insurance, homes, cars, or more. They were notified in Jan. and sent out the door at the end of March. Some were offered jobs at other distribution centers, but I happen to know that the monetary "offers" made to help those people move were subject to very hefty taxes. In other words, if you didn't have a good savings for emergencies, then what the company offered wasn't enough to get the job done. Nevermind the fact that they offered those employees a whopping one week off (without pay of course) to move to someplace they've likely never been. Doesn't leave much time to put a house up for sale, find a house/apt. in the new town, get the kids registered for school, spouse find a job, etc. does it? To be fair, severences were paid to those choosing to walk away based on years worked. However, is that really any consolation; a few thousand dollars vs. job with health and stock benefits?

Less than one year before the closure of this place, the employees were shown a company produced anti-union video. The focus was not on what a union does for its members (of course), but rather what lengths the company *can* go to to prevent or rid itself of unions. It was made to sound cool and hip and showing what fun you can have by being "individualistic" and not relying on unions. From what I understand it was met with :rolleyes:.

This company opened two distribution centers in 2008, two in 2009, while closing one of its oldest with some very long term team members. Distritubtion centers changing which stores they serviced was common from what I understand. Many centers were NOT operating at capacity or even close to it. In essence, without new centers being built, jobs could have been created at other centers by just increasing the amount of volume thru the center. What happened was four cities got a break, while one got crapped on. I guess it's a fair trade off. However, if management can't see a year or two ahead to maybe try and prevent this from happening, then maybe someone needs to be replaced. It's not like the economy "just" started tanking last year.

A quick point: WM is not the only company that imports from China. The other major retailer does too, it just looks different and they charge more for it.

Anyway, my friend was offered a job half way across the country. After short consideration, they declined citing - "if they close it here, they can close it there. Then what?" They'd have to move again. So, they cashed out all their stock money, and broke all ties with the company. Further, they said themselves nor their family will ever shop there again. Myself and my family will refrain from shopping there also.
 
[quote name='caltab']I know everyone wants to demonize the big old corporations, but its not like they enjoy upsetting their employee's. In case you didn't notice our country is the worst recession since the great depression. I feel for people who lose their benefits, but the retail sector is struggling to survive. Reducing benefits is one way of avoiding out right firing people-- it could be worse. The economy is brutal right now and everyone is struggling to survive, this is just the product of that reality, not some evil plain to screw the little guy. Target is just trying to cut costs so that they can keep their doors open.

The argument about CEO's pay is so outplayed. A CEO has tremendous responsibility and immense risk. When things go wrong they are subject to civil and possibly criminal litigation, just look at B of A's ex CEO-the State of New York is going after him. Stock holders make the decision to hire a CEO because they believe that CEO can make them a lot of money, a lot of times they actually do. Usually a ton of their compensation is based on stock that gives them every incentive in the world to make the company as profitable as possible. I know it's the trendy thing to do to bash CEO compensation, but they have tremendous responsibly and the fate of thousands/millions of people rely on their expertise- if you just have 401k you rely on their expertise to help you retire. Boards of directors want the best possible talent in the world, and that costs money. I want my stocks to perform as strongly as possible, if a CEO is expensive but makes the company very profitable then its worth it- like Steve Jobs, I don't know what he's paid, but hes worth every penny. Obviously there are very poor hires some times and you here a ton about those, you usually don't here about the success stories.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, so sorry to reference a pinko rag like Forbes when evaluating how much TGT's CEO is worth.

Here's an idea - if the CEO hasn't commited any crimes, he has nothing to worry about from the law. These aren't the type of guys who are going to be pulled in the back room and beaten with a rubber hose. Sure, if your last name is Kowalski or Lay then as a CEO you should turn your criminal ass in, but otherwise if you haven't done anything wrong your army of lawyers should be able to explain the situation adequately.

And wake up - maybe in the past CEOs and their exec teams actually gave a damn about the workers and the longterm future of the company, but in modern times the CEO could care less about the thousands/millions of people "relying" on their expertise (did you even read the OP's article??). The only thing they care about are next quarter's numbers and cashing out before the company goes into rebuilding mode. I'm willing to grant Steve Jobs may be the rare exception (he has built Apple up to greatness .. twice) - but the vast majority of American CEOs are overpaid.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, so sorry to reference a pinko rag like Forbes when evaluating how much TGT's CEO is worth.

Here's an idea - if the CEO hasn't commited any crimes, he has nothing to worry about from the law. These aren't the type of guys who are going to be pulled in the back room and beaten with a rubber hose. Sure, if your last name is Kowalski or Lay then as a CEO you should turn your criminal ass in, but otherwise if you haven't done anything wrong your army of lawyers should be able to explain the situation adequately.

And wake up - maybe in the past CEOs and their exec teams actually gave a damn about the workers and the longterm future of the company, but in modern times the CEO could care less about the thousands/millions of people "relying" on their expertise (did you even read the OP's article??). The only thing they care about are next quarter's numbers and cashing out before the company goes into rebuilding mode. I'm willing to grant Steve Jobs may be the rare exception (he has built Apple up to greatness .. twice) - but the vast majority of American CEOs are overpaid.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

I am not buying caltab's post about CEOs. And in all seriousness, while the hypothetical $20 million from earlier is still too high, it's still super mega high enough to fight off all sorts of maladies that the compa... wait, the company? What does the company care about that hypothetical $20 or $40 million? It's already out the door and in the CEO's bank account. If it's anything that the company needs to protect itself from, it's certainly not going to go poking around in the CEO's personal bank account.

Jesus Christ. If all I need to do as a CEO is not be a scoundrel and break zillions of laws so the company doesn't get sued and fined, I'd do that job for $1 million, and I'd do a better job of it than any CEO getting paid 20 to 40 times more! In the meantime, people wouldn't get laid off, people could have health insurance, people could possibly be getting paid more, and, as crazy as this sounds, the company could be saving money in case something bad happens so it can pay its workers and provide health insurance! What a radical idea!
 
[quote name='camoor']In the bloated compensation market of the modern American CEO Target CEO Robert J Ulrich ranks 154 out of 189 when you compare performance vs pay. How exactly does that count as earning it?

What exactly is Robert J Ulrich risking by making this move? Gee if he really screws the pooch he might be outsted by angry shareholders into a golden parachute, my heart absolutely fucking bleeds red because ol' Bob and his exec team may have to pull down a sweet severance package paycheck in the millions for doing nothing in the next few years if he completely tanks the stock price with his latest round of boneheaded decisions.

You're making the classic mistake of "if it's that expensive, it MUST be good". This move screams 'make the shareholders happy NOW and fuck the future of this company'[/QUOTE]

Bob Ulrich hasn't been the CEO of Target for 2 years. The new CEO is Gregg Steinhafel. That's important because its painfully apparent he doesn't care about the team members as much as Ulrich did.

At my weekly store meeting today we were told that the new focus for the company is to earn a penny per share per day. Great Gregg, at least you're completely up front about caring only about the investors and nothing else.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, so sorry to reference a pinko rag like Forbes when evaluating how much TGT's CEO is worth.

Here's an idea - if the CEO hasn't commited any crimes, he has nothing to worry about from the law.

And wake up - maybe in the past CEOs and their exec teams actually gave a damn about the workers and the longterm future of the company, but in modern times the CEO could care less about the thousands/millions of people "relying" on their expertise (did you even read the OP's article??). The only thing they care about are next quarter's numbers and cashing out before the company goes into rebuilding mode. I'm willing to grant Steve Jobs may be the rare exception (he has built Apple up to greatness .. twice) - but the vast majority of American CEOs are overpaid.[/QUOTE]

Your first point is not true...just because you haven't committed a crime or committed a civil breach of duty does not insulate you from a law suit or potential charges. CEO's are sued all the time by stockholders, not every one of these suits is with merit-- the legal fees involved even when you have not done anything wrong can be enormous. Job's is obviously one of the greatest examples of a CEO's potential worth, but he is not alone. Obviously, their are some CEO's who are over paid, just like their are some low level jobs that get paid too much- but that's capitalism. Boards of directors and stock holders decide what to pay the most important individual in the company. Often that person leads them to tremendous growth, other times he fails miserably(which is magnified during and economic downturn) and loses his job and gets his ass sued and his stock options become worthless. A CEO's reach is enormous, from his or hers thousands of employees to the thousands/millions of stock holders, to the company's impact on the overall general state of the economy. I want the best people in the world at the helm- and that costs a lot of money to get. The dud's are obviously being highlighted right now, but they are all not all duds and many of them bring huge returns to their company's. A lot of their compensation is directly tied to the performance of their stock-the more they make, the more the countless stock holders make to retire on. Also, CEO pay isnt the cause of the retail sectors struggles, its the economy and weakened consumer.

And yes I read the article, and also saw their response and briefly looked over their last earnings...the CEO bit was in response to several people saying rather than cutting benefits it should come out of the CEO's pay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='caltab']Your first point is not true...just because you haven't committed a crime or committed a civil breach of duty does not insulate you from a law suit or potential charges. CEO's are sued all the time by stockholders, not every one of these suits is with merit-- the legal fees involved even when you have not done anything wrong can be enormous.[/QUOTE]

Then somebody needs to take the stockholders to task. Maybe, oh, I don't know, the people who actually work for the company? Because the stockholders are screwing the people who work for the company out of pay and benefits.

Make it law. If the stockholders are dicking around, don't take it out on the CEO and the people who work there. That way there would be less spent on pointless litigation, less spent on overinflated CEO pay, and more spent on the people employed as well as company savings.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Bob Ulrich hasn't been the CEO of Target for 2 years. The new CEO is Gregg Steinhafel. That's important because its painfully apparent he doesn't care about the team members as much as Ulrich did.

At my weekly store meeting today we were told that the new focus for the company is to earn a penny per share per day. Great Gregg, at least you're completely up front about caring only about the investors and nothing else.[/QUOTE]

LOL

I'm so glad you posted this before Catlab - shows we aren't even arguing about the right CEO.

Oh well - I don't really care too much about individual CEOs, I've just been around the block long enough to know that the talent that actually does the work gets the rawest deal of all.

People like catlab always surprise the fuck out of me, if I were to guess I would say he's blue collar, but there he goes justifying the price of American CEOs when European and Japanese CEOs offer the same or better performance for less then a third of the cost.

I respect people who know what they're worth and voice it when they know they're getting a raw deal. I can't even begin to understand the people willing to devalue their worth so that they can show up at teabagger parties and proudly proclaim they aint no socialist.
 
Even if what coltab is saying is true (I still don't think potential lawsuits are enough to justify a $40 million salary...nobody is worth that), and that the CEO's responsibility and pressure are higher than anyone else, his sacrifices should also be higher. Any way you slice it, it's a dirtbag move to take away benefits from the people who actually keep your business running day to day when the reason your company is doing poorly could be because of your own decisions.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel sorry for somebody who makes $40 million a year. That is ridiculous. Do we have to start quoting fucking Spider-man in here? Come on. He's responsible for the company's struggles just as much as he is for its successes. When times get tough, if he's not making sacrifices of his own, then something is wrong with this picture.
 
[quote name='Chuplayer']Then somebody needs to take the stockholders to task. Maybe, oh, I don't know, the people who actually work for the company? Because the stockholders are screwing the people who work for the company out of pay and benefits.

Make it law. If the stockholders are dicking around, don't take it out on the CEO and the people who work there. That way there would be less spent on pointless litigation, less spent on overinflated CEO pay, and more spent on the people employed as well as company savings.[/QUOTE]

That's too logical. Obviously a board of directors has the best interests of the shareholders in mind. It's not like they are bartering exec compensation in return for business thrown their corporation's way, like a juicy supplies contract or legal services deal.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's too logical. Obviously a board of directors has the best interests of the shareholders in mind. It's not like they are bartering exec compensation in return for business thrown their corporation's way, like a juicy supplies contract or legal services deal.[/QUOTE]

That would be a breach of fiduciary duty of the highest order...and I'm not saying law suits are the primary reason for their high pay, its just one of the risks, one I was focusing on just because its my area of work(ya, nice guess but I am not blue collar- you'd probably be surprised to here I've spent time working at workers rights legal clinics and done some consumer advocacy)...the main reason for the pay is that they often return billions of dollars of profits for their shareholders. I am not an advocate for incompetent CEO's or illegally treating employees, but I think that these types of moves discussed in the OP are primarily the result of the weakened consumer and not some conspiracy to screw the little guy or CEO pay(and contrary to what someone said, many CEO's have had substantial decreases in pay over the last couple of years). The true unemployment is nearing 15-20 percent, times are brutal-that has a drastic impact on the retail sector, you can give me all the charts about GDP you want, that doesnt change the grim reality of US unemployment. Heck, my wife is unlucky enough to live in the only state in the Union that is furloughing teachers, every one is impacted in some way or another...I've gotten way too political for a video game site, so I'll probably stop now and play my ipod touch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
every retail company finds a loophole or reason/excuse to do this. If you get hurt, they give you a certain amount of time to return to work and you have to be on full duty release. While if you were hurt on the job and are out due to a work related injury and cannot return if you have limitations, then you are basically out of a job. If these types of things become more common there will be lawsuits. As for the specific topic, I agree to see this happening sooner or later. Companies are trying any and all methods to save money. The economy is hurting everyone and we all want to save money but at another's expense. Damn the president needs to do something about jobs and much more in this country but everyone including him is stuck on helping out everyone else except our own people.
 
[quote name='caltab'](ya, nice guess but I am not blue collar- you'd probably be surprised to here I've spent time working at workers rights legal clinics and done some consumer advocacy[/QUOTE]

I am indeed surprised to here that you are a lawyer.
 
So would people rather some kept their jobs, and other got laid off? Or all health benefits cuts and cut down hours according but no one loses their job? Which in theory would still allow a second job so if you NEED those extra hours (which is understandable) you can take something with a few hours a week on top.
 
I can't believe I'm going to argue things are getting better.

[quote name='caltab']The true unemployment is nearing 15-20 percent, times are brutal-that has a drastic impact on the retail sector, you can give me all the charts about GDP you want, that doesnt change the grim reality of US unemployment. Heck, my wife is unlucky enough to live in the only state in the Union that is furloughing teachers, every one is impacted in some way or another...I've gotten way too political for a video game site, so I'll probably stop now and play my ipod touch.[/QUOTE]

Outstanding. I'm glad somebody commented on the GDP chart.

Which is more important for retail sales? Employment or GDP?

Which year had lower retail sales? http://education.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2009-retail-Holiday-Sales

"U.S. retailers performed better during the holiday shopping season this year than in historically dismal 2008, in line with lowered expectations, according to data http://education.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2009-retail-Holiday-Sales#released on Monday."

Here's another article:

http://www.rwbpress.com/2010/02/09/...but-wal-mart-set-to-lay-off-300-more-workers/

"Reports on retail sales for January 2010 were said to have been slightly up, which came as a surprise to some, but in the face of such high unemployment rates and the desperate need for jobs to bring income back into households and breathe more life into the economy, retail giant Wal-Mart reports they will have to lay off 300 workers."

So, stores are making more money AND choosing employ fewer people.

The image of a dish rag being rung out comes to mind.

If retail sales were predicted as tanking, I guess Target could argue it needs to lay people off or reduce their hours.

Does anybody have a chart?

That's OK. I got one.

http://forecasts.org/sales.htm
http://forecasts.org/images/leading-indicator/sales.gif

sales.gif


Anybody got a second opinion? I got that, too.
http://www.paymentssource.com/news/retail-sales-forecast-points-to-recovery-3000512-1.html

"U.S. retail sales should rise 2.5% this year, signaling that store chains have made it through the worst of the recession as improvements in the housing and job markets bolster shoppers' confidence, a trade group forecast this week. The 2010 forecast from the National Retail Federation (NRF) marks an expected improvement from a 2.5% drop in 2009 and a 1.3% increase in 2008. The data covers retail industry sales, excluding automobiles, gas stations, and restaurants."

So, LAST YEAR was the year to lay off people.

I'm changing my opinion from "Target doing the right thing to keep operating by making tough choices" to "Target doing the wrong thing to pad profits by screwing their workers over".
 
Of course retail sales are up from the year before, 2008 was one of the worst years in US history- if they hadn't improved we'd probably be in a true depression. Just because they are better than one of the worst years on record does not mean everything is wonderful. Also, Target for example had better sales than expected, but commented in their quarterly that clearance pricing had a lot to do with it. I know at my Target, which is in a nice area, a huge percentage of the store is overflowing end cap's with clearance pricing. Target stock looks to be down about 30 percent from its highs 3 years ago. I agree things are getting better from the horrible place we were at, but things are far from good and retail performance is improving largely because they have reacted to the economy by doing things like what's mentioned in the OP to cut costs, reducing on hand inventory, and also reducing pricing to increase sales. Hopefully the housing market and unemployment start getting significantly better this year.
 
[quote name='davo1224']Not to sound like a douche but:
* Knowledgeable employees at Target? You're either the one person manning their food court, you're a register monkey at the front/service, or you're one of 9 million stockers.
* Like I somewhat alluded to, there's so many unnecessary employees there already from a company standpoint. Phasing out the Team Lead makes sense.

Regardless, this is a completely shady way of reorganizing a company. You don't axe someone's position/stifle their pay/decrease their hours. You increase responsibility to justify paying someone more than what you would like to.[/QUOTE]

I agree that there are so many unnecessary employees at most Target stores. I came from a small grocery chain in PA that had jobs for each major position needed, and that was it. It did the trick, it kept the current employees wages actually higher than the 'norm'. Then I moved across the country. When I started at Super Target, I was surprised to see that there were 6+ people working for what could be considered a 2 man job at any other store.
 
Well, don't know how true this is, but a couple things

1) At my Target, I never thought the employees were overally knowledgeable anyway. At Circuit City, people go in to get help with huge purchases. I think when you go to Target, you know what you want, and you want the price (along with the nice layouts at Target, which is why you spend a little more than at Walmart).

2) People who say that they don't understand how anyone thinks it's a good idea to save a few bucks using less knowledgeable employees, I can tell you exactly how it happens. When your in the Corporate Office, you see reports. I can guarantee you, a move like this, on paper, has a huge impact on the bottom line (the kind that make bonuses). Yet, the downsides to this, are extremely hard to quanitfy. Ok, your unhappy that your Target employees don't know anything, yet, will you stop shopping there. Many claim they will (and sometimes do), but then, Target has a sale, and many go back (or they complain loudly, but keep going, spending their money). So, demoting (or laying off employees) is one of the easiest things to see on the bottom line, and one of the hardest to quanify the negatives, this is why it happens so often.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
At my weekly store meeting today we were told that the new focus for the company is to earn a penny per share per day. Great Gregg, at least you're completely up front about caring only about the investors and nothing else.[/QUOTE]

Okay, Target is officially fucked. :wall:
 
If only the workers at Target had some way to bargain with corporate. Perhaps some sort of organized group that could use power in numbers as leverage.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']If only the workers at Target had some way to bargain with corporate. Perhaps some sort of organized group that could use power in numbers as leverage.[/QUOTE]

I think this could finally be the year it happens to some stores. This demotion/de-facto layoff has sent some very negative sentiments through the stores and I wouldn't be surprised at all if local unions start picking up on it. On the other hand they might be sitting back and waiting for card check to pass. Either way its one of those pull up a chair and watch moments because I don't think this will be the end of things.
 
A few things if it hasn't been mentioned yet

1) ALL RETAIL STORES ENJOY HIRING PART-TIMERS. That's just the truth. And yes, they enjoy cutting you down to part-time if they can. It just saves a boatload of money! I've seen people who were demoted from full to part and how MAD they get. Insurance is no joke (and vacation hours)

2) Circuit City was in huge financial troubles before they pulled crap like this. Remember, they were so crazy that they thought about buying blockbuster for some strange reason. Like if buying another fledging company was going to soothe their stockholders!

3) So I'm suppose to believe the story of one employee over the corporation???? And he's not even powerful! If ol buddy was a store manager, I'd believe him a lot more. But team leader??? How did he stumble upon such information? He got an insider? If he does...why isn't he working on the inside too????

4) To focus more on #2....Target is competing with Wal-Mart...not a retail store like Best Buy. If this happened, there might be a dip in consumers...but it wouldn't be a "We're closing our stores" change. This isn't K-Mart, which was ran horribly. Target is known for their great business technique of selling low quality items at a higher price thanks to marketing and friendliness. They call everyone their "guest" and try to appeal to the *mainly* middle-class woman who doesn't want to be caught dead in Wal-mart but wants to save a dollar.

They're not going anywhere unless it's via merger. I'm sorry, but health-care plans won't drive Target out. Lowes is doing the same thing right now and their sales locally are still STRONG. In fact, they tell their employees that they can't be full-time and go to school (a white lie) just to encourage them to move down to part-time!


Basically, some stories are made to generate a reaction. This is clearly one of 'em
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I can't believe I'm going to argue things are getting better.



Outstanding. I'm glad somebody commented on the GDP chart.

Which is more important for retail sales? Employment or GDP?

Which year had lower retail sales? http://education.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2009-retail-Holiday-Sales

"U.S. retailers performed better during the holiday shopping season this year than in historically dismal 2008, in line with lowered expectations, according to data http://education.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2009-retail-Holiday-Sales#released on Monday."

Here's another article:

http://www.rwbpress.com/2010/02/09/...but-wal-mart-set-to-lay-off-300-more-workers/

"Reports on retail sales for January 2010 were said to have been slightly up, which came as a surprise to some, but in the face of such high unemployment rates and the desperate need for jobs to bring income back into households and breathe more life into the economy, retail giant Wal-Mart reports they will have to lay off 300 workers."

So, stores are making more money AND choosing employ fewer people.

The image of a dish rag being rung out comes to mind.

If retail sales were predicted as tanking, I guess Target could argue it needs to lay people off or reduce their hours.

Does anybody have a chart?

That's OK. I got one.

http://forecasts.org/sales.htm
http://forecasts.org/images/leading-indicator/sales.gif

sales.gif


Anybody got a second opinion? I got that, too.
http://www.paymentssource.com/news/retail-sales-forecast-points-to-recovery-3000512-1.html

"U.S. retail sales should rise 2.5% this year, signaling that store chains have made it through the worst of the recession as improvements in the housing and job markets bolster shoppers' confidence, a trade group forecast this week. The 2010 forecast from the National Retail Federation (NRF) marks an expected improvement from a 2.5% drop in 2009 and a 1.3% increase in 2008. The data covers retail industry sales, excluding automobiles, gas stations, and restaurants."

So, LAST YEAR was the year to lay off people.

I'm changing my opinion from "Target doing the right thing to keep operating by making tough choices" to "Target doing the wrong thing to pad profits by screwing their workers over".[/QUOTE]
Hate to quick quote your whole post...but to focus in on the last line...isn't that the whole point of a corporation???

I was always taught in college that the #1 priority of a corporation is to please the shareholders. If the shareholders want more, then the corporation must do more.

It's just like wal-mart. They seem to do some bullshitty move each year but it doesn't matter. People know the employees there get screwed over but they still shop there because they're getting their value and the puppet masters at Wal-mart are getting their "value"

I honestly don't think many companies are really ran with the intent on pleasing the workers. Too hard. I think a store called Publix is...but then again, I've never seen one in my life so they can't be doing TOO well...
 
[quote name='strongpimphand']Hate to quick quote your whole post...but to focus in on the last line...isn't that the whole point of a corporation???

I was always taught in college that the #1 priority of a corporation is to please the shareholders. If the shareholders want more, then the corporation must do more.

It's just like wal-mart. They seem to do some bullshitty move each year but it doesn't matter. People know the employees there get screwed over but they still shop there because they're getting their value and the puppet masters at Wal-mart are getting their "value"

I honestly don't think many companies are really ran with the intent on pleasing the workers. Too hard. I think a store called Publix is...but then again, I've never seen one in my life so they can't be doing TOO well...[/QUOTE]

From your post I'm assuming you're still in college, mind me asking what college you're going to and what your major is (out of curiousity)
 
management information systems....and i'm basically done. just taking a semester to finally enjoy the "college life"
 
[quote name='strongpimphand']Hate to quick quote your whole post...but to focus in on the last line...isn't that the whole point of a corporation???

I was always taught in college that the #1 priority of a corporation is to please the shareholders. If the shareholders want more, then the corporation must do more.

It's just like wal-mart. They seem to do some bullshitty move each year but it doesn't matter. People know the employees there get screwed over but they still shop there because they're getting their value and the puppet masters at Wal-mart are getting their "value"

I honestly don't think many companies are really ran with the intent on pleasing the workers. Too hard. I think a store called Publix is...but then again, I've never seen one in my life so they can't be doing TOO well...[/QUOTE]

You're almost implying that pleasing shareholders and employees are mutually exclusive concepts. I would argue they can be at times but there are plenty of companies that make it work. One reason being, happy workers are productive workers. Target's not doing that stuff to keep their team members happy anymore. I think their justification is simply that with crummy economy no one can find other jobs anyway so they don't have to work toward retaining people.

Now as far as companies that have high worker satisfaction, compensation AND are doing well making money for their shareholders. What about places like Costco and Google? They are both places that are well known for their high regard for employees and decent compensation. Coincidentally they are both seeing record profits on a regular basis. If someone is miserable in their job, they just won't work hard. If they don't feel as if they are working toward something, what's the incentive to work hard?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You're almost implying that pleasing shareholders and employees are mutually exclusive concepts. I would argue they can be at times but there are plenty of companies that make it work. One reason being, happy workers are productive workers. Target's not doing that stuff to keep their team members happy anymore. I think their justification is simply that with crummy economy no one can find other jobs anyway so they don't have to work toward retaining people.

Now as far as companies that have high worker satisfaction, compensation AND are doing well making money for their shareholders. What about places like Costco and Google? They are both places that are well known for their high regard for employees and decent compensation. Coincidentally they are both seeing record profits on a regular basis. If someone is miserable in their job, they just won't work hard. If they don't feel as if they are working toward something, what's the incentive to work hard?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's just taking advantage of the job market to pay the workers less. It would be nice if a company would pay worker's what they're worth, rather then what they can get away with.
 
[quote name='strongpimphand']Hate to quick quote your whole post...but to focus in on the last line...isn't that the whole point of a corporation???

I was always taught in college that the #1 priority of a corporation is to please the shareholders. If the shareholders want more, then the corporation must do more.

It's just like wal-mart. They seem to do some bullshitty move each year but it doesn't matter. People know the employees there get screwed over but they still shop there because they're getting their value and the puppet masters at Wal-mart are getting their "value"

I honestly don't think many companies are really ran with the intent on pleasing the workers.[/QUOTE]

A company's primary goal like any other organism is to survive. By inherently pissing off the people who interact with the customers and showing itself as no different than any other chain store such as Wal-Mart, they're jeopardizing their survival.

If the economy was forecast to take a header this year, reducing hours and positions would be required for survival. However, the forecast is positive.
 
I don't have the time to post quotes ect so bear with me.

People saying that laying off people and reducing benefits are totally BS moves are wrong. Laying off people allow the company to keep prices low and continue to run sales. Since this is what ultimately brings people into the stores. With the vast changes to the economy the prices go up on the wholesale end. Companies can not compete with the larger chains when their sales are not even comparable.

Someone who spends $300 in a store are the ones who keep the store open so in a sense they run the store. The average person may spend 200-300 bucks in a store a month. Now multiply that by 1000 people a month. This is being very conservative on the numbers. Without the customer the business can not run.

"Health care reform" would only run more companies out of business or force them to lay off more employees. Since it would have to be justified by a raise in taxes which the company needs to off set. The only logical way to justify it is by lowering wages and reducing the staff. Companies are around to make money. Not lose money. If they jack up prices on the consumer it would equal a loss in sales. Which in turn would mean more jobs lost.

Sales may have been up 2-5% over 2008, but when sales were down 10-15% in 2008 the increase in sales is still an overall loss. Target most likely waited to see how this years sales figures were before they made the decision to cut costs to stay alive. The 2-5% increase in sales were not enough to justify running at its currant pace.

Publix is the largest grocery store chain in the South East. It along with Hy-Vee (Mid-west) are the exceptions. They are employee owned stores. Everyone who has worked there for 1 year is a share holder with the option to buy more shares.

The Circuit City comparison is idiotic. That store was in trouble for a long time. They tried to save the ship while it was already under water.

I would like to say more but I am running out of time.
 
[quote name='synweb']"Health care reform" would only run more companies out of business or force them to lay off more employees. Since it would have to be justified by a raise in taxes which the company needs to off set. The only logical way to justify it is by lowering wages and reducing the staff. Companies are around to make money. Not lose money. If they jack up prices on the consumer it would equal a loss in sales. Which in turn would mean more jobs lost.[/QUOTE]

How much health care reform has been passed?
 
[quote name='synweb']"Health care reform" would only run more companies out of business or force them to lay off more employees. Since it would have to be justified by a raise in taxes which the company needs to off set. The only logical way to justify it is by lowering wages and reducing the staff. Companies are around to make money. Not lose money. If they jack up prices on the consumer it would equal a loss in sales. Which in turn would mean more jobs lost.[/QUOTE]

Cop out. Everyone just loves passing the buck along and blaming the problem on the party next to them. I'm not even talking about a public option. But you act like there is no mark up at all on health care and that somebody is not profiting tremendously from it. Look at the state of things. We're at a point where people who have steady jobs can't even afford to go to the doctor. When is enough enough?

If insurance companies were actually regulated and weren't allowed to charge insane premiums, it wouldn't cost businesses as much to offer health care benefits, and it wouldn't "run them out of business". That is why SOME kind of reform is absolutely necessary...regardless of your feelings about a government controlled public option. Long time businesses are going belly up, the unemployment rate is soaring, but yet it's ok for insurance companies to just keep raking in profits? At what point is it ok for the government to intervene to prevent the entire country from falling apart?
 
[quote name='strongpimphand']

I was always taught in college that the #1 priority of a corporation is to please the shareholders. If the shareholders want more, then the corporation must do more. [/quote]

And when the shareholders are the people you are laying off? Catch 22, no?
 
[quote name='synweb']"Health care reform" would only run more companies out of business or force them to lay off more employees. Since it would have to be justified by a raise in taxes which the company needs to off set. The only logical way to justify it is by lowering wages and reducing the staff. Companies are around to make money. Not lose money. If they jack up prices on the consumer it would equal a loss in sales. Which in turn would mean more jobs lost.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, too bad there aren't any European or Asian countries with a base level of healthcare for all employees and plenty of successful companies.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, too bad there aren't any European or Asian countries with a base level of healthcare for all employees and plenty of successful companies.[/QUOTE]

Seriously. I know I'm personally embarrassed that the United States isn't smart enough to be able to create a workable system that so many other countries we think we're "better than" have no problem doing.
 
[quote name='synweb']

The Circuit City comparison is idiotic. That store was in trouble for a long time. They tried to save the ship while it was already under water.[/QUOTE]

Not as idiotic as one would think actually. Everyone seems to be saying that Circuit City was on its way out for many years before when in reality they were doing alright in 2nd place until the last 2 years. I mean its all subjective really but their first store closures didn't start till 2007. Later that same year is when they did their famous layoffs of higher paid workers (that's actually what the original Circuit City comparisons in this thread were in reference to).

Prior to 2007 they did have some good things going for them. The exclusive deal they signed with Verizon in 2004 was pretty for Circuit City. In 2000 they were the number 2 retailer in the US for large appliances. A market they just walked away from the next year.

I'm not saying Target will close in 2 years but what I am saying is that things can spiral out of control quicker than one would think. Hell, look at Gamecrazy. A couple years ago they were doing just fine and now they're all but gone. The retail market is a fickle one and has shown through the years from Montgomery Wards to Circuit City to Woolworths that no matter how big you are at one point, that doesn't in and of itself guarantee you a future.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']Cop out. Everyone just loves passing the buck along and blaming the problem on the party next to them. I'm not even talking about a public option. But you act like there is no mark up at all on health care and that somebody is not profiting tremendously from it. Look at the state of things. We're at a point where people who have steady jobs can't even afford to go to the doctor. When is enough enough?

If insurance companies were actually regulated and weren't allowed to charge insane premiums, it wouldn't cost businesses as much to offer health care benefits, and it wouldn't "run them out of business". That is why SOME kind of reform is absolutely necessary...regardless of your feelings about a government controlled public option. Long time businesses are going belly up, the unemployment rate is soaring, but yet it's ok for insurance companies to just keep raking in profits? At what point is it ok for the government to intervene to prevent the entire country from falling apart?[/QUOTE]

Private insurers are not making record profits http://www.qando.net/?p=5439. This is the typical governmental misdirect. Private insurers are the only thing holding together the system together.

What your seeing is not profit gauging but cost shifting. Medicare, medicaid, and uninsured patients all lose money for a hospital. They don't pay cost and opten they pay a fraction of the cost to service these patients. So private insurers (the only patients a hospital makes money on) pay the extra costs associated with the governmental payor types and the uninsured. As our population ages, the number of individuals on medicare grows. As our economy worsens, the number of individuals on medicaid or uninsured grows. That's why you see a sharp increase in private insurance premiums every year, because when you go see the doctor, you cover the loss on two patients plus the profit they need to make as a business.

I'm not saying regulation doesn't need to occur, but the government plan is largely going to make problems worse. They want to 1. expand medicaid, 2. decrease medicare payments, 3. regulate insurance. None of these are true cost decreases for a hospital, but just less governmental money flowing into the health system. Which means that private insurers are going to have topick up more slack. True health care changes should focus on real cost reductions. This means looking at limits on doctor pay/ownership of hospitals. This means looking at medical device manufacturer profits and drug manufacturer profits. I know R&D costs money but how can a screw with $.15 of material cost $2,000? Same thing for drugs, how long can they slap us with recovering R&D fees while the pills themselves cost pennies to make.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Prior to 2007 they did have some good things going for them. The exclusive deal they signed with Verizon in 2004 was pretty for Circuit City. In 2000 they were the number 2 retailer in the US for large appliances. A market they just walked away from the next year.[/QUOTE]

Let's not forget that CC's stock went from $60-ish to $20-ish the day they dropped large appliances. Yeah CC didn't make much money on large appliances but on the other hand that was one thing that helped keep CC's name in the public. Not to mention all the lost sales during the huge housing market boom of the mid 2000's as well.

There's a few other things people tend to forget that lead to CC's downfall:

- DIVX anyone? A huge amount of money was spent on the format just for it to fail. Especially a format created in the early days of DVD when the vast majority of the home media market was still buying VHS and didn't know/care about DVD at that point.

- A company notorious for advertising product yet getting only a few in or even none at all. Yeah having cheap DVDs on sale is nice and all but when a store gets maybe four copies for the entire week to sell that's pretty crappy. Or a total of FIVE copies of Metallica's Death Magnetic which you know was one of the most anticipated albums in 2008. Or the whole COD4 fiasco. That stuff alone drove people away from even stopping at CC and simply taking the CC ad to Best Buy, Walmart, etc.

- Paying money on real estate that they were not using which includes a number of locations that were closed. Not to mention in January 2007 announcing the plans of opening 200-300 locations in the next few years. In years past in comparison CC opened 10-12 stores per year. Some locations did open just a few weeks BEFORE the announcement of the end of the company while the company was paying for a ton of leased spots that were never used. This right here alone had CC not wasted all that money on all these (useless) leases might of helped CC stay in business.

- Paying high level executives bonuses to not leave the company. That's money that easily could have gone to many other things including keeping the employees that were laid off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top