Wal-Mart Returning To Full-Time Workers(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Wal-Mart Returning To Full-Time Workers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/25/wal-mart-returning-to-full-time-workers-obamacare-not-such-a-job-killer-after-all/1/
8 comments
It's Forbes, they have thousands of "contributors" and their site is nothing but a shell of blogspam now.
Make no mistake, there is no editing going on.
Make no mistake, there is no editing going on.
This isn't completely true. Rick Ungar is an actual published writer with a nontrivial history (most of it outside of politics--he was head of Marvel Productions for a while). He appears on Fox News--such as that is--programs as the token liberal.
Steve Forbes still weighs in on the Op/Ed link and I doubt very much he would agree with your characterization.
I tend to be skeptical of columnists who make claims like that because of Camille Paglia ruining it for everybody with her concern-trolling.
My favorite bit in the whole article:
"[Walmart] now hires people to work with its employees to help them sign up for Medicaid ..."
So Walmart cares about the health of it's employees, just not enough to provide them with a reasonable health care option.
"[Walmart] now hires people to work with its employees to help them sign up for Medicaid ..."
So Walmart cares about the health of it's employees, just not enough to provide them with a reasonable health care option.
> So Walmart cares about the health of it's employees, just not enough to provide them with a reasonable health care option.
Walmart is not a person. It does not care one way or another. Not because it's evil, but because it's not a person. It can't care. About anything.
This entire "don't be evil" crap has really got to stop.
Corporations respond to incentives, not moral arguments.
If we, as a society, have decided that we want employers to completely provide for the health of their employees, that's fine. We should make laws requiring them to do so, with penalties in tow for non-compliance.
But please stop the entire "they just don't care!" crap. They're not supposed to. They're corporations, not people.
And yes, I know people run those corporations. Those people have fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders, not to your moral compass. This is something resolved on a societal level, not on the corporate level.
Walmart is not a person. It does not care one way or another. Not because it's evil, but because it's not a person. It can't care. About anything.
This entire "don't be evil" crap has really got to stop.
Corporations respond to incentives, not moral arguments.
If we, as a society, have decided that we want employers to completely provide for the health of their employees, that's fine. We should make laws requiring them to do so, with penalties in tow for non-compliance.
But please stop the entire "they just don't care!" crap. They're not supposed to. They're corporations, not people.
And yes, I know people run those corporations. Those people have fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders, not to your moral compass. This is something resolved on a societal level, not on the corporate level.
As someone famous once said, "Corporations are people, my friend."
But seriously, please stop with the "fiduciary responsibility to stockholders" crap, as if that's the only responsibility people have to each other.
Too many companies extract profit for themselves by imposing negative externalities on their employees, on taxpayers, and on the environment. We can't legislate all of this away, so there's a healthy role for shame, for protest, and for boycott.
By the way, it's possible to care for your employees AND make a profit. Costco treats their employees well and still makes a killing for their stockholders.
But seriously, please stop with the "fiduciary responsibility to stockholders" crap, as if that's the only responsibility people have to each other.
Too many companies extract profit for themselves by imposing negative externalities on their employees, on taxpayers, and on the environment. We can't legislate all of this away, so there's a healthy role for shame, for protest, and for boycott.
By the way, it's possible to care for your employees AND make a profit. Costco treats their employees well and still makes a killing for their stockholders.
We can't legislate all of this away
Why not?
Why not?
Despite the original author's claim, Costco and Walmart aren't really competitors. They have much different product mixes and customer demographics, i.e. they serve different markets.
Great article on the subject, which turned into the first in a series: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-ne... ("Why Wal-Mart Will Never Pay Like Costco", By Megan McArdle, Bloomberg, Aug 27, 2013 12:29 PM MT)
Key paragraph:
> In other words, Trader Joe’s and Costco are the specialty grocer and warehouse club for an affluent, educated college demographic. They woo this crowd with a stripped-down array of high quality stock-keeping units, and high-quality customer service. The high wages produce the high levels of customer service, and the small number of products are what allow them to pay the high wages. Fewer products to handle (and restock) lowers the labor intensity of your operation. In the case of Trader Joe’s, it also dramatically decreases the amount of space you need for your supermarket ... which in turn is why their revenue per square foot is so high. (Costco solves this problem by leaving the stuff on pallets, so that you can be your own stockboy).
And Walmart is the exact opposite of those things: It thrives on selling poor people everything they need and can afford, and they need lots of cheap labor to do everything a Walmart store needs to do on a daily basis.
Key paragraph:
> In other words, Trader Joe’s and Costco are the specialty grocer and warehouse club for an affluent, educated college demographic. They woo this crowd with a stripped-down array of high quality stock-keeping units, and high-quality customer service. The high wages produce the high levels of customer service, and the small number of products are what allow them to pay the high wages. Fewer products to handle (and restock) lowers the labor intensity of your operation. In the case of Trader Joe’s, it also dramatically decreases the amount of space you need for your supermarket ... which in turn is why their revenue per square foot is so high. (Costco solves this problem by leaving the stuff on pallets, so that you can be your own stockboy).
And Walmart is the exact opposite of those things: It thrives on selling poor people everything they need and can afford, and they need lots of cheap labor to do everything a Walmart store needs to do on a daily basis.
> Those people have fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders, not to your moral compass. This is something resolved on a societal level, not on the corporate level.
This is the kind of ethical cop-out non-philosophy that's tearing then American environment apart.
A corporation can be a good global citizen, or a rapacious parasite. They are not obliged to rape the fuck out of everything in sight to turn a short-term profit for shareholders. Let alone lobby/bribe the government to open new loopholes so they can pillage harder and faster. Doing so is bad for the long-term prosperity of their country, and the shareholders.
No really - don't be evil.
This is the kind of ethical cop-out non-philosophy that's tearing then American environment apart.
A corporation can be a good global citizen, or a rapacious parasite. They are not obliged to rape the fuck out of everything in sight to turn a short-term profit for shareholders. Let alone lobby/bribe the government to open new loopholes so they can pillage harder and faster. Doing so is bad for the long-term prosperity of their country, and the shareholders.
No really - don't be evil.
You have the power not to shop there. There is no one forcing anyone to work or shop at Wal Mart. I personally can't stand going into a Wal Mart. However this c or portions are evil crap is cliché and reveals a lack of understanding of what a corporations is and who profits.. The 'shareholders' are not some rich white old guy.. The shareholders are people from all walks of life.... Teacher retirement plans for example invest in Wal Mart, pension funds, old ladies investing their personal retirement accounts.
And all of those shareholders have a right to attend and vote at the shareholders meetings.
How about Wal Mart just close their stores and fire everyone? Or hire half as many and pay twice as much. That would be great for the half that gets hired while the other half can beg on the street. Corporations don't owe society anything.. They are a business. If society agrees with the corporation they can reward it by buying products from them. If they don't agree, they can punish it by not buying.. It really is that simple.
And all of those shareholders have a right to attend and vote at the shareholders meetings.
How about Wal Mart just close their stores and fire everyone? Or hire half as many and pay twice as much. That would be great for the half that gets hired while the other half can beg on the street. Corporations don't owe society anything.. They are a business. If society agrees with the corporation they can reward it by buying products from them. If they don't agree, they can punish it by not buying.. It really is that simple.
>> Those people have fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders, not to your moral compass. This is something resolved on a societal level, not on the corporate level.
> This is the kind of ethical cop-out non-philosophy that's tearing then American environment apart.
It's possible to describe something without agreeing with it.
Responding to that statement the way you did is pointless. It's like getting angry at the doctor who tells you the cancer you have is almost certain to kill you.
What you quoted is simple observable fact, verified in many ways through history, and becoming angry at someone for stating it means you are angry and it is still a simple observable fact, verified in many ways through history.
> This is the kind of ethical cop-out non-philosophy that's tearing then American environment apart.
It's possible to describe something without agreeing with it.
Responding to that statement the way you did is pointless. It's like getting angry at the doctor who tells you the cancer you have is almost certain to kill you.
What you quoted is simple observable fact, verified in many ways through history, and becoming angry at someone for stating it means you are angry and it is still a simple observable fact, verified in many ways through history.
> It's possible to describe something without agreeing with it.
GP was not simply describing - they were excusing. "Oh well, some corporations are evil, don't complain, it's not their job to be good corporate citizens."
Actually by calling out and disagreeing with this behavior we can change it. The most effective way is through strong regulations, but the current US government system is broken and flawed. But at the very least we can use websites such as change.org and sumofus.org to put pressure on bad corporate actors. Hell, we quite often see the same thing happen on HN in miniature when someone makes a post calling out a company - and that company is forced to respond to the resulting negative publicity.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing", and all that.
GP was not simply describing - they were excusing. "Oh well, some corporations are evil, don't complain, it's not their job to be good corporate citizens."
Actually by calling out and disagreeing with this behavior we can change it. The most effective way is through strong regulations, but the current US government system is broken and flawed. But at the very least we can use websites such as change.org and sumofus.org to put pressure on bad corporate actors. Hell, we quite often see the same thing happen on HN in miniature when someone makes a post calling out a company - and that company is forced to respond to the resulting negative publicity.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing", and all that.
Regulations? How about just not shopping there? Why must the government be heavily involved in everything?
Too bad we can't bring the Soviet Union back. They didn't have to deal with those pesky voters who obviously broken the American system so badly.
North Korea does a fantastic job of regulating business.. Freedom lies in the flaws of the system. That's the point. That was the entire reason the Constitution was written the way it way, to protect us from the tyrant of the majority. The system's flaws are a feature not a bug. Imagine what happens with a highly efficient government and suddenly people are leading that government that don't like you very much.. I'm sure history might paint a clear picture of the hell that situation can bring.
The less the government agrees with each other, the less opportunity for them to cause harm to the citizens.
Too bad we can't bring the Soviet Union back. They didn't have to deal with those pesky voters who obviously broken the American system so badly.
North Korea does a fantastic job of regulating business.. Freedom lies in the flaws of the system. That's the point. That was the entire reason the Constitution was written the way it way, to protect us from the tyrant of the majority. The system's flaws are a feature not a bug. Imagine what happens with a highly efficient government and suddenly people are leading that government that don't like you very much.. I'm sure history might paint a clear picture of the hell that situation can bring.
The less the government agrees with each other, the less opportunity for them to cause harm to the citizens.
> Regulations? How about just not shopping there?
Because we've tried that, and it doesn't work. Look at the Gilded Age.
Because we've tried that, and it doesn't work. Look at the Gilded Age.
> GP was not simply describing - they were excusing.
That's not what I read.
> Actually by calling out and disagreeing with this behavior we can change it.
I agree. Disagree with the behavior, not the people describing it.
> The most effective way is through strong regulations
I also agree with this.
That's not what I read.
> Actually by calling out and disagreeing with this behavior we can change it.
I agree. Disagree with the behavior, not the people describing it.
> The most effective way is through strong regulations
I also agree with this.
> Responding to that statement the way you did is pointless. It's like getting angry at the doctor who tells you the cancer you have is almost certain to kill you.
Disagree. It's like getting angry at the doctor who tells you your two pack a day smoking habit is incredibly bad for you, and may well result in cancer or emphysema.
Disagree. It's like getting angry at the doctor who tells you your two pack a day smoking habit is incredibly bad for you, and may well result in cancer or emphysema.
Then shouldn't Costco cut all of its employees salaries by half? They are a publicly traded company as well you know...
If you want Walmart to run like Costco, Walmart has to fire over a million people to drastically bring down their head count to match the substantially fewer people that Costco employs compared to Walmart on a sales basis.
Costco sales: $99b | Costco employees: 175,000
Walmart sales: $469b | Walmart employees: 2+ million
As someone else noted, they're very different businesses. The comparison is Samsclub vs Costco.
If you want to know the job killer in retail, look no further than Amazon.com. While all the pundits are busy chewing on Walmart, at least Walmart employs a ton of people (I'm not arguing that's good or bad, it's just amusing that the pundits are universally missing the elephant running down the road).
Here's Amazon's ratios:
FY12: $61b sales | Employees: 88,000
Amazon would have perhaps 500,000 to 750,000 employees at Walmart's size. That's assuming Amazon would ever hire all those people to begin with (the KIVA purchase says they would rather not). Amazon can avoid all the labor problems, by simply not hiring so many people in the first place. Whereas to compete with Amazon, Walmart might have to fire a lot of people and shift to heavy automation. That isn't going to go well for Walmart = massive strikes, national headlines, endless political pressure.
Costco sales: $99b | Costco employees: 175,000
Walmart sales: $469b | Walmart employees: 2+ million
As someone else noted, they're very different businesses. The comparison is Samsclub vs Costco.
If you want to know the job killer in retail, look no further than Amazon.com. While all the pundits are busy chewing on Walmart, at least Walmart employs a ton of people (I'm not arguing that's good or bad, it's just amusing that the pundits are universally missing the elephant running down the road).
Here's Amazon's ratios:
FY12: $61b sales | Employees: 88,000
Amazon would have perhaps 500,000 to 750,000 employees at Walmart's size. That's assuming Amazon would ever hire all those people to begin with (the KIVA purchase says they would rather not). Amazon can avoid all the labor problems, by simply not hiring so many people in the first place. Whereas to compete with Amazon, Walmart might have to fire a lot of people and shift to heavy automation. That isn't going to go well for Walmart = massive strikes, national headlines, endless political pressure.
I think the whole point is that "should" and "shouldn't" simply aren't very useful concepts when dealing with corporations, like talking about what a slime mold should or shouldn't do. Getting morally outraged at WalMart is like getting really indignant about what plantar fasciitis is up to. Individuals will respond to moral accusations, but corporations are really only effectively controlled via legislation.
> Getting morally outraged at WalMart is like getting really indignant about what plantar fasciitis is up to.
Except plantar fasciitis doesn't have a CEO, board or steering committee. Or a public reputation.
> but corporations are really only effectively controlled via legislation.
That's true, but it doesn't mean we can't publicly shame corporations when they act in bad faith. Incorporation is not some magical get-out-of-ethics-jail-free card.
Except plantar fasciitis doesn't have a CEO, board or steering committee. Or a public reputation.
> but corporations are really only effectively controlled via legislation.
That's true, but it doesn't mean we can't publicly shame corporations when they act in bad faith. Incorporation is not some magical get-out-of-ethics-jail-free card.
This Walmart vs Costco nonsense has got to stop. They serve completely different segments of the market. I won't bother rehashing here what others have argued much better (and with data to back it up). Just go read this and stop making the comparison already:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-ne...
(This article was also posted on HN a couple weeks back)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-ne...
(This article was also posted on HN a couple weeks back)
Costco is the way it is, not because it's a saint, but because of the market it occupies.
It is, for all intents and purposes, a wholesaler. They sell things in bulk. That's their thing. And they don't hold your hand while doing it.
There are no friendly people walking the isles willing to direct you, just cashiers. You pay for access. They only take AmEx, etc.
Mind you, I love the place, but it is the way it is because of what it is, not because it cares.
It is, for all intents and purposes, a wholesaler. They sell things in bulk. That's their thing. And they don't hold your hand while doing it.
There are no friendly people walking the isles willing to direct you, just cashiers. You pay for access. They only take AmEx, etc.
Mind you, I love the place, but it is the way it is because of what it is, not because it cares.
I don't shop at Wal-Mart because of their Union busting but last time I went to Costco there were a handful of "floor" employees wandering around to be found if you needed help. Costco pays its employees well because their CEO thinks happy employees lead to better workers[1]. In fact the last big box store I shopped at which was Home Depot had less people around to help than Costco. I realize that's anecdotal but you can't write down high employee salaries as "Being just a wholesaler".
[1]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-c...
[1]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-c...
[deleted]
Whatever helps them pay less themselves.
So, if Walmart employees are on Socialized Medicine, does that make them Makers or Takers?
Irrelevant. What does it make the CEO and board is the interesting question.
NOTE! The submitter linked to the second page of a two page story. For those who want to start at page 1, try this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/25/wal-mart-re...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/25/wal-mart-re...
Oh my gosh, I could have sworn I was on the first page.
Sorry about that.
Sorry about that.
Oh, you mean when I can't buy things because they aren't on the shelves because there's nobody available to move them from the loading dock to the shelf, and I don't want to shop there anyway because the entire store is in disarray because there aren't enough employees to clean up the products that sales might drop?
On the other side of the coin, there also aren't enough employees to stop shoplifters and it's policy that they can't really challenge them anyway.
The author claims that shelves weren't being stocked because the employee mix had been shifted towards part-time workers.
OK, accurate or not, it says nothing at all about the total number of available 'worker-hours' just that the full/part-time mix had changed. It simply doesn't follow logically that there would be a shortage of labor just because the mix changed.
OK, accurate or not, it says nothing at all about the total number of available 'worker-hours' just that the full/part-time mix had changed. It simply doesn't follow logically that there would be a shortage of labor just because the mix changed.
Is it possible that full-time workers would be more experienced and/or better motivated, resulting in increased productivity per worker?
They treat employees like crap and pay them as little as possible. Thus they get exactly what they pay for; sullen workers who do the bare minimum not to get fired.
Sure that is possible but that is a different argument. The author should have made that point explicitly if that was indeed the situation (and provided evidence).
>Wal-Mart’s competitor, Costco, a company that experienced a 19 percent increase in profits in Q2 2013 while paying its employees 40 percent more on average (the average Costco wage is $21.96 per hour) than what a Wal-Mart worker can earn. In that same quarter, Wal-Mart numbers revealed the company is going nowhere fast given its current state of operations.
>the availability of a store clerk to get to the rather critical job of moving the merchandise from the box to the shelf where a customer can actually purchase it. But when there are insufficient numbers of store clerks available—due to Wal-Mart’s commitment to using temporary workers or busting its full-time employees down to part-time so as to avoid worker benefit—the products Wal-Mart sells stay off the shelves and unavailable for customers to purchase.
>the availability of a store clerk to get to the rather critical job of moving the merchandise from the box to the shelf where a customer can actually purchase it. But when there are insufficient numbers of store clerks available—due to Wal-Mart’s commitment to using temporary workers or busting its full-time employees down to part-time so as to avoid worker benefit—the products Wal-Mart sells stay off the shelves and unavailable for customers to purchase.
Some parts of this article may be correct, however this:
"For anyone who has not been following the Wal-Mart saga, sales have been sinking dramatically at the retailer as the company has turned to hiring mostly temporary workers"
... is simply wrong. Sales (from the '13 annual report):
FY09: $401b | FY10: $405b | FY11: $419b | FY12: $444b | FY13: $466b
Sales are sinking dramatically at the retailer? At best that's ignorance, at worst a sensational lie.
"For anyone who has not been following the Wal-Mart saga, sales have been sinking dramatically at the retailer as the company has turned to hiring mostly temporary workers"
... is simply wrong. Sales (from the '13 annual report):
FY09: $401b | FY10: $405b | FY11: $419b | FY12: $444b | FY13: $466b
Sales are sinking dramatically at the retailer? At best that's ignorance, at worst a sensational lie.
Sales are up around the world. He is referring to U.S. stores that are affected by domestic health care law changes.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732354920...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732354920...
"In fact, Wal-Mart’s unwillingness to pay most of their workers a livable wage"
Wal-Mart is paying their workers what the market will bear. In fact, it can be argued they are paying MORE than the market can bear, since they have 25 applicants for every opening.
Wal-Mart is paying their workers what the market will bear. In fact, it can be argued they are paying MORE than the market can bear, since they have 25 applicants for every opening.
I applaud Forbes for having opposing viewpoints and also applaud the author for defending himself vigorously in the comment section from the more conservative readers. A good time was had by all as far as I can tell.