What Truth Seeker said. Mergers are often defensive in nature, designed to prevent both companies from going down the tubes. Every sign indicates that this was a friendly merger, negotiated by both sides. The days of '80s-style hostile bids are largely over, thanks to the rise of poison pills and staggered boards. Nowadays it takes two to tango.
At any rate, it doesn’t change the fact that the citation of a “127% increase in sales” is dishonest and misleading, and shows either mendacity or incompetence on your part. Even if you take the merger as a sign of economic strength, it does not change the fact that the cited sales figure is an inaccurate barometer of Albertson’s health because it does not reflect actual increases in per-store sales volume.
Piffle. Your posts are the economic equivalent of someone ranting about crop circles or UFOs. You demonstrate again and again that you have no grasp of some basic economic principles. Worse, as demonstrated by your responses to Dewey’s informative – and manifestly correct – analysis, you have no interest in learning.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, here or anywhere else. But we are also entitled to point out that it is a completely uniformed opinion and essentially worthless, especially in a complex and occasionally technical discussion. You’re entitled to have an opinion on the proper transation of Assyrian cuneiform, too, but I doubt your contribution would add much to that discussion, either.
Nope. Didn’t look. The bossman showed up and actually expected me to work while I was on the clock. The noive, I tell ya! Management are such meanies!
It’s more than just “vague,” it’s an outright lie and an obvious attempt to mislead the reader. And frankly, that tactic alone makes me less sympathetic to their “plight.”
Yeah, I noticed that and knew you’d point it out, but didn’t have time to come back and post a correction. However, my contention that an increase to $10 is not “dramatic” stands. It’s all about perspective, I guess.
Guess you missed the part where I live in the same state these guys are striking in, huh? Every single one of them could walk into the same state-funded clinic I went to and see a doctor – it’s available to every resident of California – and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my job. Remember, I said I was utilizing the services of the state-funded clinic because I was uninsured. And they have convenient office hours, so that’s a non-issue.
I agree that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. But I disagree that it’s a right, the costs of which should be absorbed 100% by either employers or the government. I think everyone should have to pay something towards their own healthcare. But now we’re into a whole other debate that’s only tangentially related to the issue of whether the grocery store employees are entitled to maintain the exact same level of benefits they were hired under, in spite of industry-wide changes in the availability and affordability of those benefits. You think they are and I think they aren’t. And really, that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it?
I didn’t say they had to, but the reality is, for everyone else living in the real world, they are. What makes the grocery store employees special that they should continue to maintain benefits through their employement that almost noone other than union employees enjoy anymore?
You don’t mind if we try to stick with discussing the facts instead of speculating, do you? You have no actual basis to claim that “management [doesn’t care about] the people it hires, and… cares [only] about the money it can make, [and] simply accept[ed] this new arrangement and expect[s] its employees to accept it as well.” In fact, costs have risen astronomically and many companies are resorting to way more grotesque “plans” to lay more of the burden of costs onto their employees than the ones offered to this union…
So it’s hardly unprecedented, nor should it be unexpected that union employees would have to fall in line with the rest of the U.S. workforce eventually. And they should be thanking their lucky stars that management didn’t propose that “consumer-driven” or “defined contribution” nightmare of a plan!
With which I disagree. If the union is so sure that the level of benefits their members have been enjoying up to now are still available to be had at any cost, I think it’s incumbent upon them to prove that management is maliciously cutting benefits to line their own pockets with profits when it isn’t necessary. If management can’t get those same policies, what would you have them do – make it up out of thin air? That’s just silly.
There may be any number of factors that prevent un- or underinsured working people from utilizing even state-funded services like the clinic. Rather than focusing on the “where I live” statement, I should have said that just because it was available and convenient for you doesn’t automatically mean it’s available and convenient for everyone.
But the higher the copays and out-of-pocket costs go, the less it becomes a right and the more it becomes a privilege.
Here, indeed, is the crux of the matter. You look at the unions and think, “Why don’t they go along with what’s happening to the unorganized working class?” I, on the other hand, think, “How can unions start getting the unorganized into the locals to better enable them to fight to improve their own benefits?”
So the unions should just wipe their brows, and say “Whew, thank God we only lost a finger instead of the whole hand”? Sorry, I don’t agree with that.
Again, I feel the reverse ought to be true - unions need to represent a majority of the US workforce, so that they exert a leading influence, rather than being expected to eventually go along with what’s happening to the working class as a whole. And the only way they can ever hope to do that again is to keep fighting like hell to hold on to what they’ve got now, which IMO they have every right to do. Albertson’s sales figures and other such ephemera are ultimately minor details in the greater picture, which is that organized workers have the right to fight to keep their health care payments as low as possible, and they have the right to resist any changes they feel are either unnecessary or excessive. You may not feel like the unionized workers have successfully made their case in this instance with the site I linked to, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is their labor that brings in the profits for Albertson’s, Safeway, and Von’s. They have every right to take the action they deem necessary to make sure they are adequately recompensed for their labor and to resist any further incursions against it. It makes no sense to me to say “I got screwed over with lousy health benefits; it’s only fair the unions should too”, it makes more sense to me to go to the unions and ask “How can we work together so my benefits are as good as yours?” It all really boils down to which side you’re on.
Actually, rather than focus on any of this, why don’t we get back to the actual topic instead of strawmen, like convenience of clinic hours.
Yep, that’s the crux. I don’t want the unions “fighting” for me, thanks. I want the freedom to bargain independently and succeed or fail on my own merits or foibles. I don’t like the “cattle” mentality inherant in the union system. I don’t think it’s fair that the employees who don’t mind at all paying a small amount towards their premiums and a modest increase in copayments are literally being forced out of work right now.
I didn’t say that at all – stop being ridiculous. I was responding to an absurd accusation that you made without any basis in fact that management doesn’t care about its employees and they’d do anything they could to pass along as much of the cost as they could get away with. I showed you with a factual cite that there’s plenty management could be doing if what you suggested was really their goal.
See above.
Sure, they have the right. I just disagree that those changes are either unnecessary or excessive.
That site is a complete and utter lie. How can a lie make any case at all, let alone a successful one?
No it’s not! Read Truth Seeker’s reply again, because clearly you’re completely misinformed as to who’s actually making the money for these stores, and it ain’t the guy throwing groceries into bags.
There isn’t a single one of them that’s not being paid in excess of minimum wage – many clerks are making as much as $18/hour and the average pay for a clerk is $15.00/hour (cite). They have enjoyed full medical, dental, vision, disability, life insurance, 401k, professional liability coverage and continuing education reimbursement (cite). Even part-timers are entitled to partial health insurance benefits after a year of employment. They are more than “adequately recompensed for their labor.”
I neither said nor implied that. I don’t happen to think I got screwed over at all. Did you even read any of my posts? I’m thinking not, if you could actually draw that conclusion. I have a GREAT job that I LOVE and I get LOTS of benefits other than 100% medical coverage. I think my boss was extremely generous to offer to pick up even half the expense of my healthcare costs!
Again, see above. I have no interest in going to some union to ask them any favors on my behalf, thanks. I’d rather negotiate my own salary and my own benefits. Yeah, I’d say it’s pretty obvious we’re on completely different sides of this one.
Olentzero, in addition to the utterly misleading 127% sales increase figure, you’ve also failed to even take note of the other instances of financial distortion promulgated by your cite that I pointed out in my first post to this thread. To wit:
The miscalcluation of the profit-per-dollar-sales figure, and
The misleading Fortune cite about stock performance, which uses a ten-year time horizon to obscure the fact that each company’s stock has slipped or stagnated in the past three or so years.
One also wonders why they rely on items high on the income statement, rather than getting to the “bottom line” of net income.
It’s reasonably clear that your cite is gaming the numbers to paint a distorted picture of reality, all in the name of advancing their agenda. You’ve had all this stuff pointed out to you, and yet you continue to flog that cite as authoritative – in short, you are consciously choosing ignorance. Shame on you.
Point to consider - that 123% increase came with an 148% increase in number of store locations.
Also, you are looking at and increase over a 5 year time frame. Even ignoring your refusal to accept the pooling method, that is only a 19.5% growth rate per year. Impressive yes (although just as irrelevant as the 123% number), but I just wanted to provide some perspective.
No, I am afraid I don’t think so. Others have done a reasonably dazzling job of showing that the figures you cited are at best misleading, and at worst, outright lies.
I think this says all that needs to be said about the standards to which you hold unions. Theft, lies, and other unspecified violations of the law are all OK with you (providing the unions are the criminal organization).
And all so that some grocery bagger can make someone else pay for fixing her teeth.
And on behalf of unions, who unfailingly claim the moral high ground.
The only thing I’m guilty of here is involving myself in a debate about the methodology of accounting when I’m not an MBA. Then again, the website was put together by union members, who probably aren’t MBAs either. But then again, they have a point to make, which nobody here has denied - health care costs for their members are going up, and they find that unacceptable. True, Shayna, it is more than likely no individual member or his/her family members are going to max out the limits of the plans they choose, but how else would you represent the numbers? More than likely they’re presenting the plan as it was presented to them by management, which would show the maximum allowances for each category and the total cost, leaving the reader to figure out the individual cost of each item. Yes, it’s an abstract scenario but it clearly illustrates the increase in out-of-pocket costs. It is therefore nothing close to a lie.
The whole accounting debate, on the other hand, is really nothing more than a version of the “angels on the head of a pin” canard. “No,” we say to each other, “the figured have to be partitioned this way in order for it to be correct!” Von’s can say “We have no money for health benefits, and here’s the proof”; the union can say “You’re gaming the numbers and here’s why”; and Von’s can come back and say “No, you’re gaming the numbers and here’s why”. It only becomes an important issue because unions are incredibly weak in this country and don’t enjoy the sympathies of a large part of the US workforce. Were it otherwise, the amount of money Von’s makes wouldn’t be an issue - the strike would have a lot of solidarity from other organized workers who agree that their health care payments should stay as low as possible. (I should note that this is not the only issue in this strike. This site has more information.)
Oh, Shayna - there’s a link on the UFCW Local 1165 homepage to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune that notes over 97% of the grocery store employees voted to reject management’s proposal. They only struck one chain; the other two locked their employees out. So who’s forcing whom out of work?
As I said before, it boils down to which side you’re on. If you don’t care that Von’s employees’ health care benefits could become unaffordable to them, cross the picket and shop there. If you agree with them, stay out of the store and do something more to support them. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t have any reliable cites or anything, but a couple of weeks before the strike started, my local Alberstons had a sign up saying they were hiring full-time cashiers. Starting pay was $18.63/hour. So we can reasonable assume that someone with a few years of senority is making well over $20/hour.
Shodan, the exercise of responding to the actual arguments in this thread is strenuous enough without having to force myself not to respond to the ad hominem attacks you and Truth Seeker indulge in. You wanna insinuate I’m a supporter of organized crime, take it to the Pit where I have a better chance of avoiding it.
No, you’re guilty of credulously promoting misleading financial figures and then trying to pass off your own ignorance as good and noble.
I am not an MBA. Admittedly, I do have a bit more experience in this area than the average Joe – my undergraduate degree was in accounting, and most of my legal experience is in the mergers and acquisitions area; I’m also married to a CPA. But I am not a “numbers guy.” I am not paid to do financial analysis. I understand the field well enough to work with the numbers guys, but uber-sophisticated number crunching is beyond my ken. The analysis I’m presenting is not terribly involved or complicated – it is, in a very real sense, extremely basic stuff.
The issues I’ve raised are not terribly complex or difficult to grasp. Anyone capable of balancing their checkbook and running their own household finances should be able to understand what I’m talking about. **
Surely somewhere the union has an accountant stashed away. When he’s not busy handing pension money over to the Mafia,[sup]1[/sup] I don’t think it would be too much to ask that he vet the numbers the union wants to use in its propaganda. The problems I’ve noted with the union’s figures are not subtle – they are glaringly obvious, and you don’t need to have gone to Wharton to see it.
The alternative, of course, is for the union to recognize that it doesn’t know what the hell it’s talking about and refrain from going off half-cocked. Tossing out figures that have no connection to economic reality is indefensible. Ignorance isn’t an excuse. **
It isn’t the equivelant of angels on a pin, and the fact that you think it so just shows your own willing embrace of ignorance.
Let me be as clear as I can on this: the. figures. the. union. is. using. are. misleading. PERIOD.
This is not a close call. This is not a question of figuring which method of looking at the numbers best corresponds to economic reality. There is no debate here. The union is misleading people. The figures it is using are indefensible. Anyone with half a brain can see that those figures don’t paint an accurate picture, if they’ll only take the time to look. That you refuse to do so speaks quite ill of you.
Yes, actually looking at the numbers can be boring and difficult. But just because you’re too lazy to be bothered with actually thinking the question through does not render the question academic. This is a serious, substantive point. It is not the equivelant of angels on a pin.
That’s a joke, Sparky – don’t get your panties in a wad.
As far as I can tell they got their numbers from the company financial statements. Their sources are the same as yours and mine. So to me it becomes a question of “how you slice it”.
I rather think I’ve done a lot to think through the points, come back to your objections, and point out what I think are the inconsistencies in your approach. As a matter of fact, I look at numbers as my day job so I do know some about financial analysis - mostly learned on the fly.
As regards why the union is striking, financial analysis of the chains being struck is a minor point overall. Trying to illustrate how the company is making money hand over fist is a defensive maneuver and a reflection of the strength of current union influence among the general population. With a greater percentage of workers organized in unions, and general sentiment being of solidarity and support for fellow workers against the corporations and the people that run them, using corporate financial analysis to bolster the argument would become superfluous.
I’d probably find that crack worth a small chuckle if a) I weren’t already irritated by the rash of ad hominem arguments in this thread and b) I weren’t a union treasurer myself (not my day job, btw). One who’s been repeatedly praised by the entire executive committee for the good job I’ve been doing regarding the finances for the past year of my term, I might add.
You were asked if the idea of a union seizing possession of someone else’s property and using for their own benefit bothered you. Your response was, “No, not really”, and was followed immediately by a post addressed to Bricker expressing your opinion that unions should not feel obligated to obey the law.
I don’t have to insinuate anything, your posts are there in black and white.
I did not say they made the numbers up; I said the numbers they were using were misleading. You can’t just randomly grab numbers from financial statements, throw them onto a web page, and expect them to make a coherent point. You have to have some basis for selecting the figures you are using for your argument – the figures you’re using have to actually support the argument you’re making.
And again, this isn’t a question of financial interpretation where reasonable minds might disagree on how the numbers should be interpreted. The propositions the union is setting forth is simply not supported by the numbers they are using. For instance, the 123% sales figure is presented for the proposition that the company has seen a dramatic improvement in its economic position, but a look at the numbers show that isn’t the case – the increase is virtually entirely due to a merger of two entities. The 123% number is misleading. **
I’m still waiting for you to point out an inconsistency in my approach. All you’ve done is avoid the central point about the 123% figure – that it does not represent an accurate measure of financial improvement – and you’ve avoided my other points entirely. **
So which is it? Are you competent to carry on this discussion or aren’t you? Above you whine about how you aren’t an MBA. But an MBA isn’t required for the kind of analysis I’m doing (indeed, I’m not one). You can’t complain about your non-credentials in one breath and then claim specialized knowledge in the next. **
Au contraire. Given that one of the main sticking points is whether or not the company can afford to provided the benefits the union is demanding, an understanding of the company’s financial position is critical. There isn’t a magic money tree to fund the union’s desires – they have to be paid for out of the company’s revenues. **
This makes no sense. Trying to illustrate the company is doing well is simply an effort by the union to gain public support (by saying “see, they’ve got all this dough, and they can afford to give us what we want”); it’s a bid to gain influence, not a sign of existing influence.
As for financial analysis becoming “superfluous” – do you think money grows on trees? How can you tell what worker protections a company can afford if you can’t intelligently evaluate their performance in the marketplace? **
You haven’t been hit by ad hominems in this thread. You’ve made foolish statements and have been called on them. There is a difference. **
In which case you have no excuse for laying claim to this discussion being over your head.
I’d like to hear more about this, because I have read a lot of left-wing books and literature, and I have never, ever encountered this idea before. How do you distinguish “personal” from “private” property?
Making money hand over fist? Are you kidding me? Let’s look at some facts.
Net Income in 2002 for Albertson’s was $485K on sales of $35,626K, down from $501K the year before. Let’s look a little deeper into the financial health of the company.
Return on Assets - this tells us how the company uses it’s assets to generate profit. For 2002 it was 485/15,596 = 3.1% Return on Equity - this tells us how, among other things how well the company can generate cash. For 2002 it was 485/5,556 = 8.7% Quick Ratio - this tells us how well positioned a company is to make payments on its debts. For 2002 it was 1,295/3,448 = .3755. Low Quick Ratios appear to be the norm in the grocery business.
Albertson’s claims that it is having a hard time competing with Walmart, which uses non-union employees, and therefore some costs need to be passed on to their workers. The competing part is certainly true. Let’s look at the same measures for Walmart.
Return on Assets - 6,671/80791 = 8.3% (over 2.5 times greater) Return on Equity - 6,671/33,223 = 20.0% (remember, this generates cash - Walmart is more than twice as effective) Quick Ratio - 28,246/27,282 = 1.04
But wait! Walmart isn’t a fair comparison, you say. They sell more than groceries. O.K. Let’s look at the grocery store chain Kroger.
Return on Assets - 1,205/19,586 = 6.1% (twice as good as Albertsons) Return on Equity - 1,205/3,676 = 32.8% (better than Walmart) Quick Ratio - I lost my numbers…
Well, Kroger is a much larger chain you say. They benefit from being bigger. O.K. Let’s look at Publix - roughly half the revenue of Albertson’s.
Return on Assets - 632/4,599 = 13.7%(!)
Return on Equity - 632/2,886 = 21.9%
Quick Ratio - 464/1,290 = .3597
So even compared to industry peers, Albertson’s falls short. Looking at the returns offered at Albertson’s, an investor could get a better return from a bank account when looking at Return on Assets, and Return on Equity seriously lags behind their competition.
This is not to make you feel sorry for Albertson’s. Clearly, they are an organization that faces some serious issues. Rather, this is to dispell the notion that they are making money “hand over fist” simply because they have $35.6 Billion in sales. They are not making money hand over fist, and had they not sold significant amounts of assets during the year ($578K), they would have had a decrease in their net cash position. They are in no position to simply absorb all increases in health care costs.
I’m not claiming specialized knowledge. The work I do is simple tracking of income and expenses against a budget that’s determined at the beginning of the fiscal year. No quick ratios, no return on assets, no return on equity, no operating profit - the money I manage doesn’t generate profit so the job doesn’t require me to know or understand anything beyond “how much have we spent so far?” I’ve learned a little bit about how to read the numbers to get the answers someone else is looking for, so I feel generally able to determine how, say, a union got its numbers for a webpage it put together. Beyond that it’s all the Great Big Dark Woods to me.
It’s a tactic to gain support for the strike, and nothing more. The strike itself is the strategy to gain more influence among the workforce. A successful strike to keep health care costs down will have an effect on at least some unorganized workers, who will start to think “Hey, if they can do that for themselves as part of a union, I’d like in on that myself.”
A superfluous strike tactic for the union. Pay attention, goddammit (as you yourself have said).
Allow me to illustrate with two examples of my statements (foolish only in that they were fired off the cuff without much further explanation, since I felt the main thrust of the debate was elsewhere) and the responses by other Dopers.
BrainGlutton may think my ideas on the differentiation between personal and private property are a load of hogwash, but he asked me, in a very civil manner, to explain myself further.
Shodan, on the other hand, instead of asking me for more information on my views, chose to paint me as a supporter of thievery, lying, and criminal activity. Instead of rebutting the arguments, he attacked the person making them. Even you should realize that’s a textbook ad hominem. (On a side note, I do plan on elaborating on both statements later today, but I wanted to respond to the latest round while the response was still fresh in my head.)
And, finally:
“Why should Albertson’s pass on even part the cost of its declining performance to its store employees? It’s not our fault. In fact, without the work we employees do, Albertson’s wouldn’t have any income at all. And to illustrate the point, we’re going to walk out and make sure nobody works at Albertson’s until we can make sure they don’t raise our health care out-of-pocket costs.”
