I consider them a resource. Some are assets, some are liabilities, all are resources of varying degrees of usefulness. Depending on the business model a particular company employes will depend on which positions are more or less useful, which have high turnover, and whether high turnover is ok or if employee retention is desired, what level of skill is required and how much training costs are for different positions, etc.
You do if that’s part of your business model. If it’s not then you don’t. Or, perhaps it’s position dependent. So you do a cost to benefits study to look at it from your business models perspective and depending on position.
From my anecdotal perspective, when I was principal engineer on various help desk contracts you looked at the different positions. Some were high turn over propositions (usually tier 1 support techs). For the skills needed verse the costs it simply wasn’t cost effective to raise the salary such that you’d get a better retention…it was more cost effective to just plan for a high turn over and set up your training accordingly. I imagine that bean counters at Walmart have done similar calculations…as have bean counters at Costco. For their different cost models and business models what they do fits into their overall scheme and plan. Simple as that.
Certainly. Though again, it depends on the position and how it fits into your overall cost and business models, your training scheme, employee logistics and HR, etc etc.
They aren’t worthless…they are worth (to Walmart) $9/hour. You are correct that there are a lot more positions at Walmart than Costco…over 2 million compared to 170k. That tells you something right there.
WalMart is one of the most spectacularly successful businesses in modern U.S. history. Over a mere 12-year period in the 1980’s and early 90’s its stock split 2-for1 a phenomenal seven times.
Pundits in this thread who think WalMart would be even more successful if it just listened to suggestions that it nurture its employees by increasing their wage are being silly.
… Or rather adhering to the Greed is God mentality in a different way: suggesting that, despite WalMart’s huge financial success, it could be even more profitable.
No. The way forward for America is to recognize the limits of Dog-Eat-Dog Markets, to recognize that “what is good for WalMart is not necessarily what’s good for America” and to make systemic changes that would give labor, or humans more generally, increased power against that of rich corporations.
Walmart has just had to increase hours and staff lately because they cut too deep. So obviously, the employees are worth more than what Walmart thought they were.
I also object to subsidizing WalMart’s labor costs with tax dollars. Yes, some people are going to need WIC and SNAP programs in just about any company. But it seems that WalMart counts on government programs to supplement the meager wages it pays most of its workers…and that ain’t right. If WalMart is actually competitive, then it shouldn’t need the government to subsidize so many of its workers.
And they made an adjustment. What’s your point? I must be missing something here.
[QUOTE=septimus]
No. The way forward for America is to recognize the limits of Dog-Eat-Dog Markets, to recognize that “what is good for WalMart is not necessarily what’s good for America” and to make systemic changes that would give labor, or humans more generally, increased power against that of rich corporations.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. And yet, they have been in business since the 80’s, have employed millions, and today employ over 2 million workers making a average of $12.83 per hour. Assuming they hadn’t been so successful and hadn’t employed all of those millions of people for decades, would this have been better for America? Considering that in addition to paying those salaries for those jobs (not to mention the jobs of building the Walmarts in the first place, plus other benefits of large selection and low prices for communities) they also pay literally billions in taxes, I have to ask why this isn’t good for America? Or, to put this a different way since Costco seems to be the poster child for a number of folks in this thread, is it better to employ 2 million people who’s average salary is $12.83 an hour or 170k people who’s average is $19/hour (just an estimate here as I couldn’t find a quick google answer to average salary at Costco).
Ah. We had a job fair where I work, and it was pretty much useless. I didn’t get one good resume out of it.
Maybe the unemployment office could help - either people just laid off, who might be good, or laid off a while ago, who might be desperate. Or maybe some vets. I bet lifting carpets would be no big problem for them!
WalMart isn’t “counting” on government programs to supplement its employee’s wages. I’m pretty sure they are indifferent to the fact. If they could hire people for less, they would do so. If those programs didn’t exist and they had to pay more to attract a workforce, they would do so. I’m sure they couldn’t give two shits about SNAP or WIC. Why would they? Call it SNAP, TANF, WIC, or whatever. There are some programs that influence the cost of labor. The end cost of that labor is what they care about.
Neither. They don’t end up on the company’s balance sheet. Their earned yet unpaid wages would be a liability. Their forfeited unused Section 125 FSA dollars would be an asset.
A stock split in and of itself says nothing about the success or failure of a company.
Yeah, the guy working two jobs to support his family is respected so much that the Republicans want to make damn sure he doesn’t get a break on health insurance. Or wages.
Again, I simply don’t get this argument. Walmart isn’t subsidizing anything. They are offering up a job for $X/hour…in accordance to the law which sets a minimum wage bar. It’s up to the person who is taking said job and selling their labor for the price offered to determine if that money is sufficient to their needs or if it’s not. If, as some have asserted in this thread, that Walmart is the only possible employment vehicle open to an individual (something I highly doubt) then, well, seems to me that Walmart is doing the public a favor by providing both the job and the taxes they will pay both to the federal government as well as the state and local taxes they will pay on the store.
The thing is, most of the bitching and complaining in this thread have little to do with Walmart. If you think that companies should be paying more to no skilled employees then advocate for higher minimum wage laws. If you feel that companies should be forced to provide benefits then advocate for laws forcing companies to do so. Expecting a company to simply provide more salary and benefits than it obviously needs to in order to attract the workers it needs is pissing in the wind IMHO. It’s fantasy, unless said business has a reason, a solid business reason to pay more for labor than they would need to in order to get their employees…such as the example of Costco. Walmart, who seems to be getting hundreds of applications for every position they need to fill doesn’t seem to need to offer more salary or benefits to get the employees they need, so it would then be up to our wonderful social engineers to ‘fix’ this problem if it’s going to be ‘fixed’.
I can answer that one. When I go to WalMart once every three years or so (and only when all other avenues are exhausted) everything about the store tells me they don’t give a crap. Including cashiers. When I go to Costco there are long lines, but all the scan registers have people, they’ve got people helping to bag, and the cashier is always lively and friendly and zips people along as fast as possible.
I don’t know if WalMart people can’t do better or don’t want to do better, but it makes no difference to me.
Interesting. Our HR department also lists government assistance programs, both local and Federal. I guess that means they also rely on the government to subsidize us? Which is kind of funny, since I work for the government.
That’s excellent. Care to draw the connection on how it’s relevant? My work offers me assistance to complete forms for FMLA as well. They also provide instruction on completing state disability and worker’s compensation claims. Man, it’s like they are trying to help their employees, the rascals!
Oh my. I was afraid that my preference for tersity would necessitate a silly rejoinder/surrejoinder round but thought the meme of stock splits was familiar enough not to bother.
Maybe you’re right! :smack: WalMart was $10 a share so they split it down to $5; it then fell to $4 so they split it down to $2. By the 3rd split Walmart was worth only 75 cents a share and, as its value continues to fall, only 30 cents after the 4th split. The 5th, 6th and 7th splits turned it into a penny stock.
Or not.
Did you, bone, think that’s what happened? WalMart split its stock just to confuse deaf-and-blind investors into thinking it was a buy? Do I need to make my posts more precise and pedantic than I already do?
:smack: WalMart was $10 a share so they split it down to $5; it then fell to $4 so they split it down to $2. By the 3rd split Walmart was worth only 75 cents a share and, as its value continues to fall, only 30 cents after the 4th split. The 5th, 6th and 7th splits turned it into a penny stock.