Quote :

" but from my understanding a worker who is alright with their job isnt significantly less productive than a happy employee"

I didnt use the word "happy", I thought "like their job" would be weak enough.

Quote :

"are these employees really all that upset"

I would think that would have to play a factor for their turnover rate to be so high.

11/16/2005 10:49:09 PM

perhaps im mistaken, but isnt turnover generally high in many retail businesses. i understand some are worse than others, but i cant find (or dont know where to look) for reliable turnover data for a variety of large chains.

id imagine that any job that you get paid relatively cheaply and have to deal with customers all day wouldnt inspire a lot of patience/loyalty though. this would support why (from stats i did find) food services and accomidation were the highest turnover spots. just saying i think retails in the same boat.

Quote :

"Brands stand for excellence, not cheapness."

sam's choice?

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 11:02 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2005 10:59:08 PM

Walmarts net income for the most recent quarter was 2.4 billion which is up 3.8 percent. They are posting record profits. Costco net income for the most recent quarter was 354.7 million. I wouldn't be worried to much about Costco catching up to Walmart. Until they put the stockholders first like a corporation is supposed to they will always be second rate.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=83830&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=764809&highlight=

http://investor.walmartstores.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112761&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=782163&highlight=

11/16/2005 11:09:57 PM

YOU SIR HAVE CONVINCED ME WITH YOUR VALID COMPARISON

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 11:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2005 11:46:54 PM

Quote :

"but i cant find (or dont know where to look) for reliable turnover data for a variety of large chains. "

http://www.nobscot.com/survey/voluntary_turnover_by_industry_0804.jpg

The retail industry turnover rate is about 31% and large chains including walmart are going to be the main influencer on the statistic since they make up the vast majority of the market.

The fact that Walmart's is so much higher suggest to me that they have to be doing something to cause that difference.

11/16/2005 11:57:19 PM

high turnover is not so much of an issue in jobs that are unskilled or not creative.

11/16/2005 11:58:10 PM

^because obviously there are no costs associated with hiring new employees, nor employee theft, nor lower worker productivity.

11/17/2005 12:07:06 AM

Quote :

"YOU SIR HAVE CONVINCED ME WITH YOUR VALID COMPARISON"

What's invalid about it?

11/17/2005 12:14:07 AM

^^ and that's what I said, right, moron?

Let's see if I said "there are no costs associated with hiring new employees":

Quote :

"high turnover is not so much of an issue in jobs that are unskilled or not creative."

Nope.

-----

Let's see if I said "[there are no costs associated with] employee theft"

Quote :

"high turnover is not so much of an issue in jobs that are unskilled or not creative."

Nope.

-----

Let's see if I said "[there are no costs associated with] lower worker productivity."

Quote :

"high turnover is not so much of an issue in jobs that are unskilled or not creative."

Nope


Now, since you are obviously an idiot, let me spell this out for you: high turnover is not so much of an issue in jobs that are unskilled or not creative, as opposed to jobs that are skilled or creative. Hence, "costs associated with hiring new employees, nor employee theft, nor lower worker productivity" are a much smaller percentage of total costs in unskilled, uncreative jobs.

Walmart clearly believes that eating these costs are much cheaper than paying for healthcare, paying better wages, etc. The reason they can do this is intimately tied to the unskilled nature of the work that walmart employees do.


[Edited on November 17, 2005 at 12:59 AM. Reason : these shouldnt be big revelations]

11/17/2005 12:58:28 AM

First of all, turnover is always an issue for a manager no matter what industry theyre in. Certain industries and jobs will have a higher acceptable turnover rate than others.

But it is not that Walmart simply has a high turnover rate, its that is significantly higher than their industry average.

Quote :

" Walmart clearly believes that eating these costs are much cheaper than paying for healthcare, paying better wages, etc."

Well, no duh.

Walmart believes it but that doesnt mean its true.

With all the normal costs associated with high turnover and low employee morale combined with the fact that their brand image is taking a beating in the media day in and day out I have a hard time believing it to be true.

Walmart will always be sucessful because they have a brilliant and cut-throat distribution strategy, this does not mean they couldnt increase their long term profits further by creating more value for their employees.

[Edited on November 17, 2005 at 1:25 AM. Reason : ]

11/17/2005 1:22:21 AM

Quote :

"First of all, turnover is always an issue for a manager no matter what industry theyre in."

I never said this. Take this strawman shit out of here.

Quote :

"But it is not that Walmart simply has a high turnover rate, its that is significantly higher than their industry average. "

What industry average? I wasn't aware that there were players even comparable to walmart. Let me use your own words:

Quote :

"Certain industries and jobs and companies will have a higher acceptable turnover rate than others."

Surely you see that the scale on which walmart operates allows them to absorb turnover costs better than, say, Kmart?

Quote :

"Walmart believes it but that doesnt mean its true. With all the normal costs associated with high turnover and low employee morale combined with the fact that their brand image is taking a beating in the media day in and day out I have a hard time believing it to be true."

Give me a fucking break. Walmart is the biggest corporation in the world. They are not run by stooges, and Clear5 doesn't have some knowledge that they haven't already considered. The people who run walmart aren't the fucking rednecks who shop at the store -- these people are phds who are the best in the world at what they do. I have no doubt that they have calculated the exact costs of turnover and weighed it against the cost of increasing labor conditions.

The argument that walmart is incompetent at calculating its own costs is simply absurd.

Now, the walmart backlash is a new thing and it may make turnover cost more, but that remains to be seen. It seems that its simply cheaper and easier for them to run ad campaigns to counter the walmart backlash.

Quote :

" Walmart will always be sucessful because they have a brilliant and cut-throat distribution strategy, this does not mean they couldnt increase their long term profits further by creating more value for their employees. "

Again, you are making an idiotic argument apparently based on the ridiculous assumption that walmart managers haven't taken EC 205. Do you honestly -- honestly in your heart -- believe that walmart hasn't considered this basic shit and done intense analysis on how much investing money in various parts of its business would affect its bottom line?

It's so unlikely. What you are doing here is just grasping at straws for why walmart should increase the quality of its working conditions. None of the reasons you give are informed in the slightest, but you are hoping your sophistry will ensnare some poor soul.

----------

To step back for a second, the argument that Walmart should treat employees better because it makes economic sense for Walmart to do so is DOA. Businesses fundamentally do what's best for themselves, and the best business in the world is the best at doing the best for itself.

You are not going to persuade walmart to change using this argument.

What might have legs is the public opinion angle, but even this is doubtful. For all the rhetoric, people vote with their pocketbooks. My inclination is to say that walmart customers will largely not desert the company in favor of higher prices for moral reasons.


[Edited on November 17, 2005 at 1:57 AM. Reason : op[]

11/17/2005 1:33:36 AM

Quote :

"I never said this. Take this strawman shit out of here"

I took youre "not much of an issue" statement to mean that they shouldnt care about it for low skilled jobs, this isnt the case so I apoligize.

Quote :

"Walmart is the biggest corporation in the world."

Yes and Sam Walton was the man who got them there. And has been mentioned previously, if you read his biography and look at his management style he clearly valued his employees more than the current crop of people who run the company.

And I do believe that he was a better manager than the people running the show now.

What is rediculous to believe is that because people run a sucessful business then no one should try to question their management decisons especially in an area that cant be calculated in precise terms.

It is extremely easy for managers no matter their qualifications to get stuck on the current year's bottom line and lose sight of the long term.

Quote :

"Businesses fundamentally do what's best for themselves "

No they will do what they think is best.

For them to always do what is best for themselves would require pefect information.

[Edited on November 17, 2005 at 2:06 AM. Reason : ]

11/17/2005 2:01:59 AM

Quote :

" What is rediculous to believe is that because people run a sucessful business then no one should try to question their management decisons especially in an area that cant be calculated in precise terms. "

1. How do you know they don't? Walmart is well-known for its rigorous business analysis and self-evaluation. That's why they are the best.
2. The cost of turnover can be precisely calculated! I'm not sure why you assert otherwise. Pretty much any basic management book will give you examples of how to do this to prove why turnover is bad. Furthermore, walmart has large samples on which they can do statistical analysis to determine the exact amounts of each cost.

[Edited on November 17, 2005 at 2:14 AM. Reason : sdf]

11/17/2005 2:11:42 AM

Quote :

" The cost of turnover can be precisely calculated! I'm not sure why you assert otherwise. Pretty much any basic management book will give you examples of how to do this to prove why turnover is bad."

If everything was as easy to calculate and forecast as it is in a management textbook then no company would ever go under.

11/17/2005 2:32:28 AM

I see that you've completely abandoned trying to logically address points that are relevant to anything I have said, so I'll take that as your concession.

11/17/2005 2:54:38 AM

I just wonder what makes someone come on here and argue for Wall mart. It's cool to call the criticisms of WM alarmist, but wtf promoting them? I understand that some of you conservatives have a problem with liberals trying to kill Christ or something, but people here go way too far trying to play off all problems this nation has like they're not problems.

It's like:
hey guys, trade deficit isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think we should outsource more things, it's good for teh economy, and to help things we should all buy more things at Wall-Mart. I think that after you read this, you should immediately drive to WM and buy stuff, and make sure that it's not one of the few items left that's produced in the US. And make sure it's made of plastic. We want to use our petroleum recourses as liberally as possible, b/c even if peak oil is a real thing, the market will certainly cause new technologies develop fast enough to change things at no detriment to me whatsoever. Urban sprawl is the best thing that's ever happened to this nation. It keeps my dumbass from having to actually walk by all of our nations problems, and eleminates the hassle of using more than one retail store.

11/18/2005 10:22:22 AM

Quote :

" I see that you've completely abandoned trying to logically address points that are relevant to anything I have said, so I'll take that as your concession."

i think his point was, you can calculate the cost of turnover in the current form per employee, but you cant necessarily say the beneficial effects that treating employees better will produce. also you cannot 100% predict the amount that turnover would drop due to said employee gains. your cost-benefit analysis can only be so precise.

not sure how well i agree with that, but i think that was the point.

11/18/2005 10:50:59 AM

this shit was too funny to let go

11/30/2005 11:37:04 AM

mrfrog won the thread though...

11/30/2005 11:40:44 AM

wal-mart is an amazing business model for america

11/30/2005 11:51:12 AM

Quote :

"I just wonder what makes someone come on here and argue for Wall mart. It's cool to call the criticisms of WM alarmist, but wtf promoting them?"

The same thing that makes people come in here to criticise Wal-Mart. These issues are between WalMart, its customers, and its employees. People argue in favor/against Wal-Mart because we have nothing better to do.

To be fair, people scream that "Wal-Mart is a race to the bottom! America will become a third world nation!" Such statements are comparatively idiotic compared to the shit you listed, which I havn't actually heard anyone but you say...

11/30/2005 1:13:14 PM

Nothing personal against WalMart, but we don't shop there. I'd rather give our pennies to a smaller business when I can assuming the quality and service are better. Figure they can use the dollas more.

Don't really buy alot of shit these days. Been really trying to cut back on the bullshit impulse buys and whatnot. We lived out of a canoe for 2.5 months this summer paddling the Mississippi River and I just got overwhelmed with all the junk that was in the house when I got back. The less crap I have the better I feel to a point. YMMV.

11/30/2005 2:55:00 PM

Quote :

"Johnny Swank: The less crap I have the better I feel to a point."

Agreed. I took a "if I don't 100% need it, it's getting trashed" approach when I came back to NCSU this semester...definitely makes life less stressful.

Almost everything I still have was bought at Wal-Mart though

11/30/2005 4:20:04 PM

and that's how i feel about rich people and income tax

"if you don't 100% need it, it's getting taxed"

[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 4:56 PM. Reason : f]

11/30/2005 4:54:28 PM

^
which is great...until you realize it's completely fucking unfair to people like me who grew up broke but aspire to be rich before I die

11/30/2005 5:09:41 PM

I even put the hammer down last christmas to my family. No Xmas presents for me unless I can eat it, drink it, or otherwise consume it. Same for my birthday (new year's eve)

I'm going to be a fat, drunk motherfucker come January.

11/30/2005 5:10:49 PM

... need it.

11/30/2005 5:37:26 PM

^
oh I don't need to be rich, true. based on my lifestyle I can actually live pretty well off $35K.

but taxing me for growing up poor is still unfair

[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ---]

11/30/2005 7:15:44 PM

Quote :

"and that's how i feel about rich people and income tax "if you don't 100% need it, it's getting taxed""

But who are you to say whether or not they NEED it or not? You may not feel I need a billion dollars, but if I had it I would feel like I needed every last cent of it.

11/30/2005 8:21:29 PM

if you're making money off of the capitalist economy set up by the US gov't., then by all means the gov't should be able to take some of that money. and if you are making $1 billion in income each year, there is no way on god's green earth that you could possibly need that. want, yes; need, no.

and if i were in the position to raise taxes on the rich, that i would be the exact person who is to say whether or not they need it.

don't think i would take 95%; i wouldn't go above 50%, not even for the walton family.

by simple definition i can determine whether or not someone needs things (and the money to buy them). is it a luxury or a necessity?

11/30/2005 9:02:52 PM

^ arrogant, unmittigated arrogance on a disasterous scale. Let their tallents take them as far as they can go.

11/30/2005 11:23:04 PM

^funny. taxes like that worked for us just fine before. no disaster.

11/30/2005 11:27:08 PM

up until, what, '84,86, we had 50% taxes, if i'm not mistaken. what's arrogant about it?

11/30/2005 11:39:11 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stagflation

12/1/2005 1:00:38 AM

Quote :

"if you're making money off of the capitalist economy set up by the US gov't., then by all means the gov't should be able to take some of that money. and if you are making $1 billion in income each year, there is no way on god's green earth that you could possibly need that. want, yes; need, no."

FIrst off, the economy isn't set up by the US gov't. It exists on it's own. The economy doesn't need the government, but the government does need the economy for tax revenue. Second, the government should only take what is needed to cover the esssentials which are: the military, federal law enforcement, and judicial system. Everything else can be privatized. Third off, who the hell are you to say a person doesn't need all of a billion dollars that they make? It depends on the value you place on money. To me there is nothing more important than money, so I would want every last cent.
Noone should be able to determine what another person needs, NOONE!!!!

12/1/2005 1:05:39 AM

Quote :

"To me there is nothing more important than money"

ha, youre an allegory waiting to happen

12/1/2005 1:40:12 AM

Quote :

"^funny. taxes like that worked for us just fine before. no disaster."

Funny, taxes are already that high. (35% federal + 15% state = 50% income tax!)

Quote :

"don't think i would take 95%; i wouldn't go above 50%, not even for the walton family."

So, you're saying that if you were in charge you wouldn't raise taxes. Congrats! You have just joined the tax rebellion.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/1/2005 9:46:07 AM

didn't want to make a new thread

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2005-12-01T191236Z_01_BAU169104_RTRUKOC_0_US-RETAIL-WALMART-POLL.xml&rpc=22

majority of (polled) americans think walmart ain't good for the country, or however you want to interpret the querey

12/2/2005 8:56:27 AM

i'd love to see some demographics of who shops at walmart

i'd get a boner over that

12/2/2005 8:57:12 AM

poor__:******
______ ****
middle:***
______:***
Rich__:

12/2/2005 9:04:52 AM

yeah i wasnt going on race

thats my point though, its like all these rich old white dudes saying its evil

ok you take that shit away and see what happens

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 9:10 AM. Reason : lot more poor people than rich people in the world]

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 9:11 AM. Reason : i'm not like yelling or berating you, i'm just saying]

12/2/2005 9:10:30 AM