» Wal-Mart plan: Hire 'em young, don't keep 'em very long

26 October 2005 - 5:16pm

Wal-Mart plan: Hire 'em young, don't keep 'em very long

media girl's picture

Today's New York Times reports on how Wal-Mart is looking to cut more employee benefits:

An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart's board of directors proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits while seeking to minimize damage to the retailer's reputation. Among the recommendations are hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart.

Seems like another way to "minimize damage to the retailer's reputation" would be to stop screwing over the workers. Of course, that's not the Wal-Mart way.

The memo acknowledged that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, had to walk a fine line in restraining benefit costs because critics had attacked it for being stingy on wages and health coverage. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid.

That's not so bad! She's just advocating the "don't get sick" healthcare plan.

So how do they avoid unhealthy people? By redefining the work so that older folks and disabled workers can't do all the work:

The memo voices concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive.

To discourage unhealthy job applicants, Ms. Chambers suggests that Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)."

And you really know something is strange when the business plan opposes employee retention:

Ms. Chambers's memo voiced concern that workers were staying with the company longer, pushing up wage costs, although she stopped short of calling for efforts to push out more senior workers.

She wrote that "the cost of an associate with seven years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an associate with one year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity. Moreover, because we pay an associate more in salary and benefits as his or her tenure increases, we are pricing that associate out of the labor market, increasing the likelihood that he or she will stay with Wal-Mart."

So what should we do? Simply hate Wal-Mart and move on? On Our Word, Bayprairie points out that those low prices really can help people who are on low incomes, and asks for an honest discussion.

First of all, do you see yourself primarily as a shopper/consumer? Or do you see yourself as a workingclass woman/man first? Differing answers to this question will affect how you feel about Wal-Mart and whether or not you shop there. Do you have a hard time making ends meet? Does Wal-Mart pricing help? Are there any other places near you where you can get good prices? Or do you live in a small town and they've driven everyone else out of business? Do you have any stories about Wal-Mart, good or bad, you would like to share? Have you ever worked at Wal-Mart?

There are some good comments there.

Me? I've never worked at Wal-Mart, but I have to say that I avoid it as much as possible -- not because of its anti-working class politics and policies, but because it's almost always a miserable shopping experience.

Let's face it. Wal-Mart stores (or at least the ones I've been to in, say, a couple dozen cities in 3 different states) are in general pretty dingy places. The floors are dirty. The shopping carts rattle and try to turn you ever left or right. The fluorescent lighting is green.

I can't say the workers have been rude, but they're about as helpful as you'd expect for adults taking home, what, $35/day? I wouldn't be too cheerful to be there, either.

But the contempt the management has for the customer is visible every time to go to check out. You'd think a retail store would make it easy to part you from your money. But not at Wal-Mart. At Wal-Mart, if you don't want to wait in some mile-long line, you do the check-out work yourself.

"Welcome Wal-Mart shopper! Please place your first item on the pad! I'm sorry! Please remove any extra items from the scanning area!..."

And even then, you get to wait in line for the pleasure of doing their checkout work just so you can fork over your hard-earned money. Kinda gives a whole new meaning to "customer service."

Up until last week, I preferred Target. Now I don't know.

0
 
 
About author
User picture

media girl also blogs at other places.

tags: 1

Comments

The Heretik's picture

To a place that returns money to the community. Having said that, it is increasingly hard to do as all the mom and pops get priced out. OY


(26 October 2005 - 8:39pm)
PeggyArcher's picture

As a member of a union, I have a moral obligation to my organized brothers and sisters to not only avoid Wal-Mart, but to hassle them as much as possible..

On that note, I'd like to recommend - if you have one near you - Costco. They have good prices, and yet many of the stores are unionized. The Costco stores that are not union pay a decent wage and offer affordable healthcare plans.

Costco!

I also try to shop locally whenever and wherever I can.. I've never liked Target, just because 99% of their merch. seems to be from China.


(26 October 2005 - 10:29pm)
media girl's picture

Am I wrong? They always seem to be in the same shopping centers. I suppose I could look it up.


(26 October 2005 - 11:21pm)
hoopla's picture
hoopla says:

And costco is a very good company to work for. Treats it's employees well, pays well and it gives to the Democrates. Costco has been held up as the anti-walmart.


(27 October 2005 - 12:46pm)
media girl's picture

Also, I recall Target also was getting high marks for challenging Wal-Mart while paying their employees much more. But now with their "pharmacists can play doctor" policy, Target lost its glow.


(27 October 2005 - 1:17pm)
bayprairie's picture

and what i think im really asking is at what point does economic self interest outweigh social economic good. and i think the reason im asking this is i know women who arent in CA who aren't in washington state who live in BFE (bum fuck egypt) and are disabled and on fixed incomes that approximate 1200 bucks a month and who cant AFFORD to shop at whole foods.

so, i guilt myself out. how the hell do i guilt them?

short answer is, i don't. shopping at wal-mart might not be the crime, depending on circumstance.

being wal-mart is!


(27 October 2005 - 3:48am)

store

Not Your Emininent Domain!

Buy stuff here.

» Wal-Mart plan: Hire 'em young, don't keep 'em very long