Walmart -Publicly"Increase minimum wage" Privately "Fuck em"

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
October 26, 2005
Wal-Mart Memo Suggests Ways to Cut Employee Benefit Costs
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
and MICHAEL BARBARO

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.

In the memorandum, M. Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits. 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)."

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.

Wal-Mart executives said the memo was part of an effort to rein in benefit costs, which to Wall Street's dismay have soared by 15 percent a year on average since 2002. Like much of corporate America, Wal-Mart has been squeezed by soaring health costs. The proposed plan, if approved, would save the company more than $1 billion a year by 2011.

In an interview, Ms. Chambers said she was focusing not on cutting costs, but on serving employees better by giving them more choices on their benefits.

"We are investing in our benefits that will take even better care of our associates," she said. "Our benefit plan is known today as being generous."

Ms. Chambers also said that she made her recommendations after surveying employees about how they felt about the benefits plan. "This is not about cutting," she said. "This is about redirecting savings to another part of their benefit plans."

One proposal would reduce the amount of time, from two years to one, that part-time employees would have to wait before qualifying for health insurance. Another would put health clinics in stores, in part to reduce expensive employee visits to emergency rooms. Wal-Mart's benefit costs jumped to $4.2 billion last year, from $2.8 billion three years earlier, causing concern within the company because benefits represented an increasing share of sales. Last year, Wal-Mart earned $10.5 billion on sales of $285 billion.

A draft memo to Wal-Mart's board was obtained from Wal-Mart Watch, a nonprofit group, allied with labor unions, that asserts that Wal-Mart's pay and benefits are too low. Tracy Sefl, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Watch, said someone mailed the document anonymously to her group last month. When asked about the memo, Wal-Mart officials made available the updated copy that actually went to the board.

Under fire because less than 45 percent of its workers receive company health insurance, Wal-Mart announced a new plan on Monday that seeks to increase participation by allowing some employees to pay just $11 a month in premiums. Some health experts praised the plan for making coverage more affordable, but others criticized it, noting that full-time Wal-Mart employees, who earn on average around $17,500 a year, could face out-of-pocket expenses of $2,500 a year or more.

Eager to burnish Wal-Mart's image as it faces opposition in trying to expand into New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, Wal-Mart's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., also announced on Monday a sweeping plan to conserve energy. He also said that Wal-Mart supported raising the minimum wage to help Wal-Mart's customers.

The theme throughout the memo was how to slow the increase in benefit costs without giving more ammunition to critics who contend that Wal-Mart's wages and benefits are dragging down those of other American workers.

Ms. Chambers proposed that employees pay more for their spouses' health insurance. She called for cutting 401(k) contributions to 3 percent of wages from 4 percent and cutting company-paid life insurance policies to $12,000 from the current level, equal to an employee's annual earnings.

Life insurance, she said, was "a high-satisfaction, low-importance benefit, which suggests an opportunity to trim the offering without substantial impact on associate satisfaction." Wal-Mart refers to its employees as associates.

Acknowledging that Wal-Mart has image problems, Ms. Chambers wrote: "Wal-Mart's critics can easily exploit some aspects of our benefits offering to make their case; in other words, our critics are correct in some of their observations. Specifically, our coverage is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance."

Her memo stated that 5 percent of Wal-Mart's workers were on Medicaid, compared with 4 percent for other national employers. She said that Wal-Mart spent $1.5 billion a year on health insurance, which amounts to $2,660 per insured worker.

The memo, prepared with the help of McKinsey & Company, said the board was to consider the recommendations in November. But the memo said that three top Wal-Mart officials - its chief financial officer, its top human relations executive and its executive vice president for legal and corporate affairs - had "received the recommendations enthusiastically."

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."

The memo noted that Wal-Mart workers "are getting sicker than the national population, particularly in obesity-related diseases," including diabetes and coronary artery disease. The memo said Wal-Mart workers tended to overuse emergency rooms and underuse prescriptions and doctor visits, perhaps from previous experience with Medicaid.

The memo noted, "The least healthy, least productive associates are more satisfied with their benefits than other segments and are interested in longer careers with Wal-Mart."

The memo proposed incorporating physical activity in all jobs and promoting health savings accounts. Such accounts are financed with pretax dollars and allow workers to divert their contributions into retirement savings if they are not all spent on health care. Health experts say these accounts will be more attractive to younger, healthier workers.

"It will be far easier to attract and retain a healthier work force than it will be to change behavior in an existing one," the memo said. "These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart."

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families U.S.A., a health care consumer-advocacy group, criticized the memo for recommending that more workers move into health plans with high deductibles.

"Their people are paying a very substantial portion of their earnings out of pocket for health care," he said. "These plans will cause these workers and their families to defer or refrain from getting needed care."

The memo noted that 38 percent of Wal-Mart workers spent more than one-sixth of their Wal-Mart income on health care last year.

By reducing the amount of time part-timers must work to qualify for health insurance, Wal-Mart is hoping to allay some of its critics.

One proposal under consideration would offer new employees "limited funding" so they could "gain access to the private insurance market" after 30 days of employment while waiting to join Wal-Mart's plan.

Such assistance, the memo stated, "would give us a powerful set of messages to use in combating critics. (For instance, 'Wal-Mart offers associates access to health insurance after they've worked with us for just 30 days.')"

Steven Greenhouse reported from New York for this article, and Michael Barbaro from Bentonville, Ark.
 
Starbucks CEO Decries Health Care Crisis

Starbucks CEO Decries Health Care Crisis
Associated Press
09.14.2005, 05:50 PM

Starbucks Corp. will spend more on health insurance for its employees this year than on raw materials needed to brew its coffee, Chairman Howard Schultz said Wednesday as he decried a health care crisis that could soon overwhelm American businesses.

Schultz, whose Seattle-based company provides health care coverage to employees who work at least 20 hours a week, said Starbucks has faced double-digit increases in insurance costs each of the last four years.

"It's completely non-sustainable," he said, even for companies such as his that "want to do the right thing."

Schultz made the comments Wednesday at a meeting with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. The event was one of several organized by Schultz and other executives to call attention to what they called a growing health care crisis.

"I would hope Congressional leaders put this at the front of their agenda," said Schultz, noting that a majority of the estimated 45 million uninsured Americans have jobs.

Later, Schultz and other executives, including Costco CEO Jim Sinegal; Dawn Lepore, president and CEO of Drugstore.com; and Ivan Seidenberg, chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications Inc., attended a health care summit at a Senate office building.

Schultz said his passion about health care dates to his youth in New York City, when he watched his father struggle to hold down several low-wage jobs - none of which included health insurance.

"I wanted to try and build the company that my father never got a chance to work for," Schultz said.

The rising cost of health care has made that dream increasingly difficult, he said. The company expects to spend about $200 million this year for health care for its 80,000 U.S. employees - more than the total amount it spends on green coffee from Africa, Indonesia and other countries.

Starbucks has about 100,000 employees worldwide, Schultz said, including some 65 percent who work part-time. Increasingly, the company is hiring older workers, who are attracted in large part by the company's generous benefits, he said.

Lest anyone get the idea the company is altruistic, Schultz said its benefits policy is a key reason Starbucks has low employee turnover and high productivity - facts he said were reflected in the company's increased stock price, which has more than doubled in the past five years.

Schultz declined to endorse any specific legislation, saying his goal was to raise awareness of the problem. But whatever solution is adopted, he added: "Every single American needs to have access to health insurance - full-stop."

Starbucks shares fell 80 cents, or 1.7 percent, to close at $47.1616 Wednesday on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

http://www.forbes.com/associatedpress/feeds/ap/2005/09/14/ap2225182.html
 
Re: Starbucks CEO Decries Health Care Crisis

I have been seriously wondering why segments of the business community allow themselves to be fucked by others. I understand the notion of taking on the insurance or healthcare industry might scare a lowly retail chain but Walmart? The usual thing is to just fuck over the weakest part of the equation aka Joe Public and pass the assfucking on to him in prices or lost benefits etc.

Is it millionaire CEO's, shareholders etc who in the end think its not worth the risk to publicly out insurance or oil industry interests because they are just too powerful and/or they dont give a fuck?

Oil profits will make this holiday season a record shitty deal for retailers. They have no pull? Or is it just not their time?

Why is it not in their best interests for certain entities in certain industries to not say or do shit about other industrial entities who hurt their bottom lines with bullshit? Why are we not seeing more industrial warfare?
 
Re: Starbucks CEO Decries Health Care Crisis

<font size="6"><center>Wal-Mart Workers Win Suit</font size>
<font size="4">A jury orders the world's largest retailer to pay
$172 million for violations of a California law that
requires meal breaks for employees</font size></center>

Los Angeles Times
By Molly Selvin and Abigail Goldman, Times Staff Writers
December 23, 2005

An Oakland jury Thursday awarded $172 million to 116,000 current and former employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in the first of dozens of wage and hour class-action lawsuits targeting the giant retailer to go to trial.

The world's largest retailer was ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to employees for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to provide 30-minute unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours in a shift.

California law requires companies to pay workers a full hour's wages for every missed lunch. Lawyers for Wal-Mart had argued that workers did not demand their penalty wages on a timely basis.

But jurors in Alameda County Superior Court decided otherwise, handing a big win to the group of employees who had worked in Wal-Mart's California stores from Jan. 1, 2001, through May 6 this year.

A jubilant Michael Christian, one of the San Francisco lawyers who represented the plaintiffs, said the verdict made for "a good day."

"There was an abundance of evidence that Wal-Mart knew that workers did not get meal periods for many years and they did nothing," he said. "The jury concluded that conduct was unacceptable" and that Wal-Mart "deserved to be punished for its willful indifference to its workers."

Wal-Mart said it disagreed with the verdict and would appeal. The company also said that because the case involved a meal-period statute that was unique to California, the verdict had no bearing in any other state.

But many legal experts said that with similar litigation pending in about 40 other states, the verdict was certain to have a ripple effect far beyond California.

Toby Marshall, a Seattle lawyer who represents workers in a similar class-action against Wal-Mart in Washington, said Thursday's verdict would strengthen other claims.

"This is a very clear public statement that its policies are against the law," Marshall said of Wal-Mart. "While each state's law is different, the fact that one jury found that Wal-Mart's corporate policies are resulting in wage and hour violations means that it's more likely that a jury here in Washington or elsewhere is going to find violations."

Wal-Mart has acknowledged that it had "compliance issues" when the statute took effect in 2001, spokeswoman Mona Williams said in a statement.

"Wal-Mart has since taken steps to ensure all associates receive their meal periods, including adopting new technology that sends alerts to cashiers when it is time for their meal breaks," she said. "The system will automatically shut down registers if the cashier does not respond."

Williams added that based on a ruling in another California trial, Wal-Mart believed that punitive damages could not be recovered in this case.

Juror Jeff Pector, a 52-year-old software developer, said he and several other jurors believed that the punitive damage award should have been higher.

"Wal-Mart, in my opinion, had clear knowledge of what the law was requiring, full, timely, uninterrupted meal breaks, and from the top down to the store manager, it seemed that there was disregard for the laws that were passed in California," Pector said in an interview after the verdict was announced. "We wanted to send a very clear message that in California, even really big companies need to follow the law."

Last year Wal-Mart settled a similar lawsuit by workers in its Colorado stores for $50 million, and an Oregon jury awarded 83 Wal-Mart workers in that state about $2,000 each for lunch period violations.

The California verdict, if upheld, would amount to an average of nearly $1,500 for the employees; individual awards would probably vary by length of service. In addition, Wal-Mart would probably have to pay the plaintiffs' legal fees, to be determined by the court.

To Deborah Hensler, a Stanford Law School professor who has studied class actions, the size of the award did not seem out of bounds.

"These days, when multibillion-dollar damages against corporations are not unheard of, it doesn't strike me immediately as being a remarkably high award," she said.

The verdict couldn't come at a worse time for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart. The retailer, under pressure from organized labor and community activists, has been working diligently to present a more positive image of itself.

In an October speech in which he outlined support for an increase in the federal minimum wage, Wal-Mart Chief Executive H. Lee Scott Jr. said the company was committed to "taking care of those whom we serve: our associates and working families."

The company's critics, however, were quick to say that the Oakland case points to broader problems with how Wal-Mart treats its employees.

"Today's verdict affirms that time-theft labor abuses are a chronic and systemic problem for Wal-Mart and its dangerous business model," Andrew Grossman, executive director of the union-supported group Wal-Mart Watch, said in a statement. "At Wal-Mart, not only is there no such thing as a free lunch for employees but, in this sad case, there is no lunch at all."

In addition to the similar wage and hour class-action suits in other states, Wal-Mart faces lawsuits accusing the retailer of discriminating against female employees and tolerating sweatshop conditions in the factories of its foreign suppliers.

Thursday's verdict, which came after a closely watched three-month trial, may bode poorly for Wal-Mart in its pending cases, several observers say.

Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor of history at UC Santa Barbara and editor of the new book "Wal-Mart: The Face of 21st-Century Capitalism," said the verdict posed a problem for Wal-Mart on two fronts, affecting both its reputation and its bottom line.

"It's a clear pattern that Wal-Mart has: Managers of the individual stores have a labor budget which is so tight that the store can't function without shaving the law, cutting corners and engaging in this practice of super-exploiting the workers," Lichtenstein said. "Wal-Mart just can't get out from under their public relations problem — that's one side. Here, though, we're actually talking about real money, not just reputation."

Pasadena attorney Dan Stormer, one of several lawyers representing the foreign factory workers suing Wal-Mart, called the verdict "a message that those days are over — they can't simply oppress their workers, ignore the laws and expect to get off scot-free."

Los Angeles lawyer Richard J. Simmons, who represents employers, said that by Thursday afternoon news of the verdict was "absolutely burning up the wires of employment attorneys around the state."

He called the punitive damage verdict "not typical" for cases involving meal and rest periods and said that part of the jury's award "is extremely vulnerable" on appeal.

In his view, the verdict will have widespread implications by encouraging more litigation, he said.

Said juror Pector: "I personally was hoping that our decision would send a message beyond Wal-Mart. We were really ruling on the Wal-Mart case and that's what it was about, but I hope other businesses in California are paying attention."

Thursday's jury award represents about one week's worth of Wal-Mart's $10.3 billion in profit last year. The company has more than 3,800 stores nationwide and more than 1.3 million employees. It operates 157 Wal-Mart stores and 34 Sam's Club stores in California, which employ nearly 74,000.

The verdict was announced after the close of markets. Shares of Wal-Mart, which are down 8% this year, fell 5 cents to $48.60.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-walmart23dec23,0,4231124.story?coll=la-home-headlines
 
Re: Starbucks CEO Decries Health Care Crisis

[frame]http://www.slate.com/id/2144517/entry/2144521/?nav=tap3[/frame]
 
Good Post, back in 93 when the Super Centers first started and they was building one every other day, my uncle told me they would be in comptetion with themselves unless they figure out some type of way to lower the output to workers by not offering good health plans or keeping the pay just as it was in 93................................Well he was right, How many Super Centers have they closed.....none, the pay is almost the same. For example let say they make 9.00 per hour but 2.00 of it goes towards a health care plan, now they are down to 7.00 and then 1.50 of that goes towards taxes and some other fake retirement.................sad isnt it.

Wal-mart and Exxon are in competition, Exxon have the On The Run gas stations that rake in a pretty good amount of change every week. Wal-Mart getting smart and trying to compete by building small business plazas by the Super Centers. they are charging them stores out the azz for space. Plus they have gas station on the lot also.

Bottom line is this, for many who work at the store they are getting hook ups by other workers, food, clothes, games, oil, tires hell whatever. So they really dont see in depth what is going on.
 
`

This is probably unconstitutional ...

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5219176.stm[/frame]
 
Wal-Mart Bails Out of Germany

<font size="5"><center>Why Wal-Mart bailed out of Germany</font size></center>

By BreakingViews
Last Update: 2:23 PM ET Jul 28, 2006
MarketWatch

The world's largest retailer is pulling out of Germany and selling 85 hypermarkets to Metro, its German rival. Though the price hasn't been disclosed, Wal-Mart expects to book a $1bn (E800m) loss, while Metro is snapping up the stores at well below their fair value, according to a source close to the deal.

The trouble is that while Wal-Mart may be a big cheese back home, in Germany it barely made a dent. Its market share was just over 1%, according to retail consultancy Planet Retail. Tough German planning rules made it virtually impossible to open new stores of the right size, while Wal-Mart's adherence to the hypermarket format made potential acquisitions few and far between. That boxed it in as a sub-scale operator.

What's more, the benefits of being part of the vast Wal-Mart empire didn't quite materialize. Being a global retail superpower is great for non-food products like clothing. But much grocery produce is sourced locally, while big suppliers like Procter & Gamble and Unilever try to deal with retailers on a national rather than global level. That restricted Wal-Mart's bargaining power.

But the real killer? Even with its low-price strategy, Wal-Mart failed to differentiate itself in a country already stuffed with cheap-as-chips retailers. After all, Germany invented the "schnaeppchenjaeger" -- the shopper who will drive miles to find a bargain. With more consumers motivated by price than any by other factor, according to McKinsey, hard discounters call the shots, with chains like Aldi and Lidl controlling 40% of the market.

Selling out of Germany shows that Wal-Mart is finding it increasingly tough to roll out its success story overseas. Its only presence in the European market now is Asda, the UK chain -- and that isn't doing as well as Wal-Mart might have hoped. Moreover, it suggests the so-called Beast of Bentonville has finally decided to take a more rigorous approach to its overseas investment returns.

- John Foley

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Sto...FC3DDB6-D345-4981-AD6D-DFE9870CF6C7}&keyword=
 
Re: Wal-Mart Bails Out of Germany

<font size="5"><center>Wal-Mart to pay $3.9 mln in back pay in California</font size></center>

GenImage.aspx


Reuters
Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:45pm ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has agreed to pay more than $3.9 million to about 50,000 current and former employees in California who were underpaid overtime and other wages, the state's labor commissioner said on Tuesday.

The world's largest retailer also agreed to pay $198,900 in civil penalties to the state, Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet said in a statement.

In 2005, Wal-Mart voluntarily notified the labor commissioner that errors in its payroll processes had led to underpayment of overtime and other wages. It pledged to correct the problem and pay affected workers all they owed.

"This is a matter we discovered and reported ... and the situation has been corrected," said Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley. "Everyone who was owed money is being paid with interest and we have added safeguards so that these errors don't happen again."



The payment errors affected all of Wal-Mart's California workers from February 1, 2002 through January 19, 2007.

Many of the affected employees have already received checks for overtime and interest, and remaining payments will be issued within 45 days, the commissioner's statement said.

Bradstreet said Wal-Mart had "set a positive example for other employers who may be out of compliance because it illustrates how they can work with us to properly compensate workers as well as meet legal requirements."

(Reporting by Nichola Groom and Brad Dorfman)

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...N14445584_RTRUKOC_0_US-WALMART-CALIFORNIA.xml
 
This is the reason they don't want an Union!! They fuck over there employees and there's no one to back us up!! From the home office down to management. They are brainwashing them and expecting us to cut the slack! If you come to work late, you get coached. If you do something wrong you get coached!! WTF!!! They hollering team leader for those who BUST there ass and get nothing in return! It took me 6 and a half years to get employee of the fucking month in a building of no more than 45 employee's. I had to ask about the shit then i get it!! They keep hollering about giving me an training for an supervisor position, remind you this has been on going for 5 years!! I mentioned to transfer and then I get all these "wonderful" compliments and big-ups from management to stay! Your the best at what you do, or you wouldn't like working at an club. i asked about an management position at an store once and I was told I was not qualified being I had no supervisor experience! I work for the Sam's side of the boat and know dam near the whole operation! I could run that fucking building by my got dam self!!! BUT... They won't let me shine. My eval has been above a 4 for the past 3 years. A 5 is Max. been getting lied to for the past 6 years of almost my 7 years employed. i get respect from my peers, but management is a fucking cult!!! they stick together and back each the other up constantly!! Why do I stay??/ I make almost $20. an hour!! Why do I bitch?? I can read fake people and there ploy to keep me there as long as they can before letting me go. They keep the best so they look good, but I always give management an challenge every time I clock in! They can't fire me for nothing cause I know there ethics. They don't wanna fire me cause I know everything. I just play my cards and wait. How long?? Until I have too. There's shit I'm holding out, but the shit I'm saying is just the bottom of the barrel!! This shit is bigger than me and whoever!!! Like my boy at work says.. FUCK EM!!!!
 
dam hanginbals at some point youre going to have to make a move on your own or be trapped there propping up those assholes who wont let you shine
 
Good information ... and HANG' - we empathize with you, fam'. For real. Keep us posted in this thread in the future if things show signs of improvement.
 
Back
Top