(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:40 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are unemployed...it all offsets somehow.

I know basic econ is hard for you libs. These matters are completely unrelated though.

Unless 100% of the Sam's employees affected are absorbed into Wal-Mart stores, it's not unrelated - gotta maintain that bottom line.

Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are losing jobs.

I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

So at the stores where they are reassigned the current workers will get less hours, and the reassigned workers will get less.

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:40 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are unemployed...it all offsets somehow.

I know basic econ is hard for you libs. These matters are completely unrelated though.

Unless 100% of the Sam's employees affected are absorbed into Wal-Mart stores, it's not unrelated - gotta maintain that bottom line.

Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Probably, but that doesnt have anything to do with everyone else getting a raise. If you want to see more layoffs, just keep on raising that minimum wage for unskilled workers.

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:40 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are unemployed...it all offsets somehow.

I know basic econ is hard for you libs. These matters are completely unrelated though.

Unless 100% of the Sam's employees affected are absorbed into Wal-Mart stores, it's not unrelated - gotta maintain that bottom line.

Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

PR or not, they are not related.

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are losing jobs.

I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

You have never been a part of a "re-alignment" if you think that's what is going to happen. While a handful of people will likely get reassigned, the majority won't.

From another article that says that the store here has hopes to turn into an e-commerce facility:
Hatfield said it was too early to know what would happen to the store's staffers, but that the company "will be having conversations will all of the employees to keep them up to date."

Translation: we don't want to come right out & say that most of these people won't have jobs with us in the future.

(01-11-2018 12:55 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are losing jobs.

I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

You have never been a part of a "re-alignment" if you think that's what is going to happen. While a handful of people will likely get reassigned, the majority won't.

There are all kinds of job openings in the Memphis area for those with Sam's Club skill set. If they dont want to transfer, they can get a job elsewhere.

If they want to better themselves, they can get a skill.

(01-11-2018 12:53 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are losing jobs.

I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

So at the stores where they are reassigned the current workers will get less hours, and the reassigned workers will get less.

Yep. "We'll pay you $11.00 an hour!" They just don't mention that their hours will be cut.

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:40 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are unemployed...it all offsets somehow.

I know basic econ is hard for you libs. These matters are completely unrelated though.

Unless 100% of the Sam's employees affected are absorbed into Wal-Mart stores, it's not unrelated - gotta maintain that bottom line.

Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

And there you have it. What a shame. It looked like Trump almost had a real win.

(01-11-2018 12:58 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:53 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

So at the stores where they are reassigned the current workers will get less hours, and the reassigned workers will get less.

Yep. "We'll pay you $11.00 an hour!" They just don't mention that their hours will be cut.

Good workers will get the hours. Lazy workers wont.

(01-11-2018 12:55 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are losing jobs.

I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

You have never been a part of a "re-alignment" if you think that's what is going to happen. While a handful of people will likely get reassigned, the majority won't.

I try to have a skill set that makes me a bit more marketable than the $11 Walmart worker. But yes, they all most likely won't be reassigned. That's another smart way to rid yourself of some dead weight if you are a corporation.

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:40 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  I know basic econ is hard for you libs. These matters are completely unrelated though.

Unless 100% of the Sam's employees affected are absorbed into Wal-Mart stores, it's not unrelated - gotta maintain that bottom line.

Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Allow me to play liberal:

This is not a living wage.
I saw a man look at me and it was sexual assault.
Workers would have received a higher increase if they unionized.
The minimum wage increase will be eaten up by Trump's tax increase on the lower class.
WalMart could have increased the minimum wage by more but instead they are paying huge bonuses to executives.
All of this is Trump's fault. Including the fact that I am a making $10 at Starbucks cause I would never slum enough to get a job at WalMart

(01-11-2018 01:00 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:55 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

You have never been a part of a "re-alignment" if you think that's what is going to happen. While a handful of people will likely get reassigned, the majority won't.

I try to have a skill set that makes me a bit more marketable than the $11 Walmart worker. But yes, they all most likely won't be reassigned. That's another smart way to rid yourself of some dead weight if you are a corporation.

PS - re-alignments happen at every level.
I don't disagree with your point that it's a good way for companies to clean house, so let's not try to kid ourselves that this is about "optimism from the tax bill."

It's about cutting expenses and then spinning a partial requirement to make it sound like it's all "up, up, up!" for Wal-Mart, when the opposite appears to be the case once you truly look at the full picture.

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:40 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Unless 100% of the Sam's employees affected are absorbed into Wal-Mart stores, it's not unrelated - gotta maintain that bottom line.

Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Again, you are correlating corporate tax law changes that affect the bottom line with underperforming stores that affect the bottom line as being one and the same. The tax law changes fundamentally change what other companies will be willing to pay the labor market because they are now more profitable. The ghetto Sam's Club would be closed in any scenario, the raise in pay wouldn't.

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:40 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are unemployed...it all offsets somehow.

I know basic econ is hard for you libs. These matters are completely unrelated though.

Unless 100% of the Sam's employees affected are absorbed into Wal-Mart stores, it's not unrelated - gotta maintain that bottom line.

Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

I don't know why that would affect Walmart employees. It's not like any of them actually work at a register anyways.

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:40 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Unless 100% of the Sam's employees affected are absorbed into Wal-Mart stores, it's not unrelated - gotta maintain that bottom line.

Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

(01-11-2018 12:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:40 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  I know basic econ is hard for you libs. These matters are completely unrelated though.

Unless 100% of the Sam's employees affected are absorbed into Wal-Mart stores, it's not unrelated - gotta maintain that bottom line.

Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

And there you have it. What a shame. It looked like Trump almost had a real win.

Oh man!!! Corporate cuts while paying hourly workers more..... Evil Corporations!!!

(01-11-2018 01:03 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Allow me to play liberal:

This is not a living wage.
I saw a man look at me and it was sexual assault.
Workers would have received a higher increase if they unionized.
The minimum wage increase will be eaten up by Trump's tax increase on the lower class.
WalMart could have increased the minimum wage by more but instead they are paying huge bonuses to executives.
All of this is Trump's fault. Including the fact that I am a making $10 at Starbucks cause I would never slum enough to get a job at WalMart

I have already seen leftist argue:

- Should have increased wages by more
- will cut hours
- will lay people off
- should have increased benefits too
- only trying to play catch up to other competitors (as if this is a bad thing).
- Trump is trying to trick people into supporting him

(01-11-2018 01:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I have already seen leftist argue:

- Should have increased wages by more
- will cut hours
- will lay people off
- should have increased benefits too
- only trying to play catch up to other competitors (as if this is a bad thing).
- Trump is trying to trick people into supporting him

Ipso facto,

Reduced wages will lead to increased hours, more employment, more money for other benefits, and WalMart shouldn't follow the lead of other more socially responsible retailers.

Liberals are funny.

(01-11-2018 01:07 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Again, you are correlating corporate tax law changes that affect the bottom line with underperforming stores that affect the bottom line as being one and the same. The tax law changes fundamentally change what other companies will be willing to pay the labor market because they are now more profitable. The ghetto Sam's Club would be closed in any scenario, the raise in pay wouldn't.

We've already established that Wal-Mart was going to have to pay more per hour in some locations, so of course they're capitalizing on that by making it SOUND like they're willing to pay more in the labor market. However, they're really not paying more. They just waited to make the cuts at the same time as the pay increase so it sounds better.

Could they have refused to pay more in states where the min wage didn't go up?
Sure; but then they couldn't have had this big PR win splashed all over the media just the day after all these closures & layoffs at corporate.

If they're paying less out in wages at the end of the day anyway, why NOT spin it this way?