One story of cost control (1 Viewer)

[KevinKohler]

The past few months since my last promotion, my job has been to find ways to either reduce the amount employees at my company get for raises during review time, or to find ways of getting rid of long time employees in favor of new hires, who are obviously paid less.


Since I've started this, I've managed to reduce employee costs by about 2.5 percent for the store. Yearly, this is about...20k give or take. I've used several approved methods to achieve these results...transfer a long time full timer, someone making 13-15 bucks an hour, who's been with the company 5 years or more, to another store...typically 20-30 miles away. They get compensation for the travel, of course. One guy went along, two quit. All three replaced by 9 dollar an hour part timers. I've also changed up the schedules of full timers (all full time employees must have open availability), taking them out of set schedules, and giving them "crap schedules" to work. So far, only one has left, but she has been with the company 9 years, and made 16 an hour. Replaced by someone making 9. I've had a few other scattered "success stories"... But those were the most recent.

In addition to this, a month or so before my promotion, the company changed its employee review standards. In essence, hourlies are reviewed by the same qualifications and standards as the management staff. Which means the majority are only going to be getting .25 cent raises per year from here on in. A select few, who manage to meet those expectations will get a .50 cent raise. And I doubt anyone will exceed those expectations, to get the coveted .75cent raise. Else, why bother with managers?

Anyway. This has just been one anecdotal story about what I imagine is the new normal for most US workers doing the jobs that "shouldn't" supply a "living wage".

Oh, and none of those payroll savings are being translated into better bonuses, or more hours for others, or anything. I'll know by December who's corporate bonus these savings will boost.

So, is this good or bad for the local economy?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The past few months since my last promotion, my job has been to find ways to either reduce the amount employees at my company get for raises during review time, or to find ways of getting rid of long time employees in favor of new hires, who are obviously paid less.


Since I've started this, I've managed to reduce employee costs by about 2.5 percent for the store. Yearly, this is about...20k give or take. I've used several approved methods to achieve these results...transfer a long time full timer, someone making 13-15 bucks an hour, who's been with the company 5 years or more, to another store...typically 20-30 miles away. They get compensation for the travel, of course. One guy went along, two quit. All three replaced by 9 dollar an hour part timers. I've also changed up the schedules of full timers (all full time employees must have open availability), taking them out of set schedules, and giving them "crap schedules" to work. So far, only one has left, but she has been with the company 9 years, and made 16 an hour. Replaced by someone making 9. I've had a few other scattered "success stories"... But those were the most recent.

In addition to this, a month or so before my promotion, the company changed its employee review standards. In essence, hourlies are reviewed by the same qualifications and standards as the management staff. Which means the majority are only going to be getting .25 cent raises per year from here on in. A select few, who manage to meet those expectations will get a .50 cent raise. And I doubt anyone will exceed those expectations, to get the coveted .75cent raise. Else, why bother with managers?

Anyway. This has just been one anecdotal story about what I imagine is the new normal for most US workers doing the jobs that "shouldn't" supply a "living wage".

Oh, and none of those payroll savings are being translated into better bonuses, or more hours for others, or anything. I'll know by December who's corporate bonus these savings will boost.

So, is this good or bad for the local economy?

So you are the "bean counter" everyone in every company hates.

 

[KevinKohler]

So you are the "bean counter" everyone in every company hates.

No, I'm the SOB that has to execute the edicts of those been counters.


Still pretty hated, though.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

No, I'm the SOB that has to execute the edicts of those been counters.


Still pretty hated, though.

I imagine so.

 

[beerftw]

The past few months since my last promotion, my job has been to find ways to either reduce the amount employees at my company get for raises during review time, or to find ways of getting rid of long time employees in favor of new hires, who are obviously paid less.


Since I've started this, I've managed to reduce employee costs by about 2.5 percent for the store. Yearly, this is about...20k give or take. I've used several approved methods to achieve these results...transfer a long time full timer, someone making 13-15 bucks an hour, who's been with the company 5 years or more, to another store...typically 20-30 miles away. They get compensation for the travel, of course. One guy went along, two quit. All three replaced by 9 dollar an hour part timers. I've also changed up the schedules of full timers (all full time employees must have open availability), taking them out of set schedules, and giving them "crap schedules" to work. So far, only one has left, but she has been with the company 9 years, and made 16 an hour. Replaced by someone making 9. I've had a few other scattered "success stories"... But those were the most recent.

In addition to this, a month or so before my promotion, the company changed its employee review standards. In essence, hourlies are reviewed by the same qualifications and standards as the management staff. Which means the majority are only going to be getting .25 cent raises per year from here on in. A select few, who manage to meet those expectations will get a .50 cent raise. And I doubt anyone will exceed those expectations, to get the coveted .75cent raise. Else, why bother with managers?

Anyway. This has just been one anecdotal story about what I imagine is the new normal for most US workers doing the jobs that "shouldn't" supply a "living wage".

Oh, and none of those payroll savings are being translated into better bonuses, or more hours for others, or anything. I'll know by December who's corporate bonus these savings will boost.

So, is this good or bad for the local economy?

business that do such either have laborors that can be easily replaced because they are low or ni skil labor,or they do such because pencil pushers think it will work.

in the latter it almost always backfires.my bosses husband thought about hiring college grads as mechanics because it was cheaper,and i had to talk some sense into him.yeah they were cheaper,but thats because they were inexperienced as mechanics.i told him if he wanted to hire them,hire them as apprentices,that way the cheap labor can do low profit tasks while learning from the experienced guys.

so long as any industry needs experienced people to run it,they will pay top dollar for experience,anyone who thinks otherwise is simply looking at numbers through a calculator and ignoring output per person and overall team output,but instead placing it on a dollar per person output expecting someone with no experience can perform the same as someone with 10-20 years experience.

i have seen many business go under by firing experienced workers and hiring fresh out of college guys to save money.

 

[MaggieD]

The past few months since my last promotion, my job has been to find ways to either reduce the amount employees at my company get for raises during review time, or to find ways of getting rid of long time employees in favor of new hires, who are obviously paid less.

Since I've started this, I've managed to reduce employee costs by about 2.5 percent for the store. Yearly, this is about...20k give or take. I've used several approved methods to achieve these results...transfer a long time full timer, someone making 13-15 bucks an hour, who's been with the company 5 years or more, to another store...typically 20-30 miles away. They get compensation for the travel, of course. One guy went along, two quit. All three replaced by 9 dollar an hour part timers. I've also changed up the schedules of full timers (all full time employees must have open availability), taking them out of set schedules, and giving them "crap schedules" to work. So far, only one has left, but she has been with the company 9 years, and made 16 an hour. Replaced by someone making 9. I've had a few other scattered "success stories"... But those were the most recent.

In addition to this, a month or so before my promotion, the company changed its employee review standards. In essence, hourlies are reviewed by the same qualifications and standards as the management staff. Which means the majority are only going to be getting .25 cent raises per year from here on in. A select few, who manage to meet those expectations will get a .50 cent raise. And I doubt anyone will exceed those expectations, to get the coveted .75cent raise. Else, why bother with managers?

Anyway. This has just been one anecdotal story about what I imagine is the new normal for most US workers doing the jobs that "shouldn't" supply a "living wage".

Oh, and none of those payroll savings are being translated into better bonuses, or more hours for others, or anything. I'll know by December who's corporate bonus these savings will boost.

So, is this good or bad for the local economy?

I would have a very hard time doing what you're doing. Your boss is an asshole.

Edit: Watch your back. This man has no integrity. He will screw you over as soon as it's convenient.

 

[Fisher]

open your own store, find another job, or do your job as instructed.

 

[Econ4every1]

The past few months since my last promotion, my job has been to find ways to either reduce the amount employees at my company get for raises during review time, or to find ways of getting rid of long time employees in favor of new hires, who are obviously paid less.


Since I've started this, I've managed to reduce employee costs by about 2.5 percent for the store. Yearly, this is about...20k give or take. I've used several approved methods to achieve these results...transfer a long time full timer, someone making 13-15 bucks an hour, who's been with the company 5 years or more, to another store...typically 20-30 miles away. They get compensation for the travel, of course. One guy went along, two quit. All three replaced by 9 dollar an hour part timers. I've also changed up the schedules of full timers (all full time employees must have open availability), taking them out of set schedules, and giving them "crap schedules" to work. So far, only one has left, but she has been with the company 9 years, and made 16 an hour. Replaced by someone making 9. I've had a few other scattered "success stories"... But those were the most recent.

In addition to this, a month or so before my promotion, the company changed its employee review standards. In essence, hourlies are reviewed by the same qualifications and standards as the management staff. Which means the majority are only going to be getting .25 cent raises per year from here on in. A select few, who manage to meet those expectations will get a .50 cent raise. And I doubt anyone will exceed those expectations, to get the coveted .75cent raise. Else, why bother with managers?

Anyway. This has just been one anecdotal story about what I imagine is the new normal for most US workers doing the jobs that "shouldn't" supply a "living wage".

Oh, and none of those payroll savings are being translated into better bonuses, or more hours for others, or anything. I'll know by December who's corporate bonus these savings will boost.

So, is this good or bad for the local economy?

The result of the failure of labor to organize.

 

[MaggieD]

The result of the failure of labor to organize.

The result of an asshole owning the company.

 

[Econ4every1]

The result of an asshole owning the company.

While I don't necessarily disagree, lets be fair. In the current environment it is perfectly acceptable. We know and generally accept that a companies only obligation is to make money. One way to do that is to cut costs. Every dollar saved in salary is the same as selling two dollars of product.

The irony is that paying employees better may produce better profits. Though it's anecdotal, Costco has demonstrated that it is possible .....

Analysts to Costco: Stop treating your employees so well

We can all hope that the company that the OP works for will see profits drop and realize the value of paying employees better.

Until people are represented by government in the form of the people they elect, or they organize labor, they will continue to be exploited.

Companies will exploit anything and everything they possibly can to make more money. This is the system we live in. I don't endorse it, I don't like it, but I'm being realistic.

 

[MaggieD]

While I don't necessarily disagree, lets be fair. In the current environment it is perfectly acceptable. We know and generally accept that a companies only obligation is to make money. One way to do that is to cut costs. Every dollar saved in salary is the same as selling two dollars of product.

The irony is that paying employees better may produce better profits. Though it's anecdotal, Costco has demonstrated that it is possible .....

Analysts to Costco: Stop treating your employees so well

We can all hope that the company that the OP works for will see profits drop and realize the value of paying employees better.

Until people are represented by government in the form of the people they elect, or they organize labor, they will continue to be exploited.

Companies will exploit anything and everything they possibly can to make more money. This is the system we live in. I don't endorse it, I don't like it, but I'm being realistic.

Yeah, but he's still an asshole.

First he hires a guy as his henchman and gives him edicts from on high to do his dirty work. Then, instead of just firing the employees, he goes about it by making their lives miserable and waiting until they've had enough. In that length of time, he could have put them on notice, given them 90 days, made their work hours flexible and let them find another job.

Same destination. Different road.

 

[Superfly]

I agree with Maggie. I was feeling sorry for the hourlies until the part about the Corporate bonuses, then I just got pissed.

 

[KevinKohler]

I would have a very hard time doing what you're doing. Your boss is an asshole.

Edit: Watch your back. This man has no integrity. He will screw you over as soon as it's convenient.

No one in retail has integrity. It's a dog eat dog world.

 

[KevinKohler]

open your own store, find another job, or do your job as instructed.

I'm not making a complaint. In asking an as of yet unanswered question.

 

[KevinKohler]

The result of an asshole owning the company.

Those same people own ALL the companies. It's just business. How else do you think profits are made?


But my question in the OP stands.


Is this good for the community?

 

[KevinKohler]

Costco is actually our direct competitor, though they are older and better established. BJs is still busy hiring corporate and district employees directly from Home Depot. Why the Depot, as they call it. Because, when BJs first got started, one or two higher corporate guys left Home Depot for the new company. They hired former depot people, who in turn hired their own former depot people.


Anyway, Costco. They are one of the very few retail outfits that are unionized, and despite their short term success in stock trades, they are less suited for the long haul. Same thing that happened to GM is eventually going to happen to them.

 

[MaggieD]

No one in retail has integrity. It's a dog eat dog world.

Those same people own ALL the companies. It's just business. How else do you think profits are made?

But my question in the OP stands.

Is this good for the community?

Costco is actually our direct competitor, though they are older and better established. BJs is still busy hiring corporate and district employees directly from Home Depot. Why the Depot, as they call it. Because, when BJs first got started, one or two higher corporate guys left Home Depot for the new company. They hired former depot people, who in turn hired their own former depot people.


Anyway, Costco. They are one of the very few retail outfits that are unionized, and despite their short term success in stock trades, they are less suited for the long haul. Same thing that happened to GM is eventually going to happen to them.

Your first post: I've never been in retail. Perhaps you're right. Probably a very competitive industry.

Your second post: Is it good for the community? On a small scale, yes, I suppose it is. For individuals within the company, it sucks. One of my posts talks about a better way to do the same thing your owners want to do -- 60 or 90-day notice; flexible hours; give people notice they're being outright fired and give them the opportunity to look for new jobs. People will take an awful lot of **** when they have installment payments to make. I know life isn't fair. But that's "life" -- we people have an opportunity to make it a bit fairer. Something, apparently, your top brass doesn't care to do.

Your third post: Keep in mind that barely 10% of Costco employees are unionized. But you are correct, I think.

 

[KevinKohler]

Firing people, or laying them off, means unemployment. If they quit or transfer, no such cost is incurred.


Is anyone familiar with the idea of under employment? That seems to be the direction our economy is heading. Retailers are the largest employers in this country, with the only exception being temp agencies...who exist to supply retailers with cheap labor.

BJs is not alone. Walmart already did what I'm currently working on doing. Many many others are following suit. It's more profitable to have two low paid part time employees with no benefits or 401k, than one full timer with those things. So companies are doing exactly that. And have been in force for the last 15 years now. BJs just happens to be showing up late to the game.

Are we going to thrive as a nation of part time, slightly above minimum wage, no benefits retail workers?

Just how much more crap like the affordable health care act are we going to need, before people realize that this crap is in response (however poorly) to employment trends?

When 401ks are a thing of the past, what you wanna bet we get some new tax like Obama care to cover people's retirement more fully than social security?

 

[Helix]

The result of the failure of labor to organize.

yep.

we've actually got people whose job it is to make every loyal employee's daily life hell so that they quit and get replaced by cut rate labor. no offense, but i don't shed a tear when companies like this go under.

 

[Fisher]

Yeah, but he's still an asshole.

First he hires a guy as his henchman and gives him edicts from on high to do his dirty work. Then, instead of just firing the employees, he goes about it by making their lives miserable and waiting until they've had enough. In that length of time, he could have put them on notice, given them 90 days, made their work hours flexible and let them find another job.

Same destination. Different road.

I've done it and am doing it now. It is a two-fer. It saves my unemployment rates going up and it usually gives them time to find another job as a lot of employers are less likely to hire the unemployed than the already employed. I was guilted into hiring some people I didn't really need and made it clear to them I didn't really need them when I hired them and expected them to transition somewhere else. They got too comfortable and didn't make an effort so now I have cut their hours and stopped paying them for holidays to accelerate their departure even though I could afford to keep them as full-time employees if I so desired. I tried to be nice, they took advantage, and I am not running a charity. I have no problem with a business doing this if their model allows it.

 

[Manc Skipper]

No one in retail has integrity. It's a dog eat dog world.

Not necessarily. The John Lewis Partnership (all the employees are partners, with a profit-share) has been in business since 1929.

"The John Lewis Partnership is an employee-owned UK partnership which operates John Lewis department stores, Waitrose supermarkets and some other services. The company is owned by a trust on behalf of all its employees — known as Partners – who have a say in the running of the business and receive a share of annual profits, which is usually a significant addition to their salary. The group is the third largest UK private company in the Sunday Times Top Track 100 for 2010." ... "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership
.

 

[KevinKohler]

And yes, retail is competitive. It's the last game in town for a growing percentage of the population. Lately, former union folks from closed plants have been putting applications...

 

[Mach]

1. You're doing your job
2. It's improving the efficiency of the business.

Economically, it's hard to imagine anyone could reasonable argue economic efficiency of this sort is anything other than good.

To your specific question on whether it's good for the "community" or not.
To actually determine that you would need to question every member of the community or a statistically valid number and extrapolate. And in the end, you would have a 100% subjective determination of what people felt about it. Which IMO tells you absolutely nothing from my perspective as to what is or is not good for the community. At the end of the day, it's the owners/investors business, and if everyone is voluntarily entering into the agreements without any funny business, then it's ultimately "good for the community". Regardless of how a majority feels.

Every one of us should be able to thoroughly dislike someone else's personal or business choices, even hate...but still be able to defend their freedom and accept that in being free, the community is better off. So many humans find it terribly difficult if not impossible to behave that way though.

 

[d0gbreath]

If I felt that someone was making my life at work miserable in order to make me quit, I would find a way to get fired.

It's not that hard.