- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 27,204
- Reaction score
- 13,299
- Location
- CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
No, I'm the SOB that has to execute the edicts of those been counters.
Still pretty hated, though.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
open your own store, find another job, or do your job as instructed.
The result of an asshole owning the company.
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.
The result of the failure of labor to organize.
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.
No one in retail has integrity. It's a dog eat dog world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?