Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-15-2014, 09:59 PM  
petegz28 petegz28 is offline
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $20118
Rejecting Walmart Strategy, Trader Joe’s Pays Employees A Living Wage And Wins

We’ve watched as places like Walmart, Papa John’s, Target, Applebee’s and other businesses continue to pay sub-par wages while claiming their only option for profit, given the economy and their being “forced” to provide employees with insurance, is to either cut employees’ hours and/or their wages. This miserly strategy is justified and implemented despite the fact that research shows that raising wages would actually “benefit workers, the industry and the overall economy.”

Yet in the midst of Scroogian thinking, a handful of smarter businesses have stepped to the forefront to reject this “austerity” model for a different philosophy right in line with research: pay a good living wage, offer benefits and maximize one of your most important “assets”: your valued workforce. Top on that list of smart retailers is Costco; Tulsa-based convenience chain, QuikTrip, and consumer favorite, Trader Joe’s.

Trader Joe’s is particularly notable as a store that inspires an almost cult-like appreciation from its customers. Founded by its namesake, Joe Coulombe, the precursor of Trader Joe’s was a convenience store launched in Los Angeles in 1958 with the rather unimaginative name, Pronto Market. Deciding it wouldn’t be in his best interest to attempt to compete with the ubiquitous marketplace leader, 7-Eleven, Coulombe ultimately decided to specialize; rumor has it he got the idea of a “South Seas motif” while on a trip to the Caribbean, where he noticed American travelers enjoying and bringing back to the States unique items with an island flair. He opened his first official “Trader Joe’s” in Pasadena in 1967 (the original store is still there!) and it was an immediate hit; a 2008 Business Week article made the point that Trader Joe’s “sells twice as much per square foot than other supermarkets.”

Given its profitability, one might assume that, like Walmart and Target, it was operating under the strategy of categorizing employees as a “business cost” that needs to be minimized and kept under tight control. One would be wrong. From The Atlantic:

Many employers believe that one of the best ways to raise their profit margin is to cut labor costs. But companies like QuikTrip, the grocery-store chain Trader Joe’s, and Costco Wholesale are proving that the decision to offer low wages is a choice, not an economic necessity. All three are low-cost retailers, a sector that is traditionally known for relying on part-time, low-paid employees. Yet these companies have all found that the act of valuing workers can pay off in the form of increased sales and productivity. [Emphasis added.]

QuikTrip, Trader Joe’s, and Costco operate on a different model, Ton says. “They start with the mentality of seeing employees as assets to be maximized,” she says. As a result, their stores boast better operational efficiency and customer service, and those result in better sales. [... ]

The approach seems like common sense. Keeping shelves stocked and helping customers find merchandise are key to maximizing sales, and it takes human judgment and people skills to execute those tasks effectively. To see what happens when workers are devalued, look no further than Borders or Circuit City. Both big-box retailers saw sales plummet after staff cutbacks, and both ultimately went bankrupt.

There is also the issue of consumer perception. Places like Walmart and Papa John’s, one a retailer, the other a food service provider, both suffered and continue to take negative PR hits for paying low wages, “nickel-and-diming” employees on the issue of insurance benefits, and appearing to place the burden of economic change and demand on the backs of their workforce, all the more galling when company CEO’s are making multimillion dollar profits. Consumer good-will and the general perception of a business tend to take a beating when those at the helm come off as greedy, unethical, and denigrating of their workforce.

Trader Joe’s, Costco and Quik Trip, on the other hard, have engendered loyalty and expanded their public good will with positive, worker-protective strategies that exhibit the importance they place on their most valued asset: the people working for and with them, whose skills and hard work are essential to a healthy bottom-line. And that is, after all, the goal of any smart company.

Given its profitability, one might assume that, like Walmart and Target, it was operating under the strategy of categorizing employees as a “business cost” that needs to be minimized and kept under tight control. One would be wrong. From The Atlantic:

Many employers believe that one of the best ways to raise their profit margin is to cut labor costs. But companies like QuikTrip, the grocery-store chain Trader Joe’s, and Costco Wholesale are proving that the decision to offer low wages is a choice, not an economic necessity. All three are low-cost retailers, a sector that is traditionally known for relying on part-time, low-paid employees. Yet these companies have all found that the act of valuing workers can pay off in the form of increased sales and productivity. [Emphasis added.]


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03...wage-and-wins/
Posts: 67,911
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2014, 08:23 AM   #181
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $9250
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaise View Post
Loneiguana's standard is that as long as people are on public assistance while working a 40 hour a week job, then that job is paying too little.

So, someone could have 4 kids, spend money foolishly, and because they couldn't make ends week on 40 hours McDonalds would need to pay them more.
His criteria would mean that the minimum wage would never be high enough, basically. Because there would always be someone working 40 hours at Taco Bell that needed assistance.



You still have no idea what a family of four means and assume 16.5 million workers misspend their money instead of supporting their kids to make your argument. You are stupid.
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 4,199
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2014, 08:31 AM   #182
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $9250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower View Post
Because it makes sense that one must pay a portion of earnings to a 3rd party for the privilege of working.
Yea, how dare an organization with expenses ask the workers of the union who benefit and use the services of the organization to contribute to pay for those expenses. That's like socialist or something. People should get services for free.

Lawyers should represent you for free.The dude who negotiated the contract that gives great pay should have worked for free. The union hall where workers have a safe, private off-working site to use their freedom of assembly and freedom of speech should be rent free.

Don't want those great services and the freedom of speech to discuss working conditions with your freedom of assembly, don't apply for a union job. You have that option.
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

Last edited by Loneiguana; 02-22-2014 at 08:42 AM..
Posts: 4,199
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2014, 08:51 AM   #183
blake5676 blake5676 is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kansas City
Casino cash: $7885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
Cut off public assistance?

Why not just pay them a wage that allows them to meet the basic necessities in our society, so they don't have to rely on public assistance. How about a job actual support a worker, instead of the government supporting workers.

I see you still don't understand it is the JOB, not the person, getting public assistance. It doesn't matter if the person works there 6 months or ten years, the next person who takes the job will get public assistance, and the next, and the next.
So which is it Lone? You love to say that most minimum wage earners are NOT teenagers and college aged workers. So using that logic, a good chunk of those who earn minimum wage are in their mid-late 20's and 30's. Is every one of those workers a single parent with a family to support? You say that it is the JOB and not the PERSON getting the support. And that whoever takes the job next is going to get public assistance as well. Connecting the dots with your blanket assumptions means that no one working a low paying job has a significant other contributing to household income. They're all families of four with only a mom or dad working the drive thru at taco bell, right?

It most definitely IS the person getting assistance and not the job. To say differently is not even arguable. Not every single person working for minimum wage is poor. Not everyone is a complete idiot who tries to support a family on a single income that is minimum wage. Teenagers earn minimum wage. College students earn minimum wage. 32 year old mothers can earn minimum wage and have a husband who works as well. Do you think they are automatically getting government assitance?? Because that's what you're saying by arguing that the JOB is the one at fault. You can spout off your American labor tradition says different BS, but your entire argument is invalid from the beginning here.
Posts: 438
blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.blake5676 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2014, 08:55 AM   #184
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $9250
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake5676 View Post
So which is it Lone? You love to say that most minimum wage earners are NOT teenagers and college aged workers. So using that logic, a good chunk of those who earn minimum wage are in their mid-late 20's and 30's. Is every one of those workers a single parent with a family to support? You say that it is the JOB and not the PERSON getting the support. And that whoever takes the job next is going to get public assistance as well. Connecting the dots with your blanket assumptions means that no one working a low paying job has a significant other contributing to household income. They're all families of four with only a mom or dad working the drive thru at taco bell, right?

It most definitely IS the person getting assistance and not the job. To say differently is not even arguable. Not every single person working for minimum wage is poor. Not everyone is a complete idiot who tries to support a family on a single income that is minimum wage. Teenagers earn minimum wage. College students earn minimum wage. 32 year old mothers can earn minimum wage and have a husband who works as well. Do you think they are automatically getting government assitance?? Because that's what you're saying by arguing that the JOB is the one at fault. You can spout off your American labor tradition says different BS, but your entire argument is invalid from the beginning here.
Minimum wage is low enough to enable a single person to qualify for food stamps.

It is the job.

Not the person.

The billions spent of tax payer dollars to workers is evidence of this.

Unless you assume that the 6 billion of tax payer dollars only goes to mothers of 4 who are stupid. I mean, do you think 16.5 million people who choose to work a job instead of no job is stupid? Is that what you are saying? because that's what it sounds like.

Half of all fast food workers receive government help. I guess that means half of all workers are stupid people who shouldn't be working that job, instead of the job just paying piss poor, right?
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

Last edited by Loneiguana; 02-22-2014 at 09:05 AM..
Posts: 4,199
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2014, 05:28 PM   #185
blaise blaise is offline
Gonzo = Sexy Bitch
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plano, TX
Casino cash: $280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post


You still have no idea what a family of four means and assume 16.5 million workers misspend their money instead of supporting their kids to make your argument. You are stupid.
I never said 16.5 MM misspend their money.

Don't be a spaz, Spaz.
Posts: 21,074
blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2014, 11:57 PM   #186
RippedmyFlesh RippedmyFlesh is offline
Veteran
 
RippedmyFlesh's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Casino cash: $5787
Food for thought

The Walton family's wealth alone equals the bottom 42% of American families' wealth combined

http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/...t-walmart.html
Posts: 2,930
RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.RippedmyFlesh would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 03:11 PM   #187
Discuss Thrower Discuss Thrower is offline
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3
 
Discuss Thrower's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No, where do YOU live?
Casino cash: $18256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
Yea, how dare an organization with expenses ask the workers of the union who benefit and use the services of the organization to contribute to pay for those expenses. That's like socialist or something. People should get services for free.
Expenses that wouldn't exist if there wasn't an institutionalized union in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
Lawyers should represent you for free.The dude who negotiated the contract that gives great pay should have worked for free.
Employer: "We'll pay you $15 an hour, you have X days off, and Y amount of health insurance.
Applicant: EITHER "I'll take it." or "**** that, I'm gonna continue living in a van down by the river.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
The union hall where workers have a safe, private off-working site to use their freedom of assembly and freedom of speech should be rent free.
The ****? Why does an average employee of any company NEED this? Further, why does a union NEED such a facility on a permanent basis? Is it that great of a fear that if a union is in some sort of labor dispute they'll be blocked out of other commercially available meeting space by cigar chomping capitalist fatcats who have all banded together to **** the working man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
Don't want those great services and the freedom of speech to discuss working conditions with your freedom of assembly, don't apply for a union job. You have that option.
"Great" services. Uh huh. Your post discussed absolutely nothing about the redeeming values in unions in preventing legitimately exploitative and dangerous working conditions (you know, like coal mines and early industrial meatpacking) and instead championed the namby-pamby bureaucratic bullshit line of thought that critics point out with the idiocy of things like job banks were union workers sit on their ass reading papers because there aren't any actual jobs for them to perform but they cannot be laid off by the corporation due to contractual agreements.
__________________

- credit goes to BoneKrusher for the pic

Chiefs 2015 Opponents:
Home: CLE, PIT, CHI, DET, AFC East. Away: BAL, CIN, GB, MIN, AFC South
Chiefs 2016 Opponents:
Home: JAX, TEN, NO, TB, AFC East. Away: HOU, IND, ATL, CAR, AFC North
Chiefs 2017 Opponents:
Home: BUF, MIA, PHI, WSH, AFC North. Away: NE, NYJ, NYG, DAL, AFC South
Posts: 13,072
Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Discuss Thrower 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:15 AM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.