ADVERTISEMENT

Walmart Raises Minimum Wage, Then Cuts Hours of Employees

Nat Algren

HB Legend
Nov 23, 2014
19,359
6,211
113
Bowing To Demands Of Wall Street, Walmart Cuts Hours To Trim Costs

BY BRYCE COVERT AUG 31, 2015 10:18AM

AP377246945231-1024x709.jpg

CREDIT: AP IMAGES/SPENCER TIREY

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon

After raising the minimum wage for its lowest compensated workers, Walmart is now cutting some workers’ hours to try to trim costs.

Store managers were recently told to cut back on hours to reduce costs, which has led to them eliminating hours from the schedule, telling workers to leave their shifts before they end, or having employees take longer lunches, Bloomberg News reports. A spokesperson told Bloomberg that these changes are only happening in stores where managers had overscheduled employees.

One anonymous Walmart worker near Houston told Bloomberg that her store had cut more than 200 hours a week by asking people to go home early. Another in Fort Worth was told that the store would cut 1,500 hours and said that employees who had been asked to stay late for extra work earlier in the week were told to take two-hour lunch breaks later on to make up for those hours.

In February, Walmart announced that it would raise its base pay to at least $9 an hour by April and $10 an hour by early next year, increasing wages for about 500,000 employees and spending more than $1 billion on the effort. At the time, the CEO said the company expected those changes to lower employee turnover and attract better talent, as well as to lead to better customer service that would boost sales.

But earlier this month, the company lowered its annual earnings forecast based in part on the higher cost of employee compensation. It had originally said the cost of higher pay would reduce profit by 20 cents per stock share, but then revised that to 24 cents a share. “The changes we need to make require investment, and we’re pleased with the steps we’ve taken,” CEO Doug McMillon said at the time. “Even if it’s not as fast as we’d like, the fundamentals of serving our customers are consistently improving, and it’s reflected in our comps and revenue growth.”

And while the company announced the higher pay would reduce profit, it also announced that the changes are helping to increase growth. Its comparable-store sales rose 1.5 percent the previous quarter, beating projections.

Part of the motivation behind Walmart’s pay increase was to improve customer service. Empty shelves and long lines had led to widespread customer dissatisfaction, hurting sales, which had led analysts to downgrade the company. When it raised pay, McMillan noted, “We know what customers want from a shopping experience, and we’re investing strategically to exceed their expectations and better position Walmart for the future.”

The company is now assuring the public that that focus won’t be sacrificed with the new schedule changes. The company spokesperson said reductions in hours won’t affect the focus on better staffing stores, reducing checkout lines, and filling shelves. “[W]e are committed to improving the customer experience and we will protect the investments necessary to achieve this goal,” Greg Foran, head of U.S. operations, said.

The increased pay also came after years of protests and worker strikes at its stores from employees who were demanding higher pay, better schedules, and the right to form a union. They have demanded to be paid at least $15 an hour and more full-time work for those who need it.

Walmart may be one of the many corporations stuck between responding to the short-term demands of Wall Street and the long-term investments that don’t pay off as quickly but can increase growth in the long run, like employee compensation. Large corporations have been spending most of their earnings on stock buybacks and dividends, which serve to boost their short-term stock prices and enrich investors. They’re expected to collectively spend $1 trillion on these moves this year. Between 2003 and 2012, buybacks and dividends consumed 91 percent of earnings, leaving just 9 percent to invest in workers, equipment, research, or other long-term investments.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/31/3696938/walmart-wages-schedules/
 
Walmart still hasn't figured out that their problem is the lousy f'n service they provide. They had no problem paying CEO Mike Duke $21M in 2012 even as Walmart stock lagged. He "retired" in 2013 with an account worth $140M.
 
Attract all that talent at $10/hr. Yup I'm sure that $10 an hour is just going to have the top level of trailer court king lining up to get a job. Pretty delusional.
 
WalMart has been cutting the hours of employees for
the past two years. ObamaCare has ruined their low
cost approach for their work force. 29 hours a week
is the new norm for WalMart employees.
 
Walmart still hasn't figured out that their problem is the lousy f'n service they provide. They had no problem paying CEO Mike Duke $21M in 2012 even as Walmart stock lagged. He "retired" in 2013 with an account worth $140M.

What does this have to do with the original article?
 
  • Like
Reactions: icu81222
Walmart isn't cutting hours isn't due to wages. It's cutting hours due to lack of sales. Walmart sales are on the decline. And when you're moving less product, you need less labor. This really isn't that hard to understand.
 
Walmart isn't cutting hours isn't due to wages. It's cutting hours due to lack of sales. Walmart sales are on the decline. And when you're moving less product, you need less labor. This really isn't that hard to understand.

Walmart's sales are not in the decline. See the link below. Their profitability has declined, which tends to happen when you raise your minimum wage by 11 percent.

Just curious, why would you even post what you did given you obviously had no clue as to the facts. I would have taken you 2 minutes to look up walmarts sales numbers. Instead, you try to lie about a fact that is so easily and demonstrably proven. Combine that with your "this really isn't that hard to understand" comment and you look like a complete idiot. Why wouldn't you just educate yourself? Laziness? Do you want to argue your worldview so badly that you don't care about truth?

http://stock.walmart.com/files/doc_financials/2016/Q2/FY-16-Q2-press-release-final.pdf
 
Last edited:
Walmart isn't cutting hours isn't due to wages. It's cutting hours due to lack of sales. Walmart sales are on the decline. And when you're moving less product, you need less labor. This really isn't that hard to understand.
You are partially correct, there are other issues that are driving down hours of which the increase in wages is one.

A certain percentage of sales is going to be allocated for store payrolls and as sales go down or wages go up the total hours will be effected. In a perfect world sales and wages would increase at a comparable rate and the status quo would be maintained. Since we don't live in a perfect world an increase in wages coupled with decline in sales is going to lead to less hours.

Wal Mart is in a tough spot, their claim to fame message as the low price leader how now given way to a belief that service is bad and that they are against the little guy by keeping their wages so low.
 
WalMart sales are contracting. Any business with contracting sales will probably reduce hours. If WalMart sales were booming, I'm guessing that WalMart would add workers. Wages don't seem to be the root cause here.


walmarts-same-store-sales_large.PNG
 
Here's a Google search on the issue. Pick whatever article you want. Walmart is hurting for shoppers these days.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=walmart+sales+on+decline


So let me get this straight.

I link Walmarts quarterly earnings that show 1.5 percent growth in sales in Q2 after a 1.7 percent growth in Q1 and a 1.9 percent annual growth in 2015.

You link a Google search of "Walmart sales in decline". Btw, you didn't read any of the articles from your search, did you.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icu81222
You are partially correct, there are other issues that are driving down hours of which the increase in wages is one.

A certain percentage of sales is going to be allocated for store payrolls and as sales go down or wages go up the total hours will be effected. In a perfect world sales and wages would increase at a comparable rate and the status quo would be maintained. Since we don't live in a perfect world an increase in wages coupled with decline in sales is going to lead to less hours.

Wal Mart is in a tough spot, their claim to fame message as the low price leader how now given way to a belief that service is bad and that they are against the little guy by keeping their wages so low.
Certainly there are other factors, but wages seems to be a secondary one. Merchandise that stays on the shelves doesn't need workers to keep it there. It only needs workers when merchandise gets taken off the shelves.
 
WalMart sales are contracting. Any business with contracting sales will probably reduce hours. If WalMart sales were booming, I'm guessing that WalMart would add workers. Wages don't seem to be the root cause here.


walmarts-same-store-sales_large.PNG


Oh, a graph.

Read their financials!!!!!!!

My god, just stop. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
I believe that numbers have shown they might have had negative same store sales for some of 2014 but have shown positive same store comps for 2015. They are not doing as well as they would like, but they have been positive for 2015
 
WalMart has been cutting the hours of employees for
the past two years. ObamaCare has ruined their low
cost approach for their work force. 29 hours a week
is the new norm for WalMart employees.

Actually, this is what Wal-Mart has done forever. 29 hours a week has been considered full-time by them since I can remember. They did it when I worked in management 25 years ago, but don't let the facts get in the way of a rant about ObamaCare!
 
Here's the deal, Noble. One quarter isn't a good measure of how a business is doing. That's why your link is pretty worthless. To know how your business is doing you need to zoom out and look at the overall trend of many quarters. And the overall trends is that WalMart sales are struggling. And when a business struggles, they typically cut hours. Blaming this on wages only shows you are willing to find causation where none really exists. (Oh and for the record, most of the sales from you link came from e-commerce, not brick and mortar stores, which is what this thread is all about).



06242014-wmt-sss_large.PNG
 
So they raised wages in the face of declining sales?

They deserve what they get.
 
Huey is quite the liberal shill. Walmart has a budget for payroll. Walmart raises wages, but not the budget for payroll. Walmart cuts hours to meet budget for payroll. Huey puts blame 100% on lagging sales and no blame on wage increases.

I added up the gains and losses in sales in your graph and it came out to about a .75 decrease in sales in 21 quarters. I bet they are still making money in brick and mortar stores taking into account a less than 1% decrease in sales over that timeframe.
 
Huey is quite the liberal shill. Walmart has a budget for payroll. Walmart raises wages, but not the budget for payroll.

Yes, Huey is an idiot, let's put that aside.

If Walmart can simply cut hours of employees, don't these two questions naturally follow:

A) Why didn't they do that before?
B) What happened to the needed hours from before?
 
Yes, Huey is an idiot, let's put that aside.

If Walmart can simply cut hours of employees, don't these two questions naturally follow:

A) Why didn't they do that before?
B) What happened to the needed hours from before?

A) They might have been cutting hours before it just looks worse when paired with a min wage increase or they were satisfied with profits/payroll and saw no reason to cut hours?
B) Do more with less. More self check outs. Less quality customer service (if that's even possible).

When I need something from Walmart, I always go to the self check out lanes. They are never busy mostly because I assume most of the other shoppers aren't smart enough to scan an item, put it in a bag, and swipe your card to pay.
 
So, then according to that, the raising of min.wage doesn't seem to have much effect.
 
Here's a Google search on the issue. Pick whatever article you want. Walmart is hurting for shoppers these days.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=walmart+sales+on+decline

"The retailer reported comparable sales, which includes digital revenue but excludes newly opened or closed stores, rose 1.1%- not bad, but below the 1.5% Wall Street was looking for."

The above is a quotation taken from one of the articles that you essentially recommended, the first one I actually clicked on, to bolster your point that Wal-Mart sales are declining. Comparable sales OR sales that actually increased by 1.1% DO NOT EQUAL lower sales or declining sales.

Here's how you could tell if sales were actually down...there would be a MINUS sign in front of them.

While sales may not be hitting targets for WM...that is not the same thing as declining sales. Certainly there are ways for WM to do better, on several fronts, but people that post "facts" that are 180 degrees incorrect like this one do little to help understanding.
 
Yes, Huey is an idiot, let's put that aside.

If Walmart can simply cut hours of employees, don't these two questions naturally follow:

A) Why didn't they do that before?
B) What happened to the needed hours from before?
First, Huey is not an idiot, he just has a very liberal perspective.

As for question A - payroll budgets are set as a percentage of sales. Anything that impacts either sales or payroll costs changes the hours. Sales go up more than wages then hours will be increased. Sales go down and wages are the same then hours will be cut. Sales remain the same but wages go up hours go down. Sales go down and wages go up hours go down faster and further.

As for question B - Productivity increases to compensate for the reduction in hours, which for Wal Mart means the stockers work quicker. The other result will be stores not restocked as quickly or service declines.

It is possible that Wal Mart could have absorbed the sales decline without cutting hours significantly or absorbed the increase in wages and maintained hours. What is not possible IMHO is the ability to do both.
 
First, Huey is not an idiot, he just has a very liberal perspective.

As for question A - payroll budgets are set as a percentage of sales. Anything that impacts either sales or payroll costs changes the hours. Sales go up more than wages then hours will be increased. Sales go down and wages are the same then hours will be cut. Sales remain the same but wages go up hours go down. Sales go down and wages go up hours go down faster and further.

As for question B - Productivity increases to compensate for the reduction in hours, which for Wal Mart means the stockers work quicker. The other result will be stores not restocked as quickly or service declines.

No, he is an idiot. Maybe not in the technical, definitional sense, but he is an HROT idiot, one of our loudest and proudest.

Let me start by saying I have no, nada, zero experience in retail, but:

I'm not sure I agree with A. If Walmart was selling at the same rate as before, but with higher payroll, they wouldn't cut back hours. Hours would be based on need. If they can sell $10,000 in an hour with X number of employees at the IDEAL rate, they wouldn't need more, or less employees. Obviously if they could still sell $10k with LESS employees they would do so, regardless of payroll.

B. Maybe, or the stockers are already at ideal rates. Again, if Walmart could simply make less employees work harder, faster they would have just done so....regardless of payroll.
 
No, he is an idiot. Maybe not in the technical, definitional sense, but he is an HROT idiot, one of our loudest and proudest.

Let me start by saying I have no, nada, zero experience in retail, but:

I'm not sure I agree with A. If Walmart was selling at the same rate as before, but with higher payroll, they wouldn't cut back hours. Hours would be based on need. If they can sell $10,000 in an hour with X number of employees at the IDEAL rate, they wouldn't need more, or less employees. Obviously if they could still sell $10k with LESS employees they would do so, regardless of payroll.

B. Maybe, or the stockers are already at ideal rates. Again, if Walmart could simply make less employees work harder, faster they would have just done so....regardless of payroll.
Spent over 30 years in retail and I can assure you hours are not based on need. On point A payroll dollars are allocated as a percent of sales. As budgets get updated the stores payroll dollars are changed to reflect changes in sales and payroll costs. Those dollars are then divided by the average rate for that store and the amount of hours is determined. There is a minimum amount of hours required but if a store performance pushes it into a lose then that store may close. Keep in mind the store impacts the district, region, and company cost structure so it might take more than the location losing money to close it as the lose would have to be more than the expenses that store covers for a district/region.

For your B in Wal Mart case if they can't come up with a system change which I don't think they can then their store service and stocking will suffer. You should keep in mind that store management greatly impacts productivity and that the quality of the management team can change how a store operates.
 
WalMart has been cutting the hours of employees for
the past two years. ObamaCare has ruined their low
cost approach for their work force. 29 hours a week
is the new norm for WalMart employees.
Whoever had 4 in the "name the number of posts in the thread before Obamacare is blamed" pool is a winner.
 
Spent over 30 years in retail and I can assure you hours are not based on need. On point A payroll dollars are allocated as a percent of sales.
I didn't spend 30 years in retail but I managed 7 retail stores for 3 different companies and that wasn't what I saw. Obviously that's a factor, but there are other considerations, too. What you say may be more true for large operations like Walmart.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT