Susan Chambers' memo to the board of directors spells out in cold efficiency how enslaved Wal-Mart is to its bottom-line strategy, even if that strategy erases the middle-class standard of living that workers at America's largest companies traditionally achieved.
The organization Wal-Mart Watch obtained the internal company memo and gave it to The New York Times. The memo by Chambers, Wal-Mart?s executive vice president for benefits, revealed a callous attitude toward employees.
Wal-Mart's employee benefits, the memo says, are hurting profits. The company has too many full-time workers, it says. Too many older workers. Too many obese workers with health problems. Too many long-term employees ? who cost the company 55 percent more than new employees and are more likely to stay at Wal-Mart rather than seek another job.
Just as bad, the memo says, is that critics are right: Wal-Mart's low-income workers can't afford its health insurance. Wal-Mart does have "a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance." Many of these public programs do offer "more generous health insurance than Wal-Mart provides."
Employee benefits not only cost too much, they're creating "reputation issues." And all that bad publicity is starting to drive shoppers away. So what does the memo recommend? Damage control ? drastic changes in benefit and hiring policies, all intended to balance long-term costs against employee satisfaction and public perception.
Among the recommendations, which Chambers says the Executive Benefits Steering Committee received "enthusiastically:"
? Increasing the percentage of part-time Associates, which will reduce health-insurance enrollment, even if the company makes insurance available sooner.
? Attracting healthier workers by changing job duties, offering incentives, and using tactics to "dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart."
? Shifting to "consumer-driven" health insurance offerings that cut Wal-Mart's costs.
? Pushing spouses off insurance coverage by making those premiums more expensive.
? Reducing profit-sharing and 401(k) benefits.
? Cutting company life-insurance benefits.
? Becoming "more proactive in the public arena" to help define the nation's insurance debate.
? Engaging "in a sustained communication campaign" to "help us reframe public perception of our healthcare offering."
Paul Blank, director of UFCW's Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign, called the memo "simply appalling," saying it treats workers "like products in their stores."
"It's clear they want to flush their long-service employees," said Bernie Hesse, of UFCW Local 789. "And the prescreening of workers should send shivers down workers' spines."
Adapted from The Union Advocate, the official newspaper of the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. E-mail The Advocate at: advocate@stpaulunions.org
Share
Susan Chambers’ memo to the board of directors spells out in cold efficiency how enslaved Wal-Mart is to its bottom-line strategy, even if that strategy erases the middle-class standard of living that workers at America’s largest companies traditionally achieved.
The organization Wal-Mart Watch obtained the internal company memo and gave it to The New York Times. The memo by Chambers, Wal-Mart?s executive vice president for benefits, revealed a callous attitude toward employees.
Wal-Mart’s employee benefits, the memo says, are hurting profits. The company has too many full-time workers, it says. Too many older workers. Too many obese workers with health problems. Too many long-term employees ? who cost the company 55 percent more than new employees and are more likely to stay at Wal-Mart rather than seek another job.
Just as bad, the memo says, is that critics are right: Wal-Mart’s low-income workers can’t afford its health insurance. Wal-Mart does have “a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance.” Many of these public programs do offer “more generous health insurance than Wal-Mart provides.”
Employee benefits not only cost too much, they’re creating “reputation issues.” And all that bad publicity is starting to drive shoppers away. So what does the memo recommend? Damage control ? drastic changes in benefit and hiring policies, all intended to balance long-term costs against employee satisfaction and public perception.
Among the recommendations, which Chambers says the Executive Benefits Steering Committee received “enthusiastically:”
? Increasing the percentage of part-time Associates, which will reduce health-insurance enrollment, even if the company makes insurance available sooner.
? Attracting healthier workers by changing job duties, offering incentives, and using tactics to “dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart.”
? Shifting to “consumer-driven” health insurance offerings that cut Wal-Mart’s costs.
? Pushing spouses off insurance coverage by making those premiums more expensive.
? Reducing profit-sharing and 401(k) benefits.
? Cutting company life-insurance benefits.
? Becoming “more proactive in the public arena” to help define the nation’s insurance debate.
? Engaging “in a sustained communication campaign” to “help us reframe public perception of our healthcare offering.”
Paul Blank, director of UFCW’s Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign, called the memo “simply appalling,” saying it treats workers “like products in their stores.”
“It’s clear they want to flush their long-service employees,” said Bernie Hesse, of UFCW Local 789. “And the prescreening of workers should send shivers down workers’ spines.”
Adapted from The Union Advocate, the official newspaper of the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. E-mail The Advocate at: advocate@stpaulunions.org