Circuit City to cut more than 3,500 jobs

venomclan

I think this thread has veered off the real reson I created it.

Any company has the right to do whatever is necessary (legally) for survival. Competition is fierce and those who idle will die. We can go into a whole different discussion about our way vs. Europe etc... but that is moot. Look at the UAW and the big 3 auto manufacturers in Detroit, that is a huge nightmare approaching.

My point was that this is a huge PR mess more than anything. People get downsized, layed off, outsourced, canned...every day in all sectors. I think that whoever made the original statement should make a restatement or a correction. It does not make me all warm and fuzzy inside about CC, regardless of my origianl opinion of the company.
V

madmax

You eventually end up with what you pay for. So they save 5.5mil for the year, great but by next year things start sagging, more needs to be saved, cut the workforce, worse service, customers go elsewhere and it spirals. In my opinion a better way to do it is get rid of the poor performers and don't mess around trying to save $1 per hour.

I don't know its bad they said what they are doing. Gives everyone a heads up.
madmax

shack

mrbigbluelight wrote:

And being as peoples' tax dollars (in the form of TIF funding) help to build Walmarts all across the country (after all, Walmart is in dire financial straits, right ?), than what is the quid pro quo for the people providing this corporate welfare ?

TIF (Tax Increment Financing) has ablsolutely NOTHING to do with a business needing help. TIF typically needs to be availabe to the stongest, most financially stable business or project available. TIF basically takes the R/E tax revenues from a particular area and uses them to finance/incent stong business to move to that area to improve it by creating jobs, increasing the tax base, improve the infrastructure...etc..etc... The LAST thing you would want to do with TIF is to bring in a marginal buiness or project. It would be defeating the purpose if it failed. TIFs are generally used to incent business or building projects to locate where under normal, prudent business situations they might not do so. It benefits the community as much or more than the business.

daboyz

heiney9 wrote:

I didn't even realize it was legal to fire people and then fill the jobs again solely because they are paid too much. :eek: It just seems wrong. You can get away with "moving" to a country that has a lower pay scale to cut costs, but to balatantly say your current workers and paid too much so we'll fire and hire people who will work for less.

Going back, it's called employed at will, I'm sure most large employers use this to be able to dump employees. They put it in the handbook but don't say much about it until needed. It's unfortunate. I think the better way for them to go is to have a corporate wide customer service program to improve themselves.

I used to like the store,now.........

krabby5

shack wrote:

TIF (Tax Increment Financing) has ablsolutely NOTHING to do with a business needing help. TIF typically needs to be availabe to the stongest, most financially stable business or project available. TIF basically takes the R/E tax revenues from a particular area and uses them to finance/incent stong business to move to that area to improve it by creating jobs, increasing the tax base, improve the infrastructure...etc..etc... The LAST thing you would want to do with TIF is to bring in a marginal buiness or project. It would be defeating the purpose if it failed. TIFs are generally used to incent business or building projects to locate where under normal, prudent business situations they might not do so. It benefits the community as much or more than the business.

You responded before I could...I used to work as a TIF auditor and it has nothing to do with the actual business that eventually occupies the land. It's for the developers. in simple terms, "If not for TIF, that developer wouldn't develop land in that area.." The legal mumble jumble for TIF makes the subject almost impossible to understand or oversee. Which made it especially hard for the TIF auditors to have any pull..in fact, my boss was a lawyer..

by the way...the most boring job I've EVER had..lasted a year

scottnbnj

i don't see the problem. lots of folks seem to be onboard with higher prices if it means better pay for employees.

cc could just give consumers the option to pay a higher price to make up the difference in what the firings are expected to save. any additional money's the optional higher prices bring in could go directly toward an employee pay bump. most folks will see the advantage and opt to pay more. wal-mart too.

problem solved.

)

PhantomOG

scottnbnj wrote:

most folks will see the advantage and opt to pay more.

that's funny. you are being sarcastic right?

Everyone independently operates on a bottom line financial basis. People either want to pay the lowest price possible, or will pay more if they expect a greater return in the end. However, they expect everyone else (businesses) to operate altruisticly and make no profit and give them everything for free. People's inability to see this is mind-boggling to me.

tommyboy

scottnbnj wrote:

most folks will see the advantage and opt to pay more. wal-mart too.


)

I wish that were true buddy.

Customers want the best deal and be treated right, employers want to take as much money from you as possible... nothing more.

bottom line, customer don't give a **** how much money the salseman makes, as long as they are paying the lowest price.

jdhdiggs

I'd like to take this time to introduce my "who gets screwed" theory on economics in afree market. The idea here is that for someone to make money, someone else needs to get screwed. The only players in this game are: Consumers, Workers, and Ownership. One or more of thes groups must get screwed for the otherw to benifit.

Example 1: Want low prices and make money? Screw the workers. (Ex Walmart)
Example 2: Want good wages and make money? Screw the consumer (ex: Harley Davidson)
Example 3: Want low prices and good wages? Screw ownership (Ex: US Automakers and Airlines)

Of course this last one tends to result in everyone getting screwed (Ownership loses their investment, workers lose their jobs, and consumers lose the product or pay higher prices from a competitor.)

That's pretty much how it works. Anyway, off to another lunch-n-learn (free food!)

scottnbnj

PhantomOG wrote:

that's funny. you are being sarcastic right?

i don't know. poll the folks that think this is all the fault of the evil big companies if they'd pony up a few extra pennies on the dollar if given the proper choice at the register.

people pay tips all the time. why are certain service employees and consumers exempt?

)

PhantomOG

scottnbnj wrote:

i don't know. poll the folks that think this is all the fault of the evil big companies if they'd pony up a few extra pennies on the dollar if given the proper choice at the register.

people pay tips all the time. why are certain service employees and consumers exempt?

)

The problem is people think altruisticly until it's their turn to pay the piper. I bet you any one of the bleeding hearts in this thread would choose not to pay an extra $150 given the choice when they were buying a $3000 TV/appliance at Circuit City. Hey, that's only 4 cents on the dollar to make them feel all warm and fuzzy about that high school dropout working the cash register on the sale. :rolleyes:

Wal-Mart keeps getting bigger for a reason, despite all the grandstanding from the bleeding hearts their wallets make the difference.

scottnbnj

i'd wait to hear their responses before betting against them stepping up to the plate after this had a chance to be fleshed out a bit.

outside of political animals, most people that rail against big evil business are sincere in their beliefs and they believe in their position very strongly. i doubt anyone is going to disagree with that.

i'd imagine that's the sort of motivation that people who sell ideas enjoy pitching to.

)

Sami

jdhdiggs wrote:

Example 1: Want low prices and make money? Screw the workers. (Ex Walmart)

Some of the workers at Walmart, I think they are lucky someone is actually giving them a job. When it takes more time to scan the items at the register than for me go around the store and pick them up, something is seriously wrong. A person with more skills and/or higher motivation to work will find a better job elsewhere and get paid more. I believe this is the case at CC/BB/Fry's as well, you get what you pay for. Once a business starts cutting down on pay and benefits will see a mass exodus on the skilled and motivated workforce, those who are just happy to have a job and not work hard, they will stay.

jdhdiggs

scottnbnj wrote:

outside of political animals, most people that rail against big evil business are sincere in their beliefs and they believe in their position very strongly. i doubt anyone is going to disagree with that.

Yes, but unfortunately those same people can not typically logically defend their position. Emotionally it makes sense for everyone to have a garaunteed job making $200K a year, however reality walks in and **** slaps the emotional argument right out the door.


Sami:
I never said the hired good workers, just that they try and bendover their workers just a little bit more than everyone else.

Sami

jdhdiggs wrote:

Sami:
I never said the hired good workers, just that they try and bendover their workers just a little bit more than everyone else.

And some of the workers are giving them the same in return.

liordra

unfortunately the classic Big store retailers are going the way of the dodo.
Everybody shops more and more online. the result is either chains like wallmart (with all the known employee issues) or chains going belly up.
I think the CD industry in next, followed by big movie production studios.

now I know that there is nothing like listening to the porducts in the store, but this is not always very helpful. My local store demos RTI12s with a Yamaha 557 or an Onkio 604, those are nice AVRs and all, but I really can't tell if the RTI12s are what I was looking for in a 2 channel rig.

as far as companies like CC are conserned they would not have any employees that have to deal with ... ehh ... what you call them ... customers, just big warehouses and package dispatching systems.
avarage joe hi-fi (and not just) consumer? plays along and shops online.

jdhdiggs

liordra wrote:

as far as companies like CC are conserned they would not have any employees that have to deal with ... ehh ... what you call them ... customers, just big warehouses and package dispatching systems.
avarage joe hi-fi (and not just) consumer? plays along and shops online.

Actually, the goal is to just run a website and have the manufacturer ship the product direct to the consumer with a markup...

But I would say you are extremely close to the truth.

mrbigbluelight

I'm not on Forbes 500 list, to be sure.

But what is truly amazing is that I can accurately predict that Circuit City is/will be going bankrupt soon, and that this "Let's try to balance the books by lowering low wages" will do nothing to prevent that slide into oblivion.
In fact, imo, it will accelerate the demise of CC.

Yet.....the "management" of CC will use this lowering of wages as a tool, because that is the best they can come up with ?

Again: managers in lieu of leaders gets you what CC has coming.

While I'm not on Forbes 500, I'm also not an airline pilot. But I feel that if I'm on a plane, nose-down heading for the tarmac, I would be fully justified to confidentially state to the pilot, "You folks fugged up".

And I would feel supremely confident in stating, before we hit the tarmac, that an effort by the airlines to lower airline mechanics wages would have not have prevented the crash.

wingnut4772

mrbigbluelight wrote:

I'm not on Forbes 500 list, to be sure.

But what is truly amazing is that I can accurately predict that Circuit City is/will be going bankrupt soon, and that this "Let's try to balance the books by lowering low wages" will do nothing to prevent that slide into oblivion.
In fact, imo, it will accelerate the demise of CC.

Yet.....the "management" of CC will use this lowering of wages as a tool, because that is the best they can come up with ?

Again: managers in lieu of leaders gets you what CC has coming.

While I'm not on Forbes 500, I'm also not an airline pilot. But I feel that if I'm on a plane, nose-down heading for the tarmac, I would be fully justified to confidentially state to the pilot, "You folks fugged up".

And I would feel supremely confident in stating, before we hit the tarmac, that an effort by the airlines to lower airline mechanics wages would have not have prevented the crash.

I have been predicting their downfall for a couple of years now just by shopping there.

Mike682

mrbigbluelight wrote:

Yet.....the "management" of CC will use this lowering of wages as a tool, because that is the best they can come up with ?

Again: managers in lieu of leaders gets you what CC has coming.

CC's management are not a clever bunch and this recent tactic is questionable at best

rskarvan

If a union is good for the salary staff at both Boeing and Nasa... I'm thinking a union would have helped the workers at CC.

TroyD

How so, Ron? We are talking apples and oranges here.

Not to mention, just exactly what would a union do except ensure that EVERYONE lost thier jobs? The problem is that CC is hemoraging cash. Collective bargaining for higher wages only exacerbates that problem.

Unions are a LARGE reason why a normal person can't afford a new car because some fukstick sweeping floors in Detroit, unions feel, should make 25 bucks an hour.

i don't know. poll the folks that think this is all the fault of the evil big companies if they'd pony up a few extra pennies on the dollar if given the proper choice at the register.

Actually, you don't need to take a poll. Look at the Mom and Pop operations in this country. The population has taken that poll with thier wallets and the winner was clearly WalMart.

The fact is, the general population will, if given the choice, always opt for the lower price.

BDT

rskarvan

With a union, you have a collective, democratic voice to negotiate at the bargaining table with management. Without a union, you are simply an easily replaced spoke in the wheel of big business. If the union negotiates poorly, the members lose their jobs (as well as management). If management manages poorly, only the worker gets screwed. I'm a 3-muskateers kind of dude. Everyone wins or everyone loses. This only happens when the workers have a powerful voice at the bargaining table.

Life is about people. The executive is no more important than the "fukstick sweeping the floors". He has every right to his salary just like the executive has every right to the his. Explain to me how an executive "EARNS" a multi-million dollar bonus while the company is dragged into bankruptcy and the janitor loses his job?

shack

I would shovel **** for minimum wage before I would pay a single penny for union dues.

TroyD

If you can't differentiate between a CEO and a janitor, Ron...well, there isn't much I can do for you there. Now, in absolute terms, sure, the janitor has no more value as a human being than the CEO. In terms of the company, different story. However, that CEO probably worked his **** off to get where he is. Took a few risks etc etc. Somebody hired him and voluntarily paid him his asking price. Not so with your hero janitor. He's protected by a union, which he is entitled to. However, as a consumer and investor, it pisses me off that a new car is so expensive because some underacheiver can make 50K a year.

You still didn't answer the question as to how a union is going to help CC get healthy. Oh, that doesn't matter as long as the dude hawking TV's is getting top dollar to do so, right? The company keeps hemoraging cash, the stockholders keeps taking it in the keister.....everyone is happy. It's a crock of ****. Now, do I think it's a crappy thing? Sure it is. Is it neccessary? Yeah, it may be.

TroyD

shack wrote:

I would shovel **** for minimum wage before I would pay a single penny for union dues.

Amen.

BaggedLancer

shack wrote:

I would shovel **** for minimum wage before I would pay a single penny for union dues.

Aint nothin wrong with shoveling **** Shack......I've done it numerous times.....hell I've even stuck my hand in toilet bowls full of **** for 10 bucks an hour.......**** is ****, you get over it after a while.


And on the topic of paying 25 bucks an hour to sweep the floor.....where do i sign up?

wingnut4772

I love my union and pay my dues happily. Maybe it's different for law enforcement.

venomclan

wingnut4772 wrote:

I love my union and pay my dues happily. Maybe it's different for law enforcement.

I beleive in unions only for state & government workers. Those we will truly be screwed without like law enforcement, teachers, etc...

Those are jobs that are controlled by taxes, not profit margins.
V

rskarvan

"If I went to work in a factory the first thing I'd do is join a union."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt