Archive

ShareThis Page
Bad service, crummy economy go hand-in-hand | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Bad service, crummy economy go hand-in-hand

Tribune-Review
| Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:00 p.m
ptrocmeyersonpic042113
Cameron Cardow | The Ottawa Citizen

For decades, U.S. corporations have been told to slim down. Not to abandon corporate jets or cut CEO pay, mind you, but to produce more with fewer employees. The conventional wisdom couldn’t have been clearer: The minimum number of required workers yields the maximum level of profits, all else being equal and the creek don’t rise.

During these decades, however, the United States was also shifting to a service economy — a new reality that didn’t always comport with the doctrine of “lean is good.” The minimum number of required workers, a subjective standard at best, seldom yields the maximum level of customer satisfaction (or anything close to it).

Take Wal-Mart, for instance. It has been shrinking its U.S. workforce, according to a recent Bloomberg Businessweek report and company filings, even as it expands. During the past five years, Wal-Mart added 455 stores in the United States — a 13 percent increase — while reducing its U.S. workforce by 1.4 percent, or about 20,000 employees (the U.S. workforce includes the company’s Sam’s Club division). The number of employees per store has been cut from 343 to 301.

Fewer workers have meant fewer products on Wal-Mart’s shelves. Businessweek reports that “pallets of merchandise are piling up in its stockrooms as shelves go unfilled” and overworked employees can’t find the time to restock the products.

According to the minutes of a Feb. 1 managers meeting that the magazine obtained, Bill Simon, the company’s U.S. chief executive, acknowledged that Wal-Mart was “getting worse” at stocking shelves. The company has placed or tied for last among department and discount stores in the American Customer Satisfaction Index for several years. Wal-Mart is no J.C. Penney, however: For many shoppers, disgruntled or not, it’s still the only game in town.

Are mass retailers compelled to skimp on labor costs by slashing their workforce and paying the minimum wage or close to it? Some of the most successful retailers follow a different path. As MIT management professor Zeynep Ton argued in Harvard Business Review last year, Costco and Trader Joe’s pay their workers far more than many of their competitors, offer their employees opportunities for promotion and enjoy markedly lower worker turnover and far higher sales per employee than their low-road counterparts. Sales per employee at Costco are nearly double that at Sam’s Club.

Problem is, the Wal-Mart model of employment and service not only reflects but also reinforces the declining economic prospects of the majority of Americans. The nation’s largest private-sector employer has used its market power to impose its low-wage model all along its supply chain, leaving millions of Americans with no shopping option other than the kind of discount, and frustrating, experience that Wal-Mart provides.

The U.S. economy that Wal-Mart has built — with plenty of help from Wall Street and the government — is in the shape of a downward spiral. And it will take all our ingenuity — and a mass movement for worker power — to free ourselves from that path.

Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of The American Prospect.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.