Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Wal-Mart, the country's largest retailer, is eliminating health benefits for about 30,000 employees to control its rising healthcare costs.

The cut applies to part-timers who work fewer than 30 hours a week, Wal-Mart said Tuesday. It impacts 2% of the company's U.S. workforce.

More of Wal-Mart's employees signed up for health benefits this year than the company expected, which boosted the company's costs..

Obamacare requires everyone to have coverage, which has prompted people to compare plans available to them at work with plans offered on government exchanges. The cheapest and most popular Wal-Mart plan currently costs employees as little as $18.40 per paycheck. (That's going up to $21.90 next year.)

"This year, the expenses were significant and led us to make some tough decisions as we begin our annual enrollment," wrote Wal-Mart executive Sally Welborn in a blog post.

In August, the company said the increased enrollment led to a $500 million jump in healthcare costs compared to last year.

Wal-Mart (WMT) is not the first company to trim health benefits in the wake of Obamacare's roll out. Rival Target (TGT) announced in January that it was eliminating benefits for all part-time workers. It encouraged those employees to enroll in Obamacare and gave a $500 cash payment to each of them.

Home Depot (HD) and Trader Joe's announced last year that they would stop offering coverage to part-timers.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/07/news/ec ... ahoo_quote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bash away.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Wal-Mart, the country's largest retailer, is eliminating health benefits for about 30,000 employees to control its rising healthcare costs.

The cut applies to part-timers who work fewer than 30 hours a week, Wal-Mart said Tuesday. It impacts 2% of the company's U.S. workforce.

More of Wal-Mart's employees signed up for health benefits this year than the company expected, which boosted the company's costs..

Obamacare requires everyone to have coverage, which has prompted people to compare plans available to them at work with plans offered on government exchanges. The cheapest and most popular Wal-Mart plan currently costs employees as little as $18.40 per paycheck. (That's going up to $21.90 next year.)

"This year, the expenses were significant and led us to make some tough decisions as we begin our annual enrollment," wrote Wal-Mart executive Sally Welborn in a blog post.

In August, the company said the increased enrollment led to a $500 million jump in healthcare costs compared to last year.

Wal-Mart (WMT) is not the first company to trim health benefits in the wake of Obamacare's roll out. Rival Target (TGT) announced in January that it was eliminating benefits for all part-time workers. It encouraged those employees to enroll in Obamacare and gave a $500 cash payment to each of them.

Home Depot (HD) and Trader Joe's announced last year that they would stop offering coverage to part-timers.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/07/news/ec ... ahoo_quote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bash away.

No worries, that's what Obamacare is for. One step closer to single payer. Libs should be celebrating this.

Spoiler: show

Every part-time job I've worked has been without benefits because its for full-time employees only. I fail to see how this is news-worthy. Except for the fact that Wal-mart in fact did do so to begin with and should be applauded for doing so in the first place.

First of all, it's no surprise that CNN picked up this story.

Secondly, I really dislike Walmart for a number of reasons, most notably how they are so predatory on mom and pop businesses in any city where they set up shop. However, I doubt there's anything truly illegal about it, just simply a shame to see the little guy lose all the time. I'll happily pay a little more at a Target vs. walking into a Walmart every time.

But Walmart is and always has been a for-profit company, accountable to shareholders who charge executive management with day-to-day decision making that will maximize shareholder wealth. If they fail in that endeavor they'll be ousted in favor of someone who will make those decisions. The company doesn't make their money on huge margins, but rather on small margin/high SKU velocity at retail. The stores aren't particularly nice and the pay is low, but the prices are right for a lot of people. As long as there is demand for low prices and Walmart provides that market they will always be around.

Therein is is the problem. Walmart could insure every employee, bump everyone to a higher wage, and compress their margins while dragging the stock value down for their shareholders. To combat that, they would have to raise prices or cut staff and the net impact to Walmart employees is that they make more money but have to spend more money to maintain the lifestyle. The impact is nearly net zero.

Blame Walmart if you want, or blame capitalism. The bottom line is that these benefits incur a cost to someone through higher prices at retail or higher taxes for others.

ASUG8 wrote:First of all, it's no surprise that CNN picked up this story.

Secondly, I really dislike Walmart for a number of reasons, most notably how they are so predatory on mom and pop businesses in any city where they set up shop. However, I doubt there's anything truly illegal about it, just simply a shame to see the little guy lose all the time. I'll happily pay a little more at a Target vs. walking into a Walmart every time.

But Walmart is and always has been a for-profit company, accountable to shareholders who charge executive management with day-to-day decision making that will maximize shareholder wealth. If they fail in that endeavor they'll be ousted in favor of someone who will make those decisions. The company doesn't make their money on huge margins, but rather on small margin/high SKU velocity at retail. The stores aren't particularly nice and the pay is low, but the prices are right for a lot of people. As long as there is demand for low prices and Walmart provides that market they will always be around.

Therein is is the problem. Walmart could insure every employee, bump everyone to a higher wage, and compress their margins while dragging the stock value down for their shareholders. To combat that, they would have to raise prices or cut staff and the net impact to Walmart employees is that they make more money but have to spend more money to maintain the lifestyle. The impact is nearly net zero.

Blame Walmart if you want, or blame capitalism. The bottom line is that these benefits incur a cost to someone through higher prices at retail or higher taxes for others.

This ^ is all cute and repeated ad nauseam... but mostly unfounded
Costco Stock is $125
Wal-Mart Stock is $77

Please Note:
Both Models work - the mantra reiterated above: Which is f*ck your employees and show HUGE profit
As well as Build a company where the employee is OVER VALUED

Again: Both Models work on Wall Street

One is good for America
One is good for China
Both work great in a free market Capitalist Market

Chizzang wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:First of all, it's no surprise that CNN picked up this story.

Secondly, I really dislike Walmart for a number of reasons, most notably how they are so predatory on mom and pop businesses in any city where they set up shop. However, I doubt there's anything truly illegal about it, just simply a shame to see the little guy lose all the time. I'll happily pay a little more at a Target vs. walking into a Walmart every time.

But Walmart is and always has been a for-profit company, accountable to shareholders who charge executive management with day-to-day decision making that will maximize shareholder wealth. If they fail in that endeavor they'll be ousted in favor of someone who will make those decisions. The company doesn't make their money on huge margins, but rather on small margin/high SKU velocity at retail. The stores aren't particularly nice and the pay is low, but the prices are right for a lot of people. As long as there is demand for low prices and Walmart provides that market they will always be around.

Therein is is the problem. Walmart could insure every employee, bump everyone to a higher wage, and compress their margins while dragging the stock value down for their shareholders. To combat that, they would have to raise prices or cut staff and the net impact to Walmart employees is that they make more money but have to spend more money to maintain the lifestyle. The impact is nearly net zero.

Blame Walmart if you want, or blame capitalism. The bottom line is that these benefits incur a cost to someone through higher prices at retail or higher taxes for others.

This ^ is all cute and repeated ad nauseam... but mostly unfounded
Costco Stock is $125
Wal-Mart Stock is $77

Please Note:
Both Models work - the mantra reiterated above: Which is f*ck your employees and show HUGE profit
As well as Build a company where the employee is OVER VALUED

Again: Both Models work on Wall Street

One is good for America
One is good for China
Both work great in a free market Capitalist Market

A stock price means zilch as a stand alone figure when comparing two companies, you have to look at market cap.

Costco: $55.32 billion
Walmart: $249.26 billion

Walmart's market cap is nearly five times Costco. So when adjusting for that factor. Walmart's stock price would be around $550 compared to Costco, or Costco would be around $12-15.

Chizzang wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:First of all, it's no surprise that CNN picked up this story.

Secondly, I really dislike Walmart for a number of reasons, most notably how they are so predatory on mom and pop businesses in any city where they set up shop. However, I doubt there's anything truly illegal about it, just simply a shame to see the little guy lose all the time. I'll happily pay a little more at a Target vs. walking into a Walmart every time.

But Walmart is and always has been a for-profit company, accountable to shareholders who charge executive management with day-to-day decision making that will maximize shareholder wealth. If they fail in that endeavor they'll be ousted in favor of someone who will make those decisions. The company doesn't make their money on huge margins, but rather on small margin/high SKU velocity at retail. The stores aren't particularly nice and the pay is low, but the prices are right for a lot of people. As long as there is demand for low prices and Walmart provides that market they will always be around.

Therein is is the problem. Walmart could insure every employee, bump everyone to a higher wage, and compress their margins while dragging the stock value down for their shareholders. To combat that, they would have to raise prices or cut staff and the net impact to Walmart employees is that they make more money but have to spend more money to maintain the lifestyle. The impact is nearly net zero.

Blame Walmart if you want, or blame capitalism. The bottom line is that these benefits incur a cost to someone through higher prices at retail or higher taxes for others.

This ^ is all cute and repeated ad nauseam... but mostly unfounded
Costco Stock is $125
Wal-Mart Stock is $77

Please Note:
Both Models work - the mantra reiterated above: Which is f*ck your employees and show HUGE profit
As well as Build a company where the employee is OVER VALUED

Again: Both Models work on Wall Street

One is good for America
One is good for China
Both work great in a free market Capitalist Market

The share price tells me nothing. It can be what ever they want it to be. I know you know that.
But your point is understood regardless.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

This ^ is all cute and repeated ad nauseam... but mostly unfounded
Costco Stock is $125
Wal-Mart Stock is $77

Please Note:
Both Models work - the mantra reiterated above: Which is f*ck your employees and show HUGE profit
As well as Build a company where the employee is OVER VALUED

Again: Both Models work on Wall Street

One is good for America
One is good for China
Both work great in a free market Capitalist Market

A stock price means zilch as a stand alone figure when comparing two companies, you have to look at market cap.

Costco: $55.32 billion
Walmart: $249.26 billion

Walmart's market cap is nearly five times Costco. So when adjusting for that factor. Walmart's stock price would be around $550 compared to Costco, or Costco would be around $12-15.

My point is both companies have strong stock values... (no danger of delistings )
And both companies have 180 degree different business practices

The argument that "The Stock Market" determines how a company behaves is ridiculous
You create value in many different ways
Wal-Mart does it by F*cking every nickle out of their employees and business partners

Chizzang wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:

A stock price means zilch as a stand alone figure when comparing two companies, you have to look at market cap.

Costco: $55.32 billion
Walmart: $249.26 billion

Walmart's market cap is nearly five times Costco. So when adjusting for that factor. Walmart's stock price would be around $550 compared to Costco, or Costco would be around $12-15.

My point is both companies have strong stock values... (no danger of delistings )
And both companies have 180 degree different business practices

The argument that "The Stock Market" determines how a company behaves is ridiculous
You create value in many different ways
Wal-Mart does it by F*cking every nickle out of their employees and business partners

How do you know that both companies have strong stock values? You might want to look at the P/E ratio and EPS, then compare those figures to other companies in the industry.

Equity Analysis 101.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
My point is both companies have strong stock values... (no danger of delistings )
And both companies have 180 degree different business practices

The argument that "The Stock Market" determines how a company behaves is ridiculous
You create value in many different ways
Wal-Mart does it by F*cking every nickle out of their employees and business partners

How do you know that both companies have strong stock values? You might want to look at the P/E ratio and EPS, then compare those figures to other companies in the industry.

Equity Analysis 101.

Jeebus, now I know why my stock market thread a few years ago never got any responses.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
My point is both companies have strong stock values... (no danger of delistings )
And both companies have 180 degree different business practices

The argument that "The Stock Market" determines how a company behaves is ridiculous
You create value in many different ways
Wal-Mart does it by F*cking every nickle out of their employees and business partners

How do you know that both companies have strong stock values? You might want to look at the P/E ratio and EPS, then compare those figures to other companies in the industry.

Equity Analysis 101.

But but, the DOW is over 16,000!!!

Unemployment is under 6%!!!!

The economy is SOARING!!!

GoBama!!!!

What happens when you put too much faith in arbitrary numbers

Chizzy is stuck on stupid again.

Cluck U wrote:Chizzy is stuck on stupid again.

DSU crushed it...as he usually does.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

This ^ is all cute and repeated ad nauseam... but mostly unfounded
Costco Stock is $125
Wal-Mart Stock is $77

Please Note:
Both Models work - the mantra reiterated above: Which is f*ck your employees and show HUGE profit
As well as Build a company where the employee is OVER VALUED

Again: Both Models work on Wall Street

One is good for America
One is good for China
Both work great in a free market Capitalist Market

A stock price means zilch as a stand alone figure when comparing two companies, you have to look at market cap.

Costco: $55.32 billion
Walmart: $249.26 billion

Walmart's market cap is nearly five times Costco. So when adjusting for that factor. Walmart's stock price would be around $550 compared to Costco, or Costco would be around $12-15.

And Walmart winning is good how?

kalm wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:

A stock price means zilch as a stand alone figure when comparing two companies, you have to look at market cap.

Costco: $55.32 billion
Walmart: $249.26 billion

Walmart's market cap is nearly five times Costco. So when adjusting for that factor. Walmart's stock price would be around $550 compared to Costco, or Costco would be around $12-15.

And Walmart winning is good how?

Why do you hate the lower class being able to purchase buying the latest gadgets from around the world?

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
And Walmart winning is good how?

Why do you hate the lower class being able to purchase buying the latest gadgets from around the world?

Costco is for elitists.

Having to pay for membership? So exclusionary.

http://www.costco.com/join-costco.html

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Why do you hate the lower class being able to purchase buying the latest gadgets from around the world?

Costco is for elitists.

Having to pay for membership? So exclusionary.

http://www.costco.com/join-costco.html

Wal mart has sams club...


So....

clenz wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
Costco is for elitists.

Having to pay for membership? So exclusionary.

http://www.costco.com/join-costco.html

Wal mart has sams club...


So....

Yes, but Costco doesn't have a Jeff's/Jim's Club. Elitists.













I had to look up Costco's founders' first names.

Up watching the full lunar eclipse with my son right now.

Cluck U wrote:

clenz wrote: Wal mart has sams club...


So....

Yes, but Costco doesn't have a Jeff's/Jim's Club. Elitists.













I had to look up Costco's founders' first names.

Up watching the full lunar eclipse with my son right now.

Doing the same.

Chizzang wrote: This ^ is all cute and repeated ad nauseam... but mostly unfounded
Costco Stock is $125
Wal-Mart Stock is $77

Please Note:
Both Models work - the mantra reiterated above: Which is f*ck your employees and show HUGE profit
As well as Build a company where the employee is OVER VALUED

Again: Both Models work on Wall Street

One is good for America
One is good for China
Both work great in a free market Capitalist Market

I didn't think it would take long for you to respond to a Walmart thread with a "but Costco..." argument. It's the economic equivalent response to an Obama fan invoking "but Bush...".

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Stock value varies with market forces as well as company buybacks, additional stock issues, etc. As long as the shareholders don't lose total value invested in the company management is generally safe.
Costco has a different management philosophy than Walmart for sure which is much more employee focused. When you have a warehouse model with concrete floors, pallets stuffed in racks or on the floor, etc. you can afford to spend money elsewhere. Carpeting, fixtures, tile, and nice building facades all cost money and come at the expense of either compensating workers or taking the savings directly to the bottom line. Comparing Sam's to Costco would be a better comparison, although I have no idea if Sam's has the same pay scale as a traditional Walmart.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Why do you hate the lower class being able to purchase buying the latest gadgets from around the world?

Costco is for elitists.

Having to pay for membership? So exclusionary.

http://www.costco.com/join-costco.html

For 18 years before my move, I was a member here:






Now I am a Costco member.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
And Walmart winning is good how?

Why do you hate the lower class being able to purchase buying the latest gadgets from around the world?

Chizzang wrote:

This ^ is all cute and repeated ad nauseam... but mostly unfounded
Costco Stock is $125
Wal-Mart Stock is $77

A serious low point here for a normally reliable Chizzy - really, you tried to simply compare the cost per share of two companies as some type of basis for evaluation? Now, if they're stock prices were some multiple of 6.93 then you'd be on to something.

Cluck U wrote:

clenz wrote: Wal mart has sams club...


So....

Yes, but Costco doesn't have a Jeff's/Jim's Club. Elitists.













I had to look up Costco's founders' first names.

Up watching the full lunar eclipse with my son right now.

I'm a bit peeved that I missed it but when you have a chance to get an extra hour of sleep, you take it!

Chizzang wrote: The argument that "The Stock Market" determines how a company behaves is ridiculous
You create value in many different ways
Wal-Mart does it by F*cking every nickle out of their employees and business partners

Sorry, there is no way Costo isn't F*cking their employees too. It may not be as obvious as Wally World, but they are doing it, it's the American way of the 21st Century.

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Yes, but Costco doesn't have a Jeff's/Jim's Club. Elitists.













I had to look up Costco's founders' first names.

Up watching the full lunar eclipse with my son right now.

Doing the same.

Great show here on the Beast Coast!

Clear skies, pleasant temperature this morning (high 50's, low 60's). Our coast got to see it from about 5:15am - 7am...not too early. My son will be a little sleepy today, but it was well worth it.