In addition to the topic at hand...Are you really surprised that a business owner is altering costs to the consumer based on current economical standing? This has been happening since the very first business...its called running a business. economy changes, costs to the consumer change...i challenge you to find a company/industry that does not. If John Shnatter said "were raising costs of a pizza by .14c because of the bad economy" no one would bat an eyelash. But because he said "because of obamacare" the response is "BURN HIM AT THE STAKE"!
Last edited by vaeevictiss; 2012-11-16 at 08:59 PM.
Hmmmm...tough choice for CEO's. Buy a Jaguar...pay for employee health benefits.
If you don't care about your employees, they won't care about their work. If their work suffers, your product suffers, if your product suffers, you lose money.
Companies have nothing to lose by treating their employees well other than a sense of entitlement, which sadly runs rampant in America among all groups of people.
When you fall under that target you have to either raise prices or lower costs.
If you raise prices you risk pricing yourself out of a market.
If you lower costs there are no negative repercussions until you need to expand again.
So "What a person should do" is, in effect, cut costs rather than assume that, whatever industry they're in, raising prices will work.
---------- Post added 2012-11-17 at 12:17 AM ----------
I think you're misunderstanding...it's a moral question, not economic. Profit at the expense of your employees is immoral. Nuff said.
Also, McDonalds and Walmart are hardly paragons of customer service. No fucking clue who Darden is.
You make it sound so black and white when it really isn't that simple. Every employer makes a certain amount of money off each employee. Employers on the one hand want that profit margin to be as large as possible for their benefit, and this is where the gray area begins. How much do you like your workers vs how much do you see them as little expendable profit machines? The most successful and popular businesses treat their employees well and put employee happiness and success on the same level as overall business success. Many successful but not so popular businesses see employees as expendable worker bees that make them money, and take every shortcut to screw their workers as much as possible to save a dime here and a penny there.While true, that's not the concern of a business owner. A business owner doesn't (and shouldn't be expected to) simply accept that someone else is saving money at his expense.
Also, CEO's are throwing a temper tantrum that their companies aren't meeting their 5.9% growth expectation for this fiscal year in a free market while treating their employees like shit, news at 11.
Darden is the guys who own LoneStar Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster and others.
No one's saying McDonalds and Walmart are paragons of customer service. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that treating your employees like shit is hardly a requisite for success.
And when you're talking about costing a company like Walmart billions off their bottom line, you better be damn sure they're going to fight that any way they can. If they can't win in Congress they'll win on the payrolls and price tags.
*Mimes jerk off motion*
A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!
WalMart is a complicated situation to address, in individual instances they make up impressive local market share which makes it difficult to develop compeition. The stores that have survived the WalMart-effect are ones like Target who have shifted from cheap, crap products to a more higher-quality. This is why stores like K-Mart, who try to compete in the same market but on a much smaller scale, continue to fail. WalMart as it stands is something like the banking industry, they are so big, so influential in their locations that they could make all the wrong decisions and it still wouldn't put them out of business. To add to the above point, WalMart has aided in the preservation of McDonalds by integrating them into the majority of their locations.
Also before Google: WTF is Dardens?
Oh...the Red Lobster/Longhorn/Olive Garden guys. Dardens relies on local ownership, which is why some Red Lobsters are full of morons and shitty food and why some other places are amazing and delicious. While there is a corporation that determines where a new store will ultimately be located, many of the decisions we hear about(such as the suit against all of Red Lobster by two employees in Florida) are made at the individual store level. Secondly, Dardens maintains multiple types of restaraunts, from higher-class ones such as Olive Garden to more casual joints like Bahama Breeze or Yard House. It's a great example of diversification.
Aside from perhaps WalMart, whose sheer size allows them to be collective dicks on a corporate scale, McDonalds has shown signs of strain for years now, and with the locally-owned/operated architecture of Dardens, I doubt there's any kind of corporate-level "treat your employees like crap" mandate.
Yeah, Metz has really fallen on hard times, he may have to take one less vacation to turks and caicos this year. Poor him.The changes will force some front-of-the-house employees to look for second jobs, Metz said, but he simply cannot afford the penalties associated with ObamaCare.
Wait what? I know Olive Garden used to be pretty darn good but every single one I've eaten at in the last 10 years has tasted like cafeteria/freezer section pasta.from higher-class ones such as Olive Garden