And you can always call bull**** that they don't adjust the performance bonus to account for something completely out of their control like a new law, and decide to leave. That's the point.

What's really ****ed up is they're apparently using this as an excuse to withhold raises and bonuses to employees all over the place - because of the CA min. wage laws. If CA rakes in record profits do those employees get a windfall? Probably not.

what you are describing is not a bonus plan it is base salary. The CEO probably has the most to lose. His bonus might be 2x salary. The lowest management guy might be . 2x salary.

i laughing out louded

Stop being obtuse. What I'm describing is what an employee expects from their employer and gets pissed off and looks to leave if they don't get it.

I mean, walmart is doing what is at this point more or less a textbook play, they're using rising costs in one area as an excuse to cut costs in another area. The point is that their employees will be more willing to accept the cuts when they have the excuse. That's the whole point.

It is def better to work for a company that meets its goals. If management is worried about a guy leaving you kick him some extra money out of the salary pool. Very few people matter that much. You don't change bonus plans. The board approved it, you have accrued your costs based on that plan, you have told your shareholders the details. If you pay it without meeting the goals at the very least the SEC is going to have a long talk with you.

Right, it's the usual "talk is cheap" messaging that only works on irrational actors. Claiming that Walmart believes the message, rather than exploits the context, is incorrect.

I thought we were talking about a company bonus plan. These things have to be well defined. If they are saying the raise pool is flat this year that is a different story. The raise pool is pretty arbitrary.

If the higher level employees don't like it, they can leave right? Obviously if they can't leave well then that's what the market can bear tough titty. I guess this proves they were over paid.

Walmart's has several bonus plans. One for hourly employees, one for store management, and one for other managers. I am not digging through a ton of SEC documents without knowing what we sore specifically referring too byte the management incentive plan is approved by the shareholders via proxy vote. You could not legally pay it if you wanted to. This is the plan that covers the CEO and obviously you do not want him deciding when to pay himself a bonus . The hourly employee and store management plan may be different but I doubt it.

Now, the question for the CFO is why didn't you budget for this increased expense? I can not describe how much teeth gnashing goes into the preparation and variance analysis to the plan.

It's a play I've see several times in real life. It's a bad one because it leaves the initiative in the hands of the employees and it's the ones with the most get up and go who get up and go (along with the most employable).

Lol at ikes' view of the economic world.

New possibility. If my entry level wages went up, I would expect higher quality employees on average in the longer term. Therefore I wouldn't need to pay the people who manage them quite so much...

Just a thought.

Lol, whatever you may say about ikes, your post is way worse.

If your entry level wage goes up relative to other employers, you should get much better employees. If everyone has to pay entry level employees the same, then you should get about the same employees you were getting before.

What is your complaint? It is hard to see a min wage increase leading to much higher quality employees as your competition for labor has also increased pay. But if a company like google decides to pay at the 90th percentile they are going to get high quality people who need less supervision.

Edit. I don't know about paying managers less but maybe less managers.

solid contributions to the thread so far, paul

Lol. Oh right wingers.

If they could get away with this long term it would have already happened to cut costs in general.

This is a short term decision used to pressure against min wage increases. The bonuses and other compensation will be back quickly of the employees push back. Its a signal flare and you're falling for it because it fits your child-like level of logic about business.

Much has been made of Henry Ford paying double the standard wage of the time, but I read recently that he had to pay this much. Working an assembly line really really sucked compared to being a craftsman, so the turnover was crazy (they'd hire 9 for every one who'd stick around for more than a week).


One benefit they found was that they could work everyone much harder than other employers. People were willing to put up with way more **** for double wages.

Him linking the need for management with employee pay. That's ridiculous.

You're like the worst poster when it comes to contributions. It's usually kneejerk reactions to anything ikes posts. And you usually look quite foolish whether ikes is wrong or right.

Don't you think that high quality employees need less supervision than low quality ones?

This is why no one ever quits their job at the US Postal Service.

Not retail jobs. A lot of management in those jobs are there to coordinate with other sections in the store and file paper work, not just strictly hawk over ruffian employees.

It's a small factor yes, but certainly not lol worthy. I'd also bet on my experience of managing large groups of employees over yours (or 99.99% of this forum).

The flip side is that higher quality employees may demand better management in order to get the most out of their higher skill sets.

Anyway, I'm just chewing the fat. On the substantial issues, I probably agree and disagree with both sides of this debate.

1. Higher minimum wage will likely result in fewer entry level jobs (simple supply and demand curve stuff)

2. For the same reasons, it will have absolutely no impact on other jobs/spend. Except as a political play by savvy companies.

3. There are better ways to achieve the same goal (higher living standards and more equality) i.e. subsidised education, free health care, or even income support payments for those in work, but it's probably better than nothing.

Wages are determined by productivity. A minimum wage increase doesn't actually increase anyone's wages; it's effect is purely prohibitory. It simply kills the low paying low skilled jobs that would exist without the minimum wage.