Skip to main content

View Diary: Forever 21 Employees wake up to bad news UPDATE: Company Confirms (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Isn't staying in business valuing your employees? (0+ / 0-)

    I see that everyone is blaming Forever 21 here, but doesn't it make sense that the company would do whatever could to not go out of business? It seems here they are cutting hours in direct response to ObamaCare and it seems that ObamaCare is forcing the hands of companies to either cut hours to avoid the astronomical health care costs, or raise the prices of their products so dramatically to cover the added overhead in which no one will buy from them anymore.  In either instance, it is not good.  But, in fairness to Forever 21, I think they by cutting 10 hours per employee, it is a lot better than going out of business and eventually every employee loses their jobs.  

    •  Not always (0+ / 0-)

      Highlighting businesses and how they value their employees.  It's fine that they back out.  This article (and many others) went into pretty wide circulation.  The company claims they will save 1% by this move.. I think they'll lose more money then they save due to people not shopping there.

      That's how a free economy works.  People can decide they don't like you and not shop there anymore.. it's why companies pay for good PR.. and why a company like Forever21 just took a big bite of bad PR

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 03:08:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  People can decide what to buy and not to buy... (0+ / 0-)

        But, to completely boycott a company for their practices is not beneficial to anyone.  If they are providing a service which is cost effective to the consumer, and they are employing people, what good would a boycott do?  

        No one needs to accept a job either, they can go out and find another job if they do not like hours cut. Just like the heads of companies can run their businesses how they see fit.  But, to boycott a company because they are making a strategic business move is ludicrous. They does not help the business, their employees, or the economy in any way shape or form.  

        It is counter productive.  If the company received more support, then they can add their employees hours back and  their healthcare.

        •  This is a non-economic response. (0+ / 0-)

          You're response seems to be predicated on the core concept that "if they were more profitable, they would add these things.."   This is clearly false.   In the case of Forever21, their margins are quite good, and their market value has grown considerably over the last 3 years, despite the economy as I point out.

          You also seem to indicate that "if they are employing people at a cost effective rate which is beneficial to the consumer.."   Look, I can hire slave labor in a sweat shop and give them "jobs" and it would be super cost beneficial to the consumer but we would agree this is not acceptable.  In this case, the consumer has every right to decide how they will spend their money based on the equitable treatment of employees based on earning value.

          You conclude with "if the company had more support.."  what more support?  That more people should shop there?  This is a preposterous idea.   First, it would effectively reward corporate behavior which most here oppose, and second, it comes with an assertion that ownership would see this extra revenue and do the right thing, despite the existence of available data that indicates when they do quite well, they don't feed it back to employees.

          So, the assertion they would suddenly do otherwise is just, well, silly

          Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

          by Chris Reeves on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 10:44:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How false? (0+ / 0-)

            How would you say it was clearly false when up until now these employees have had full work weeks and benefits offered to them?  That makes no sense what you just said since these things have been offered to them.

            If they have grown considerably in a down economy, that is because they know what it takes to be successful and these cuts are in direct response to a unnecessary healthcare bill that was shoved down everyone's throat.

            By support, I mean let the government stay out of everyone's and every businesses affairs.

            •  Ah, so you're a troll :) (0+ / 0-)

              Which we expected by the comments and your lack of participation.

              For those of us here, we view this bill as not the full solution (Single Payer would be the full solution) but a step in the right direction.   Therefore, the goal is to show consumers who favor this policy and who admonish businesses who behave in a way counter to their employees interest.

              You view it from the otherside.   So, there you go.

              Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

              by Chris Reeves on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 05:18:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How am I a troll? (0+ / 0-)

                Don't you believe in what you preach?  I am just trying to learn your ways.  If you are 100% correct, wouldn't you want to spread the word and show more people the light?

                A singly payer system has never worked in any country.  As a matter of fact, if you look around, you can see for yourself that ObamaCare is going to cripple the economy and our healthcare system.

                •  I'm interested in how you define "failure" (0+ / 0-)

                  Considering I'm someone with family in many of those single payer countries, I'm interested in how you define failure.

                  For those I know who live in Australia.. and not "obscure friends' but direct family, I can point out a few things:

                  Cost of health care as a percentage of GDP:
                  Australia: 8%
                  US: 17%

                  Average sick days are half.. which means work spaces tend to be more productive.   Meanwhile, lawsuits are down.

                  We use the phrase "troll" because rather then argue from a point of reason and actual data, you say things like "Single Payer Health Care has NEVER worked.." without providing any statistical data, instead you just assert it.

                  That eliminates a debate, it just means you hold onto your viewpoint without reason.

                  But here's some statistical reading for you.

                  http://www.commonwealthfund.org/...

                  In the end, individuals point to Canada and say "see how this could be improved!  It's bad here, here, here, and here.."   But in the end, it's a lot like saying: I'm sitting in front of a plate of completely rotted food with maggots rolling through it, but I don't want to get a tray that those other guys have because their bananas are brown and mushy.

                  FYI, Australia has been single payer for almost 25 years now, so the assertion of "failed everywhere.." is factually invalid.

                  Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

                  by Chris Reeves on Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 10:30:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site