Then why do you think companies have an obligation to keep employing workers who are no longer profitable for them to keep? This is one of the most socialistic positions someone can hold.
To be fair he I really did not see that he suggested this. He just proposed two options for lowering expenses. He also suggested a lot of workers would opt for the second lower their wages. But this is hindsite thinking on the employees part conviently forgetting the day they were hired.
They have forgotten the likely nature of the employment contract the they accepted. Rarely does it have a provision for lowering wages. Rarely would an employee accept such. So the lowering of wages is often legally pre-empted by the employee upong hiring. Especially in retail.
What is not reported in these financial reports is the opportunity in retail for people to re-hire at lower wages. Often this is done laterally, fired from Macy’s get lower pay at Dilliards vice versa. Retail employee’s are a bit of a fungible commodity after all.
Just thoughts.
— lates
— jrawk
Believe that employees are just pawns and have no worth will destroy the middle class and this country in the end...Macy’s should pay through the nose into the unemployment fund...to bad the stockholders will be screwed again in the end.