But if that cart pusher is there for a couple of years then management is disappointed because he's getting a higher salary than a new hire and isn't a whole lot more productive. In fact any person in the same job for more than a year or two becomes more of a liability because a new person can be hired for less, or so management memos seem to indicate. And that lowly cart pusher you promoted to manager? Upper management is debating how much money can be saved on him by cutting the company matching on is 401K. Yep, really concerned about their employees alright.
And you know all of this to be fact?
The cart pusher is most likely going to be part of the classification of Wal-Mart workers I already outlined in post #13. Why would Wal-Mart replace a part-time, teenage cart pusher making slightly higher than the minimum-wage but who goes about his job and waste their time and money replacing him with someone who may say "screw this, I can make more at McDonald's" and quit within days?
In fact any person in the same job for more than a year or two becomes more of a liability because a new person can be hired for less
You are assuming that most Wal-Mart workers see Wal-Mart as a lifetime career choice. I stated that the opportunity for such a choice exists because Wal-Mart has a proud tradition of seeing its employees climb the ladder. Really though, most Wal-Mart workers are content at working the same mundane position for a year or two (because it's their 2nd job or they're in school) and the feeling is mutual with Wal-Mart because they get the qualified associates who plug the scheduling holes around the full-time staff.
I assume you have access to management directives and policies.
Why do employers need to "care" about their employees, as you suggest?
Only this: an employer who doesn't grow a good work force won't be in business for long. These are market forces to account for, period.