|
Not long ago, I wrote a piece called "Stupid Things Corporations Do." But never did I think that stupid could fall into the moronic range. WalMart proved me wrong....
According to a Nov. 2 AP article, WalMart's revised attendance policy forbids lateness due to snow. Apparently, Forrest Gump thought WalMart when he famously said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
So that WalMart lovers don't pull a Bill O'Reilly on me, I am not a WalMart hater. I also agree that companies suffer due to absenteeism. However, stupid policies that lead to brand damage, declining morale, lower productivity, and negative marketing don't solve the problem. In fact, I believe they increase absentism. And in this case, the policy also places employees in harm's way. Can't wait for the first lawsuit.
Look, brand building begins from the inside with employees. Happy and respected employees lead to great customer experiences. Great customer experiences lead to increased sales. Increased sales lead to growth. Combined, these things lead to great brand perception.
What WalMart did with this policy to every employee working in a snow belt is demoralizing, dangerous and disrespectful. What were they thinking?
According to the article, "the new policy appears more rigid when it comes to authorized absences. In the past, general bad weather would suffice as an authorized excuse; now it has to be a natural disaster like a hurricane or blizzard. Wal-Mart is now defining tardiness more rigidly as beginning work 10 minutes or more after the scheduled start time, which results in an incomplete shift. Three incomplete shifts add up to one unauthorized absence."
Imagine for a moment that you are a WalMart employee living and working in a suburban Chicago store. Anyone who ever lived in or visited that great city on the shoulder of Lake Michigan in January has been introduced up close and personally to subzero temperatures, bolstered by 15 mph wind gusts, combined with a four to six inches of snow, which likely won't be classified as a blizzard.
I can attest to the 35-minute drive turned into a two-hour scary, slimy, sliding crawl into Chicago in conditions such as those. Not a good experience for the brave at heart, let alone those who love their children and want to see them again. What time does WalMart suggest I throw myself in front of a snow plow so I can greet the one or two nuts who crash their way to WalMart to buy snow shovels?
"Stupid is as stupid does."
|
Comments
lewis,
sometimes companies should be educated by their customers.
Posted by: gianandrea facchini | 11.08.06
Gianandrea,
As always thank you for your participation and common sense approach to marketing.
To repeat myself, it is all about the customer, and treating customers well begins with employees. So executives need to listen to and learn from their employees.
WalMart doesn't appear, from the outside looking in, to care much about employee feedback.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.08.06
I agree.
A very insensitive policy and callousness towards their own employees.
Posted by: Balaji M | 11.08.06
Unfortunately most corporations have rigid rules regarding tardiness and absenteeism. There is nothing more humiliating than to be sat down by some middle management clone to reprimand you for being tardy. I am a mother and as every parent knows, the mornings are never the same. tantrums happen. People are people. Life happens.
So I agree with 100% percent.
I can tell a happy employee when I am a customer. I appreciate it and continue to patronize that business. A classic example is Trader Joe's.
Posted by: Tammy Strnatka | 11.08.06
Balaji and Tammy,
Thank you for your comments.
Company tardiness and absentee policies are necessary for both business and employees. Businesses need to reduce both to maintain margins, and employees need to know what is expected of them.
However, policies such as these do no one any good, as they appear insensitive and uncaring, which may actually increase both absenteeism and tardiness because of employee unhappiness and company disrespect for those same employees. These policies certainly do not help the brand.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.08.06
Lewis,
WalMart already has an image problem in many quarters. When news of this new employee policy spreads, it isn't going to help public perception. Ironically and sadly, negative PR might be the very thing WalMart needs to reverse itself on this stance; rather than concern for its employees.
Posted by: Claire Ratushny | 11.08.06
Of course those policies are necessary. Endangering employees is not.
Wal Mart needs an entire overhaul from inside out and top to bottom. Great prices aren't enough for this shopper.
Posted by: Tammy Strnatka | 11.08.06
Lewis, I love the content you bring to this blog. It's always stimulating.
Sometimes I find that the bigger the entity, the more clued out it can be. I can't even imagine how challenging it must be to be the COO or CEO of that corporation, looking at all ways to reduce infrastructure costs in order to keep consumers coming back for its rock-bottom prices. I appreciate that they want to reduce absenteeism, as it must cost them a small fortune - maybe even the equivalent of a small country's GDP?
But, at what price do they make this decision? They're already on a slippery slope with staff morale and lack of benefits. Suppliers tell horror stories about what it's like dealing with them. Yet, they are a behemoth and we can't fight success; there will always be consumers whose need for low prices will outweigh their ethics.
Posted by: Elaine Fogel | 11.08.06
Elaine,
Excellent input, all of which you get my agreement. In terms of this policy, the buck stops at the door of the executive overseeing Human Resources. He or she screwed up, I believe.
Tammy and Claire,
Normally, selling price alone can not endure. Just read the case studies of others who tried.
This is for another post, but the consumers buying price, while large in number, show no loyalty. That is a challenge for any company that sells price alone.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.08.06
Nice observation. People like being part of something they can be proud of -- something bigger than themselves -- and when they are, they are great advocates for the brand in ways that transcend marketing. It's easy to be proud of working with or for someone who treats you right.
I'm not convinced that Wal-Mart's policy is wrong, but when it comes to creating or destroying brand advocacy, perception is reality.
Quick! When is the last time you saw an enthusiastic Wal-Mart employee? Now... When was the last time you saw an enthusiastic Starbucks employee?
Enthusiasm is the keystone of any strong brand. Malaise is the wrecking ball that brings it all down.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 11.08.06
Cam,
You've crystalized this perfectly. Intelligent people can disagree as to whether the policy is right or wrong but it is piling on an already fragile employee population.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.08.06
Wow. As far as a policy it is probably more lax than any I have ever seen. I have worked in Manufacturing and Manufacturing Managment for about 20 years and to see more than 10 min late count as a tardy is rare, most of the time it is 3 to 5 min and it starts counting.
I have been on both sides of the coin and employees not showing up for work can effect customer service just as moch or more.
The main problem is attendance policies are like any other laws or rules. They are only there to prevent the abusers from abusing, problem is it generally effects the honest people that have a run of bad luck.
Posted by: Jeff Lawrence | 11.08.06
So, let me get this straight: most WalMart employees probably utilize public transit (because they are not paid well enough to own BMWs or Mercedes), right? What does one do, then, when they are stuck on a bus on an icy road in Chicago? It's not like they can control the weather and it's impact on their commute to work...
On the other hand, there are plenty of other companies who have similar policies (airlines come to mind), and it has not been an issue.
Perhaps the difference is that WalMart is classically terrible to their employees, which has bled in to their brand and market perception...
Posted by: Jill | 11.08.06
OK people, Chicago weather is NOT that bad...
Sucks to be Walmart though. I bet I know who's gonna be partying their way into the new year. 2006 was a biotch!
Posted by: David Armano | 11.08.06
Interesting post, Lewis.
I have often wondered why, with all the resources at their disposal, Wal-Mart seems to continually make decisions that reflect poorly on the brand.
Also, I respectfully disagree with a comment you made to Elaine:
“Excellent input, all of which you get my agreement. In terms of this policy, the buck stops at the door of the executive overseeing Human Resources."
CEO Lee Scott sets the tone for the organization, even though he is not aware of each and every decision that is made.
Posted by: Anne Simons | 11.09.06
David,
I lived in Chicago for five years. Among other places I have also lived in Alaska and Florida. In January, Chicago is nastier than my little hill in Alaska; in July more unbrearable than central Florida. Come on Dave. You must be much sturdier than I. (PS Chicago is my favorite city in the US: If only it could be moved to one of the coasts.)
Anne,
At the end of the day, the CEO must take responsibility for policy. Still, he trusts his HR exec. to do the right thing. Lee Scott got burned.
Jill and Jeff,
Good point/counter point. Love it!
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.09.06
Are there not employee laws pertaining to the safety of employees during inclimate weather? How can a company require you to risk your life, and others' lives, by forcing you to drive in icy conditions? They say "it's your choice", but it really is not. Risk your life or you will eventually be discharged from work. That is just plain wrong.
Posted by: Lionel | 12.16.08
Hi; I came to the daily fix by Googling "not showing up to work because of snow Wal-Mart" because I was looking to see if they could fire me for calling in today. I just started on the overnight shift three nights a week to, you know, pay the rent.
Just thought you'd like to know we had a lot of snow in south west Wisconsin today, and my Toyota Yaris doesn't go anywhere if it accumulates over five inches.
We had eight inches, and the gusty winds were blowing it all over the highway. I called in to let them know I couldn't come in, and my supervisor said, "This isn't an excuse. It will be counted against you, but stay home so your safe."
Then another person called shortly thereafter (a manager, supervisor, I don't even know) and chided me pretty severely.
"You are an overnight associate. It has stopped snowing and we expect everyone to be here. This is an unexcused absence." I told her that the plows hadn't come, and I couldn't get out of my carport, simple as that. I also told her that I understood the absence goes on my file, but I'd have to take it.
She didn't even get it. Her response, was: "Okay. So you're not coming in?"
My opinions are still pretty neutral about the company.
...However they can't see anything beyond the handbook or the table cloth game board which depicts the history of the company in orientation. It's either black or white...and unfortunately I happen to be grey.
Posted by: Anne | 12.21.08