DeMoulas Market Basket protest (Boston: leases, rating, company)

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by bUU

No. Rather: You simply don't like that reasonable people disagree with your priorities. You simply cannot fathom that reasonable people think that boycotting MB is a pointless and petulant feel-good gesture, deficient of significance. You simply aren't willing to grant that someone could be both informed and think your perspective is wrong. So how about we stop talking about each other and restrict our comments to the topic?

They have a reason. What is the excuse of all the rest of those engaging in this behavior?

Most Costumers want employees to keep their job because they know them and the want to keep a store with low price groceries.

[bUU]

Again, the issue is consistency: Consumers don't consistently support workers walking off the job for conditions better than those the MB employees had before walking off the job.

Also, let's not forget that jobs weren't in jeopardy before the walk-out. If consumers really cared about employees keeping their jobs, they would have protested the walk-out. That is, if those consumers wanted their actions to match their words.

[CaseyB]

The protest is due to the personal loyalty to one man, Artie T. The customers are backing up the employees.

[Cloudship]

Originally Posted by CaseyB

I think you have the names reversed. Arthur S. and his allies hold the majority.

Correct. I had seafood restaurants on my mind.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by bUU

Again, the issue is consistency: Consumers don't consistently support workers walking off the job for conditions better than those the MB employees had before walking off the job.

Also, let's not forget that jobs weren't in jeopardy before the walk-out. If consumers really cared about employees keeping their jobs, they would have protested the walk-out. That is, if those consumers wanted their actions to match their words.

Consistent to what? They know Art S is going to sell out the company and they don't want it to happen because prices will go up (reason for costumer support) and employee benefits will be crushed which is why employees are on strike or it will be another shaws.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by bUU

I suppose, but I think there are other aspects. You probably entered the discussion late, and so you may not know what I've been concerned about - specifically, the inconsistency of the general public in their standing up for these principles. I believe many are simply reacting to the exploitation of mob mentality. Perhaps they hold these values, truly, but they have failed to act on them consistently in the past. MB, even under current management, is among the least grievous offenders. The "offenses" regarding treatment of employees and product pricing have been generally ignored as committed by more grievous offenders.

And now I suspect we're seeing glimmers of the reality that the boycott itself is driving the situation to a conclusion that is the exact opposite of what the protest wanted. Sad.

Of course you're totally correct in your quixotic attempt to correct the internal inconsistencies of shopping at WalMart to protest Market Basket. Since when have people been consistent about anything, though, especially about the latest cause célèbre?

I suspect that in the absence of external forces, most people who are boycotting MB stand for notions like better treatment and pay for low-level employees, but are rarely see the opportunity to directly contribute to such an ideal. As you correctly point out, places like WalMart are likely still more egregious offenders than whatever MB would become, so shopping at WalMart seems anti-thetical to the stated purposes of the MB protest.

I would say you are demanding internal self-consistency at the expense of pragmatism. The MB protests are disruptive enough that one might expect an outcome and one feels connected to that outcome. In other words, there is a belief that protesting will lead to a positive outcome, i.e. a good company will stay a good company rather than becoming a mediocre one. With other stores, in the absence of a similar collective action, individual action has little chance of effect, so people do not expend the energy to act. I would say it's similar to the reason why people vote for the less offensive major party candidate even when their beliefs align more closely with a third party candidate.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by bUU

Also, let's not forget that jobs weren't in jeopardy before the walk-out. If consumers really cared about employees keeping their jobs, they would have protested the walk-out. That is, if those consumers wanted their actions to match their words.

Incorrect. The jobs themselves may exist, but the conditions would not have been the same.

And even if I wasn't boycotting MB, why would I go? I suspect lots of people aren't going because the shelves are bare so there is no point.

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Incorrect. The jobs themselves may exist, but the conditions would not have been the same.

How do you know that? The only report I have heard was a reduction in the profit-sharing contribution. And, of course, the irony is that by walking out, profits have plummeted which means less benefits for the workers if/when they return.

Otherwise, I heard of no other cuts to jobs, benefits, or pay for the workers. By contrast, I would be curious why people didn't walk out on the conditions before, where a company making billions per year was still paying 15-year employees $11/hr as cashiers, as I heard several MB employees begrudge months ago. *shrug*

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by wxjay

How do you know that?

Track record of the new CEOs

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by bUU

Again, the issue is consistency: Consumers don't consistently support workers walking off the job for conditions better than those the MB employees had before walking off the job.

Also, let's not forget that jobs weren't in jeopardy before the walk-out. If consumers really cared about employees keeping their jobs, they would have protested the walk-out. That is, if those consumers wanted their actions to match their words.

Eh not exactly.

This stands out quite a bit because frankly if you were to ask any of us about the chances of such a thing in a non union shop I'd imagine that everyone would get fired at the drop of a hat.

25,000 employees and so far it has been eight. Although part timers have no hours and supposedly are not being laid off.

If the majority wants him back then why not just hire him back? If a business plan works for all parties then why change it? What specifically can be gained by the owners, consumers and or employees?

So far S has not said anything specific as to why T was let go. No financial charts released, no internal investigations, no record of malfeasance. In the court of public opinion you have to speak truth to power and frankly S hasn't done a damn thing.

if they *really* wanted to replace S then why hire someone with a background at Radio Shack and Kmart/Sears? That makes little sense.

Sudden and abrupt change is shunned in business environments (especially in Asia). Try as they might converting from a private company to something foreign or publically traded isn't going to work.

I'm thinking that either T caves in by the end of the month or the place gets sold/merged with Publix. Publix is employee owned and kinda private. It is based in the southeast and frankly they are not large enough to have monopoly disputes. Hy Vee might fall into this as well.But is it enough? I don't know..hard to say.

Just some simple game theory here but if T is gone and lets say people go back to work. Prices go up, wages go down. That might ripple across the state. Competition drives lower costs. Collusion does not.