editor's voice: Corporate concerns
Lien Yeung, Associate News Editor
I would like to voice my concern over a recent incident that I have personally come across: the decision of a corporation to sacrifice employee satisfaction for "company well-being."
It should be made clear that I work in a large retail store that spans several provinces across Canada. I'm hoping many of you retail employees will identify with my distaste.
It should also be noted that while I am in no way complaining about the amount of compensation I currently receive (I feel I am getting paid well enough for what I do) - I do feel that the company is taking a turn for the worst.
After working for over half a decade as a loyal employee for this anonymous company (anonymous because I would still like to receive a bi-weekly cheque), I have several concerns.
Recently the company made a major announcement - that it would be willing to allow an annual general increase to all employee wages. But it discretely bypassed the fact that the increase would not only be lower than in past years but that it would not even match this year's inflation rate.
Furthermore, we were informed that all those who now apply to work for this well-reputed company would be seeing a much worse pay scale. All of this economic change in the name of "the company's well-being and keeping a competitive edge."
I would first like to ask those who had to "approve of the decision," who is this elusive company you speak of? The name "_____ _____ Ltd" is nothing. It is not a living, breathing being. It does not need to be cared for - maintained yes, but not cared for.
A company is its people. The poor people who face the public on a daily basis, dealing with the bullshit that only customers seem to know how to dish out. It is unfair to say that employees who work at the much revered "head offices" are not a part of "the people," but it is not unfair to say that they would never understand the grievances endured by those who suffer at the store-level.
Their ignorance of store-level proceedings is exemplified by merchandising decisions they make, such as product display layout plans which never seem to fit all the products that are sold at the store. Does no one ever try the damn thing out before they send it to us?
Although I am not a business major, I believe that a company's well-being does not depend on cutting costs at all measures. I understand that sometimes sacrifices need to be made - but why does it need to affect the small guy first?
Has the executive committee taken a pay cut? I wonder why, after making millions, the ones at the top feel it's not enough. This begs the question of when is it enough. While some people may say that human nature forces us to always strive for more, making several hundred thousands of dollars a year really seems to be enough. A company with multi-million or even billion dollar profits really seems to be making enough.
Perhaps you can call me a little bit Marxist because I believe in the rights of the proletariat to rise up and show strength. I have no problem being called that. Although I do not necessarily feel exploited right now, it seems that this is the direction that the company is headed in. Ten years ago, I could have worked only a handful of years and have been at the maximum wage level. Today it will take me nearly a decade to achieve the same status.
As for maintaining competitive edge, I believe that no other company is obliged to provide the quality of customer service my colleagues and I are required to provide - we'll walk you to the product you asked for and ensure that nobody does it better. Mr. CEO, Mr. Owner, don't worry, Superstore and Shoppers will never even come close. If you're good to me, I'll be an even better employee for you.