I'm not sure why you think Walmart would change under the new CEO. They are one of the few companies doing well in this down market. There is no reason to believe that the new CEO will be anything but a continuation of the same. He is not from the outside. Just the opposite. He's a Walmart insider who has been an integral part of the success they are enjoying. Walmart is a business and their allegience is to their stockholders(owners). Actually they are up over 2% on the news right now. If this new CEO embraces any new policies that detract from the success that the company is enjoying I would guess that he won't last long. Beside all of this is the fact that Lee Scott is only retiring as CEO. He's still chairman of the executive board.
Would you suggest that they change their strategy to welcome organized labor so that they can go down the road of the big 3 US automakers? Put blame for the loss of jobs where it belongs if you are honest enough.
I don't think the country is in the mood for higher prices at Walmart.

The Big 3's problems have nothing to do with organized labor.

They've been warned since the 70's to make fuel efficient cars, and they said "Hell no, you can't make us." They fought fuel efficiency and emissions standards with every dollar they had, refused to even look into fuel cell technology (which has been around since the late 50's) until just a few years ago, and utilized every federal loophole they could find to keep making huge, gas-guzzling monstrosities that nobody wants or can afford any more.

And did everyone see the recent articles about the CEO's for the Big 3 spending as much as $20,000 apiece to travel in private planes to DC to ask for bailout money? And, of course, despite the fact that they may go under without the bailout, the CEO's will be getting bonuses this year.

And yet, you don't think it's their fault? You think it's the fault of the workers demanding a wages above poverty level and the ability to take their kids to the doctor?

This cartoon says it all:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1864

I hope that Walmart does change with the new CEO. As a formal employee, they can't get much worse. I have spoken with former co-workers about it, and they hope the same thing. As one told me, "I hope that he will bring back some of Sam Walton's ideas".

How could this guy do any worse than Lee Scott has done? If there is a real campaign of writing letters to Michael Duke and letting him know everyone expects change, something might happen. I pray that it does. I'm an ex-Wal-Martian, and I hate seeing what my friends go through who still work for Hell-Mart.

Hi
Walmart bought out ASDA here in the UK. The new CEO should be looking at the business here in the UK where the Unions are recognised. It is a opportunity for Walmart to be the employer of choice instead of being the employer of last resort. The workers will work better give a much better service if they feel that their views are being represented by the Union to the company. The Unions do not get all they want here in the UK but workers are treated better and work better with a Union.

Walmart should see the writting on the wall with Obama being elected and work with the Union and not against it. Why should workers in Walmart suffer poor wages, conditions and no job security. Its about time companies looked to this side of the pond both in the UK and Europe and work in partnership with the Unions.

Ian

To ThaMothership:
How can anyone in their right mind argue that the Big 3 automakers problems has nothing to do with organized labor?
In testimony some interesting facts about the UAW contact came out.
1. A full 40% of retirees who get full pension and medical benefits were under age 65. The average retirement age was put at "somewhere in the early 50's".
2. When demand for particular models falls and plants are "idled" that instead of workers being furloughed and collecting under unemployment insurance they are paid 95% of their wage for staying home and they keep all benefits.
3. There is a "job bank". When a worker is no longer needed they go into this "bank". They continue to collect full pay and benefits fo up to two years while they wait for the company to find work for them.
The list goes on and on with one unrealistic program after another. To be fair, it takes two to tango. Management should never have given into demands like these because logically it can only end badly for everyone.
To the point about the Big 3 manufacturing gas guzzlers. They were responding to what the market wanted. Would it have been better to produce small fuel efficient models that no one wanted. Everyone wanted bigger and safer when gas prices were lower and that's what they got. The foreign, transplant , non-union automakers moved away from strickly producing fuel efficient vehicles and entered the larger pickup, van and suv markets quite sucessfully. They continue to be profitable while US carmakers are not. The difference? Union and non-union.
Anyone with even a notion of economic sense is saying what I've said. The US carmaker's business model is broken. It needs to be fixed and a big part of that fix is renegotiating the UAW contract.
Knowing how this problem evolved over time why would Walmart or its' employees want a union?

This question is for TC. Why do professional athletes and movie stars join unions? They are all highly paid,so why have a union? Unions are not to blame for the demise of the auto industry, bad management is. Unions are there for protection against management abuse. Think of it as checks and balances. If we all had competent management running our industries then we would not need unions, until then i would take a union representation any day of the week to protect my wages my benefits and my labor rights. I know what I am talking about I work for a major union grocery store chain and I love it !!

tc,

Let's see...the average worker demands some health care and a wage above poverty level and that breaks the entire system? Who knew the average welder had such power! I bet if they asked for a 10% COLA they could bankrupt the entire world!!

Yet even in these difficult times the boards refuse to cut back the hundreds of millions (in combined salary, deferred comp, etc.) that the CEO's are raking in.

"Oh," the CEO's mourn, "if only the auto workers -- those lesser rabble -- hadn't demanded to make 1/100th of my salary then maybe people wouldn't sneer and hiss when I travel about the country for personal business in my Gulfstream 4 with the expenses billed to the company! It makes me feel so bad I have to hide in one of my vacation houses!"

These guys were captaining the ship while the ship hit the iceberg, and now they say it was the employees' fault for not volunteering to put themselves in the poor house. We ought to tell these failures where to stick it and and refuse to give them a dollar.

"B-b-b-but...the CEO's have a contract! We have to pay them! We can't break a contract!"

Yes, you can.

But we'll never do it so long as we're focused on the worker's contracts...and that's the point. They'll do whatever it takes to distract America long enough to take their golden parachutes and run.

You say the Big 3 were responding to what the market wanted. Fine. The market clearly no longer wants them. Thousands and thousands of American cars are sitting unwanted in car lots around the country because the Big 3 allowed themselves to become obsolete. If they had prepared for this -- as they were repeatedly warned to do -- they would be fine.

THAT IS A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP...NOT WORKMANSHIP. No matter how big a pension they get, the average worker has no control over what cars are produced or the long-term strategy of the company.

One question: These people with economic sense that you refer to, they wouldn't happen to be the ones who guided us into this mess in the first place would they? You know, the ones who kept assuring us everything was fine while Jim Cramer was freaking out? Or how about Andrew Biggs from the American Enterprise Institute, who wants you to know just how peachy great your retirement account would be if your social security funds had been invested in the stock market all this time.

Yeah, you go ahead and keep trusting them. Just remember...I love saying I told you so.

How come tne auto workers wont take a cut when the auto makers are in trouble?

Like that new ceo can save my job. When I was wrongfully terminated

First of all, athletes, actors, writers..... join unions for the same reason that teachers do. In this day and age it's part of the cost of doing business. If you want to work in the union dominated fields then you must join a union wether you agree with all they do and stand fo or not. Unions flex their muscles and those that are in are in and those that are out are out. In many cases it is the union bosses that get rich at the expense of their membership. I will concede that collective bargaining is an advantage. I'll qualify that though by saying that it is an advantage as long as demands and concessions line up with reality. In the case of the big 3 automakers that is not the case. The 30 and out retirement packages, the job banks program and assorted work rules that stifle productivity are all examples of things that just don't sqaure with the private sector economic reality in this day and age.
Don't compare labor and management. It's an apples and oranges comparison. The pool of people who qualify for working on an assembly line is infinitely larger than the pool of people who qualify for a CEO or upper management position. Don't get me wrong. There is plenty of blame to go around.. I would agree that none of the big 3 either paid attention to advice about or anticipated the fallout of a credit crunch or a spike in the cost of oil. They responded to the near term demand of the marketplace and designed, produced and marketed gas guzzlers for the most part. They are suffering now because just like anything that large, it takes time to change direction. I just don't think that comparing management and labor is ever a fair thing.
It's funny that Jim Kramer is mentioned in a context that would appear to make his advice sound sage. He's one of the loudest voices for busting the UAW. Kind of ironic don't you think?
My guess is that unless the UAW partners with the big 3 and make concessions then at least one of the automakers will go under.

tc,

Judging entirely by performance, most CEO's aren't qualified to be CEO's either.

So why do we pay them so much? More importantly, why do we pay them so much without question, reservation, or expectation? And even more importantly, why do you blame the serfs for the vices of the king?

If, as you claim, being in management requires such high qualifications, then shouldn't we also expect more from them? Shouldn't the guy who makes 100-200 times more than you be held to a higher standard for success?

I might feel differently about this whole thing if the company was well-managed and making a profit, yet somehow suffering from the cost of labor.

But they aren't.

You admit that management failed. So who is more to blame, the guy making $25/hr who could have survived on $15, or the guy making millions who ran the company into the ground?

The average auto worker could run the company just as poorly and be happy with 1/20th what the current CEO makes per year.

A trained dog could run the company just as poorly on a salary of three cans of Alpo a day.

Anyone can fail miserably. Why must we insist on paying so much for it?