• tsonfeir@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      93
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was just the coverup so they didn’t get backlash from laying everyone off after another round of C-Suite bonuses.

      • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You don’t understand what it’s like for them. They don’t like sacking people for bonuses but they just can’t come up with any other ways to increase profit. What are they supposed to do? Get creative? Build a strong respectful work culture? Not take a bonus? You see. It’s not as easy as you think. Timmy can miss out on his toy train this Christmas. Besides, it’s just business

        • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          When little Timmy got a train
          "twas put beneath a tree
          Christmas day had fin’lly come,
          Such fun for all to see

          The poor were done, they knew no fun All stolen by some jerk(s)
          Their patience done, their time had come
          And quickly went to work

          Timmy’s dad had been quite bad
          He stole, and cheated and lied
          When they burned the system down,
          Little Timmy fucking died.

          Added context: “Little Timmy” is 35, has a cushy VP job in his dad’s company, and is lined up to be the next ceo. It was his suggestion to cut 50,000 jobs so he could collect a finders fee for “finding” unnecessary expenses.

        • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Timmy doesn’t need an entire full sized private “toy” train. Just get him some Lego ;)

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ll give Target a bit of lee at here because they were only there first to admit they were wrong, they also shared a bunch of data about how their shrink calculation methodology, which much of the retail sector shares, is flawed.

      I have worked for target. Their logistics methodology is incredibly on point. They are highly invested in getting things right, if no other reason, for the sake of their own profitability.So as there are being open, they have some credibility here, I would say, especially given that others here are so closed. This interest certainly serves their profit motive as much as it services our our motive.  There is, at least, for now, no reason to distress them.

      • Orbituary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let’s practice this together, folks. “Corporations never put their employees or customers ahead of profits.”

        If you believed them at their word, you’d be wrong.

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Theft clearly doesn’t affect their overall profits considering how many chains have had record profits.

        Looking at you Walmart

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Depends where you set the bar. Does it make it more likely that certain locations are closed? Probably.

              • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah but they’re only closing because they’re not bringing in maximum profits.

                They’re still making profits they’re just butthurt they’re not making more and that was my original point.

                If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.

                With all that said though if the store is legitimately being robbed to the point of affecting profits that much then yeah go ahead and close. But the companies that claim theft as the reason for closing stores are bullshitting you.

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.

                  But it does. You are using “at all” wrong lol.

                  • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No just understanding that they’re making so much money the theft is doing essentially nothing to their profits.

                    Lemmings really need to stop this whole shtick about not understanding the nuance in word choice. Everyone here acts like a fuckin lawyer when it comes to breaking down and analyzing specific word choice.

                    It’s clear through the context of everything else I said what I mean by “at all”. It’s such a negligible impact on the company as a whole that it’s not even worth mentioning 90% of the time. Like a guy who just won the lottery dropping a nickel. It’s completely inconsequential.