Wal-Mart Employees Explain Why The New Dress Code Is So Infuriating

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-employees-protest-dress-code-2014-9


A Wal-Mart employee in Walpole, Mass. pushes a line of shopping carts.

Wal-Mart employees are infuriated by the company's decision to implement a new dress code.

The company says the new requirements, which take effect Sept. 29, are meant to make it easier for customers to identify employees in the stores. The dress code includes white or navy collared shirts with khaki or black pants, closed-toe shoes and an updated royal blue Wal-Mart-branded vest. Wal-Mart is covering the cost of only the vest.

Dozens of employees told Business Insider that they can't afford to buy clothes that fit the requirements. They also complained that the change doesn't address the myriad of problems they say are plaguing their stores, such as "severe" understaffing, empty shelves, lack of air conditioning, and broken equipment.

Current employees spoke to Business Insider only on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.


The new dress code.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-employees-protest-dress-code-2014-9#ixzz3CWmts9wn

[Baitball Blogger]

1. My Walmart is not understaffed.

While I was listening to happy banter coming from the back room, at different times five different Walmart employees, walked by and asked me if I was being helped. Each time they sped off to find the person they thought was responsible for handling my situation and I never saw them again. It turned out that the person who could help me was in the busiest department and was not available. So it took a supervisor to walk me across the store to find the item that I had purchased online the night before. It was a garden item that none of the other hardware stores carry.

So, I think they have the employees, but they aren't trained broadly or the company may be over-specializing their services.

[Trillo]

2. We avoid WalMart as much as possible.

The wealthy folks running the store don't seem to understand they're underpaying their employees. They probably just can't understand not having enough disposable income to purchase a few shirts and pants.

Perhaps our legislators will find it in their hearts to one day outlaw corporations deducting all their expenses, to put corporations on an even footing with humans so-called "personal expenses."

[rock]

3. Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic

Got it!

[Populist_Prole]

4. That's exactly it, and it's so common with big, hidebound companies

I've seen it, read about, and lived through it over the past 30 years. Every time they try to reinevent themselves or improve moribund performance, their absolute first instinct is to turn up the heat on or squeeze their employees rather than support them in a way that facilitates better operations. Never structural changes. It's the same chickenshit BS every time.

The 'Dilbert' series of comics would have never got off the ground if it weren't for a steady supply of reality of BS corporate culture.

[rock]

5. Yeah, really it means they just don't get it

It's exactly the same problem the republicans have in their attempt to attract women voters. They think in terms of how can we trick them into voting for us? No honesty at all.

[davidpdx]

6. That's kind of what JC Penny's did by hiring Ron Johnson

Though they weren't that bad off before, so maybe the better analogy would be buying the iceburg to put in front of the boat.

[davidpdx]

7. The video on the bottom of the page was interesting

Wal-Mart makes an average of $1.8 million an hour in profit. Yet they can't pay their associates a living wage.

[Spirochete]

8. Can't the customers identify the employees

just by the unhappy looks on their faces? It would seem that would be sufficient...

[Laelth]

10. Pure evil. n/t

-Laelth

[Jim Lane]

11. Even aside from the issue of unfairness to employees, this makes no sense.

I agree that customers should be able to identify employees. Nevertheless, the mandated "uniform" isn't very uniform or very distinctive. I myself sometimes wear a navy collared shirt and khaki pants. (What can i say, I'm a boring dresser.)

Someone wearing the Walmart vest is an employee, even if wearing it over an unapproved shirt, like the guy in the picture. Someone not wearing the vest is not an employee, even if, like me, he happens to be in compliance with the rules. If the company is providing vests, why do they need a dress code?