19 ms·

Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

147 points by Lagogarda 7y ago

lgleason 7y ago
No big surprise. Given that retail was already in decline before this some of these jobs will probably not come back.
- wear_a_mask 7y ago
  You're 100% right, but try to be compassionate. These people are now out of work, and can't pay for food, rent, etc.
- taylodl 7y ago
  And department stores have been among the hardest-hit in retail: Sears, JC Penney, and Macy's have all been struggling.
ur-whale 7y ago
"furlough"
twblalock 7y ago
I hope the furloughed workers will be able to get unemployment benefits or something similar. Otherwise being furloughed is the worst of both worlds: employed, but unpaid. On the other hand, being furloughed rather than laid off will mean the workers keep their health insurance.
- 1123581321 7y ago
  Furloughed employees typically qualify for unemployment.
  - ksec 7y ago
    What does "typically" meant in this context? Are there cases where Furloughed would not be counted as unemployment?
    - 1123581321 7y ago
      Not every state provides UC for furlough. My understanding is that the majority of employees are in states that do, though.
      - ksec 7y ago
        Thanks. For those of us living outside the State, it increasingly looks more like ( to us ) US is like EU where every member state is a country of its own.
        1123581321 7y ago
        It may seem that way for a few items that keep appearing in the news, but the general trend over the last 200 years has been to make state laws more uniform and to increase regulation at the federal level. For example, for normal job loss, state benefits are fairly uniform, and when we have recessions, we get federal legislation passed to uniformly extend state unemployment benefits with federal money. Not too long ago, that would have been unthinkable.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  Having your hours or pay cut significantly qualifies for unemployment.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    In some states, not all. Although I think the cares act may provide its additional unemployment money in either case.
  - wil421 7y ago
    Not in certain states. My friend in the hotel industry just got furloughed link Macy’s for 100 days, keeps his benefits but no pay and can’t get unemployment.
- dlandis 7y ago
  > Otherwise being furloughed is the worst of both worlds: employed, but unpaid. It totally depends on how long the furlough is. A short furlough means you still have a job to go back to, and you don't have to repeat the whole job search/interviewing process.
- atourgates 7y ago
  I don't know of any states where Furloughed doesn't qualify for unemployment. And the new federal $600/wk unemployment bonus specifically calls out furloughed employees as being eligible. The only difference in my (generally worker-unfriendly red) state is that if you're furloughed and apply for unemployment, they waive the requirement to demonstrate that you're looking for work.
SamuelAdams 7y ago
Doesn't look good, they had earlier corporate layoffs in February [1], before this entire thing hit. My guess is it's only a matter of time before they close shop for good. Also check out all the WARN notices from businesses in NY posted in the last week [2]. COVID-19 is largest (within the USA) in NY. As a result many businesses are closing / furloughing / laying off people. [1]: https://www.labor.ny.gov/app/warn/details.asp?id=7098 https://www.labor.ny.gov/app/warn/details.asp?id=7098 [2]: https://www.labor.ny.gov/app/warn/ https://www.labor.ny.gov/app/warn/
code4tee 7y ago
Sadly this whole current mess may be an insurmountable hurdle for an industry that was already struggling. This is all going to force some changes for what the future of retail looks like. Hopefully in the long run we can all find a place for in person retail. I buy a lot online but still like going to stores sometimes too. We will likely see the industry re-invent instead a bit with smaller footprints and a focus on things that sell better in person than online.
- twblalock 7y ago
  When we look back on this in a few years I think we will see the virus shutdowns accelerated some trends that were already slowly happening: - The demise of many traditional retail businesses - The concentration of surviving retail businesses into big box stores and higher-end retailers (like the stores at Westfield malls) - Increased usage of online shopping and gig delivery services - Even more growth for Amazon, Walmart, and Target I would expect, in general, to see more concentration in most industries after the virus shutdowns end. Retail is the most obvious example.
  - jolmg 7y ago
    > - Even more growth for Amazon, Walmart, and Target Why Walmart and Target? Aren't they also traditional retail?
    - drusepth 7y ago
      Both Walmart and Target have taken huge strides in moving their business online, and in a lot of features/perks are comparable to Amazon now (especially in price and shipping speeds; Walmart price-matches Amazon and gives free two-day shipping on every order over $35 without a Prime-esque requirement, for example).
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        One can also place orders at Walmart and Target, and pickup the next day; just pull into parking spot, order is brought to the car. Best Buy is also offering "to the car" order delivery during the pandemic. Amazon delivery times are currently 1 week+ in many locations.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
At least they can stay on their health insurance. It’s always mind boggling that in the US you will not just lose your job when you get laid off but also your health insurance. For a lot of people this is life threatening.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Being able to keep the health insurance is a life saver. And yes, we really need to rethink this whole, "employer bound health insurance"-thing. Maybe it made sense in the world of easy access to middle class jobs that was the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, etc. But today things are significantly different and we haven't adapted to reflect that reality.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    More like it made sense in the early 1940's when there were wage and price controls due to WW2, and it just kinda stuck.
    - digitaltrees 7y ago
      This is an important historical fact that many people don’t know.
  - danans 7y ago
    > And yes, we really need to rethink this whole, "employer bound health insurance"-thing. This may end up being the most important silver lining of the COVID19 situation. > Maybe it made sense in the world of easy access to middle class jobs that was the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, etc. It made sense for those who could get those jobs, but US society of the 1950s-1970s was pretty selective as to to whom it availed such jobs and attached health benefits.
    - filmgirlcw 7y ago
      Yes. Although I will note that labor unions were also more powerful then, which allowed a broader class of people to have jobs that offered benefits. I don’t disagree that the system was still selective as to who had access, but the Reagan-era attack on organized labor and workers rights had sweeping, sweeping impact that continues today. The problem is that many boomers (sorry mom and dad), who had more entry-level or even middle-class jobs in the 70s and then went on to big corporate jobs in the 80s, either are unaware of this shift or are unwilling to acknowledge it happened. People say, “well when I was your age my health insurance was free or super cheap” — as if that is applicable 40+ years later. It’s similar to my uncle not understanding why someone like me, who makes well into six figures a year, has no aspirations of home ownership, not understanding that the only cities I’m willing to live don’t have housing equivalent to my rent for under $1m. He just thinks, “I bought a house at your age” — not realizing his house was $80k and even with inflation, wouldn’t be possible now. Or like how I had to explain to my mother that no, despite working for the second-most valuable company in the world (technically it has the highest market cap today), I do not have a pension. I laughed when she asked.
seattle_spring 7y ago
I'm shocked Macy's has 100k employees. I thought most of their locations closed? Or was that just Seattle.
chrischen 7y ago
Seems a little unfair that if your store happens to sell groceries in a part of it then it can stay open.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
Hey, this reminds me of the announcement a couple weeks ago that Amazon is hiring 100k warehouse staff. In China, companies responded to this shift in demand by having the online-retail/logistics companies (demand way up, not enough workers) contract with the physical-retail companies (demand way down, too many workers) for their workers' time. You'd still be a Macy's employee, but you'd be doing Amazon's work, and Amazon would send Macy's a big pile of cash. Somehow that seems better for all involved than the way we appear to be going.
- pm90 7y ago
  An interesting idea but sounds like you’re treating labor like property.
  - binxbolling 7y ago
    Wait til you hear how capital treats labor
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    ...you don't think Macy's ordinarily tells its workers what they're supposed to be doing?
- systemvoltage 7y ago
  China runs like a company who’s CEO is Xi Jingpin and they have 1.4 billion employees. I heard the company culture is pretty horrifying - if you don’t follow orders from the security staff, you can face serious consequences. If you whistleblow, you’re destined to death. Nothing less.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Given that I learned about this from a British law firm putting out a short paper for interested parties that began by analyzing "is this legal in the first place?", I tend to doubt that it was directed by the CCP.
- Traster 7y ago

147 points by Lagogarda 7y ago

lgleason 7y ago

No big surprise. Given that retail was already in decline before this some of these jobs will probably not come back.

wear_a_mask 7y ago
You're 100% right, but try to be compassionate. These people are now out of work, and can't pay for food, rent, etc.
taylodl 7y ago
And department stores have been among the hardest-hit in retail: Sears, JC Penney, and Macy's have all been struggling.

ur-whale 7y ago

"furlough"

twblalock 7y ago

I hope the furloughed workers will be able to get unemployment benefits or something similar. Otherwise being furloughed is the worst of both worlds: employed, but unpaid. On the other hand, being furloughed rather than laid off will mean the workers keep their health insurance.

1123581321 7y ago
Furloughed employees typically qualify for unemployment.
- ksec 7y ago
  What does "typically" meant in this context? Are there cases where Furloughed would not be counted as unemployment?
  - 1123581321 7y ago
    Not every state provides UC for furlough. My understanding is that the majority of employees are in states that do, though.
    - ksec 7y ago
      Thanks. For those of us living outside the State, it increasingly looks more like ( to us ) US is like EU where every member state is a country of its own.
      - 1123581321 7y ago
        It may seem that way for a few items that keep appearing in the news, but the general trend over the last 200 years has been to make state laws more uniform and to increase regulation at the federal level. For example, for normal job loss, state benefits are fairly uniform, and when we have recessions, we get federal legislation passed to uniformly extend state unemployment benefits with federal money. Not too long ago, that would have been unthinkable.
ilikehurdles 7y ago
Having your hours or pay cut significantly qualifies for unemployment.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  In some states, not all. Although I think the cares act may provide its additional unemployment money in either case.
- wil421 7y ago
  Not in certain states. My friend in the hotel industry just got furloughed link Macy’s for 100 days, keeps his benefits but no pay and can’t get unemployment.
dlandis 7y ago
> Otherwise being furloughed is the worst of both worlds: employed, but unpaid. It totally depends on how long the furlough is. A short furlough means you still have a job to go back to, and you don't have to repeat the whole job search/interviewing process.
atourgates 7y ago
I don't know of any states where Furloughed doesn't qualify for unemployment. And the new federal $600/wk unemployment bonus specifically calls out furloughed employees as being eligible. The only difference in my (generally worker-unfriendly red) state is that if you're furloughed and apply for unemployment, they waive the requirement to demonstrate that you're looking for work.

SamuelAdams 7y ago

Doesn't look good, they had earlier corporate layoffs in February [1], before this entire thing hit. My guess is it's only a matter of time before they close shop for good. Also check out all the WARN notices from businesses in NY posted in the last week [2]. COVID-19 is largest (within the USA) in NY. As a result many businesses are closing / furloughing / laying off people. [1]: https://www.labor.ny.gov/app/warn/details.asp?id=7098 https://www.labor.ny.gov/app/warn/details.asp?id=7098 [2]: https://www.labor.ny.gov/app/warn/ https://www.labor.ny.gov/app/warn/

code4tee 7y ago

Sadly this whole current mess may be an insurmountable hurdle for an industry that was already struggling. This is all going to force some changes for what the future of retail looks like. Hopefully in the long run we can all find a place for in person retail. I buy a lot online but still like going to stores sometimes too. We will likely see the industry re-invent instead a bit with smaller footprints and a focus on things that sell better in person than online.

twblalock 7y ago
When we look back on this in a few years I think we will see the virus shutdowns accelerated some trends that were already slowly happening: - The demise of many traditional retail businesses - The concentration of surviving retail businesses into big box stores and higher-end retailers (like the stores at Westfield malls) - Increased usage of online shopping and gig delivery services - Even more growth for Amazon, Walmart, and Target I would expect, in general, to see more concentration in most industries after the virus shutdowns end. Retail is the most obvious example.
- jolmg 7y ago
  > - Even more growth for Amazon, Walmart, and Target Why Walmart and Target? Aren't they also traditional retail?
  - drusepth 7y ago
    Both Walmart and Target have taken huge strides in moving their business online, and in a lot of features/perks are comparable to Amazon now (especially in price and shipping speeds; Walmart price-matches Amazon and gives free two-day shipping on every order over $35 without a Prime-esque requirement, for example).
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      One can also place orders at Walmart and Target, and pickup the next day; just pull into parking spot, order is brought to the car. Best Buy is also offering "to the car" order delivery during the pandemic. Amazon delivery times are currently 1 week+ in many locations.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

At least they can stay on their health insurance. It’s always mind boggling that in the US you will not just lose your job when you get laid off but also your health insurance. For a lot of people this is life threatening.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Being able to keep the health insurance is a life saver. And yes, we really need to rethink this whole, "employer bound health insurance"-thing. Maybe it made sense in the world of easy access to middle class jobs that was the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, etc. But today things are significantly different and we haven't adapted to reflect that reality.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  More like it made sense in the early 1940's when there were wage and price controls due to WW2, and it just kinda stuck.
  - digitaltrees 7y ago
    This is an important historical fact that many people don’t know.
- danans 7y ago
  > And yes, we really need to rethink this whole, "employer bound health insurance"-thing. This may end up being the most important silver lining of the COVID19 situation. > Maybe it made sense in the world of easy access to middle class jobs that was the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, etc. It made sense for those who could get those jobs, but US society of the 1950s-1970s was pretty selective as to to whom it availed such jobs and attached health benefits.
  - filmgirlcw 7y ago
    Yes. Although I will note that labor unions were also more powerful then, which allowed a broader class of people to have jobs that offered benefits. I don’t disagree that the system was still selective as to who had access, but the Reagan-era attack on organized labor and workers rights had sweeping, sweeping impact that continues today. The problem is that many boomers (sorry mom and dad), who had more entry-level or even middle-class jobs in the 70s and then went on to big corporate jobs in the 80s, either are unaware of this shift or are unwilling to acknowledge it happened. People say, “well when I was your age my health insurance was free or super cheap” — as if that is applicable 40+ years later. It’s similar to my uncle not understanding why someone like me, who makes well into six figures a year, has no aspirations of home ownership, not understanding that the only cities I’m willing to live don’t have housing equivalent to my rent for under $1m. He just thinks, “I bought a house at your age” — not realizing his house was $80k and even with inflation, wouldn’t be possible now. Or like how I had to explain to my mother that no, despite working for the second-most valuable company in the world (technically it has the highest market cap today), I do not have a pension. I laughed when she asked.

seattle_spring 7y ago

I'm shocked Macy's has 100k employees. I thought most of their locations closed? Or was that just Seattle.

chrischen 7y ago

Seems a little unfair that if your store happens to sell groceries in a part of it then it can stay open.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

Hey, this reminds me of the announcement a couple weeks ago that Amazon is hiring 100k warehouse staff. In China, companies responded to this shift in demand by having the online-retail/logistics companies (demand way up, not enough workers) contract with the physical-retail companies (demand way down, too many workers) for their workers' time. You'd still be a Macy's employee, but you'd be doing Amazon's work, and Amazon would send Macy's a big pile of cash. Somehow that seems better for all involved than the way we appear to be going.

pm90 7y ago
An interesting idea but sounds like you’re treating labor like property.
- binxbolling 7y ago
  Wait til you hear how capital treats labor
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  ...you don't think Macy's ordinarily tells its workers what they're supposed to be doing?
systemvoltage 7y ago
China runs like a company who’s CEO is Xi Jingpin and they have 1.4 billion employees. I heard the company culture is pretty horrifying - if you don’t follow orders from the security staff, you can face serious consequences. If you whistleblow, you’re destined to death. Nothing less.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  Given that I learned about this from a British law firm putting out a short paper for interested parties that began by analyzing "is this legal in the first place?", I tend to doubt that it was directed by the CCP.
Traster 7y ago