The GameStop in the Gateway Mall in Lincoln, Nebraska is one of the busiest around, at least according to the person who used to run it. But over the weekend it was closed after four employees decided to walk out and never return over what he says are bad working conditions and a verbally abusive district manager. It’s the second time this year a GameStop in the area saw its entire staff resign in protest.
“We regret to inform you that we all quit,” the piece of paper taped to the front door read, a photo of which was shared on the Lincoln subreddit later that day. It went on:
Our District Manager has no respect for us as employees or as human beings. We have been told by our district manager that we were supposed to have had this store achieving sales quotas and running perfectly 6 months ago. Which was 3 months before alot of us even got hired. Unfortunately, despite the staff’s best efforts, we are not god.
The paper then listed nearby competitors, including a place called EntertainMart located elsewhere in the mall, and told would-be customers to shop there instead. “Spend your money at an establishment that respects it’s employees [sic].”
...
“For my health I had to leave,” Frank Maurer, the store’s recently promoted manager, told Kotaku in a phone interview. The stress and anxiety were so bad he had trouble sleeping and wasn’t even enjoying games anymore. He said he only started working there in late 2021, and while at first it was fun, it quickly turned into a nightmare between the lack of resources and management’s strict quotas. To put up with it Maurer said he was paid $17 an hour, just $2 over the entry level rate at the nearby Target, while those under him made only $9, Nebraska’s minimum wage.
He also claimed he was never properly trained by the company on any of the new responsibilities he was given as manager, nor given the resources and time to train others at the store. At one point he said he had to work over two weeks straight with no days off just to keep the store functioning.
“When I asked for support I was met with silence,” Maurer said.
Then there was the district manager, whom he accused of routinely threatening and dressing down staff over their “failure” to meet impossible goals. “He was abusive verbally,” Maurer said. “He would constantly threaten people’s jobs.” The staff would be told they could be easily replaced by other college kids, part of a ceaseless “churn and burn” mentality that Maurer said was part of why the store was struggling to meet its unrealistic quotas. “All he sees are numbers on a computer.”
A similar walkout sign taped to Lincoln, Nebraska’s other GameStop earlier this year also blamed the district manager for the mass resignation. “There have actually been four walkouts since august 2021 because of him,” wrote one former employee on Facebook. “Two at each location. The first ones were kept pretty quiet though.”
When asked about the prospect of unionizing amid huge labor pushes at Starbucks, Amazon, and Apple, as well as recent efforts in the larger gaming industry, Maurer said he can’t see it ever happening. Like every other current and former GameStop employee I’ve spoken with in the past year, he feels turnover is too high and management too ruthless for anything like that to ever get off the ground.
While it’s always been a tough retail gig built on exploiting employees’ passion for gaming, there’s a growing sense that turnover and burnout are worse than ever at GameStop, even as its new corporate overlords tout a pivot to crypto. Last November, employees told Kotaku that they were being pushed to the breaking point during the holiday rush, and every day posts about cratering morale and people quitting flood the GameStop subreddit.
“I left because they pushed my old boss out and the new one was brought in by the district manager from South Dakota he was from just really bad,” another employee who recently left the company, told Kotaku on Facebook. “He was a jerk to customers and employees, when he got hired the entire staff quickly left except for me, I stuck around until it was clear he wanted rid of me too. I’m honestly surprised more GameStops aren’t down on workers.”
Many are tired of having to hassle customers about memberships and warranties like used-car salespeople, and of always being told it’s never enough, all while random strangers gloat online about the meme stock’s market-defying success.
“It’s become disheartening,” Maurer said. “[Employees] hate the investors. They’re furious with people putting money into this company with no care for how it treats its people.”
So he decided to quit. And when the three other employees at the store heard he was done, they all decided to leave too, Maurer said. He would have left earlier but was afraid of walking away. “I didn’t want all of my passion and effort to be wasted,” he said. But despite the time sink he ultimately still felt “tossed aside like a wet paper towel.”
“This company inspires managers to be horrid to their workers.”
This is a company my grandfather once tried to push me to joining after college "because you like video games, don't you?"
All retail jobs are thankless awful experiences, but GameStop always seemed like one of the worst around. From pushing pre-orders, to parents using the store as daycare, and God have mercy on your soul if you identify as a woman.
All retail jobs are thankless awful experiences, but GameStop always seemed like one of the worst around. From pushing pre-orders, to parents using the store as daycare, and God have mercy on your soul if you identify as a woman.
And so many of them are so fucking tiny, and Black Friday turns around, and oh god oh god oh god
Kellogg will split into three companies: a cereal maker, a snack maker and a plant-based food company. Kellogg, whose brands include Eggo waffles and Rice Krispies cereal, said the planned spinoffs are expected to be completed by the end of 2023.
Splitting up a company while keeping the same people in charge of all of them is a pretty transparent move to try to splinter and weaken the labor union of the employees.
Cahillane will become chairman and CEO of the global snacking company. The management team of the cereal company will be named later. The board of directors has approved the spinoffs.
Shareholders will receive shares in the two spinoffs on a pro-rata basis relative to their Kellogg holdings.
Separate executives, separate stock tickers. This is literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do, split up large conglomerates into smaller standalone companies
Cahillane will become chairman and CEO of the global snacking company. The management team of the cereal company will be named later. The board of directors has approved the spinoffs.
Shareholders will receive shares in the two spinoffs on a pro-rata basis relative to their Kellogg holdings.
Separate executives, separate stock tickers. This is literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do, split up large conglomerates into smaller standalone companies
They aren't stand-alone companies if they're all still subsidiaries of the same larger parent company! Please do not be deceived by them having separate executive boards and/or stock listings.
For example, Pizza Hut has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being a subsidiary of Yum Brands, which also has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being itself a subsidiary of PepsiCo.
Please do not say it is "literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do," when it's more like what corporations would want "anti-trust legislation" to do: creating an illusion of consumer choice and an illusion of fracturing a corporate stranglehold, when in fact it's just a few more brand names on the shelves while the profits still all flow back to the same place.
Cahillane will become chairman and CEO of the global snacking company. The management team of the cereal company will be named later. The board of directors has approved the spinoffs.
Shareholders will receive shares in the two spinoffs on a pro-rata basis relative to their Kellogg holdings.
Separate executives, separate stock tickers. This is literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do, split up large conglomerates into smaller standalone companies
They aren't stand-alone companies if they're all still subsidiaries of the same larger parent company! Please do not be deceived by them having separate executive boards and/or stock listings.
For example, Pizza Hut has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being a subsidiary of Yum Brands, which also has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being itself a subsidiary of PepsiCo.
Please do not say it is "literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do," when it's more like what corporations would want "anti-trust legislation" to do: creating an illusion of consumer choice and an illusion of fracturing a corporate stranglehold, when in fact it's just a few more brand names on the shelves while the profits still all flow back to the same place.
This is just wrong.
If you google Pizza Hut stock, you get the ticker for YUM. Pizza Hut does not have its own stock.
Yum was once owned by Pepsi, but is now fully independent from them and has been for over 20 years.
As a shareholder, I do not like spinoffs like these as they almost always seem to work out poorly for me, and that makes me wonder why companies do things like this in the first place. I would think Kellogg would be stronger as a unified company.
I could be wrong but the language specifically used is "three independent public companies" which does not sound like three companies under one umbrella
All retail jobs are thankless awful experiences, but GameStop always seemed like one of the worst around. From pushing pre-orders, to parents using the store as daycare, and God have mercy on your soul if you identify as a woman.
Cahillane will become chairman and CEO of the global snacking company. The management team of the cereal company will be named later. The board of directors has approved the spinoffs.
Shareholders will receive shares in the two spinoffs on a pro-rata basis relative to their Kellogg holdings.
Separate executives, separate stock tickers. This is literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do, split up large conglomerates into smaller standalone companies
They aren't stand-alone companies if they're all still subsidiaries of the same larger parent company! Please do not be deceived by them having separate executive boards and/or stock listings.
For example, Pizza Hut has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being a subsidiary of Yum Brands, which also has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being itself a subsidiary of PepsiCo.
Please do not say it is "literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do," when it's more like what corporations would want "anti-trust legislation" to do: creating an illusion of consumer choice and an illusion of fracturing a corporate stranglehold, when in fact it's just a few more brand names on the shelves while the profits still all flow back to the same place.
This is just wrong.
If you google Pizza Hut stock, you get the ticker for YUM. Pizza Hut does not have its own stock.
Yum was once owned by Pepsi, but is now fully independent from them and has been for over 20 years.
As a shareholder, I do not like spinoffs like these as they almost always seem to work out poorly for me, and that makes me wonder why companies do things like this in the first place. I would think Kellogg would be stronger as a unified company.
I'm sorry I was misremembering Papa John's, also owned by PepsiCo though, credit where credit is due, it was not part of Yum Brands.
I could be wrong but the language specifically used is "three independent public companies" which does not sound like three companies under one umbrella
The stock is being divvied up to current Kellogg's stockholders - if the same people remain in control of the shares of each of the new companies, again, how much of a meaningful change is it?
Of course the existing shareholders get ownership of the new companies. If you held shares in Ma Bell at the time you ended up with shares in U.S. West, Pactel, SBC, Ameritech, Nynex, Bell Atlantic (Verizon) and Bell South
Cahillane will become chairman and CEO of the global snacking company. The management team of the cereal company will be named later. The board of directors has approved the spinoffs.
Shareholders will receive shares in the two spinoffs on a pro-rata basis relative to their Kellogg holdings.
Separate executives, separate stock tickers. This is literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do, split up large conglomerates into smaller standalone companies
They aren't stand-alone companies if they're all still subsidiaries of the same larger parent company! Please do not be deceived by them having separate executive boards and/or stock listings.
For example, Pizza Hut has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being a subsidiary of Yum Brands, which also has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being itself a subsidiary of PepsiCo.
Please do not say it is "literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do," when it's more like what corporations would want "anti-trust legislation" to do: creating an illusion of consumer choice and an illusion of fracturing a corporate stranglehold, when in fact it's just a few more brand names on the shelves while the profits still all flow back to the same place.
This is just wrong.
If you google Pizza Hut stock, you get the ticker for YUM. Pizza Hut does not have its own stock.
Yum was once owned by Pepsi, but is now fully independent from them and has been for over 20 years.
As a shareholder, I do not like spinoffs like these as they almost always seem to work out poorly for me, and that makes me wonder why companies do things like this in the first place. I would think Kellogg would be stronger as a unified company.
I'm sorry I was misremembering Papa John's, also owned by PepsiCo though, credit where credit is due, it was not part of Yum Brands.
I could be wrong but the language specifically used is "three independent public companies" which does not sound like three companies under one umbrella
The stock is being divvied up to current Kellogg's stockholders - if the same people remain in control of the shares of each of the new companies, again, how much of a meaningful change is it?
If their boards and C-levels are different then it's a pretty meaningful change, and over time the shareholders will diversify as well.
Of course the existing shareholders get ownership of the new companies. If you held shares in Ma Bell at the time you ended up with shares in U.S. West, Pactel, SBC, Ameritech, Nynex, Bell Atlantic (Verizon) and Bell South
Who else would the ownership go to?
Going to continue to persist in stating that I don't feel that comparing a corporation choosing to split itself up should be getting directly paralleled to antitrust-busting up a corporation by force.
Of course the existing shareholders get ownership of the new companies. If you held shares in Ma Bell at the time you ended up with shares in U.S. West, Pactel, SBC, Ameritech, Nynex, Bell Atlantic (Verizon) and Bell South
Who else would the ownership go to?
Going to continue to persist in stating that I don't feel that comparing a corporation choosing to split itself up should be getting directly paralleled to antitrust-busting up a corporation by force.
I dont think anyone is saying it is equivalent to true trust busting.
But megacorps splitting into several smaller megacorps is still largely a good thing and a step in the right direction - better than not splitting up.
All retail jobs are thankless awful experiences, but GameStop always seemed like one of the worst around. From pushing pre-orders, to parents using the store as daycare, and God have mercy on your soul if you identify as a woman.
For awhile on youtube, there was a guy who gained access to Gamestop high level meetings and surreptitiously recorded and then posted some of them. And yep, leadership came off awful. Employees were at best considered chattel whose only job was to push gamestop profit instruments to poor saps who wandered into the store. At some point they realized they had been outed on the internet and mostly just joked about everyone calling them evil. One guy went on an extended rant right out Glengary Glen Ross about "motivating" employees by making it clear what a privilege it was to be on the sales floor. And to ruthlessly cut the hours of those lacking the sales spirit.
That's the oddest thing about them becoming a memestock, as Gamestop was and is universally hated by the internet for being a terrible company to shop at and work for.
Of course the existing shareholders get ownership of the new companies. If you held shares in Ma Bell at the time you ended up with shares in U.S. West, Pactel, SBC, Ameritech, Nynex, Bell Atlantic (Verizon) and Bell South
Who else would the ownership go to?
Going to continue to persist in stating that I don't feel that comparing a corporation choosing to split itself up should be getting directly paralleled to antitrust-busting up a corporation by force.
Problem I have is that you've stated a bunch of things as fact that the article you linked doesn't say. There's no indication management will remain the same for all 3 companies, nor is there any indication in the article that they will be subsidiaries.
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
I think it’s fair to say that this seems to be a relatively full, legit split, but also acknowledge that it’s totally reasonable to be immediately skeptical and distrustful of any move like this a large corporation undertakes of their own volition without being forced into it.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
After Kelloggs recent history I'm not sure why they should be extended the benefit of the doubt.
Reading the article it's more they are spinning off the less profitable arms of the business to flounder as their own companies so they no longer have to deal with them. What's the bet that the "problem" employees will be spun off as well eliminating any redundancy requirements.
The way I see it, even if the split goes all the way up to the C-suite, you still have the shareholders who can just buy (or retain) a controlling stake in all three companies. So it accomplishes the goal of diminishing the power of the three composite companies while leaving the monied interests mostly unaffected.
Kupi on
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
After Kelloggs recent history I'm not sure why they should be extended the benefit of the doubt.
Reading the article it's more they are spinning off the less profitable arms of the business to flounder as their own companies so they no longer have to deal with them. What's the bet that the "problem" employees will be spun off as well eliminating any redundancy requirements.
The real answer is probably two of the companies get all the debt and then get to rent space from the third one for years as the spiral slowly into bankruptcy, Toys-r-us style.
After Kelloggs recent history I'm not sure why they should be extended the benefit of the doubt.
Reading the article it's more they are spinning off the less profitable arms of the business to flounder as their own companies so they no longer have to deal with them. What's the bet that the "problem" employees will be spun off as well eliminating any redundancy requirements.
Even if they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, it's best to clearly distinguish between known facts and supposition.
Kamar on
+8
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
If the breakup is happening from the top-down, there's zero reason to trust this is anything but a nefarious move to disenfranchise a lot of people and move profits into the pockets of a select handful. People running a company that size don't do things like this unless it involves some shady shit that helps line their own pockets.
After Kelloggs recent history I'm not sure why they should be extended the benefit of the doubt.
Reading the article it's more they are spinning off the less profitable arms of the business to flounder as their own companies so they no longer have to deal with them. What's the bet that the "problem" employees will be spun off as well eliminating any redundancy requirements.
The real answer is probably two of the companies get all the debt and then get to rent space from the third one for years as the spiral slowly into bankruptcy, Toys-r-us style.
Doesn’t make sense for a firm that produces things. They do not have the land to make that work. That is a retail scam.
If I had to theorize it is probably due to management costs. But I don’t know enough about the company to say for sure.
Normally companies like this conglomerize rather than splitting. This puts a management layer on top of the management of each individual aspect. This can have value if there are co-branding aspects of it could be used to secure better prices on input goods if all the conglomerates are using the same input grains. But it is often just a leech.
A good board might choose a structure that didn’t benefit management but this is rare. Which would tend to push me to think it was a union thing. However the reason I don’t think this is a union thing is because splitting companies normally makes it easier for the union to have leverage. It could make it harder for a union that was just getting going to get organized but the union at Kellogs is AFL-CIO and quite large.
It could, I suppose, somehow force the union to renegotiate contracts with the spin off companies but I am unsure of the legalities in that and frankly I doubt they get a better deal without the whole company backing them.
The strike could have made the board realize that they were paying for a management structure that did nothing.
Edit: it could be some other scam I am unfamiliar with though. Companies breaking up voluntarily is uncommon
Goumindong on
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Might be a way to cut their losses with the plant-based bits (which I assume is some vegan type stuff) while spinning it as a good thing, but who knows.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Of course the existing shareholders get ownership of the new companies. If you held shares in Ma Bell at the time you ended up with shares in U.S. West, Pactel, SBC, Ameritech, Nynex, Bell Atlantic (Verizon) and Bell South
Who else would the ownership go to?
Going to continue to persist in stating that I don't feel that comparing a corporation choosing to split itself up should be getting directly paralleled to antitrust-busting up a corporation by force.
While sidestepping the direct question that was asked.
Reading the article they make clear that the current management will be keeping the higher growth snacks arm of the business and trying to find buyers for the cereals (that had the high profile union action) and plant-based foods (that are struggling to grow their market). So they are not conducting anti-trust actions or splitting altruistically.
This is "let's find a buyer/sucker to take some problems off our hands." I'm sure there will be some attempt to punish the striking workers as well under the guise of being agile and other ghoulish management speak.
Tho I feel like that shouldnt be legal. Something doesnt sit right that you can offload all your problems to a splinter group to remain consequence free.
After Kelloggs recent history I'm not sure why they should be extended the benefit of the doubt.
Reading the article it's more they are spinning off the less profitable arms of the business to flounder as their own companies so they no longer have to deal with them. What's the bet that the "problem" employees will be spun off as well eliminating any redundancy requirements.
The real answer is probably two of the companies get all the debt and then get to rent space from the third one for years as the spiral slowly into bankruptcy, Toys-r-us style.
It's a "snack based" company, a "cereal based" company, and a "plant based" food company. So the companies will be built around junk food, breakfast, and veggies.
After Kelloggs recent history I'm not sure why they should be extended the benefit of the doubt.
Reading the article it's more they are spinning off the less profitable arms of the business to flounder as their own companies so they no longer have to deal with them. What's the bet that the "problem" employees will be spun off as well eliminating any redundancy requirements.
The real answer is probably two of the companies get all the debt and then get to rent space from the third one for years as the spiral slowly into bankruptcy, Toys-r-us style.
It's a "snack based" company, a "cereal based" company, and a "plant based" food company. So the companies will be built around junk food, breakfast, and veggies.
Sorry got distracted earlier and didn't mean to post yet.
So here's why I think the split is happening.
Firstly, Kelloggs has bad debt and costly assets that I think are being unloaded into the new the plant based division. Because face it, nobody likes eating their veggies. And this division will be allowed to fail while paying the snacks unit royalties for patents, brand names, and rental properties.
Secondly, Kelloggs lost a very public Union battle at the end of last year at several of their cereal plants, so I think the new cereal division will coincidentally end up with all of the union properties. Union breaking efforts will be attempted, and where they fail the businesses will be allowed to fail.
Finally, all of the profitability will be concentrated in the snacks division.
I think it's telling that current management will head the high growth snacks division. I had a close family member go through a similar split with another major corporation which has no union. Likewise, current management stayed with the high growth business; while the stable business was headed by new group.
It's easy to look like a good manager, even when you are not, in a high growth environment. It is difficult to look like a good manager, even if you are great*, in a shrinking environment. I interpret these actions as primarily top management protecting their salaries, bonuses, and future job placement opportunities.
*It has long been my opinion that managing a shrinking business well is in fact the greatest show of management skill.
Tho I feel like that shouldnt be legal. Something doesnt sit right that you can offload all your problems to a splinter group to remain consequence free.
Well Suppose for a second that you want to shut them down. What does it matter if you shut them down while they're within your corporate umbrella or not? To capital it matters not a whit, they have the same stake in each company.
A: I think the answer is probably as Enc0re suggests. Current management looks great because they stay with the "good" business. They protect themselves by shunting the difficult job to someone else.
🧭--MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT--🧭
UW7S is happy to announce that Seven Seas has agreed to voluntarily recognize us as the union based on a majority card check. This decision by Seven Seas eliminates the need for an NLRB conducted election and will pave the way for a more expedited path to bargaining a first contract. At a time when many employers continue to fight the unionization of their employees, we appreciate that Seven Seas decided to respect the voices of the majority of staff and recognize us. We look forward to developing a mutually beneficial relationship and reaching a collective bargaining agreement in the near future.
UW7S is the union of workers at Manga and Light Novel publisher Seven Seas
+18
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The major agencies have said that they're not going to take part, partly because they don't have enough skilled workers to make much of a difference but they also added that the reputational damage they would take means that even if they had the staff, they wouldn't take the contract.
The major agencies have said that they're not going to take part, partly because they don't have enough skilled workers to make much of a difference but they also added that the reputational damage they would take means that even if they had the staff, they wouldn't take the contract.
Yeah, there are number of sectors, where getting scabs just isn't an option for shitty business because you need skilled workers and if you have widespread strikes, most of those workers are either striking or will tell you to eat shit.
As for reputational harm. The big fear for them is that the smart unions will make it a point that any temp agency that dips it's toe into scab work, will find that they can get any of their workers into any vacancies for businesses, where the union has significant sway. Given that the union can either threaten to strike if the company does business with that temp agency or just flat out refuse to assist in training anyone offered up by that temp agency, if the people doing the training are union members.
So nice to see that the worst that bullshit law will do is telegraph just how shitty Boris's party is on labor rights.
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
How is it that in my Republican State of MAGAstan we shoot down unions? Is it the nice sounding "Right to Work", bill?
What about a nationwide non-profit Union that hires people to take on part time jobs with big franchises and fast food chains at Starbucks or Amazon? Make this group hidden at first, and make it their job to organize a union in any particular state. Call it a labor union without borders. Pay people to travel the country and work jobs within these poverty stricken, yet beautiful states in Montana or Washington. After these hires get in, start organizing a Union for better worker conditions.
Amazon is reported to be concerned with a near future labor pool shortage. Other franchise/big box stores need people. I would imagine that if these shit jobs started getting a workforce that actually liked the job and were not under standards of living pressures, the ultimate result is a happy workforce and successful company.
This is an intervention on Capitalism run amok. Call this non-profit Union, "The Workers Union of America".
Thoughts on the idea?
Has it been tried?
I need to better educate myself on unions and why they work, how they fail and why we might need them.
Posts
This is a company my grandfather once tried to push me to joining after college "because you like video games, don't you?"
Yes, and that's exactly what they're counting on.
And so many of them are so fucking tiny, and Black Friday turns around, and oh god oh god oh god
Splitting up a company while keeping the same people in charge of all of them is a pretty transparent move to try to splinter and weaken the labor union of the employees.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Separate executives, separate stock tickers. This is literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do, split up large conglomerates into smaller standalone companies
They aren't stand-alone companies if they're all still subsidiaries of the same larger parent company! Please do not be deceived by them having separate executive boards and/or stock listings.
For example, Pizza Hut has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being a subsidiary of Yum Brands, which also has its own stock ticker and executive board despite being itself a subsidiary of PepsiCo.
Please do not say it is "literally what people want anti-trust legislation to do," when it's more like what corporations would want "anti-trust legislation" to do: creating an illusion of consumer choice and an illusion of fracturing a corporate stranglehold, when in fact it's just a few more brand names on the shelves while the profits still all flow back to the same place.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
This is just wrong.
If you google Pizza Hut stock, you get the ticker for YUM. Pizza Hut does not have its own stock.
Yum was once owned by Pepsi, but is now fully independent from them and has been for over 20 years.
As a shareholder, I do not like spinoffs like these as they almost always seem to work out poorly for me, and that makes me wonder why companies do things like this in the first place. I would think Kellogg would be stronger as a unified company.
Worked there for twelve years. Can confirm.
We'll see what happens
I'm sorry I was misremembering Papa John's, also owned by PepsiCo though, credit where credit is due, it was not part of Yum Brands.
The stock is being divvied up to current Kellogg's stockholders - if the same people remain in control of the shares of each of the new companies, again, how much of a meaningful change is it?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Who else would the ownership go to?
If their boards and C-levels are different then it's a pretty meaningful change, and over time the shareholders will diversify as well.
Going to continue to persist in stating that I don't feel that comparing a corporation choosing to split itself up should be getting directly paralleled to antitrust-busting up a corporation by force.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I dont think anyone is saying it is equivalent to true trust busting.
But megacorps splitting into several smaller megacorps is still largely a good thing and a step in the right direction - better than not splitting up.
That's the oddest thing about them becoming a memestock, as Gamestop was and is universally hated by the internet for being a terrible company to shop at and work for.
Problem I have is that you've stated a bunch of things as fact that the article you linked doesn't say. There's no indication management will remain the same for all 3 companies, nor is there any indication in the article that they will be subsidiaries.
Reading the article it's more they are spinning off the less profitable arms of the business to flounder as their own companies so they no longer have to deal with them. What's the bet that the "problem" employees will be spun off as well eliminating any redundancy requirements.
The real answer is probably two of the companies get all the debt and then get to rent space from the third one for years as the spiral slowly into bankruptcy, Toys-r-us style.
Even if they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, it's best to clearly distinguish between known facts and supposition.
Doesn’t make sense for a firm that produces things. They do not have the land to make that work. That is a retail scam.
If I had to theorize it is probably due to management costs. But I don’t know enough about the company to say for sure.
Normally companies like this conglomerize rather than splitting. This puts a management layer on top of the management of each individual aspect. This can have value if there are co-branding aspects of it could be used to secure better prices on input goods if all the conglomerates are using the same input grains. But it is often just a leech.
A good board might choose a structure that didn’t benefit management but this is rare. Which would tend to push me to think it was a union thing. However the reason I don’t think this is a union thing is because splitting companies normally makes it easier for the union to have leverage. It could make it harder for a union that was just getting going to get organized but the union at Kellogs is AFL-CIO and quite large.
It could, I suppose, somehow force the union to renegotiate contracts with the spin off companies but I am unsure of the legalities in that and frankly I doubt they get a better deal without the whole company backing them.
The strike could have made the board realize that they were paying for a management structure that did nothing.
Edit: it could be some other scam I am unfamiliar with though. Companies breaking up voluntarily is uncommon
While sidestepping the direct question that was asked.
So, par for the course I guess?
This is "let's find a buyer/sucker to take some problems off our hands." I'm sure there will be some attempt to punish the striking workers as well under the guise of being agile and other ghoulish management speak.
Tho I feel like that shouldnt be legal. Something doesnt sit right that you can offload all your problems to a splinter group to remain consequence free.
It's a "snack based" company, a "cereal based" company, and a "plant based" food company. So the companies will be built around junk food, breakfast, and veggies.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Sorry got distracted earlier and didn't mean to post yet.
So here's why I think the split is happening.
Firstly, Kelloggs has bad debt and costly assets that I think are being unloaded into the new the plant based division. Because face it, nobody likes eating their veggies. And this division will be allowed to fail while paying the snacks unit royalties for patents, brand names, and rental properties.
Secondly, Kelloggs lost a very public Union battle at the end of last year at several of their cereal plants, so I think the new cereal division will coincidentally end up with all of the union properties. Union breaking efforts will be attempted, and where they fail the businesses will be allowed to fail.
Finally, all of the profitability will be concentrated in the snacks division.
It's easy to look like a good manager, even when you are not, in a high growth environment. It is difficult to look like a good manager, even if you are great*, in a shrinking environment. I interpret these actions as primarily top management protecting their salaries, bonuses, and future job placement opportunities.
*It has long been my opinion that managing a shrinking business well is in fact the greatest show of management skill.
Well Suppose for a second that you want to shut them down. What does it matter if you shut them down while they're within your corporate umbrella or not? To capital it matters not a whit, they have the same stake in each company.
A: I think the answer is probably as Enc0re suggests. Current management looks great because they stay with the "good" business. They protect themselves by shunting the difficult job to someone else.
UW7S is the union of workers at Manga and Light Novel publisher Seven Seas
Scab & TERF Island
Yeah, there are number of sectors, where getting scabs just isn't an option for shitty business because you need skilled workers and if you have widespread strikes, most of those workers are either striking or will tell you to eat shit.
As for reputational harm. The big fear for them is that the smart unions will make it a point that any temp agency that dips it's toe into scab work, will find that they can get any of their workers into any vacancies for businesses, where the union has significant sway. Given that the union can either threaten to strike if the company does business with that temp agency or just flat out refuse to assist in training anyone offered up by that temp agency, if the people doing the training are union members.
So nice to see that the worst that bullshit law will do is telegraph just how shitty Boris's party is on labor rights.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
What about a nationwide non-profit Union that hires people to take on part time jobs with big franchises and fast food chains at Starbucks or Amazon? Make this group hidden at first, and make it their job to organize a union in any particular state. Call it a labor union without borders. Pay people to travel the country and work jobs within these poverty stricken, yet beautiful states in Montana or Washington. After these hires get in, start organizing a Union for better worker conditions.
Amazon is reported to be concerned with a near future labor pool shortage. Other franchise/big box stores need people. I would imagine that if these shit jobs started getting a workforce that actually liked the job and were not under standards of living pressures, the ultimate result is a happy workforce and successful company.
This is an intervention on Capitalism run amok. Call this non-profit Union, "The Workers Union of America".
Thoughts on the idea?
Has it been tried?
I need to better educate myself on unions and why they work, how they fail and why we might need them.