Influency Marketing on FaceookInfluency Marketing on LinkedInInfluency Marketing on Google+Influency Marketing on Twitter

Wal-Mart Business Change: Fire Employees, Hire Them Back

Business Change is a beautiful thing. Not always easy, not always obvious, and often painful, business change nevertheless pays off time and again for companies that plan it, enact it, and then look forward to their next form of business change.

Wal-Mart has enacted a business change that makes me cringe. This week, they laid off 11,000 employees with effectively no notice. That’s ugly enough considering the financial position Wal-Mart occupies; certainly there was no emergency that required such an action.

The lay-offs weren’t “real”; the employees were immediately re-engaged as contractors temporarily, while a new company Wal-Mart has designated to handle certain jobs on an outsourced basis interviews the once-and-future employees to re-fill their own jobs.

Does that sound a little bit odd? Wal-Mart knew they were going to outsource the jobs and created an orderly not-quite-a-transfer situation to another company, but laid off the employees first? Maybe it has something to do with the new company being based in Arkansas, just down the road from Wal-Mart’s corporate headquarters. Wait a second: maybe Wal-Mart set up that new company themselves and owns it.

That would be OK, but . . . why fire the employees and have the other company re-hire them? Why not just transfer the employees from one company to another?

Assuming Wal-Mart owns the new company, there really is an answer: because to simply transfer the employees would confer longer seniority on them if a labor action involving the issue ever came to pass. Microsoft’s dealt with “you aren’t an employee/whoops, it seems you are” issues; ask them.

I’m not one of those “bash Wal-Mart” types. They deliver goods at a lower price than almost anyone and fill an important place in the US economy. They’re our largest employer . . . by a factor of almost three. I’m not interested in the debate about whether they underpay their employees and provide inferior benefits; business is about handling many different transactions well. I had no issue with their “no more pay checks” position a few months back; only the details were troubling.

But when you fire 11,000 employees after having set up another company to hire them back and demand that the employees give up certain rights to take action against you if they want to get severance pay (and, I presume, have any chance of BEING hired back by the new company), it’s obvious that your actions were specifically targeted at skirting the rules of good corporate behavior . . . and probably the law.

Oh and by the way: the employees that Wal-Mart has outsourced in this particular business change are the “free sample” people. Ever noticed that those people are always the oldest employees? That’s right; it looks like age discrimination. Tuck that into the point about interrupting seniority and the picture just keeps getting uglier.

C’mon, Wal-Mart. Business Change is great, but when you do things like this you only lend credence to the way so many people think about you.


  1. The truth is, no one was automaticaly “re-absorbed” into the new system. They handed out a flier showing the three part-time openings that could be applied for. The ex-employees were “encouraged to apply” for these jobs, but guess what, not all the people fired were demonstraters. At least two from each store were New business marketers. They did all the cold calling and outside selling, and they aren’t going to be re-hired by walmart either.
    The agreements were signed on the spot, employees not given the time to look over them, and included was a list of the job description, age and store number of each “fireling”.I’m looking at that list right now, and guess what, “AGE DISCRIMINATION”. Really good people lost their jobs this week, people that did a lot to help the stores to be profitable, to have a positive image in the community, and people that had a lot to lose.

    • Thanks, Susan. The details make my point all the stronger, don’t they? It’s just not right for Wal-Mart or anyone to treat their employees this way.

      And again . . . they could have done it right without stepping all over people, and still gotten nearly the same results!

  2. Looks like the consumer to some degree understands shopping at walmart is tantamount to cutting their own throats. No worries for the walmart lovers out their. I am sure they can figure out yet another way to foist their healtcare costs onto the public. After all, Pal Joey is still in the White House.


  1. Tweets that mention Fire Employees, Hire Them Back: Wal-Mart Business Change -- - [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jeff Yablon, Jeff Yablon. Jeff Yablon said: Wal-Mart Fires 11,000 in Age …
  2. Influency, McDonalds, Food Stamps: What About Nancy Salgado? - […] now and then a large business does something heinous enough that I can’t resist comment. Wal-Mart firing employees and …

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


Get new posts delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: