Jump to content

SNS needs to address this, and fast!


onyx1

Recommended Posts

I am with Sanjeev that I didnt like reading the snowball. I was underwhelmed and wasnt interested in reading Buffett's life history - would have appreciated more info on his investing principles. The story of Buffett firing his first admin was difficult to mouth IMO. The video that Sanjeev has putup in this site is far more useful.

 

Dont know what is going on in SNS but no one is perfect. One can try to be more perfect but no one is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem for me is the perception of greed and profit mongering at the expense of a tenable basic employee benefit.  

 

well, the perception that the article at greta-wire was intended to convey was just that: greed and profit mongering at the expense of a tenable basic employee benefit.

 

but is that really the reality? how many fast food restaurants offer health benefits to their part time employees? and what is the average percentage of part time employees vs full time at the avg fast food chains? if the percentage is 2/3rds at the avg chain like it is at sns according to their dec 2008 10k can sns really afford to offer health benefits to all their employees and still remain in business, let alone competitive?

 

as oldye said earlier, making an excellent point:

 

<<I was just reading the other day that the average Family plan costs companies north of $12,000 a year, it is insane to think that a business can afford to provide someone with benefits equal to their entire base salary. >>

 

so, if sns employed a total of 20,000 at the end of 2008, & 2/3rds were part time employees, that equals 15,000 part time employees. Assuming the avg hrly rate is $6.75 for them (to estimate a number), would mean they earn about $11,750 per yr excluding tips. On 15,000 part time employees that’s slightly over $176.3 million a yr.  paying health benefits costing an avg $12,000 per yr for 15,000 part time employees would increase sns payroll by another $180,000,000 a yr.

 

unfortunately, it doesn’t sound like a tenable basic employee benefit to me for sns,  & probably not for most of the industry as a whole. I wish the reality were different, but that’s an unrealistic wish, I think.

 

One thing I’m unclear about is the apparent change from 22 hrs worked required for health insurance to 35 hrs in jan 09. Does that mean that a part time employee used to be someone that worked less than 22 hrs a week but now has been changed to someone working less than 35. If so, did sns endeavor to keep most of their part time employees under 22 hrs a week prior to jan 09, whereas now a part timer can work up to 35 hrs?

 

I ask because according to sns’s 2009 2nd qtr 10Q there’s this note:

 

<< Wages, payroll taxes, and related benefits declined by approximately $1,380 due to reductions in staffing that occurred during the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2008. >>

 

If there were a large percentage of part time employees who worked more than the 22 hrs a week & getting health insurance but suddenly found themselves not qualifying at the new 35 hr a week required threshold then I would have expected a much bigger savings in wages, payroll taxes, and related benefits than the $1,380,000 actually reported. So it looks like sns may have  reduced staff  & offset that by an  increase in weekly hrs for part time employees to just under 35 on average

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot confirm or deny the statements about Trader Joe's or In-n-Out,  but I will say that those are two if my VERY favorite places to spend my hard-earned dollars. It is really too bad that neither have locations within anything resembling driving distance of me.

 

-Crip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kawikaho

Sanjeev, sorry.  Let me repost and tone down some of the language:

 

Link01, the points you are addressing, medical coverage costs, etc..., are irrelevant.  They offered her medical coverage, she paid the premiums, she worked enough to meet basic coverage requirements, and as the group coverage started absorbing her medical costs, SNS started acting like another shady company looking out for its best interests: the bottom line and the share holder.  And at what cost?  Probably less than a penny a share.  That's deplorable.  I'm not gonna screw over my fellow countryman, neighbor, person in need so I can cling to my possessions.  Maybe some people will, but that's the difference between being a decent human being vs. a greedy ahole.  No matter what is said about these side issues, it doesn't address the perception that SNS is another sore employer.  It would be ironic if this negative PR affected SNS's bottom line more than the increases in their group coverage premiums from this one employee.  

 

In Hawaii, if you work over 20 hrs a week, the employer is mandated to offer medical coverage.  It's a state law.  Apparently, there are lots of businesses, small and otherwise, that are able to still do business there.  Inn N Out doesn't treat their employees like crap by squeezing the life force out of em and they still remain a highly desirable place to eat for fast food junkies.  It's not like i'm gonna say, "Oh, Mc'Donalds has less gross margins than Burger King, so I'm gonna eat there instead."   Infact, Inn N Out offers the highest wages in fast food, with great employee benefits, and they still remain highly profitable.  :)   Trader Joes utilizes a similar employee friendly business model and their bottom line has always done well.  Being employee friendly and retaining decent business economics are not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I think we can agree on two things:

 

- unlike FFH and BRK, most of the active members do not agree in a significant way on the qualities and desirability of behavior of the current SNS management.

 

- all of us had the time to express their opinion on the subject

 

Can we go to the next subject please?  :)

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link01, the points you are addressing, medical coverage costs, etc..., are irrelevant.  

 

Kawikaho, I purposely addressed medical cost coverage & not the individual case of the employee who the subject of the gretawire article because the story, while poignant, sad, & regrettable , is at this point just their side of it. It has not yet been addressed by steak n shake, let alone been confirmed. I’m always reluctant to jump to quick knee-jerk conclusions based on hearsay. And this is something that happened- if it happened at all like it was reported- at the individual store level. I’m sure corporate mngt didn’t personally know anything about it. If this story has any meat on it, I expect sardar or other top brass will comment & act appropriately.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around things like the medical coverage & 401k issues, the lack of shareholder communication so far this year except for annual meeting attendees (a shareholder letter for the year ended 2008 would be nice), the tripling of sardar’s salary in the face of a turn around that has barely begun & while other employees are still asked to make sacrifices, & some other things that are beginning to undermine my confidence in him.

I’m late, so that’s it for now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...