I just got an email regarding problems Netshops is having with various optics vendors.
Maybe I should explain. Several of the ex-Thralow site vendors are concerned about Netshops handling of their product. I'm told the two biggest sunglass vendors are not shipping product. Problem? Hell yes! I'll bet Doug is spinning circles on his Segway right now. I pity the site manager of the optics sites. Good luck surviving the year. Better update that resume. (I predict Sync 08 Doug sez "We suffered some losses in the optics & Thralow sites. We didn't understand the categories, but we're starting to get them and we're making strides. We are a little off pace to make our IPO this year, but Amazon is aware of us." Sound familiar?)
I've also been told some of the sports optic vendors have set very low credit limits. Reportedly, the sport optic and sunglass vendors have very strict standards for how their products are sold. Netshops does not pass any of their tests.
Any of the current or past Netshoppers who have been through a holiday or two will know low credit limits = constant credit hold = delayed orders = pissed off customers. Pissed off customers = more calls. More calls to an understaffed & overworked call center = more temps to fill the gaps. More temps = less product knowledge and more 'order takers'. More order takers = more mistakes. More mistakes = more pissed off vendors. Pissed off vendors = orders not being filled. Circle of life at Netshops I guess.
We may see several key vendors drop the accounts, sooner rather than later. One vendor has already predicted that Netshops will run the sites into the ground. Much like I've been saying since I heard about the Thralow reps being let go.
Might be a good time for CSN or another competitor to get an optics related site going... (Nice site by the way CSN. Very professional & easy to navigate. It looks like all your links work - something Netshops should look into.)
Showing posts with label Thralow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thralow. Show all posts
Friday, May 18, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Netshops not on Omaha's Best Places to Work list for 2007
Congrats Doug! You've taken a company that was on the list 2 years running and dropped them from the list. Is that the 'scalability' you were hoping to achieve with this recent round of layoffs? The 'efficiencies gained'? Who needs another award to clutter the office?
Back to the subject at hand. Netshops isn't on the list. I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the recent layoffs, the increased work load on the remaining employees, the news that the Thralow reps weren't going to be allowed to stay in Duluth (like they were told when the purchase initially went through), the corporate churn - laying off employees just to hire more to replace them (in an attempt to appear more profitable in the short term), or changing people's jobs without regard to what their future goals are, either on a personal or professional basis.
I bet that last one is what really hurt Netshops in the voting. Yes, change is inevitable, but people also like some job security and knowledge that they are growing with the company. Moving someone from a position where they're the person resolving issues with vendors and talking about issues with store management to a phone rep position isnt going to win you points. Demoting an employee after they've busted their ass for you all holiday season (or longer in many cases) isn't much of a 'reward'.
Best Places to Work in Omaha 2007
Winning companies with 50-250 employees:
1. Lutz & Company, PC
2. Home Instead Senior Care
3. Olsson Associates
4. SilverStone Group
5. MSI Systems Integrators
Winning companies with 250+ employees:
1. Quality Living, Inc.
2. PayPal, an eBay company
3. Farm Credit Services of America
4. Marriott Global Reservation Sales and Customer Care
5. FirstComp
Quality Living Inc - a rehab based business - has been #1 three years running now, so it is possible to earn a spot on the list multiple times. I guess the difference between a company like Quality Living Inc and Netshops boils down to consistency.
Back to the subject at hand. Netshops isn't on the list. I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the recent layoffs, the increased work load on the remaining employees, the news that the Thralow reps weren't going to be allowed to stay in Duluth (like they were told when the purchase initially went through), the corporate churn - laying off employees just to hire more to replace them (in an attempt to appear more profitable in the short term), or changing people's jobs without regard to what their future goals are, either on a personal or professional basis.
I bet that last one is what really hurt Netshops in the voting. Yes, change is inevitable, but people also like some job security and knowledge that they are growing with the company. Moving someone from a position where they're the person resolving issues with vendors and talking about issues with store management to a phone rep position isnt going to win you points. Demoting an employee after they've busted their ass for you all holiday season (or longer in many cases) isn't much of a 'reward'.
Best Places to Work in Omaha 2007
Winning companies with 50-250 employees:
1. Lutz & Company, PC
2. Home Instead Senior Care
3. Olsson Associates
4. SilverStone Group
5. MSI Systems Integrators
Winning companies with 250+ employees:
1. Quality Living, Inc.
2. PayPal, an eBay company
3. Farm Credit Services of America
4. Marriott Global Reservation Sales and Customer Care
5. FirstComp
Quality Living Inc - a rehab based business - has been #1 three years running now, so it is possible to earn a spot on the list multiple times. I guess the difference between a company like Quality Living Inc and Netshops boils down to consistency.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Resources for employees laid off by Netshops
Here are a few resources:
Fired-layed off-downsized employees handbook
Gifts for laid off employees
Oh look. Dilios has been updating Netshops' Wiki entry... I wonder how long it will be before it gets changed back to accurately reflecting the 'multiple rounds of layoffs' Netshops has gone through...
Corporate accounting scandals
Why would ^ that be here....
Unemployed, underemployed or anxiously employed? Take a look at UnitedProfessionals.org
Oh, by the way, the job fair next week at the Holiday Inn Central - it is mostly for journalisim/news media professionals. The next job fair for the rest of us unemployed (or underemployed or anxiously employed - like most of Netshops workforce right now) is April 10th. Circle the date. Like I mentioned - some of you owe me drinks and I don't drink cheap liquor.
Fired-layed off-downsized employees handbook
Gifts for laid off employees
Oh look. Dilios has been updating Netshops' Wiki entry... I wonder how long it will be before it gets changed back to accurately reflecting the 'multiple rounds of layoffs' Netshops has gone through...
Corporate accounting scandals
Why would ^ that be here....
Unemployed, underemployed or anxiously employed? Take a look at UnitedProfessionals.org
Oh, by the way, the job fair next week at the Holiday Inn Central - it is mostly for journalisim/news media professionals. The next job fair for the rest of us unemployed (or underemployed or anxiously employed - like most of Netshops workforce right now) is April 10th. Circle the date. Like I mentioned - some of you owe me drinks and I don't drink cheap liquor.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Blogging and your rights
A couple of people have emailed me with concerns about what Netshops will do with their comments on this blog.
The statements made on this blog are covered under free speech protection. Defimation/libel requires a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
Apparently Doug isn't happy about this blog. Sorry. I'm not happy about being out of work. Cause & effect.
Question and answer time kids. Just let me get my sweater from the closet...
What are the elements of a defamation claim?
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.
Can my opinion be defamatory?
No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").
What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."
Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
Who is a public figure?
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.
Examples of public figures:
A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events
Have I been laid off? Yes = truth = protected free speech. Also, since Doug is going to be a speaker at the upcoming Internet Retailers conference (How many people from Netshops are going to that conference?) and he's been the figure head in every article I've ever read about the company, I'd have a strong case that he is setting himself out as a public figure, much like (while not on the same level) Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Willie Thiesen or Bill Gates.
Also consider my terms of use/privacy policy and my important legal disclaimer. Doug and Netshops are welcome to use this blog to take me to court, but they'd need to be ok with paying that million dollars to use it. What, didn't they bother to read the whole terms of use statement? Guess they know how customers feel when they find out about 50% restocking fees on items purchased at Netshops stores...
The statements made on this blog are covered under free speech protection. Defimation/libel requires a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
Apparently Doug isn't happy about this blog. Sorry. I'm not happy about being out of work. Cause & effect.
Question and answer time kids. Just let me get my sweater from the closet...
What are the elements of a defamation claim?
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.
Can my opinion be defamatory?
No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").
What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."
Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
Who is a public figure?
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.
Examples of public figures:
A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events
Have I been laid off? Yes = truth = protected free speech. Also, since Doug is going to be a speaker at the upcoming Internet Retailers conference (How many people from Netshops are going to that conference?) and he's been the figure head in every article I've ever read about the company, I'd have a strong case that he is setting himself out as a public figure, much like (while not on the same level) Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Willie Thiesen or Bill Gates.
Also consider my terms of use/privacy policy and my important legal disclaimer. Doug and Netshops are welcome to use this blog to take me to court, but they'd need to be ok with paying that million dollars to use it. What, didn't they bother to read the whole terms of use statement? Guess they know how customers feel when they find out about 50% restocking fees on items purchased at Netshops stores...
Monday, March 19, 2007
Hodgepodge of Netshops layoff related info today
A little fun for all you Netshoppers reading right now, because I know you aren't doing anything job related....
Take this quiz
Duluth News Tribune picks up on the impending layoffs.
Read the comments on the article here.
Another person not happy with how they were treated by Netshops.
Amanda Collier's blog
As always, feel free to email me or post a comment.
Take this quiz
Duluth News Tribune picks up on the impending layoffs.
Thralow employees offered jobs in Omaha
Jane Brissett Duluth News TribunePublished Friday, March 16, 2007NetShops, the Omaha, Neb., company that that bought Web sites from Proctor-based Thralow Inc., has begun offering jobs in Omaha to employees of the local e-commerce firm. Those who aren’t hired will be given a severance package, said NetShops’ human resources director.
All operations from Proctor are moving to Omaha, said Dana Coonce, human
resources director at NetShops. Dan Thralow, who founded Thralow Inc. and now
works for NetShops, said that 35 of the 39 employees who work in Proctor elected
to go to Omaha at NetShops’ expense to see the headquarters and learn about the
company.
NetShops is just beginning to assess how many people it needs and to make offers to workers in Proctor, Coonce said. If Proctor employees aren’t hired to work in Omaha and aren’t retained by Thralow Inc., they will be cut from the payroll and given a severance package, she said. NetShops, which has more than $100 million in annual sales, bought 40 of Thralow Inc.’s Web sites — but not the company itself — in November. The sites include Binoculars.com, Telescopes.com, Peepers
.com and others.Thralow said the company named for him will remain in Proctor at 9803 Westgate Boulevard in the JOBZ tax-free zone where the company’s warehouse building was recently completed. Thralow said he “can’t answer” what Thralow Inc. will do or how many people it will employ. “There will be a payroll,” he said.
Thralow said he has no plans to move to Omaha.
When the sale was announced, NetShops said it would keep all of Thralow Inc.’s employees. NetShops is a private firm that owned about 120 retail specialty sites — such as PatioUmbrellas.com, Hammocks.com and Dartboards.com — at the time of the acquisition. It was named Inc. magazine’s 13th fastest-growing company in America in 2006.
Thralow Inc. started as a retail outlet called Peepers in downtown Duluth’s Holiday Center. The company began selling sunglasses online in 1996 at Peepers.com and expanded to binoculars and other optical products with various Web sites. Thralow sold the business to Eye City Inc. in 1999, then bought it back at a fraction of the
original sale price when EyeCity folded in 2001. Thralow Inc. was named the
203rd fastest-growing company in America in 2006 by Inc. magazine.The Omaha World Herald reported on Feb. 7 that NetShops laid off about 50 people to achieve efficiencies and didn’t plan more cuts. Coonce said that was due to a
reorganization unrelated to the current transition.
The integration of the Proctor and Omaha work forces probably will take several months, she said.
Read the comments on the article here.
On a positive note, Laura Erickson's new blog appears to have been pulled. Maybe she's getting Birderblog.com back? Right now, Birderblog.com goes to Binoculars.com, so I have to assume something's going on with the two sites. Laura, if you can, please give us details.
Another person not happy with how they were treated by Netshops.
Amanda Collier's blog
As always, feel free to email me or post a comment.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Netshops has been banned from Wikipedia
A bit about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is literally an open book. It can be written and edited by anyone on the internet. It can be a great resource for information but ONLY if everyone using it is being honest and abides by Wikipedia's policies. If individuals (or companies in this case) are only using Wiki to further their own agenda, Wikipedia becomes less of a valid resource.
Back to Netshops being banned from Wiki. This isn't news for any of the older employees. That bit of information made the rounds about the office back in late September/early October '06. Apparently they had been banned for spam linking - linking articles to Netshops sites to try and increase their own organic search rankings via external links.
I've been looking for proof of this since I was laid off. Its one thing to hear about it at work through the grapevine - quite another to write about it on a blog about Netshops and their questionable ethics.
Luckily, one of my readers did the legwork for me. Thank you!
A bit of info and then the screen caps. Netshops main IP address is 66.37.239.14 - anyone with a halfway decent hit counter on their web page can figure this info out.
Here are a couple of screen captures of Netshops' activities on Wiki
Wiki Netshops user talk
Netshops Spam
And here is a list of all the changes made by Netshops to various articles on Wikipedia. Notice a pattern?
Unfortunately, the ban was for a 6 month period and Netshops will soon be able to edit posts on Wikipedia again. (Well, from the company IP that is. They've been editing it even over the past 6 months, but it has been from employee's homes or other networks.) I wonder how quickly they'll go back to their old tricks?
Back to Netshops being banned from Wiki. This isn't news for any of the older employees. That bit of information made the rounds about the office back in late September/early October '06. Apparently they had been banned for spam linking - linking articles to Netshops sites to try and increase their own organic search rankings via external links.
I've been looking for proof of this since I was laid off. Its one thing to hear about it at work through the grapevine - quite another to write about it on a blog about Netshops and their questionable ethics.
Luckily, one of my readers did the legwork for me. Thank you!
A bit of info and then the screen caps. Netshops main IP address is 66.37.239.14 - anyone with a halfway decent hit counter on their web page can figure this info out.
Here are a couple of screen captures of Netshops' activities on Wiki
Wiki Netshops user talk
Netshops Spam
And here is a list of all the changes made by Netshops to various articles on Wikipedia. Notice a pattern?
Unfortunately, the ban was for a 6 month period and Netshops will soon be able to edit posts on Wikipedia again. (Well, from the company IP that is. They've been editing it even over the past 6 months, but it has been from employee's homes or other networks.) I wonder how quickly they'll go back to their old tricks?
Friday, March 16, 2007
Karma's a bitch.
Piss one person off and they'll tell 10 of their friends. Piss two off and they'll tell 20 people, those 20 will tell another 5 - 7, those 5 - 7 will tell 3 -4, and soon, hundreds will know about problems within a company.
I wonder how many more people we'll see start to speak out about Netshops and Thralow now....
Just read the blog after the jump
Laura, good luck in your fight. Go get 'em.
Funny - I don't remember hearing anyone say the 60+ people laid off by Netshops were 'not growing with the company'. Is that what Doug and Co said to the Thralow reps when asked about the layoffs? If so, I've got performance reviews to prove otherwise. Heck, I've even got year to date store performance reports from some of my stores. If I wasn't 'growing with the company' I wonder why my stores were all profitable.
Makes you go "Hmm..."
One last thought for the day. Duluth is about 2.5 hour's drive from Mall of America - the biggest mall in the United States, not to mention these other attractions. Knowing that, why would Netshops take the Thralow reps to area malls (and Chuck E Cheese - mustn't forget Chuck E Cheese) as a selling point of moving here? Talk about not understanding the people you're selling to. Could be an indication of how well the current Netshops staff will understand Thralow's group of sites...
As always, I look forward to your emails and comments!
I wonder how many more people we'll see start to speak out about Netshops and Thralow now....
Just read the blog after the jump
Laura, good luck in your fight. Go get 'em.
Funny - I don't remember hearing anyone say the 60+ people laid off by Netshops were 'not growing with the company'. Is that what Doug and Co said to the Thralow reps when asked about the layoffs? If so, I've got performance reviews to prove otherwise. Heck, I've even got year to date store performance reports from some of my stores. If I wasn't 'growing with the company' I wonder why my stores were all profitable.
Makes you go "Hmm..."
One last thought for the day. Duluth is about 2.5 hour's drive from Mall of America - the biggest mall in the United States, not to mention these other attractions. Knowing that, why would Netshops take the Thralow reps to area malls (and Chuck E Cheese - mustn't forget Chuck E Cheese) as a selling point of moving here? Talk about not understanding the people you're selling to. Could be an indication of how well the current Netshops staff will understand Thralow's group of sites...
As always, I look forward to your emails and comments!
Monday, March 12, 2007
Decision day and my reply to "D"
How many Thralow reps decided to make the move? Is it really 3 of 50 like I've been hearing?
For those of you electing to be laid off, here is information on how to file for unemployment benefits.
Now, onto D's posts.
D said
The old (August 06 - Feb 07) 'stage' org chart was similar to the store management way of doing things. That 'style' of management worked well in stage 1 & 2. Stages 3 & 4 seemed to lose something - in my opinion it was because of a reduced # of staff in each area working on the sites.
SOP's should have been something done over a year ago when the operations team was in place. Accountability and real, definable measurements of job performance was something that should have been handled by that team as well. (Maybe then we wouldn't have the fraternization issues we have now. Is Paulette going to KC on a shoe run again anytime soon? How many days off did she take unpaid last year? Did all the employees get treated the same way or was she given special treatment?) Yes, Netshops is a 'growing' (or is that immature?) company and 'these things take time to develop' - sort of like the supplier score cards. When I was there, I didn't find a single one that had been completed. I hope Doug hasn't been led to believe that they were....
Maybe if someone was actually accountable for getting these projects done, Netshops wouldn't have needed to lay off 60+ employees in February. Those employees would have moved out of the company on their own based on clearly defined criteria based on their jobs, instead of just a (seemingly) random bloody swath being cut through the work force.
D also said (about the layoffs)
Very interesting thoughts D. "Growing pains with such rapid expansion were inevitable." Sure. I can appreciate that. However having fewer people to do the same amount of work is insanity. Having fewer people to do more work (if Netshops rolls out another 50 - 60 sites again this year) is just plain stupid. Now, Netshops has applied for some tax breaks, namely the Nebraska Advantage Act. As you can see from the article, Netshops indicated they are going to invest 9.2 million and create 440 new jobs. So, if "growing pains with rapid expansion" really was inevitable and those laid off were being replaced due to technological gains, such as the use of Site Manager, why would Netshops need an additional 440 employees? Again, this strikes me as an easy way to look profitable for the investors. It is corporate churn and an example of how little the employees doing the job day to day are really valued by Doug and Co.
Again, "ratios that made us unattractive to investors" does not make sense when Doug is applying for tax breaks and claiming he's going to add 440 new jobs. If the ratio was wrong in the first place, why would he need to hire new people? I don't know about you but when I bought my house, the bank didn't tell me I had too many children and I'd need to let some of them go.
That's true. Why do you think Netshops isn't as fun as it used to be anymore? Why did a special 'activity committee' need to be created? Where are the patio umbrellas on the call center side? Where are the hammocks/daybeds and adriondack chairs where people can meet and exchange ideas? Those have been traded for more traditional conference rooms to look more 'corporate'. I guess that's what we need to do when the Buffetts and Blumkins of the world come to tour the office.
By 'big 3' do you mean Doug, Julie and Mark? If you think they aren't making money in this venture you're crazy. Do you think they're doing this for the fun of it? Also, how do you know they're 'in the red'?
A 'difficult decision'? It wasn't a difficult decision - it was a quick fix. If profits were really down, why weren't more of the upper managers let go? Why was it store managers on down? If things weren't working, why are the same people still in place in the upper portions of the company? Tina, Dave, Marina, Dawn, etc are all still in their positions. While the store managers and buyers had input on what happened to the sites, ultimately the responsibility falls on the stage directors. If the 'stage' approach wasn't working, why is the person who thought of it still there? Oh wait - she's an owner. (Not that she's going to be there much longer from what I've heard. Once she leaves for the baby, I've heard rumors that she may not come back...)
A healthy, growing company does not let 60+ people go because of 'technological advances'. Especially not when they're applying for tax breaks and claiming they'll be adding 440 new jobs to the city/state economy. (So, really after Netshops lays off the Thralow reps, that will bring the total laid off to approximately 100 employees let go in 90 days. In reality, they're only creating 340 new jobs, not the 440 as submitted on their application.) Netshops has issues and those issues start at the top and roll down from there. As always, I look forward to your emails and comments.
For those of you electing to be laid off, here is information on how to file for unemployment benefits.
Now, onto D's posts.
D said
Communication definitely broke down with the old org chart. Since the
layoffs and the revised org chart, the structure makes a lot more sense, in my
humble opinion. Also, depts are now being tasked with creating SOP (standard
operating procedures) which is par for the course with most companies of this
size. The SOPs are going to specifically address accountability and provide
training material. We are long overdue for them.
The old (August 06 - Feb 07) 'stage' org chart was similar to the store management way of doing things. That 'style' of management worked well in stage 1 & 2. Stages 3 & 4 seemed to lose something - in my opinion it was because of a reduced # of staff in each area working on the sites.
SOP's should have been something done over a year ago when the operations team was in place. Accountability and real, definable measurements of job performance was something that should have been handled by that team as well. (Maybe then we wouldn't have the fraternization issues we have now. Is Paulette going to KC on a shoe run again anytime soon? How many days off did she take unpaid last year? Did all the employees get treated the same way or was she given special treatment?) Yes, Netshops is a 'growing' (or is that immature?) company and 'these things take time to develop' - sort of like the supplier score cards. When I was there, I didn't find a single one that had been completed. I hope Doug hasn't been led to believe that they were....
Maybe if someone was actually accountable for getting these projects done, Netshops wouldn't have needed to lay off 60+ employees in February. Those employees would have moved out of the company on their own based on clearly defined criteria based on their jobs, instead of just a (seemingly) random bloody swath being cut through the work force.
D also said (about the layoffs)
I went directly to the exec in charge of my department and asked for an
explanation. And I got one.
NetShops is not a failing business nor is it run
solely by Doug. Doug is a visionary leader who often asks for the seemingly
impossible while the other two's pragmatism provides the balance. NetShops also
has a unique business model - only our copycats like CSN come close - and we're
still trying to figure out how to make it run like a well-oiled machine. Growing
pains with such rapid expansion were inevitable. At one time only human bodies
could get the job done but now with so many technological advances being made
internally, humans are being replaced by computer applications. Do you think it
was a coincidence that the first layoff occured immediately after Site Manager
was rolled out? You may recall a chunk of merchandisers were let go or
repositioned.
Very interesting thoughts D. "Growing pains with such rapid expansion were inevitable." Sure. I can appreciate that. However having fewer people to do the same amount of work is insanity. Having fewer people to do more work (if Netshops rolls out another 50 - 60 sites again this year) is just plain stupid. Now, Netshops has applied for some tax breaks, namely the Nebraska Advantage Act. As you can see from the article, Netshops indicated they are going to invest 9.2 million and create 440 new jobs. So, if "growing pains with rapid expansion" really was inevitable and those laid off were being replaced due to technological gains, such as the use of Site Manager, why would Netshops need an additional 440 employees? Again, this strikes me as an easy way to look profitable for the investors. It is corporate churn and an example of how little the employees doing the job day to day are really valued by Doug and Co.
NetShops is getting itself ready to go to the next level. Much like when you
negotiate a mortgage with a banker they talk accounting ratios to get an
approved loan amount. The same is happening to NetShops - we had ratios that
made us unattractive to investors and they needed to be fixed. You can bitch and
moan all you want, but these rules are applied to any business with the goals
NetShops has. Doug telling potential investors that he couldn't let go of
employees because they're good loyal workers would have meant proverbial doors
slammed in our faces and the inevitable tanking of NetShops as a whole.
Again, "ratios that made us unattractive to investors" does not make sense when Doug is applying for tax breaks and claiming he's going to add 440 new jobs. If the ratio was wrong in the first place, why would he need to hire new people? I don't know about you but when I bought my house, the bank didn't tell me I had too many children and I'd need to let some of them go.
Once you go "corporate", there's no going back and the Dougs of the world don't
make all the rules anymore.
That's true. Why do you think Netshops isn't as fun as it used to be anymore? Why did a special 'activity committee' need to be created? Where are the patio umbrellas on the call center side? Where are the hammocks/daybeds and adriondack chairs where people can meet and exchange ideas? Those have been traded for more traditional conference rooms to look more 'corporate'. I guess that's what we need to do when the Buffetts and Blumkins of the world come to tour the office.
I once worked at a plant that was profitable for 33 years straight with no
layoffs. And what happened? The plant was shut down for the better of the entire
company. Fair? Nope. Look at the Big 3 and their job security policies - all
three are so far in the red they may never recover.
By 'big 3' do you mean Doug, Julie and Mark? If you think they aren't making money in this venture you're crazy. Do you think they're doing this for the fun of it? Also, how do you know they're 'in the red'?
I'm still working at NetShops but I admire the balls it takes to follow through
with a very difficult decision.
A 'difficult decision'? It wasn't a difficult decision - it was a quick fix. If profits were really down, why weren't more of the upper managers let go? Why was it store managers on down? If things weren't working, why are the same people still in place in the upper portions of the company? Tina, Dave, Marina, Dawn, etc are all still in their positions. While the store managers and buyers had input on what happened to the sites, ultimately the responsibility falls on the stage directors. If the 'stage' approach wasn't working, why is the person who thought of it still there? Oh wait - she's an owner. (Not that she's going to be there much longer from what I've heard. Once she leaves for the baby, I've heard rumors that she may not come back...)
A healthy, growing company does not let 60+ people go because of 'technological advances'. Especially not when they're applying for tax breaks and claiming they'll be adding 440 new jobs to the city/state economy. (So, really after Netshops lays off the Thralow reps, that will bring the total laid off to approximately 100 employees let go in 90 days. In reality, they're only creating 340 new jobs, not the 440 as submitted on their application.) Netshops has issues and those issues start at the top and roll down from there. As always, I look forward to your emails and comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
