Lenscrafters outlines “respectful” layoff separation

[geoflem]

How about cutting some of the lens pricing and stopping all the gimicks to sell people high end frames and lenses in a low end society. When u have all the 2 for 99 dollars sv deals out there its hard to compete when u just need a pair of glasses to see to drive. I like their frames which are marked up to high but somethings gotta drop to sell them and thats the lens prices. Also some people are intimidated coming in there due the uppity staff/the lc doctors promoting optimap and unecessary exam procedures to boost exam fees. LC can have a autodealer feel to it when dealing with people who need a commision to live. When a stylist senses a patient has no cheddar they are off to the next conquest and the patient might feel jilted or unimportant.

[Jubilee]

They've been cutting hours back for the last 3 years. They could close on Sundays (if they'd be allowed), but they're still paying rent for that day. That's a fixed expense. When the work slows down, you can pay less wages, but not less rent.

Not to mention most are contractually obligated to be open since the majority are in malls.

[Jana Lewis]

Not to mention most are contractually obligated to be open since the majority are in malls.

Hmmm... I dunno. Chick-filet is closed on Sundays..

I also recall when I worked for the evil empire that the holiday hours at the mall didn't apply to us, we closed @ 9:00 instead of midnight on Christmas eve!!

Maybe it's different now.

[Johns]

Hmmm... I dunno. Chick-filet is closed on Sundays..

I also recall when I worked for the evil empire that the holiday hours at the mall didn't apply to us, we closed @ 9:00 instead of midnight on Christmas eve!!

Maybe it's different now.

Anything can be negotiated. I won't open in a mall location because of the restrictions (in the past), and the number of hours that they are open.

...but why pay the big rent if you don't take advantage of the customers that are "wandering" the mall?

[Jana Lewis]

Anything can be negotiated. I won't open in a mall location because of the restrictions (in the past), and the number of hours that they are open.

...but why pay the big rent if you don't take advantage of the customers that are "wandering" the mall?

I think it was a payroll issue. The numbers didn't reflect business during that time from what I remember..

Hell, who knows... I've drank alot since then!! :D

[Fezz]

Hell, who knows... I've drank alot since then!! :D

I'll drink to that!!!

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Jubilee]

Yes, LC does negotiate that they don't have to abide by "holiday hours" though it wasn't always that way. There were years in some stores that they would watch tv as people walked by shopping.. but they were open!

Chik fil A, also negotiates the Sunday rule when they open a location. For them it is a company policy that Sundays are for Church and Family.. not work.

However, you can't close a mall store on a whim w/o "fines" involved. One local store had to go round and round with mall management when their water kept having issues due to some bad prints used during a remodel. Had to close a day to get things fixed, and mall management was wanting to make them pay for hurting their business..

[TLG]

Hey

On the flip side I am looking to increase my staff:-) I hope their loss could be my gain....Christina

I've worked with a couple; I wouldn't get too excited...

[Chris Ryser]

There are more comments now in todays:

http://eyeoverheard.wordpress.com/20...-lots-of-jobs/

[Refractingoptician.com]

Just wondering silently...............that nobody has yet tried to cruzify me for bringing up another doom and gloom post.

Give us a chance Chris , we'll get around to you ...

[waynegilpin]

You know what....I didn't even think about that, Fezz! You're right! Plus if I remember right, they are required to give the mall a portion of their profit (once they go above a certain amount)!

In my experience it was normally a percentage of sales (gross). That's why the landlord wants you open. They don't care if you make a profit. If you have $1 in sales that day, they still get a few pennies. No profit that day? That's your problem.

Wayne

[EdgeOptical]

Its a shame for those employees, but most companies that size can trim the fat with having any impact on their business, only impacting those employees they considered to be fat.

its a risk you take joining in with such a huge company, layoffs are nothing new, almost every business that size goes through them in some form regularly.

Why would a retail company trim the retail level jobs? those are the ones that directly bring in income. So they cut where they are most comfortable where the jobs decrease expenses with no lost income. Now as those support positions do start to have an impact on their income because retail isnt getting the support it needs Lux will replace them with non tenured employees that can start with a much lower base pay. so they not only save the money in the time they can opperate without those employees, but they save down the road when they are replaced also.

Its terrible on the employee level, but its a winning situation for the company. There is nothing new about that in any corner of big businesses.

There is an intel plant a couple miles from my house, at least once a year they announce another round of layoffs, which usually happens at the same time they announce a job fair. A buddy of mine was laid off with intel in phoenix, there were no other positions for him there, or here. so he got 3 months paid off, just had to check in once a week. in that time he applied for an open position here (same job as there, but one level higher, with higher pay for the same work) and got the job. So he pretty much got a raise, a 3 month vacation, and relocated instead of the lay off... but it looked better for the intel accountants, they only saw the layoff and a hire.

Its all business, on a more basic level its all budgeting. If your income goes down, your spending goes down. None of us could survive personally if our income drops but our spending increases, why would we expect any company to continue doing that?

[jediron1]

While I agree with many of the points Johns brought up....I can't help but wonder, why they don't start off with cutting the hours back...i.e. close on Sunday?

I'm sure that someone at LC has the bird's eye view, and they have looked over the numbers, but from what I know about the operation, it seems that they have stretched themselves to the limit, 7 days a week, some open till late...why not trim the store hours first?

That would be a good idea. What you save in wages by closing on Sundays would more than make up the rent in some of LC's operations. I've talked to freinds at Sears opt. where on most Sundays half the stores do no business. So why pay one or two people to just sit there give the day off and every one saves. I personally would not work on Sundays but I know some have to. Then you get in the situation where corporate big wigs who just sit in there office and have no idea what goes on at the store level who pass all ideas down like it will make a big deal. But I like my Mon. thru Fri. work day.

[EdgeOptical]

in a corporate retail situation closing sundays would garuntee no income on that day of the week. being open sunday may not promise to make much, but it still has the chance.

Retail only makes money if its open.

so run with as little crew as possible, keep cost down, then any income you do bring in is a positive addition.

i would also be curious to see how many retail staff would lose their job if they eliminated sunday hours. most malls are open 11-6 sundays (or around there, but for example purposes that will work) so 8 hours per employee avg. figure a lc store needs 4 to run, thats 32 hours. so each store can plan on losing one retail employee each. how many lc stores are there? is that more or less then the jobs being lost at the CSC?

may not be the right answer after all, and definatly one that wont increase income, it does nothing but promise to decrease it. a lose lose situation for the employee and company.

[Johns]

There are more comments now in todays:

http://eyeoverheard.wordpress.com/20...-lots-of-jobs/

A few upset folks to say the least!

[LandLord]

This thread shows that many people have an entitlement mentality that someone else owes them a job or a paycheck just because they have more money than you.

Even if the rich gave to the poor until everyone was even, eventually the formerly rich would be rich again and the formerly poor would be poor again because of this mentality.

[cocoisland58]

I once applied for a job at LC. The "personality" quiz they handed me along with the app so totally cracked me up that I actually answered it honestly. I did not get the job (lucky me).

If I ever (and I know I will, it's human nature) complain about my current employer again may the good Lord smite me (gently) upside the head.

[rbaker]

The combination of these global slow uncertain economic times and cash flow conspire to cause difficulties for retail (and wholesale too) businesses to meet their long term obligations and meet stockholder expectations.

It is far easier to fire a few cone heads than it is to get a short term note from your local bank. Smart companies are putting expansion plans on the back burner until the economy returns to normal if indeed it ever will.

[EyeGurl]

going the same way as nvi or others that like to keep only one licensed optician on the payroll per store?

[jediron1]

going the same way as nvi or others that like to keep only one licensed optician on the payroll per store?

Ya they have no respect of a license. They hire people who know nothing about optical then wonder why there business is down and they have to lay people off.

[Spexvet]

This thread shows that many people have an entitlement mentality that someone else owes them a job or a paycheck just because they have more money than you.

No, it shows that employees expect some respect and loyalty from thier employers.

Even if the rich gave to the poor until everyone was even, eventually the formerly rich would be rich again and the formerly poor would be poor again because of this mentality.

I don't think that's a valid assertion. And we're not talking necessarily about "poor" people, here, we're talking about people with jobs, who have made Leonardo VERY wealthy. For that, they lose their jobs.

...
It is far easier to fire a few cone heads than it is to get a short term note from your local bank. Smart companies are putting expansion plans on the back burner until the economy returns to normal if indeed it ever will.

It would be even easier for the owner to cut back his extravagance for a while. By keeping his workers employed, there'd be no need for unemployment payments, the cost incurred to fired the current employees, and recruit, hire, train, the ones that will undoubtedly replace them, the tax burden on those of us who still have jobs. People without jobs don't buy things like cars, which means that people who sell cars may not be able to afford eye exams and eyewear.

[LandLord]

It's so easy for an employee to say that a rich person should pay their paycheck. Would that employee work for half the pay?
Would that employee work for free?
Would that employee work for less than free, as in lose money by working there?
Would that employee work many years for a net loss?
Well now you are starting to understand what an entrepreneur has to go through to create jobs.
Don't tell me a rich man should pay your paycheck.

[scriptfiller]

Folks don't get it...... employment is a business relationship where skills are exchanged for compensation. I do not have a job, my employer does. He has negotiated with me to utilize my skills/knowledge in a position within his company in exchange for monetary compensation. He owes me a safe place to execute my craft, I owe him a correct and proper execution of my craft.

He shouldn't be guilted into giving me more than what has been negotiated.

[Spexvet]

It's so easy for an employee to say that a rich person should pay their paycheck. Would that employee work for half the pay?

Yes. Unions make concessions every day. Employees pay more for their health insurance every year. An employee who is laid off will accept a lower wage to do the same job, just to have a job. Could the owner have made half as much without his employees?

Would that employee work for free?

There are plenty of instances where the CEO of a company or a public servant have worked for free. They can do this because their employees have already made them wealthy. Why can't Leonardo do this?

Would that employee work for less than free, as in lose money by working there?

Yes, if that employee is already wealthy (see above).

Would that employee work many years for a net loss?

See above.

Well now you are starting to understand what an entrepreneur has to go through to create jobs.
Don't tell me a rich man should pay your paycheck.

What?

Taxpayers, Luxottica, and the employees would all be better off if Leonardo kept his employees and just cut back his lifestyle until the economy recovers.

[Gino]

Lux buys competition and rips it apart of good talent. We have seen them buy companies like DOC and Pearle. BTW who wants a closing manual for Pearle Vision ... its up for dibs. Lux doesn't want unions. Look what happened to California. No more corporate Pearle's