Is Caterpillar’s Labor Management Leading To Its Demise?

Recently manufacturing employees at Caterpillar plants in Illinois and across the world suffered significant pay cuts as well as cuts to some of their benefits. Now Caterpillar is experiencing a backlash from its employees. At an Ontario plant, workers were locked out when they refused to accept a 50% pay cut. In response, Caterpillar moved production to Muncie, Indiana where workers were willing to accept the lower wages. In May of last year, Caterpillar threatened to cut health care and other benefits for employees at a plant in Joliet, which resulted in a three month strike. Workers were finally forced to accept the cuts and returned to work. Caterpillar is also currently in a dispute with workers at a Milwaukee plant.

On the contrary, Caterpillar’s earnings would not indicate a need to cut employee wages. The company earned almost $6 billion in profits this year from a record-setting $66 billion in sales. In addition, the average salary of executive at has increased by 56% in the last six years and CEO Doug Oberhelman’s salary has risen by sixty percent since 2011. He made $22 million last year. His rationale behind Caterpillar’s hard line on labor is that they have a need to stay competitive. He says the only reason executive salaries rose so greatly is because people in these positions are going to find other work if they don’t receive a competitive wage. Whether such a steep increase is justified depends on who you ask. At the same time, he believes he has no reason to raise employee wages when he can just easily open a plant in a Southern state, where workers would gladly accept lower wages. He also contends that workers these days are less skilled and thus don’t deserve more money.

Oberhelman has received opposition on both of these points. Opponents argue that the only reason workers seem less skilled is because too much is demanded from them for too little pay. They also say that manufacturing employees at nearby rivals Cat and Komatsu plants are paid $3-$4 more per hour for the same work. However, people in these positions have much less mobility because there are a lot less manufacturing jobs today.

Caterpillar needs to resolve this issue with its employees before serious damage is done. Their reputation is on the line, which could ultimately affect their bottom line. Constant conflict with its employees could result in reduced productivity and quality from them. I believe they should just pay their employees wages that are comparable to nearby competitors. If the company is profitable and executives are experiencing pay bumps, shouldn’t lower-level employees experience them too? Who do you think is right or wrong in this situation? Do you think Caterpillar’s ongoing conflict with its employees is going to hurt the company in the long run?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-16/caterpillars-doug-oberhelman-manufacturings-mouthpiece#p4

 

Starbucks Cuts Prices on Bags of Coffee

As we discussed in Chapter 2, cost leadership is one of the keys to achieving a competitive advantage over the opposition.  Having the lowest cost, as perceived by the customer, without sacrificing quality, is the key to beating the competition.  Starbucks is attempting to do just that by cutting the price of its bags of coffee by $1 per bag this year.  This reduction in price would make the cost of their bags of coffee comparable to those sold by Folgers, Maxwell House, and Dunkin’ Donuts, all of whom cut their prices this year as well.  Ultimately, Starbucks’ goal is to draw sales away from their competitors, even if they aren’t making as much money per bag of coffee.

The rationale behind the cut in price is to attract a new demographic to purchase their product.  Currently Starbucks’ in-house coffees are among the most expensive, yet they continue to outsell the competition.  By selling their bags of coffee for about the same price as their competitors, they are able to attract the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, as opposed to just the upper end.  Assuming they aren’t sacrificing quality, the Starbucks brand bags of coffee would be the best available option to these consumers.  Overall, they would be reaching a much wider market then their competitors.

In order to earn as much revenue on bags of coffee as they did last year, Starbucks would have to sell 65% more bags at the new price.  Starbucks knows they probably won’t achieve those numbers, but if they continue to steal customers from their competitors, they will eventually reach that number and eventually sell even more.

The move also forces Starbucks’ competitors to make a tough decision.  Either they can keep prices where they are at, or they can continue to cut their prices and trim profits.  Another possibility is that they can cut volume.  Either way, Starbucks walks away a clear winner.  At the rate they are going, Starbucks is slated to run its competitors out of business.

I think this is a great move by Starbucks.  It’s no mystery that a majority of Americans prefer Starbucks coffee to other brands, and by making it more widely available, they can increase their sales exponentially.  Sales won’t increase immediately, but in the long run they most likely will.  Once consumers realize they can get their favorite, high-quality coffee for the same price as lower-quality brands, odds are they’ll opt for the higher quality product.  And even though the profit margins won’t be as high for the bags of coffee, they will still be huge on the in-house brews.  In the end, Starbucks has the highest quality coffee on the market as chosen by consumers, and at its new low price, Starbucks will have the competitive advantage as well.

Source:  http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-12/the-game-theory-behind-starbucks-big-coffee-price-cut#r=nav-r-story