% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Buckle, Inc. Message Board

  • SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I appreciate your comments and respect your
      opinion. I don't buy the fact that a company that sells
      jeans for $80 a copy can't AFFORD to treat its young
      people fairly. As I said before, I was not aware that
      paying less than the guaranteed minimum wage to kids
      that are given less than 10 hours/week was such a
      threat to the retail investor. I certainly am not
      threatened by allowing young people to share in the success
      of the company. Since I am no longer a share holder
      I will not be back on the board. I just thought
      other parents/investors may find my reasons for leaving
      interesting. Obviously not.

    • Buckle's "management philosophy" that you refer
      to is no different than any other retailer's
      philosophy. Store managers are given a certain amount of
      money each month to use for personnel costs. It is
      based on a percentage of sale. I am a retail manager,
      and I am allowed to use 10% of my sales for personnel
      costs. If my sales are $1 million per month, I can use
      $100,000 to pay my employees. If my sales are $500,000, I
      can pay $50,000, and so on. The only way I can pay my
      people more money or give them more hours is if sales
      increase. If my sales increase, I would need more help
      anyway because I would have more customers to serve. I
      just don't see where the Buckle is exploiting its
      employees. I go into other stores, and there are customers
      everywhere trying without luck to get the attention of a
      sales associate. In every Buckle store I've visited,
      customers are waited on promptly. I notice this as a retail
      manager, and as an investor. They could take a feel-good
      approach and pay a couple more kids to stand around and do
      nothing, but it just isn't necessary. Staffing is exactly
      where it should be. Let's go back to my personnel cost
      example. This is the same battle I fight when someone says
      the minimum wage should be increased. If minimum wage
      increases, the amount that I can pay in personnel costs DOES
      NOT increase. For the sake of simplified math, let's
      say minimum wage is $10 per hour, and I have $10,000
      to use for wages. That means I can give my employees
      1,000 hours ($10,000/$10 per hour). If minimum wage
      goes up to $12.50, then I can only give them 800 hours
      ($10,000/$12.50 per hour). Like it or not, that $10,000 does not
      go up unless there is a noticeable increase in
      sales. If I have to pay a higher hourly wage, then hours
      are going to be cut. Someone making $10 per hour and
      working 30 hours per week will be reduced to 20-25 hours
      per week at the new wage. They don't have any
      additional money in their pockets as a result of the new
      minimum wage. The employee is hurt by the reduced hours,
      and the customer is hurt by the reduced help in the

      Heliocopter, I don't know why you're on
      an investor's bulletin board if you are not taking
      an investor's approach to these issues. I appreciate
      your comments anyway. It's good to get all points of

    • I am not or ever have been employed by Buckle. I
      have two teenage sons and have a household income of
      well over 6 figures so don't discount what I have to
      say by assuming that I am a disgruntled employee.
      (Maybe you can find additional work on the Psychic
      Network/part-time less than minimum wage of course.) It is evident
      that you agree with Buckle's philosophy that college
      students are on the bottom of the food chain and thus are
      not worthy of any considerations including a
      guaranteed minimum wage. Perception is reality. If I sell
      high end clothing such as Lucky or Hilfiger brands and
      don't pay at least minimum wage to the very kids that
      these lines are marketed to then I have a serious
      problem with that. I have an even bigger problem with the
      corporate attitude that young people are expendable. I wish
      everybody success with this stock ,but I am choosing to
      investment elsewhere. I am sure it will be some time before
      Buckle's management philosophy catches up with them.

    • What you've failed to consider is the person who
      relies on that paycheck. You're not concerned with
      someone who works to support themselves or a family.
      You're complaining that you, a part-time, student
      worker, were paid less than minimum wage. I got a
      newsflash for you: that's true of most students who work
      part-time, and has been for more years than I care to
      remember. Your question doesn't even rise to where the
      issue of moral or immoral comes into play. What Buckle
      paid you was neither moral nor immoral, it was extra
      cash your earned working part-time. While it would
      have been nice for Buckle to pay more than minimum
      wage, it certainly was not acting immorally when it
      failed to do so. More importantly, its actions certainly
      do not justify a cry for divestment. This is
      particularly true today, when other corparate abuses - of
      full-time employees, the environment, foreign workers -
      provide a full menu of reasons to argue against
      investment in any number of companies. If you want to argue
      divestment, pick a reason more compelling than your anger
      that you weren't paid any differently than the
      majority of part-time, student employees. I respect
      someone who is willing to voice their outrage at
      corporate immorality, and to act on that outrage by
      divesting themselves from an otherwise profitable
      investment. Here, the moral basis for your claim against
      Buckle is non-existent.

    • Do you consider less than minimum wage paychecks to be moral for a company that sells high end clothing?

    • OK. We've established a couple of things these
      past few messages.1. Turnover does not help a store's
      operations. BUT, high turnover among high school students in
      retail is pretty much a fact of doing business. You may
      be able to minimize it, but not eliminate it to the
      extent you could for career/living wage jobs.2. Even if
      high turnover is inevitable, a corporation should
      consider itself morally AND fiscally obligated to treat
      its employees fairly, even the high turnover ones.
      Why? Because they are the referrals for your future
      employees, i.e., their friends. If store earns a reputation
      for mistreating its part-time, it will have an
      increasingly difficult time hiring from what is, at least for
      that store, a finite pool prospective employess. The
      result? Either paying higher wages to get out from under
      that reputation OR, worse, hiring employees who don't
      give a damn.. The quality of the part-time employee is
      important. I have no stats to back this up, but it seems
      reasonable to me that an ill-treated employee will sell less
      merchandise for every dollar paid. This means lower revenue,
      lower margins, lower earnings and, ultimately, lower
      stock prices. Thus, regardless of turnover's
      inevitability, it's to Buckle's advantage to to treat its
      part-timers well. 3. That being said, helicopter's comments
      sound more like those of a former employee than an
      investor. (E.g., the reference to Buckle's "New York
      attitude" suggests that he (or she) is unaware that Buckle
      is headquartered in Nebraska, not New York. An
      investor would know this. Of course, this could mean that
      he (or she) believes Buckle has adopted an NYC
      attitude. However, this does not appear to be the case.)
      Helicopter's complaint seems more anecdotal than systemic,
      i.e., I still have no proof of Buckle's systemic
      mistreatment of its part-timers. 4. As for me: I've been to
      Buckle stores throughout the U.S., both as a custormer
      and as an investor checking my investment. The
      employees, high school, college studens, store managers,
      appeared more than satisfied. More importantly, they saw
      to it that I was being helped, finding what I was
      looking for, etc... everyting I want of a store in which
      I am a part-owner. Also, in the Buckle nearest my
      home, the store manager has been there since the early
      1990's. This is not what I would expect of someone, in a
      time when such jobs are plentiful, who feels
      ill-treated or underpaid.5. Finally, if helicopter is truly
      concerned about investing solely in companies that treat
      its workers fairly, it will take more than personal
      experience to ferret this out. While I think most companies
      treat their employees fairly, those that do not rarely
      advertise the fact. For example, if helicopter invests in
      high-tech, as do most people, do the companies in which he
      invests routinely fill their needs with temp workers?
      (This an increasing, albeit unspoken, trend in
      high-tech.) Who are temp workers (No, I am not one. I have a
      full-time job that pays a living wage). They're employees
      that are far worse off than any part-timer in retail.
      Usually, they're people desperate for a full-time job,
      working for miminmal wages, no benefits (such as the
      health-care a student gets from its parents or college) and
      can be fired on a moment's notice (although their
      rent/mortgage and other bills, etc. do not stop). They take
      temp work hoping it will lead to full-time (a belief
      employesr often encourage). They have family's to support,
      lives to build. Invest with their welfare in mind,
      helicoptor, not some junior at Middletown College that wants
      the latest designer jeans or a Miata. Or, does the
      potential for the high returns of high tech off-set your
      moral outrage?

    • I definitely understand the difference between
      upper management turnover and entry level turnover. I
      also understand corporate America's attitude toward
      the average college kid (turn em and burn em), but
      high dollar clothing stores sell image while all the
      time thumbing their noses at the very market they are
      going after. Maybe its Buckle's New York attitude that
      chaps me. From an investor standpoint maybe that is
      attractive to some, but I not only invest for profit, but
      like to feel good about the companies I invest in.
      That leaves Buckle out. See ya.

    • not know too much about retail. Turnover is
      inevidable !! And when you are going after the market that
      "The Buckle" is going after turnover will be even
      more. Now if you said that the top management is
      turning over all of the time then it would be time for
      concern. The shorter the training cycle is the less
      turnover hurts you. Techinical jobs that take a long time
      to train would hurt very much. Selling figure it out !!


    • Anybody that knows anything about business, knows that turnover in any well run business is not only costly, but totally inappropriate.

    • Unless your one of the kids that needs the job. The prices they charge for their cloths should support a better caliber store manager that is willing to pay as decent wage.

    • View More Messages
27.14-0.45(-1.63%)Jul 28 4:02 PMEDT