Help Save Market Basket!!!

Bigstan · 07-31-2014, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty

I couldn't think of a better word to use for the person who might take the place of a fired MB employee.

Do you have one?

It's a little early for that....as they are still playing chicken. Who will blink 1st? I bet the workers pockets are not as deep as the companies....and something as simple as the company saying they will keep the status quo in all ways with customers and emplyees ends the dispute. You can want your CEO back all you want, but you can only hope to influence that decision, not force it.

But what would I call your 'scabs'? A couple possibilities.....

1. Unemployed - someone who needs a job and who will take one in a heartbeat.

2. Ambitous - someone who sees an opportunity to advance their position and sees a great chance to do so.

3. Capitalists - if you can make more money there than you make currently then you take the job.

Nothing wrong with any of the above in my opinion.....if customers differ they dont come back and the company folds - the market will correct itself and we will see who was right.....I am thinking of becoming a 'scab' customer, I am ready to go back and the stores are not empty of anything save produce by me.

Realistically it won't come to that. 5000-15000 employees will not walk away in this economy, and the company cannot hope to hire and train that many replacements. Someone will blink....

RailroadJoe · 08-01-2014, 04:17 AM

Sure noting has changed under benefits, Now, that is. But wait a few months under the Co-COs are i comand. Then changes to bonuses, cuts in medical plus a few more nasty deals. I'm all for the employes. They deserve a man mike Arther T to lead them, not a greedy bunch of relatives calling the shots behind the CEO's.

tis · 08-01-2014, 07:26 AM

I am still wondering what is going on too. How do they know that Arthur S is so bad? Have they been told if he takes over specifically what will happen? There must be at least a LITTLE BIT of another half to this story other than what we are hearing. There must be a reason why the board wants to get rid of Arthur T. Anyone know the inside scoop?

Kamper · 08-01-2014, 07:27 AM

From what I've read in the news, most of the employees are reporting for their shifts and picketing on their own time.

chipj29 · 08-01-2014, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

Sure noting has changed under benefits, Now, that is. But wait a few months under the Co-COs are i comand. Then changes to bonuses, cuts in medical plus a few more nasty deals. I'm all for the employes. They deserve a man mike Arther T to lead them, not a greedy bunch of relatives calling the shots behind the CEO's.

How do you know that this is going to happen?

nhcatrider · 08-01-2014, 09:19 AM

Having seen some of the memos that went around before I left, ASD wants to cut the bonuses and profit sharing so he can put the money in his own pockets. With the profit sharing we are talking about a plan that is currently worth over 1/2 BILLION dollars, none of which has come out of employee paychecks. As for the bonuses, rumor was christmas was in excess of $35 million each year. Add it up, it's a lot of money. I can understand why a greedy person would want to put their fingers in the pie. Remember, we are talking about someone who makes millions every year, is worth over $1 billion, and it isn't enough.

gus62 · 08-01-2014, 09:48 AM

Just playing devils advocate. You keep saying ASD wants all the money when in reality it would go to all stockholders where ASD is around 17% ownership. Yes his "side" has a slight majority so his actions would/should be based on their wants and not just his.
Any monies that are in a retirement profit sharing fund can not be touched, only the future contributions could change.

Sue Doe-Nym · 08-01-2014, 11:11 AM

If these employees do not go back to work on Monday, will they expect to collect unemployment benefits?

nhcatrider · 08-01-2014, 11:23 AM

Depends on how the company puts their reason for unemployment. If they can prove the employee quit, then no they can not collect. If the employee is involuntarily terminated, in Mass they have to be paid all monies owed to them at the end of the day, in NH it's three days.

tis · 08-01-2014, 11:33 AM

That's what I always thought, but we have had employees quit and they have collected unemployment. I have never figured that out.

nhcatrider · 08-01-2014, 12:07 PM

I had one quit several years ago and tried to collect. We asked for a hearing and got it squashed.

Rusty · 08-01-2014, 12:48 PM

Market Basket here they come with resume in hand:

Farfrumbehavin · 08-01-2014, 01:06 PM

Now that we are at 129 post, all of which have been very informative, written buy very many people with many views from different sides. I have a much better understanding of what's going on here. Suprised at how long this has gone on, while we are waiting for the next chapter of this book to end, let's get our pull our crystal ball down off the shelf, dust it off and tell me what you see looking into the future. The majority of what I know about the situation is what I have read here. Never really knew how employees felt about the company. We shopped at the Tilton store, went in worked our way through the crowd, happy to leave with our groceries knowing that we had saved come money compared to having shopped at Shaw's, where we would have had the store to ourselves. My crystal ball may need calibration but what I see, (because I have become a cynic because I am usually the bug and not the windshield) is that It's obvious that there are huge EGO's at play here given the history, and the person and people who have the power know they have it, and it has come down to simply winning at any cost.When the job fairs are over and everyone has been replaced, qaulified or not, and don't kid yourself, there are people who will take these jobs, the stores will soon be back open and cooperate greed will win again. And if people can SAVE $ by shopping at MB that is exactly what they will do. I can't make it a better place to work, but we are in a world where the rich just get richer, it sucks but it's the way capitalism works. Then the stores will fill back up with customers. Not because they are happy with the outcome but because they will save money. I like many people Hate shopping at Wal-Mart. but there are items that I will go in there for that I save big on, so I do it. We are on a budget! bottom line and my bottom line is more important to me than Arthur S's bottom line. I like 99.9% of shoppers will be gald they supported the efforts of the MB family,but when the smoke clears and everyone forgets about the whole thing because it's not a news story any more, they will be back in the stores taking advantage of the savings if that's where the savings are. I wished this whole issue would change they way they look at how they treat there customers and employees but the bottom line is the bottom line!

dave603 · 08-01-2014, 09:53 PM

Are now suing for the reasons listed in the AGs letter.
MB has dug themselves a big hole to get out of.

Bigstan · 08-01-2014, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave603

Are now suing for the reasons listed in the AGs letter.
MB has dug themselves a big hole to get out of.

Not really. The managers weren't working, witholding of some or all of a bi-weekly check is thus ok.

Failure to provide an accounting of the profit sharing plan - not available on demand. Sorry, you have to wait for that, it is not due upon termination. Those plans are regulated - I would bet there is legal counsel that knows the requisite timeframes - but safe to say you cannot have a statement on demand.

Spreading disinformation is the key here (willingful or otherwise) - making assumptions based on nothing, basing assumptions on what people think management will do......solidarity is great to see, but everything points towards a management win unless the offer is taken. Boiled down it's 'Corporate greed bad - employees good'. That ends one way...

dave603 · 08-02-2014, 08:49 AM

Not to sure about that, at least for the first guy they fired. They fired him on the Sunday after this started Friday late afternoon, by courier.
Unless his last paycheck was also with the termination letter, by Mass. law, they broke the rules.
Also depends on what reason they used. He was upper level management, so who knows if he is covered or not, but it was becuase he was talking, but after hours.
He may have a case here. Which is only going to muddy the waters even more.

MAXUM · 08-02-2014, 12:19 PM

I am so sick and tired of hearing the term corporate greed. So if a company decides to circle the wagons, cut back on salaries, employees, benefits or whatever that is considered corporate greed. If executives are given performance bonuses because such actions help stabilize the company and improve profitability they are scoffed at as being evil and greedy. OK fine, then let me introduce the term of employee greed. Employees that expect, insist and demand that they get what they want even if it hurts the bottom line of the company they work for. They expect that holding a menial job means that somehow that is worth a certain salary even though what they do requires no specific talent, skill or education. They demand lavish benefits, profit sharing and bonuses completely clueless as to the cost associated with not only having them as an employee, or what it takes to run a business.

Capitalism isn't evil, in fact it's awesome because it allows anyone who is smart enough, willing enough, eager enough and bold enough to start their own business to do so. Is is a guarantee of success NO, but the chance is there. Is it always fair, nope, but what in life really is? Those that are successful sometimes do get rich and I applaud them for doing so. Why should they not enjoy the spoils of their hard work?

Am I a rich guy? Hell no, I am merely an employee of a company where I know executives that sit well above me are making millions per year benefiting on the contributions that I make every day, that's why I have a job in the first place to provide value. Am I envious of them, no. Do I think it's fair? Well let me put it this way, I am not capable of doing their job, I have neither the background, experience or level of education to do what they do. I also would not want the responsibility, stress or headaches they have to deal with on a daily basis. While it's true they do make a handsome sum of money and do enjoy perks I'll never get, there is a reason for that. Not just anyone can do their job. Therefore for any company to get the best talent they will offer what perks will attract what they are looking for. In the same way the position that I fill not just anyone can do so therefore I am compensated accordingly and get perks others may not get. That is the way things work, don't like it better yourself! I didn't start off in the position that I'm in I worked for it, and very hard. Anyone says to me "must be nice" well it is, but it didn't come cheap and I refused to be just a 40 hour a week widget maker. Been there done that and decided I'm better than that. For those that are satisfied to do that kind of work, or have no ambition to do anything else, don't complain, you made that decision and it has nothing to do with corporate greed.

tis · 08-02-2014, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I am so sick and tired of hearing the term corporate greed. So if a company decides to circle the wagons, cut back on salaries, employees, benefits or whatever that is considered corporate greed. If executives are given performance bonuses because such actions help stabilize the company and improve profitability they are scoffed at as being evil and greedy. OK fine, then let me introduce the term of employee greed. Employees that expect, insist and demand that they get what they want even if it hurts the bottom line of the company they work for. They expect that holding a menial job means that somehow that is worth a certain salary even though what they do requires no specific talent, skill or education. They demand lavish benefits, profit sharing and bonuses completely clueless as to the cost associated with not only having them as an employee, or what it takes to run a business.

Capitalism isn't evil, in fact it's awesome because it allows anyone who is smart enough, willing enough, eager enough and bold enough to start their own business to do so. Is is a guarantee of success NO, but the chance is there. Is it always fair, nope, but what in life really is? Those that are successful sometimes do get rich and I applaud them for doing so. Why should they not enjoy the spoils of their hard work?

Am I a rich guy? Hell no, I am merely an employee of a company where I know executives that sit well above me are making millions per year benefiting on the contributions that I make every day, that's why I have a job in the first place to provide value. Am I envious of them, no. Do I think it's fair? Well let me put it this way, I am not capable of doing their job, I have neither the background, experience or level of education to do what they do. I also would not want the responsibility, stress or headaches they have to deal with on a daily basis. While it's true they do make a handsome sum of money and do enjoy perks I'll never get, there is a reason for that. Not just anyone can do their job. Therefore for any company to get the best talent they will offer what perks will attract what they are looking for. In the same way the position that I fill not just anyone can do so therefore I am compensated accordingly and get perks others may not get. That is the way things work, don't like it better yourself! I didn't start off in the position that I'm in I worked for it, and very hard. Anyone says to me "must be nice" well it is, but it didn't come cheap and I refused to be just a 40 hour a week widget maker. Been there done that and decided I'm better than that. For those that are satisfied to do that kind of work, or have no ambition to do anything else, don't complain, you made that decision and it has nothing to do with corporate greed.

Wow, Maxum! What a post! I feel the same way, I get so tired of hearing about corporate greed. Maybe it is true in some cases. But I never thought of the fact that employees are being greedy when they want all for themselves and don't care about the company they work for. Excellent post! You said it very well!! Thanks!

Sue Doe-Nym · 08-02-2014, 01:39 PM

Perhaps the employees should pool their money and buy out the existing shareholders, then they can run the company any way they wish. Last I checked, MB was a privately owned company and is run by the CEO who was elected by the directors who in turn were elected by the shareholders - who are the OWNERS. The present management may be unpopular but nothing has been done that is illegal or unethical.

If new policies are enacted that cause the company to no longer be competitive then we the customers will shop elsewhere. Likewise, if the employees without employment contracts do not like the way they are being treated or compensated, they can go work for another company.

jeffk · 08-02-2014, 02:15 PM

This is not a fight between the corporate world and the little guys. This is a fight between 2 different business philosophies. One, ATD, wants to build the business, new stores, more customers, better trained and happier employees. He keeps prices low to attract customers although this reduces profit per customer, he hopes to build more volume. To accomplish this, a lot of the profits are returned to the business to pay for all this. The result of this, eventually, is a business with a larger customer base and increased business value.

The other, ASD, wants higher profit per customer. That will probably mean higher prices. That may mean less employee perks and other costs. He also wants more profit available to shareholders, including himself. Part of accomplishing this is stopping store expansion and retaining the money for shareholders instead. All this can be a working philosophy. Many stores charge higher prices and are successful. (Apple) This philosophy can also lead to a more profitable business by cutting costs. It definitely yields more to the shareholders, who, like it or not, own the business and are entitled to the profits. If you deposited money in a bank, how would you feel if the bank told you that you would have to wait 15 years for them to grow the business until you got your money and profit back?

The question is, can MB compete against Hannafords and others if they no longer have a low price and friendly store advantage? I personally doubt it.

But don't believe that ATD doesn't want corporate profits. He's just taking a more long term approach of building the business to get them.

dave603 · 08-02-2014, 02:44 PM

@ Jeff. YES
And on top of that what ATD is doing is adding jobs to a crappy economy whenever he adds another store. In order to build the business he needs the customers and the employees, and keep prices down. If MB raises their prices, with all the current wolves at the door waiting for it, MB is dead period.
The current board with the BS they have pulled, have stopped the expansion of at least two stores in Mass. that I know about.

So yes Tis and Maxum, it's not just about the greed here. ATD at least was adding much needed jobs, while supplying much needed prices.

08-01-2014, 12:48 PM	#12
Rusty Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2,028 Thanks: 603 Thanked 687 Times in 425 Posts	Market Basket here they come with resume in hand: __________________ It's never crowded along the extra mile.

08-01-2014, 09:53 PM	#14
dave603 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Nashua/Winnisquam Posts: 282 Thanks: 106 Thanked 96 Times in 49 Posts	The first 8 fired Are now suing for the reasons listed in the AGs letter. MB has dug themselves a big hole to get out of.

08-02-2014, 08:49 AM	#16
dave603 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Nashua/Winnisquam Posts: 282 Thanks: 106 Thanked 96 Times in 49 Posts	Bigstan Not to sure about that, at least for the first guy they fired. They fired him on the Sunday after this started Friday late afternoon, by courier. Unless his last paycheck was also with the termination letter, by Mass. law, they broke the rules. Also depends on what reason they used. He was upper level management, so who knows if he is covered or not, but it was becuase he was talking, but after hours. He may have a case here. Which is only going to muddy the waters even more.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-01-2014, 04:17 AM	#2
RailroadJoe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 620 Thanks: 259 Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts	Sure noting has changed under benefits, Now, that is. But wait a few months under the Co-COs are i comand. Then changes to bonuses, cuts in medical plus a few more nasty deals. I'm all for the employes. They deserve a man mike Arther T to lead them, not a greedy bunch of relatives calling the shots behind the CEO's.

08-01-2014, 07:26 AM	#3
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,955 Thanks: 796 Thanked 1,499 Times in 1,043 Posts	I am still wondering what is going on too. How do they know that Arthur S is so bad? Have they been told if he takes over specifically what will happen? There must be at least a LITTLE BIT of another half to this story other than what we are hearing. There must be a reason why the board wants to get rid of Arthur T. Anyone know the inside scoop?

08-01-2014, 07:27 AM	#4
Kamper Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Thornton's Ferry Posts: 1,314 Thanks: 67 Thanked 172 Times in 128 Posts	From what I've read in the news, most of the employees are reporting for their shifts and picketing on their own time.

08-01-2014, 09:19 AM	#6
nhcatrider Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 167 Thanks: 19 Thanked 29 Times in 27 Posts	Having seen some of the memos that went around before I left, ASD wants to cut the bonuses and profit sharing so he can put the money in his own pockets. With the profit sharing we are talking about a plan that is currently worth over 1/2 BILLION dollars, none of which has come out of employee paychecks. As for the bonuses, rumor was christmas was in excess of $35 million each year. Add it up, it's a lot of money. I can understand why a greedy person would want to put their fingers in the pie. Remember, we are talking about someone who makes millions every year, is worth over $1 billion, and it isn't enough.

08-01-2014, 09:48 AM	#7
gus62 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 83 Thanks: 1 Thanked 74 Times in 19 Posts	Just playing devils advocate. You keep saying ASD wants all the money when in reality it would go to all stockholders where ASD is around 17% ownership. Yes his "side" has a slight majority so his actions would/should be based on their wants and not just his. Any monies that are in a retirement profit sharing fund can not be touched, only the future contributions could change.

08-01-2014, 11:11 AM	#8
Sue Doe-Nym Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,457 Thanks: 759 Thanked 796 Times in 419 Posts	If these employees do not go back to work on Monday, will they expect to collect unemployment benefits?

08-01-2014, 11:23 AM	#9
nhcatrider Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 167 Thanks: 19 Thanked 29 Times in 27 Posts	Depends on how the company puts their reason for unemployment. If they can prove the employee quit, then no they can not collect. If the employee is involuntarily terminated, in Mass they have to be paid all monies owed to them at the end of the day, in NH it's three days.

08-01-2014, 11:33 AM	#10
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,955 Thanks: 796 Thanked 1,499 Times in 1,043 Posts	That's what I always thought, but we have had employees quit and they have collected unemployment. I have never figured that out.

08-01-2014, 12:07 PM	#11
nhcatrider Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 167 Thanks: 19 Thanked 29 Times in 27 Posts	I had one quit several years ago and tried to collect. We asked for a hearing and got it squashed.

08-01-2014, 01:06 PM	#13
Farfrumbehavin Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 52 Thanks: 7 Thanked 11 Times in 5 Posts	Now that we are at 129 post, all of which have been very informative, written buy very many people with many views from different sides. I have a much better understanding of what's going on here. Suprised at how long this has gone on, while we are waiting for the next chapter of this book to end, let's get our pull our crystal ball down off the shelf, dust it off and tell me what you see looking into the future. The majority of what I know about the situation is what I have read here. Never really knew how employees felt about the company. We shopped at the Tilton store, went in worked our way through the crowd, happy to leave with our groceries knowing that we had saved come money compared to having shopped at Shaw's, where we would have had the store to ourselves. My crystal ball may need calibration but what I see, (because I have become a cynic because I am usually the bug and not the windshield) is that It's obvious that there are huge EGO's at play here given the history, and the person and people who have the power know they have it, and it has come down to simply winning at any cost.When the job fairs are over and everyone has been replaced, qaulified or not, and don't kid yourself, there are people who will take these jobs, the stores will soon be back open and cooperate greed will win again. And if people can SAVE $ by shopping at MB that is exactly what they will do. I can't make it a better place to work, but we are in a world where the rich just get richer, it sucks but it's the way capitalism works. Then the stores will fill back up with customers. Not because they are happy with the outcome but because they will save money. I like many people Hate shopping at Wal-Mart. but there are items that I will go in there for that I save big on, so I do it. We are on a budget! bottom line and my bottom line is more important to me than Arthur S's bottom line. I like 99.9% of shoppers will be gald they supported the efforts of the MB family,but when the smoke clears and everyone forgets about the whole thing because it's not a news story any more, they will be back in the stores taking advantage of the savings if that's where the savings are. I wished this whole issue would change they way they look at how they treat there customers and employees but the bottom line is the bottom line!

The Following User Says Thank You to Farfrumbehavin For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (08-01-2014)

08-02-2014, 12:19 PM	#17
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 244 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	I am so sick and tired of hearing the term corporate greed. So if a company decides to circle the wagons, cut back on salaries, employees, benefits or whatever that is considered corporate greed. If executives are given performance bonuses because such actions help stabilize the company and improve profitability they are scoffed at as being evil and greedy. OK fine, then let me introduce the term of employee greed. Employees that expect, insist and demand that they get what they want even if it hurts the bottom line of the company they work for. They expect that holding a menial job means that somehow that is worth a certain salary even though what they do requires no specific talent, skill or education. They demand lavish benefits, profit sharing and bonuses completely clueless as to the cost associated with not only having them as an employee, or what it takes to run a business. Capitalism isn't evil, in fact it's awesome because it allows anyone who is smart enough, willing enough, eager enough and bold enough to start their own business to do so. Is is a guarantee of success NO, but the chance is there. Is it always fair, nope, but what in life really is? Those that are successful sometimes do get rich and I applaud them for doing so. Why should they not enjoy the spoils of their hard work? Am I a rich guy? Hell no, I am merely an employee of a company where I know executives that sit well above me are making millions per year benefiting on the contributions that I make every day, that's why I have a job in the first place to provide value. Am I envious of them, no. Do I think it's fair? Well let me put it this way, I am not capable of doing their job, I have neither the background, experience or level of education to do what they do. I also would not want the responsibility, stress or headaches they have to deal with on a daily basis. While it's true they do make a handsome sum of money and do enjoy perks I'll never get, there is a reason for that. Not just anyone can do their job. Therefore for any company to get the best talent they will offer what perks will attract what they are looking for. In the same way the position that I fill not just anyone can do so therefore I am compensated accordingly and get perks others may not get. That is the way things work, don't like it better yourself! I didn't start off in the position that I'm in I worked for it, and very hard. Anyone says to me "must be nice" well it is, but it didn't come cheap and I refused to be just a 40 hour a week widget maker. Been there done that and decided I'm better than that. For those that are satisfied to do that kind of work, or have no ambition to do anything else, don't complain, you made that decision and it has nothing to do with corporate greed.

The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (08-04-2014), chasedawg (08-03-2014), chipj29 (08-04-2014), missedbass (08-03-2014), SPT13 (08-05-2014), Sue Doe-Nym (08-02-2014), tis (08-02-2014), wifi (08-03-2014), winnasake (08-04-2014)

08-02-2014, 01:39 PM	#19
Sue Doe-Nym Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,457 Thanks: 759 Thanked 796 Times in 419 Posts	Perhaps the employees should pool their money and buy out the existing shareholders, then they can run the company any way they wish. Last I checked, MB was a privately owned company and is run by the CEO who was elected by the directors who in turn were elected by the shareholders - who are the OWNERS. The present management may be unpopular but nothing has been done that is illegal or unethical. If new policies are enacted that cause the company to no longer be competitive then we the customers will shop elsewhere. Likewise, if the employees without employment contracts do not like the way they are being treated or compensated, they can go work for another company.

08-02-2014, 02:15 PM	#20
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,250 Thanks: 216 Thanked 488 Times in 280 Posts	This is not a fight between the corporate world and the little guys. This is a fight between 2 different business philosophies. One, ATD, wants to build the business, new stores, more customers, better trained and happier employees. He keeps prices low to attract customers although this reduces profit per customer, he hopes to build more volume. To accomplish this, a lot of the profits are returned to the business to pay for all this. The result of this, eventually, is a business with a larger customer base and increased business value. The other, ASD, wants higher profit per customer. That will probably mean higher prices. That may mean less employee perks and other costs. He also wants more profit available to shareholders, including himself. Part of accomplishing this is stopping store expansion and retaining the money for shareholders instead. All this can be a working philosophy. Many stores charge higher prices and are successful. (Apple) This philosophy can also lead to a more profitable business by cutting costs. It definitely yields more to the shareholders, who, like it or not, own the business and are entitled to the profits. If you deposited money in a bank, how would you feel if the bank told you that you would have to wait 15 years for them to grow the business until you got your money and profit back? The question is, can MB compete against Hannafords and others if they no longer have a low price and friendly store advantage? I personally doubt it. But don't believe that ATD doesn't want corporate profits. He's just taking a more long term approach of building the business to get them.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jeffk For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (08-04-2014), dave603 (08-02-2014), gillygirl (08-03-2014), RailroadJoe (08-02-2014)

08-02-2014, 02:44 PM	#21
dave603 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Nashua/Winnisquam Posts: 282 Thanks: 106 Thanked 96 Times in 49 Posts	@ Jeff. YES And on top of that what ATD is doing is adding jobs to a crappy economy whenever he adds another store. In order to build the business he needs the customers and the employees, and keep prices down. If MB raises their prices, with all the current wolves at the door waiting for it, MB is dead period. The current board with the BS they have pulled, have stopped the expansion of at least two stores in Mass. that I know about. So yes Tis and Maxum, it's not just about the greed here. ATD at least was adding much needed jobs, while supplying much needed prices.