If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Empowered by the Hostess strike, the Black Friday Walmart strike begins early   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 635
    More: Followup, flight attendants  
•       •       •

18434 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



635 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 07:18:49 PM

DrewCurtisJr: it is fine to blame Walmart for working conditions but if Walmart decides to pay workers more and some other retailer comes along and undercuts it in prices and wages where do you think people are going to shop?


Interestingly Costco spends more on labor than Sam's Club does, yet their prices aren't noticablly different. And, at least this was the case a few years ago, per square foot of retail space Costco was more profitable than Sam's Club. Also suppliers find Costco far less a pain the ass to deal with than Walmart.
 
2012-11-18 07:19:21 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: So you actually DO believe that?

Here's what Hormel did during the depression. First thing they did when they saw the economy was going into the shiatter was to institute a 52 week lay off notice policy. No one could be laid off without being given 52 weeks notice first. So even with demand cratering they were keeping people on the payroll. At some of their facilities there were times when people showed up and basically spent their shifts talking, there wasn't enough demand for Hormel products to give them much to do. But that wasn't all, Hormel decided to also update and expand their facilities. Easy to update a facility when it's sitting almost idle. And sure things are bad today, doesn't mean they'll stay this way and may as well be well prepared for the future. So Hormel spent a ton on improving existing facilities and building new ones, new ones it had no demand for. Eventually the depression ended and things started getting better and better. Then WW2 came around and Hormel could produce food on a scale that allowed them to get tons of government contracts and then came the baby boom and Hormel was able to meet that demand easily. Oh yeah, the number of people they laid off during the depression? Zero.


I fail to see what this has to do with present day Wal*Mart.
 
2012-11-18 07:19:34 PM

WhyteRaven74: so you're saying people have no right to demand to be treated well? also your assumption is rather flawed....


So take a shiatty paying job with shiatty benefits and then biatch about it? Guess that's the American way these days.
 
2012-11-18 07:19:57 PM

Mija: Good. I'm sick of Walmart encouraging it's employees to get on welfare instead of providing them with insurance and a living wage. I try not to do business with companies like that.


Walmart should replace welfare-recipient employees with prison labor. That will maximize profits and end this nonsense of society's takers thinking they have a say in what they get or what they do to serve the economy. We already have a lot of people in prison, but if we need new laws tailored to keeping the prison labor pool strong, that's the kind of support from government that entrepreneurial people like Walmart are entitled to have.
 
2012-11-18 07:20:04 PM

Fista-Phobia: Silly Jesus: WhyteRaven74: red5ish: I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.

given a choice between being upset about the tax burden and having someone to look down on and feel superior to, most people will pick having someone to look down on and feel superior to.

WalMart is partially subsidizing people who would otherwise be a complete burden on the government. It's a positive.

to aid or promote (as a private enterprise) with public money


?
 
2012-11-18 07:20:29 PM

GroverCleveland: [i511.photobucket.com image 526x473]

I'm afraid the WalMart will be quite operational when Black Friday arrives


I am in awe.
 
2012-11-18 07:21:15 PM

yukichigai: Mael99: Friskya: Jon iz teh kewl: i turned down a job at Best Buy cause unemployment pays more.

You sound Democrat.

Because if you continued to collect unemployment, you were in violation of unemployment regulations and lied on your weekly statement by turning down work.

Nope. Most states have a provision that you do not have to accept work if they offer pay which is significantly lower than the pay of your last job and/or lower than what you make on unemployment. Otherwise you'd have employers specifically checking to see if applicants were on unemployment, just so they could say things like, "oh yes, we'd love to hire you, but that 75k/year we promised? Actually we've decided for you it would be $14k/year. Take or leave it."


If you make more on unemployment then minimum wage pays, I'm guessing you had a job which payed well do to the skillset you possessed at the time you were layed off. I don't believe you should necessarily have to work a minimum waged job as you must be of value to some employer somewhere.

The exception to this would be if your skillset was no longer needed or current. Leaving the military you could file for unemployment which paid decent wages. If your expirience consisted of 4 years of handing out towels for the MWR (yes such a job exists), or cooking grub for the troops, I'd take the offer at Best Buy as you really have not much to offer your perspective employer. If you had 20 years of expirience in communications or aircraft servicing, then yeah, hold out for employment in that field. No prospects- hang on to the employment compensation runs out and then give Best Buy a call back and see if you can come to an agreement.

Remember- you are only worth what the employer is willing to pay. You don't like the pay, don't say "I do".
 
2012-11-18 07:21:39 PM

Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: WhyteRaven74: chiett: No one should have the right to tell someone (except by law) how to run their business.

so employees have no power and should be thankful for being treated like crap?

This is what conservatives believe.

No, you leave. If enough people decide that it's a poorly run business, they will be forced to change or go out of business. That tipping point hasn't been reached yet.

And in reality that is how it works which is why there is no need nor has there ever been a need for labor laws to protect workers.

So the workers aren't voluntarily there? Interdasting.


You are either ignoring my point or you don't understand it.

In theory "just quit" works. In reality it is much more complicated than that and that method led to horrible working conditions and wages for unskilled workers that could only support a horrible quality of life.

With only a cursory understanding of history you would know "if enough people quit the problem fixes itself" sounds good in theory but has proven over and over again not to work.

Are you this ignorant or are you intellectually dishonest.
 
2012-11-18 07:22:17 PM

Great Janitor: I honestly don't get this. My first two jobs were retail jobs. I hated it. Hours sucked, pay was minimum wage, hated dealing with idiot and rude customers, got pissed everytime I came in on my day off to work a special project for the boss (building shelves in the stock room or swapping out seasonal merchandise from the holiday that just ended to the new one, or just expanding the christmas section) and the boss took credit for all of it when the DM commented to him how great that area looked. I decided that if anything was going to get better in my life, it had to be me who made the change. I could either biatch and moan to my managers until they caved into my demands or I could better myself. I did. I took a series of entry level jobs that offered to train anyone and learned a variety of skills. Went to college, got a degree that was designed to better my job prospects. Even learned how to sell swimming pools, cars and insurance. When you learn how to sell your income is unlimited. As opposed to working hourly where your income is limited to the number of hours you work.

I realized that while I could change where I worked, the place where I worked and those I worked for aren't fixed. I could in theory make the retail chain I worked for the best place to ever work with great hours and above average pay, but when it comes to jobs your boss can give you two words and you're gone (You're fired, good bye, get out). And if management changes, that great deal I worked out could die or come back to bite me in the ass. I make myself better and no manager or job can change that.

Today I am in a position where I don't have to work at a minimum wage job. My last job interview had the boss explaining to me how in one week I could earn $5,000 commission with residuals for life selling to one person. There is no reason why these Walmart employees who are complaining about low hours each week can't be spending their down time bettering themselves with added skil ...


Hero tag for you.
img835.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-18 07:22:37 PM

DrewCurtisJr: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit.

Low prices are the main reason for Walmart's success, it is fine to blame Walmart for working conditions but if Walmart decides to pay workers more and some other retailer comes along and undercuts it in prices and wages where do you think people are going to shop?


Nice hypothetical question, but not to the point. When Walmart's business plan depends on their employees being on government assistance then they are not a viable business. That is not the case, however, as they can afford to pay living wages and still be comfortably profitable. They are gaming the system, and you and I, as taxpayers, are contributing to their more than comfortable profit margin. I personally don't feel happy about subsidizing the profit margins of Walmart and its stockholders.

If "some other retailer" can compete with Walmart and undercut their prices due to efficiency, then more power to them, that is competition in the free market, I just don't want to subsidize either Walmart or its competitors.
 
2012-11-18 07:24:22 PM

DrewCurtisJr: MelGoesOnTour: Is this REALLY a good thing?

The answer is, it depends IMHO. It's complex and Walmart, like most things, isn't all bad. Some small towns, rural areas, can't really support local businesses and the prices and selection at the stores on Main St. are very limiting. Walmarts are a regional destination and can provide a level of price and selection that just can't be matched by the locally owned mom & pops.

On the otheside Walmart has been notorious for insisting on offshoring production, fighting against workers organizing, and cutthroat effeciency (aka reducing headcount).


Looks to me we're kind of on the same page here when it comes to "reality". However, it IS the case that certain "Main Street" shops I have experience with were, in fact, robust enough to profit (even if only marginally) while serving the low income population they served. In short, things were in balance for a long time and sustainable before a WM moved in....and, generally, WM will move into an unincorporated part of the county fairly far from the populace anyway. In short, WM does what it can to maximize profits while pretending to serve the local community. And while they MAY offer employment to locals, WM will keep them at the same level they've always been at....at barely employed wages. The main difference is that when WM moves in, it becomes the "company store".*

*Tennessee Ernie would not approve
 
2012-11-18 07:24:37 PM

red5ish: If "some other retailer" can compete with Walmart and undercut their prices due to efficiency, then more power to them, that is competition in the free market, I just don't want to subsidize either Walmart or its competitors.


And when someone has a full time job and still gets food stamps we are subsidizing their employer.
 
2012-11-18 07:24:47 PM

coco ebert: tbhouston: People choose to work at Walmart for what ever reason..no one is forcing them...

As someone who studies labor markets, I can say that there really aren't that many options for "unskilled" or "low-skilled" jobs in this economy. Retailers have largely followed Wal-mart's lead and have increasingly relied on low-wage, part-time work that offers next to zero benefits. Simply telling workers, "oh well it's your fault you don't have a better job" is lazy and not grounded in empirical reality.


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-18 07:25:48 PM
I'm interested in what everyone currently biatching in this thread(both sides) thinks of shopping online instead of going to brick and mortar. Being that one can often find anything one wants online, and cheaper than at a physical store, with the added benefit of not having to employ some mouthbreathing baby factory. I mean, aside from groceries, which I have delivered, 90% of my purchases are online, and I have to assume most people buy a goodly amount of things online.

/also buy my smokes online
//tax free, sent to a p.o. box
 
2012-11-18 07:25:52 PM

mbillips: vegasj: Seattle Walmart worker Sara Gilbert said she had taken the decision to go on strike to protest the fact that she could only make around $14,000 dollars a year. Despite working as a customer service manager, she said, her family remained reliant on food stamps and other benefits. "I work full time at the richest company in the world," she said.

That is pretty sad.

full time, $14,000/yr as a manager...

and still must rely on food stamps & other benefits while working for the largest retailer in the world.

Something is wrong with that folks.

Yeah. "customer service manager" is probably a bogus title for "cashier."


It's not, they manage the cashiers, but it's the absolute bottom of the management totem pole. It's a shiatty job because you get all the blame for everything but almost no power to fix the problems.

Anyway, her math seems weird. Cashiering is $0.40 above minimum wage, and IIRC CSM is $0.60 above that. These numbers are company wide, and they just adjust them based on the minimum wage in the state you are in. The federal minimum wage is $7.50, so she ought to be making at least $8.50.

8.50 * 40 * 52 = $17680. This doesn't include holiday pay, which she would get 8 hours worth for every holiday they pay for (it's just based on average shift length, not how many hours you work on the holiday) so she should be making at least 18 grand a year. (Christmas, New Years, 4th of July, Thanksgiving... Maybe Easter? There is at least one more I'm forgetting.)

Also, there is some raise after 3 months, and a yearly raise, but it doesn't say how long she has worked there. Most stores also get some sort of quarterly performance bonus, but it may be that she hasn't worked there long enough for that or her store performs really terribly so they don't get one.

So for her to make only 14 grand a year, she is either not counting her massive tax return at the end of the year (if she makes that little, you know she is getting it all back) or is putting a lot towards 401(k), health insurance, etc. and not counting that as income. Or she is not getting full time hours even though she is full time, in which case she should call the corporate home office because they will be PISSED and get it fixed immediately for her.

/Used to work for Walmart
//Decided one day it just wasn't worth it and quit
///Don't regret it the slightest bit
 
2012-11-18 07:27:59 PM

Silly Jesus: WalMart is partially subsidizing people who would otherwise be a complete burden on the government. It's a positive.


Well, that's one way of looking at it. Or you could look at it as stealing from you, the taxpayer. Your view is conditional, in that it works on the condition that those employees couldn't find any other work. My view is absolute; Walmart is making increased profits by letting taxpayers pick up the difference.

I had a good laugh about "It's a positive." though.
 
2012-11-18 07:28:20 PM

Silly Jesus: They can demand it, and the company can say "no, go find another job."


they can and in the process just shoot themselves in the foot. Retailers more often than not are hurt by shooting themselves in the foot than anything else. Anyone with a brain could have told Ward's that being Sears 2 Electric Boogaloo was a bad idea long term, yet Ward's stuck with it, right into insolvency. Oh sure people will point to Walmart and Target and the like, but Ward's was having issues before those two showed up in enough locations that had a Ward's to be the source of the problem.

An example of retailer shooting themselves in the foot by not providing good employees because they refused to pay enough to have good ones was Tower Records. Despite their expansion and apparent success in many locations Tower Records had a hard time getting customers from local record stores. Reason being the local stores had people who knew tons about music, name a band they could rattle off ten more similar ones, no matter how obscure the band you named was. Tower never had that, because they never saw a point to it and thus never bothered to pay enough to get such people working at Tower. Sure Tower chugged along but there was lots of sales they weren't getting cause they were too cheap to spend a few bucks an hour more per employee to get good employees. Then when their pricing caught up with them, and it should be noted Tower couldn't even bother to have better prices than local record stores in many cases, they were boned. Tower could still be around if they had better employees and adjusted their prices, but just adjusting their prices wouldn't have kept them around for long.
 
2012-11-18 07:28:31 PM

bronyaur1: coco ebert: tbhouston: People choose to work at Walmart for what ever reason..no one is forcing them...

As someone who studies labor markets, I can say that there really aren't that many options for "unskilled" or "low-skilled" jobs in this economy. Retailers have largely followed Wal-mart's lead and have increasingly relied on low-wage, part-time work that offers next to zero benefits. Simply telling workers, "oh well it's your fault you don't have a better job" is lazy and not grounded in empirical reality.

[media.tumblr.com image 340x480]



No, it would be grounded in empirical reality, as evidenced by coco ebert. If, in fact, there aren't many option for low-skilled labor, then Walmart and others are doing a good job of managing the workforce by employing those too lazy, stupid, or uneducated to get a better skillset.
 
2012-11-18 07:31:34 PM

clowncar on fire: No. Finish the post. Kids don't really need healthcare coverage because when you live with your parents it's already covered.


What? Where do kids get free medical care for living with their parents?

Do you mean Medicaid?
 
2012-11-18 07:32:04 PM

red5ish: Nice hypothetical question, but not to the point. When Walmart's business plan depends on their employees being on government assistance then they are not a viable business.


Walmart's business plan is to pay as low as it can get away within the current job market. The fact that this amount is so low that many employees also qualify for government assistance is irrelevant.
 
2012-11-18 07:32:05 PM
WTF?

Could Sara Gilbert, the quoted Walmart employee, also be the Sara Gilbert who wrote "The Story of Walmart" book - all 48 pages? 

She's written some other "The Story of..." titles, too; McDonald's, Google, and several sports teams.

Supplemental income, or at least the hope for some?
 
2012-11-18 07:32:28 PM

vegasj: full time, $14,000/yr as a manager...

and still must rely on food stamps & other benefits while working for the largest retailer in the world.

Something is wrong with that folks.


Yeah. What's wrong is that federal min wage is, what, $7.25/hr? So: 7.25 * 40 * 52 = $15,080. And that's not counting OT, or holiday pay. So, that's off by a grand or two.

Oh, and how crappy of a "manager" are you if you make farking minimum wage!?!?!

//yeah, yeah 'full time' isn't always 40 hours per week. Still
 
2012-11-18 07:34:05 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: They can demand it, and the company can say "no, go find another job."

they can and in the process just shoot themselves in the foot. Retailers more often than not are hurt by shooting themselves in the foot than anything else. Anyone with a brain could have told Ward's that being Sears 2 Electric Boogaloo was a bad idea long term, yet Ward's stuck with it, right into insolvency. Oh sure people will point to Walmart and Target and the like, but Ward's was having issues before those two showed up in enough locations that had a Ward's to be the source of the problem.

An example of retailer shooting themselves in the foot by not providing good employees because they refused to pay enough to have good ones was Tower Records. Despite their expansion and apparent success in many locations Tower Records had a hard time getting customers from local record stores. Reason being the local stores had people who knew tons about music, name a band they could rattle off ten more similar ones, no matter how obscure the band you named was. Tower never had that, because they never saw a point to it and thus never bothered to pay enough to get such people working at Tower. Sure Tower chugged along but there was lots of sales they weren't getting cause they were too cheap to spend a few bucks an hour more per employee to get good employees. Then when their pricing caught up with them, and it should be noted Tower couldn't even bother to have better prices than local record stores in many cases, they were boned. Tower could still be around if they had better employees and adjusted their prices, but just adjusting their prices wouldn't have kept them around for long.


The key difference here being these are commodity items, not items that might have some sort of intrinsic value or necessary knowledge. Even worse is that Walmart manages to convince companies to give them products with less features that they advertise as being comparable.
 
2012-11-18 07:34:20 PM

WhyteRaven74: Tower could still be around if they had better employees and adjusted their prices, but just adjusting their prices wouldn't have kept them around for long.


I think iTunes killed Tower records.
 
2012-11-18 07:34:29 PM

Silly Jesus: I fail to see what this has to do with present day Wal*Mart.


Hormel had revenues going in the toilet, and still took care of their employees. They set up a policy whereby anyone to be laid off would have a year to find other work. A policy they never used. The people that ran Hormel realized that while it would deplete their cash reserves those cash reserves don't mean much if they don't do what they can to at least not hurt the economy. Every person laid off would be one more person without income with which to buy stuff. Each person laid off would be a reduction in demand at a time when the economy really didn't need that.
 
2012-11-18 07:36:12 PM

jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: WhyteRaven74: chiett: No one should have the right to tell someone (except by law) how to run their business.

so employees have no power and should be thankful for being treated like crap?

This is what conservatives believe.

No, you leave. If enough people decide that it's a poorly run business, they will be forced to change or go out of business. That tipping point hasn't been reached yet.

And in reality that is how it works which is why there is no need nor has there ever been a need for labor laws to protect workers.

So the workers aren't voluntarily there? Interdasting.

You are either ignoring my point or you don't understand it.

In theory "just quit" works. In reality it is much more complicated than that and that method led to horrible working conditions and wages for unskilled workers that could only support a horrible quality of life.

With only a cursory understanding of history you would know "if enough people quit the problem fixes itself" sounds good in theory but has proven over and over again not to work.

Are you this ignorant or are you intellectually dishonest.


I was simply missing your point.

So your argument is if I run a business and advertise the jobs at 10/hour, but I cannot get anyone to work for that price, I won't raise the wages until I can obtain workers?

Also, the general workforce is not welfare. You and others here seem to be equating the two. Some people have nothing valuable to offer the market / employers. There exist people of little or no value to the labor force. You, and others, seem to be arguing that employers should shoulder the burden of providing what would amount to welfare to these essentially worthless (labor wise) people. I don't think that that should fall on the shoulders of business owners as a whole. They pay what the job is worth to them and people either accept the terms or they don't.
 
2012-11-18 07:37:35 PM

HempHead: clowncar on fire: No. Finish the post. Kids don't really need healthcare coverage because when you live with your parents it's already covered.

What? Where do kids get free medical care for living with their parents?

Do you mean Medicaid?


Last I checked- lot's of parents make sure those little rascals were covered due to their annoying habit of breaking things or getting sick. Seems this coverage was recently extended up until the age of 26 or so.

I guess if the kid was 18 or over and had been given the boot by mom and dad, they might need coverage. Judging from the tiny sample i know about via my daughter, most of the afternoon employees are still living at home with their folks and presumeably aren't required to cover their own expenses on a $100 a week part time job.
 
2012-11-18 07:37:48 PM

red5ish: DrewCurtisJr: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit.

Low prices are the main reason for Walmart's success, it is fine to blame Walmart for working conditions but if Walmart decides to pay workers more and some other retailer comes along and undercuts it in prices and wages where do you think people are going to shop?

Nice hypothetical question, but not to the point. When Walmart's business plan depends on their employees being on government assistance then they are not a viable business. That is not the case, however, as they can afford to pay living wages and still be comfortably profitable. They are gaming the system, and you and I, as taxpayers, are contributing to their more than comfortable profit margin. I personally don't feel happy about subsidizing the profit margins of Walmart and its stockholders.

If "some other retailer" can compete with Walmart and undercut their prices due to efficiency, then more power to them, that is competition in the free market, I just don't want to subsidize either Walmart or its competitors.


Have you given thought to the fact that your real problem may be with our welfare system rather than Wal*Mart?
 
2012-11-18 07:38:27 PM

fredklein: Oh, and how crappy of a "manager" are you if you make farking minimum wage!?!?!


I assume this is like my Executive Director of Personal Assistance, who I pay $9/hour and sometimes buy a sammich.
 
2012-11-18 07:38:55 PM

fredklein: vegasj: full time, $14,000/yr as a manager...

and still must rely on food stamps & other benefits while working for the largest retailer in the world.

Something is wrong with that folks.

Yeah. What's wrong is that federal min wage is, what, $7.25/hr? So: 7.25 * 40 * 52 = $15,080. And that's not counting OT, or holiday pay. So, that's off by a grand or two.

Oh, and how crappy of a "manager" are you if you make farking minimum wage!?!?!

//yeah, yeah 'full time' isn't always 40 hours per week. Still


To be fair to our quoted genius, the standard practice is to give employees 32 hours/week. So, if the idiot is making $14K/year, that'd get down to:

$14,000/52 weeks = $269/week
$269/32 hours = $8.41/hour

So, said dolt is making almost a dollar/hour more than minimum wage and is complaining.
 
2012-11-18 07:39:11 PM

HempHead: I think iTunes killed Tower records.


That gets into the whole price thing.

ronaprhys: Even worse is that Walmart manages to convince companies to give them products with less features that they advertise as being comparable.


very true
 
2012-11-18 07:40:39 PM

red5ish: Silly Jesus: WalMart is partially subsidizing people who would otherwise be a complete burden on the government. It's a positive.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Or you could look at it as stealing from you, the taxpayer. Your view is conditional, in that it works on the condition that those employees couldn't find any other work. My view is absolute; Walmart is making increased profits by letting taxpayers pick up the difference.

I had a good laugh about "It's a positive." though.


Perhaps our system of picking up the difference of worthless people is what needs to change.
 
2012-11-18 07:40:57 PM

Popcorn Johnny: WhyteRaven74: so you're saying people have no right to demand to be treated well? also your assumption is rather flawed....

So take a shiatty paying job with shiatty benefits and then biatch about it? Guess that's the American way these days.


Not everyone has a story about how they are so smart and wonderful they doubled their salary, paid off all their debt, traded in the cavalier for a Lamborghini and bought a five bedroom house all in the course of a year simply because they decided to quit being lazy. Some people because of reasons they can, and some for reasons they can't control, live somewhere that this just can't happen. There aren't a lot of options for people in my town that aren't skilled labor. You'd have to drive a considerable distance to go to school. Once you do start working somewhere like Walmart, maybe you do feel like you deserve treated better. Maybe you do realize that they do need you and your coworkers. They can't just fill every job with random warm bodies. Maybe most, but not all.

God forbid you ever have to support your family working at a place like this. People can stand up for themselves, and Walmart can fire them. People can ask for more pay, and the company can say no. Just like Walmart can fire them whenever they want. It's not always as easy on the people in the story as it sounds to you sitting behind your keyboard and computer screen.
 
2012-11-18 07:41:26 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: I fail to see what this has to do with present day Wal*Mart.

Hormel had revenues going in the toilet, and still took care of their employees. They set up a policy whereby anyone to be laid off would have a year to find other work. A policy they never used. The people that ran Hormel realized that while it would deplete their cash reserves those cash reserves don't mean much if they don't do what they can to at least not hurt the economy. Every person laid off would be one more person without income with which to buy stuff. Each person laid off would be a reduction in demand at a time when the economy really didn't need that. gambled big time and got lucky due to a war coming up that drove massive demand for an almost food-like product.


Fixed that for reality
 
2012-11-18 07:41:40 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: They can demand it, and the company can say "no, go find another job."

they can and in the process just shoot themselves in the foot. Retailers more often than not are hurt by shooting themselves in the foot than anything else. Anyone with a brain could have told Ward's that being Sears 2 Electric Boogaloo was a bad idea long term, yet Ward's stuck with it, right into insolvency. Oh sure people will point to Walmart and Target and the like, but Ward's was having issues before those two showed up in enough locations that had a Ward's to be the source of the problem.

An example of retailer shooting themselves in the foot by not providing good employees because they refused to pay enough to have good ones was Tower Records. Despite their expansion and apparent success in many locations Tower Records had a hard time getting customers from local record stores. Reason being the local stores had people who knew tons about music, name a band they could rattle off ten more similar ones, no matter how obscure the band you named was. Tower never had that, because they never saw a point to it and thus never bothered to pay enough to get such people working at Tower. Sure Tower chugged along but there was lots of sales they weren't getting cause they were too cheap to spend a few bucks an hour more per employee to get good employees. Then when their pricing caught up with them, and it should be noted Tower couldn't even bother to have better prices than local record stores in many cases, they were boned. Tower could still be around if they had better employees and adjusted their prices, but just adjusting their prices wouldn't have kept them around for long.


That's all well and good, but Wal*Mart seems to be doing just fine with their current business practices.
 
2012-11-18 07:42:25 PM
FTFA: At least 30 workers from six different Seattle-area Walmarts have gone on strike

From Wiki: The company is the world's third largest public corporation, according to the Fortune Global 500 list in 2012. It is also the biggest private employer in the world with over two million employees, and is the largest retailer in the world.

30 strikers. That'll stop them.
 
2012-11-18 07:42:36 PM

Silly Jesus: Also, the general workforce is not welfare. You and others here seem to be equating the two. Some people have nothing valuable to offer the market / employers. There exist people of little or no value to the labor force. You, and others, seem to be arguing that employers should shoulder the burden of providing what would amount to welfare to these essentially worthless (labor wise) people.


No, I am saying that if a company needs an employee and that employee is employed full time but that employee earns so little in wages that the employee qualifies for government assistance in order to eat then our society is subsidizing that company and giving it a competitive advantage in it's industry, and that is wrong.
 
2012-11-18 07:43:15 PM

DrewCurtisJr: red5ish: Nice hypothetical question, but not to the point. When Walmart's business plan depends on their employees being on government assistance then they are not a viable business.

Walmart's business plan is to pay as low as it can get away within the current job market. The fact that this amount is so low that many employees also qualify for government assistance is irrelevant.


How many hundreds of millions of dollars does Walmart cost taxpayers in government assistance to their employees each year? This is not irrelevant; it goes directly to my argument that Walmart's business model is government subsidized.
 
2012-11-18 07:43:38 PM

IlGreven: dickfreckle: Anyway, I'm proud of the workers for even planning a walk-out, but at the same time, they have to work or starve. Wal-Mart knows they have this leverage, unless all the employees planning to walk out have spouses that can support them.

...when it gets to the point that you'd rather starve than work at Wal-Mart, they lose the leverage.


Your comment is not rational. The picketers want to work at Wal*Mart, voiding your argument. They just want to work at Wal*Mart on better terms than they currently have. Further, even people who detest Wal*Mart would prefer to work at Wal*Mart than to actually starve. Not one person on earth would rather starve than to do anything. Thus, following something resembling logic, I would have to conclude that, according to the final bit of fantasy in your short comment, Walmart can never lose the advantage.

That is incorrect too, but not for the reasons you offered here. I know that you can write better than this. Please pause a moment and type in something that is logical, rational, sane and - brilliant. Please. It is in you to do so.
 
2012-11-18 07:44:31 PM

WhyteRaven74: Interestingly Costco spends more on labor than Sam's Club does, yet their prices aren't noticablly different. And, at least this was the case a few years ago, per square foot of retail space Costco was more profitable than Sam's Club. Also suppliers find Costco far less a pain the ass to deal with than Walmart.


That is a good point but I don't think the stores serve the same demographic. The Costco by my house has $80k Mercedes on display in the entrance. I only walked through a Sam's Club once and it seemed to be focused more on items for the middle income consumer. I've only been in Sam's once so I may be mistaken.
 
2012-11-18 07:45:08 PM

red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit. Taxpayers subsidize their business model. I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.


Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?
 
2012-11-18 07:46:53 PM

BarkingUnicorn: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit. Taxpayers subsidize their business model. I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.

Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?


Enough so that their full time employees don't need food stamps for starters.
 
2012-11-18 07:48:05 PM

Silly Jesus: Have you given thought to the fact that your real problem may be with our welfare system rather than Wal*Mart?


Yes, I did think about that. I came to the conclusion, and so will you, that without government assistance Walmart's employees would be so impoverished they would be homeless or starving or both, so the problem goes back to Walmart's business practices.
 
2012-11-18 07:48:33 PM
"Seattle Walmart worker Sara Gilbert said she had taken the decision to go on strike to protest the fact that she could only make around $14,000 dollars a year. Despite working as a customer service manager, she said, her family remained reliant on food stamps and other benefits. "I work full time at the richest company in the world," she said."

Minimum wage in Washington State is $9.04 per hour. If she is actually working full-time, she has to be making at least $18,803 per year. And that's if she's only making the same wage as a manager as the guy cleaning the toilets.
 
2012-11-18 07:48:36 PM

jst3p: Silly Jesus: Also, the general workforce is not welfare. You and others here seem to be equating the two. Some people have nothing valuable to offer the market / employers. There exist people of little or no value to the labor force. You, and others, seem to be arguing that employers should shoulder the burden of providing what would amount to welfare to these essentially worthless (labor wise) people.

No, I am saying that if a company needs an employee and that employee is employed full time but that employee earns so little in wages that the employee qualifies for government assistance in order to eat then our society is subsidizing that company and giving it a competitive advantage in it's industry, and that is wrong.


I agree. I shouldn't have to buy someone food because they are too dumb / lazy / unskilled to do anything other than work at Wal*Mart.

Let's say that between the Wal*Mart pay and the government a person makes $25,000 a year.

Let's say that I have enough skills to make $25,000 a year all on my own.

Who's the shiatbag here? Wal*Mart? The unskilled moron? The government?

This person is full of so much fail that the government has to pick up 40% of their living expenses.
 
2012-11-18 07:48:56 PM

BarkingUnicorn: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit. Taxpayers subsidize their business model. I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.

Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?


Those figures tell me it's obvious that Walmart needs to sack about 500,000 employees in order to stay competitive.
 
2012-11-18 07:49:03 PM
On a lot of shiat I think unions go to far, but shiat like this shows they are needed.

They routinely break labor laws, and a lot of their use of "part time" employees is just to get around existing laws. Unfortunately most of the people they are dicking over don't have the knowledge to fight them, or the money to fall back on when they are shiat canned for complaining.
 
2012-11-18 07:49:08 PM

DrewCurtisJr: red5ish: Nice hypothetical question, but not to the point. When Walmart's business plan depends on their employees being on government assistance then they are not a viable business.

Walmart's business plan is to pay as low as it can get away within the current job market. The fact that this amount is so low that many employees also qualify for government assistance is irrelevant.


Exactly.
And the day that Wal*Mart doesn't have several hundred applicants for every job offered, when everyone knows what that pay is, is the day that they will start to raise their wages.
I don't see that day in the near future.
 
2012-11-18 07:49:12 PM

ronaprhys: So, said dolt is making almost a dollar/hour more than minimum wage and is complaining.


Given her annual income, she should be complaining. A lot.

Silly Jesus: Have you given thought to the fact that your real problem may be with our welfare system rather than Wal*Mart?


So the problem is people can get food stamps not that walmart pays so little many employees need them. Gotcha.
 
2012-11-18 07:50:52 PM

red5ish: How many hundreds of millions of dollars does Walmart cost taxpayers in government assistance to their employees each year? This is not irrelevant; it goes directly to my argument that Walmart's business model is government subsidized.


I'm saying it is irrelevant because even if the government didn't subsidize the healthcare and food stamps of its employees the wages would be the same, the employees would just be more miserable. The wages are more of a reflection of the conditions of the labor market, when a Walmart opens 5k people apply for 400 positions. Without any leverage wages aren't going to improve.
 
Displayed 50 of 635 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report