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  
•       •       •

18438 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-18 12:39:27 PM  
Good for you employees.
/Will not be doing any Christmas shopping at Walmart anyway
 
2012-11-18 12:46:44 PM  
People choose to work at Walmart for what ever reason..no one is forcing them...
 
2012-11-18 12:49:31 PM  

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


Everyone who works at Walmart really must love their job then, right?
 
2012-11-18 12:53:27 PM  
Good for them.
 
2012-11-18 12:57:09 PM  

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

Everyone who works at Walmart really must love their job then, right?


Obviously. Why else would they continue working there, instead of taking the first stable mucking job that came available?
 
2012-11-18 12:59:31 PM  

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

Everyone who works at Walmart really must love their job then, right?

Obviously. Why else would they continue working there, instead of taking the first stable mucking job that came available?


Obviously. Great, stable, high paying jobs for those qualified to work at Walmart are raining like a plague upon this nation.
 
2012-11-18 01:00:22 PM  

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


Yeah, because people who work at Walmart have all these options just laid out in front of them.
 
2012-11-18 01:07:43 PM  

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

Yeah, because people who work at Walmart have all these options just laid out in front of them.


Didn't you realize that they PICKED Walmart?
 
2012-11-18 02:46:41 PM  
And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.
 
2012-11-18 02:53:24 PM  

basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.


wal-mart's problem is that they've started to realize that they cannot actually fire their entire work force without it affecting their bottom line. turns out that even the min wage slaves play an important part in the business cycle.
 
2012-11-18 03:14:38 PM  
Awesome. Go for it, workers!
 
2012-11-18 03:17:07 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:22:00 PM  

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


Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?

Wal-Mart is flat-out exploitative, and if you think otherwise, you're dreaming.
 
2012-11-18 03:33:10 PM  

coco ebert:

Simply telling workers, "oh well it's your fault you don't have a better job" is lazy and not grounded in empirical reality.


But it IS funny
 
2012-11-18 03:37:13 PM  

Bontesla: Good for you employees.
/Will not be doing any Christmas shopping at Walmart anyway


I had to go there recently because it was the only store open that late, and I desperately needed something.

I'm not trying to pull a hipster dislike of the store; I genuinely despise going there and feel like I'm at the cusp of a heart attack each minute I'm there. Crotchfruit everywhere, muffin-tops, women beating their children...

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:44:08 PM  
So, corporations upper management can stand united when it comes to deciding employee benefits, but employees can't stand united to decide employee benefits?
 
2012-11-18 03:48:10 PM  

Weaver95: basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.

wal-mart's problem is that they've started to realize that they cannot actually fire their entire work force without it affecting their bottom line. turns out that even the min wage slaves play an important part in the business cycle.


Working for WalMart, other than management (and even them sometimes), is not rocket science, and it doesn't take that long to get an employee up to speed.
 
2012-11-18 03:53:42 PM  

dickfreckle: Bontesla: Good for you employees.
/Will not be doing any Christmas shopping at Walmart anyway

I had to go there recently because it was the only store open that late, and I desperately needed something.

I'm not trying to pull a hipster dislike of the store; I genuinely despise going there and feel like I'm at the cusp of a heart attack each minute I'm there. Crotchfruit everywhere, muffin-tops, women beating their children...

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.


Did you go to that monstrosity they erected by the St. Thomas neighborhood?
 
2012-11-18 03:54:17 PM  

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

Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?

Wal-Mart is flat-out exploitative, and if you think otherwise, you're dreaming.


We had a huge debate here in New Orleans regarding Wal-Mart. The point of contention was that it would put the mom 'n pops up and down Magazine St. out of business. Thing is, that didn't actually happen. However, the level of service is far higher, which is why we all still shop at those places. I don't care that my trip will cost an extra $5 or so. The peace of mind is worth paying for. No, I am not even close to wealthy.

I love my local ACE store, even though they're a chain. It doesn't matter if a hammer is $2 more than the Chinese one at Wal-Mart...they take the time to help me, and all the elderly black ladies call me "dawlin.'" Always leave the store with a smile on my face, as opposed to risking a homicide charge whenever I go to Wal-Mart. You can't put a price on an intangible like that.
 
2012-11-18 03:54:17 PM  

One Bad Apple: coco ebert:

Simply telling workers, "oh well it's your fault you don't have a better job" is lazy and not grounded in empirical reality.

But it IS funny


Really? I don't say that out of self-righteousness, because sometimes funny is just funny, I just am not getting the humor angle to it.
 
2012-11-18 03:55:31 PM  

coco ebert: Simply telling workers, "oh well it's your fault you don't have a better job" is lazy and not grounded in empirical reality.


But it is incredibly Libertarian.
 
2012-11-18 03:59:59 PM  

coco ebert: Did you go to that monstrosity they erected by the St. Thomas neighborhood?


Yup. It's widely regarded as the worst Wal-Mart in the world.

And it is.

But since Katrina, everything past Canal St. closes (there used to be plenty of 24 hour stores, but oh well). I almost went to that Rouse's in the CBD we talked about a month or so ago, but the Wally World was closer. I do live next to a gas station that's open all night, but they don't sell beer. They do sell pipes and screens, but no beer.

Point is, I can walk to Wal-Mart in about 15 minutes (think I told you I recently moved to the Irish Channel). I ride a motorcycle, so driving to Rouse's is out of the question after the first beer, which of course is when I want more.

Who in New Orleans doesn't sell beer?
 
2012-11-18 04:09:29 PM  

basemetal: Weaver95: basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.

wal-mart's problem is that they've started to realize that they cannot actually fire their entire work force without it affecting their bottom line. turns out that even the min wage slaves play an important part in the business cycle.

Working for WalMart, other than management (and even them sometimes), is not rocket science, and it doesn't take that long to get an employee up to speed.


it costs more than most people realize. not merely in terms of training but in terms of lost revenue, lost consumer confidence and time.
 
2012-11-18 04:18:59 PM  
I haven't bought anything on black friday in 4 or 5 years. WHO CARES!
 
2012-11-18 04:22:01 PM  
As the greatest philosopher, politician, businessman, and video game player to ever walk this Earth, you should take me seriously when I say that Wal-Mart is the highest form of art to ever exist.
 
2012-11-18 04:23:12 PM  
I'm stuck working at my temp call-center job on Friday, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...
 
2012-11-18 04:23:44 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-18 04:25:17 PM  

Weaver95: basemetal: Weaver95: basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.

wal-mart's problem is that they've started to realize that they cannot actually fire their entire work force without it affecting their bottom line. turns out that even the min wage slaves play an important part in the business cycle.

Working for WalMart, other than management (and even them sometimes), is not rocket science, and it doesn't take that long to get an employee up to speed.

it costs more than most people realize. not merely in terms of training but in terms of lost revenue, lost consumer confidence and time.


Not to mention that actually staffing a new position is done by people in management positions, which takes up their time at their salaries. It's expensive to replace even a Wal-Mart Greeter.

Regarding this strike, my thought is that it's going to be a net-negative for labour in general. Not because it's a bad thing that they're doing - IMO, it's not - but because Wal-Mart is going to win, which will set a precedent going forward in future labour actions. Things aren't going to improve until enough people have been directly impacted by the changing business climate and realize how dangerous it is becoming.
 
2012-11-18 04:25:19 PM  
WalkoutMart
 
2012-11-18 04:25:21 PM  

basemetal: Weaver95: basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.

wal-mart's problem is that they've started to realize that they cannot actually fire their entire work force without it affecting their bottom line. turns out that even the min wage slaves play an important part in the business cycle.

Working for WalMart, other than management (and even them sometimes), is not rocket science, and it doesn't take that long to get an employee up to speed.


The union knows that, and that's why they're not doing a full-out strike. They're doing brief, targeted walkouts, which bleeds Wal-Mart, but doesn't get to the point where Wal-Mart would save money by firing the workers and hiring new ones.

If the Hostess unions had been as smart, you might still be able to buy Twinkies (probably not; that company was so mismanaged and overleveraged that labor problems were the least of it).
 
2012-11-18 04:25:22 PM  
Monday's headline "Walmart training 30 new employees"

/Every Walmart I've shopped in regularly, has had the same people there for years.

/Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK
 
2012-11-18 04:27:17 PM  
i turned down a job at Best Buy cause unemployment pays more.
 
2012-11-18 04:28:50 PM  
Online black friday shopping is so much better.
 
2012-11-18 04:30:47 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.


Sadly in this labor market not all of the people working at Walmartare "unskilled" or "low-skilled" workers. The simple truth is that sometimes we don't have much of a choice in where we work. Despite being educated several times in my life I've just had to take the first job that came along. This has more to do with a bad attitude towards authority in my younger days than my actual skill level.
 
2012-11-18 04:30:55 PM  

Mike_LowELL: As the greatest philosopher, politician, businessman, and video game player to ever walk this Earth, you should take me seriously when I say that Wal-Mart is the highest form of art to ever exist.


No, sir, you are. YOU. ARE.
 
2012-11-18 04:31:02 PM  
Fark WalMart. Welcome to your first day on the job, here's a packet telling you how to apply for TANF and WIC because the Walton heirs need more Gulfstreams.
 
2012-11-18 04:31:03 PM  

hbk72777: Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK


Its not a religious holiday, you know.

There's nothing in the Bible that says "And verily did Jesus feast upon the turkeys and stuffing and mashed potatoes and pie, then get drunk and watch football. So sayeth The Lord. Amen".
 
2012-11-18 04:32:08 PM  
The central story of the United States is the idea that if you work hard, sacrifice, delay gratification, save and live frugally, in the end you will get ahead and your children will have an opportunity at a better life. Wal Mart, and other stores of their ilk, make a mockery of that ideal by having full-time employees still on public assistance. What is popularly railed-against as lazy people taking advantage of the system is often more a form of corporate welfare than one that benefits the individuals collecting the checks/food stamps/WIC vouchers, etc.
 
2012-11-18 04:33:44 PM  
I don't like this idea, because soon we will hear in the news of "Walmart scabs".

And Walmart scabs sound itchy and infectious if you pick them.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:56 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: The central story of the United States is the idea that if you work hard, sacrifice, delay gratification, save and live frugally, in the end you will get ahead and your children will have an opportunity at a better life. Wal Mart, and other stores of their ilk, make a mockery of that ideal by having full-time employees still on public assistance. What is popularly railed-against as lazy people taking advantage of the system is often more a form of corporate welfare than one that benefits the individuals collecting the checks/food stamps/WIC vouchers, etc.


Maybe its the labor market saying "there are too many workers"? I mean, if an employer can offer $x/hr and someone is willing to take it, that fact must have some meaning other than "the employer is evil".
 
2012-11-18 04:35:03 PM  

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


You sound Democrat.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:17 PM  
I'm about to go get some shopping done at Wal-Mart so I'm getting a kick out of these replies. Also, fark unions.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:27 PM  

mbillips: basemetal: Weaver95: basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.

wal-mart's problem is that they've started to realize that they cannot actually fire their entire work force without it affecting their bottom line. turns out that even the min wage slaves play an important part in the business cycle.

Working for WalMart, other than management (and even them sometimes), is not rocket science, and it doesn't take that long to get an employee up to speed.

The union knows that, and that's why they're not doing a full-out strike. They're doing brief, targeted walkouts, which bleeds Wal-Mart, but doesn't get to the point where Wal-Mart would save money by firing the workers and hiring new ones.

If the Hostess unions had been as smart, you might still be able to buy Twinkies (probably not; that company was so mismanaged and overleveraged that labor problems were the least of it).


You can still buy twinkies.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:33 PM  

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

Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?

Wal-Mart is flat-out exploitative, and if you think otherwise, you're dreaming.


I'm right here with ya... just wanted to say I prefer predatory as a descriptor. It says all that and more.
 
2012-11-18 04:36:26 PM  

hbk72777: Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK


I honestly can't think of a single Jewish family I know that doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving, and I am a practicing Jew.
 
GBB
2012-11-18 04:37:11 PM  
TFA: Seattle Walmart worker Sara Gilbert said ...

t2.gstatic.com

Really?? No one??
 
2012-11-18 04:37:25 PM  
President Obama last seen preparing his fiddle.


/ I keed, I keed
 
2012-11-18 04:37:31 PM  
Oh NOOOEZZZZZZ!

WHERE WILL I GO TO BUY CHEAP CHINESE shiat NOW!!!!!?????

WHERE...WHERE...WHERE!!!!!??????

Wait a minute.....

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Nevermind.
 
2012-11-18 04:38:38 PM  

LovingTeacher: 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.

Sadly in this labor market not all of the people working at Walmartare "unskilled" or "low-skilled" workers. The simple truth is that sometimes we don't have much of a choice in where we work. Despite being educated several times in my life I've just had to take the first job that came along. This has more to do with a bad attitude towards authority in my younger days than my actual skill level.


Absolutely. By the way the reason I put quotations around those terms is precisely to question how we use them. There are definitely overqualified people taking those positions but there's also an issue of us denigrating that type of work.
 
2012-11-18 04:40:16 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: The central story of the United States is the idea that if you work hard, sacrifice, delay gratification, save and live frugally, in the end you will get ahead and your children will have an opportunity at a better life. Wal Mart, and other stores of their ilk, make a mockery of that ideal by having full-time employees still on public assistance. What is popularly railed-against as lazy people taking advantage of the system is often more a form of corporate welfare than one that benefits the individuals collecting the checks/food stamps/WIC vouchers, etc.

That story is largely bullshiat, except when a) there was a frontier and b) the government stepped in to create opportunity between 1945 and 1980. Farmers and factory workers between 1870 and 1940 had it WAY worse than Wal-Mart employees today.
 
2012-11-18 04:40:59 PM  
tbhouston
People choose to work at Walmart for what ever reason..no one is forcing them...

except for the police who will throw them out of their house and board it up if they don't, and places with plenty of food that demand these strange green slips of paper before they'll give any of it
 
2012-11-18 04:41:56 PM  
Good. As an actual libertarian (note the small L), labor has just as much of a right to organize as capital. Free market and all that.
 
2012-11-18 04:42:21 PM  
So, instead of making their big scene during black Friday when the stores, as planned, they are going to start early, meaning that they'll be fired by Wednesday and not have to worry about striking on Black Friday.

Honestly, if you don't like the way your company treats you, find another job. Staying there and thinking that you can change it from the inside is no different than idiot women who stay with their abusive husbands thinking that they can change them.
 
2012-11-18 04:42:51 PM  
One of the guys from the Merita bakery picket line came in the shop yesterday and asked if we were hiring, my apprentice asked him if he knew how to make kerfing (the one apprentice job she truly loathes) he looked at her blankly so she sighed and shooed him out the door, by the end of the day 3 more came in, all (unfortunately for my poor abused underling) had no idea what kerfing was.

/128 people lost their jobs when that plant closed
//The local Wally worlds won't have much problem replacing any who walk off
//my apprentice is grumbling about how I am making her work thanksgiving, she has to help cook the turkey then play fiddle in the after dinner jam session
 
2012-11-18 04:43:03 PM  
I predict that it will soon be even harder to spot a helpful employee in a WalMart store.

In my experience, in addition to occupying the locations of old K-mart stores, WalMart stores have this in common with the aged chain: if you look at an employee, they disappear.

They will happly stock shelves or stand around or whatever it is that employees do when they are not working, but the moment you have a question or have made a decision and need help getting something down from twenty feet over your head, they are nowhere to be found.

Soon they will not be waiting for you to decide to buy something. They will be gone.

There is something seriously quantum mechanical going on in the giant box retail trade. Is that an employee? Look and they will either disappear or turn out to be an employee who is serving somebody else and won't be free until they are done--at which time you will look again and they will be gone or else serving another employee.

It is impossible to get servce in a service economy. I can see why some nutters want to go back to a gold-based economy, but then it would be impossible to find any gold. Gold is too useful to sit around in vaults, so I favour a fiat currency which lets it get out and do something once in a while.
 
2012-11-18 04:43:26 PM  
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
2012-11-18 04:43:47 PM  

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

except for the police who will throw them out of their house and board it up if they don't, and places with plenty of food that demand these strange green slips of paper before they'll give any of it


Because the only employer is Walmart? No temp services, no restaurants or dry cleaners. No options at even self employment? Either work at Walmart or become homeless?
 
2012-11-18 04:44:44 PM  
Good for chaos.
 
2012-11-18 04:44:46 PM  
Sorry, I meant to say that they were serving another customer rather than another employee.

But the more I look at it, the more sense it makes the way I typed it.

Never mind.
 
2012-11-18 04:44:55 PM  
I don't care if the rest of the employees walk out on Friday. All i want to know is if Elvis will be working that day.

/he works at the Walmart near me.
//really he does.
///I've seen him, he looks the same.
 
2012-11-18 04:45:08 PM  

Great Janitor: Honestly, if you don't like the way your company treats you, find another job. Staying there and thinking that you can change it from the inside is no different than idiot women who stay with their abusive husbands thinking that they can change them.


^^^ This.

If you're at a company that treats you badly, do whatever you need to do to get out. Life is too short, and if the pay was good enough to justify it, you wouldn't feel like you needed to justify it anymore.
 
2012-11-18 04:45:35 PM  

jshine: hbk72777: Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK

Its not a religious holiday, you know.

There's nothing in the Bible that says "And verily did Jesus feast upon the turkeys and stuffing and mashed potatoes and pie, then get drunk and watch football. So sayeth The Lord. Amen".


www.shadowlocked.com
WAR ON CHRISTIANS™!!!
 
2012-11-18 04:45:52 PM  
Fine....go on strike...worked well for Hostess, Eastern Airlines, the auto manufacturers and countless other UNION shops. Yes, Wally world isn't union, but there are a lot of unions that want a piece of the walmart pie. In this Obama economy, I wouldn't be so quick to go on a strike. With 9+% unemployment, there are a LOT of people that would be willing to have that "low wage" job, even without benefits.
Yes, there have been downsizing due to the economy, but, you have to stop and ask yourself something.
Unless you are in high school, college, or are retired, you have to ask yourself something. Why are you only qualified to work a minimum wage job, (even if the economy was good)?
No one forces you to work at a particular job, quit, go somewhere else.
 
2012-11-18 04:47:43 PM  
14K for a manager is pretty farking low, seriously. And I'm sure that the workers get much less. Good for them, maybe their walk out will accomplish something.
 
2012-11-18 04:47:52 PM  
Last time someone tried this, WAL*MART closed the store rather than allow unions.

But they can't afford to close stores in 10 states and DC.

Go for it, workers! Stand up for your rights.
 
2012-11-18 04:47:56 PM  

p51d007: Fine....go on strike...worked well for Hostess, Eastern Airlines, the auto manufacturers and countless other UNION shops. Yes, Wally world isn't union, but there are a lot of unions that want a piece of the walmart pie. In this Obama economy, I wouldn't be so quick to go on a strike. With 9+% unemployment, there are a LOT of people that would be willing to have that "low wage" job, even without benefits.
Yes, there have been downsizing due to the economy, but, you have to stop and ask yourself something.
Unless you are in high school, college, or are retired, you have to ask yourself something. Why are you only qualified to work a minimum wage job, (even if the economy was good)?
No one forces you to work at a particular job, quit, go somewhere else.


You see, these two statements are directly at odds with each other.
 
2012-11-18 04:48:09 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: make a mockery of that ideal by having full-time employees still on public assistance.


yeah being in the military, married with a couple of kids sucks big time.
 
2012-11-18 04:48:18 PM  
jshine
Maybe its the labor market saying "there are too many workers"?

Well let's just get rid of a few million of them, right?

Or maybe the problem isn't the number of workers, but the fact that most of the gains in productivity over the past several decades have been taken as profit by the business-owning class, rather than used to actually benefit humanity.

Capitalism- what other system can actually have a "crisis of overproduction"? That's right! Everyone's homeless and starving because we're TOO PRODUCTIVE! (and so the market is saturated and it's hard for investors/owners/managers to get returns by increasing sales, so they start cutting costs- wages and employment- to keep quarterly profits going up) Who still thinks this is a good idea, ffs??
 
2012-11-18 04:48:20 PM  
"Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.
 
2012-11-18 04:48:46 PM  

brantgoose: There is something seriously quantum mechanical going on in the giant box retail trade. Is that an employee? Look and they will either disappear or turn out to be an employee who is serving somebody else and won't be free until they are done--at which time you will look again and they will be gone or else serving another employee.


You're right. I went ballistic on Best Buy after I went in to buy a tablet and, despite the store being nearly empty, could not find a single employee who wanted to open the case that day.

Drove to the mall and bought it from a store there. Best Buy sent me a $20 gift card by way of apology.
 
2012-11-18 04:49:41 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."

I would have thought those royalties from Rosanne would help keep her off food stamps
 
2012-11-18 04:49:51 PM  
Link Article from a Federal Way, WA, newspaper.

"Between 20 and 30" Walmart employees "from six Western Washington Walmart stores" gathered at one store for this rally.

Gonna have to step it up, people.

As for you free-marketers who say, "Well, the worker CHOSE Walmart," that's like saying a starving beggar chooses the guy who flips him just a penny. Fark you all.
 
2012-11-18 04:49:52 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.


Speaking as someone in one of those low-paying jobs, though admittedly I'm better off because of a narrow but much needed skill set withing this industry, the major box stores have been forever moving toward the wal-mart example, while at the same time trying to figure out why their turnover was so high. Recently the twits in charge of my current company hit on the idea of paying a decent wage and giving benefirts to full-time employees. After 3 years of biatching about wanting full time and benefits, I fianlly have a good paying 2nd job(not full time, though), that I don't want to stop(side benefits and such), I am in college for engineering, and I have my own start-up design business. They are just now going to full time for the majority of employees. And they wonder why I don't want to quit college and my other job.

/wait a minute, the job landscape will change
 
2012-11-18 04:50:27 PM  
I bet there are college students lined up to get some part time holiday work.
 
2012-11-18 04:50:49 PM  
Walmart sells ammo, that's enough reason for me to shop there.
 
2012-11-18 04:50:51 PM  

p51d007: No one forces you to work at a particular job, quit, go somewhere else


Why do you hate it when people innovate to better their lot?

mbillips: Farmers and factory workers between 1870 and 1940 had it WAY worse than Wal-Mart employees today.


People in 1870 had it bad, so let's cut everyone's pay to what people made in 1880!
 
2012-11-18 04:51:17 PM  

Great Janitor: So, instead of making their big scene during black Friday when the stores, as planned, they are going to start early, meaning that they'll be fired by Wednesday and not have to worry about striking on Black Friday.

Honestly, if you don't like the way your company treats you, find another job. Staying there and thinking that you can change it from the inside is no different than idiot women who stay with their abusive husbands thinking that they can change them.


Yep. Management is already on the phone to the next batch of applicants on the stack. Some stock boys will be given a crash course in register ops, the freshmeat will be consigned to dragging pallet jacks through the store at oh-fark-thirty in the morning but they will be ecstatic that they will be getting a paycheck.
 
2012-11-18 04:51:19 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: 14K for a manager is pretty farking low, seriously. And I'm sure that the workers get much less. Good for them, maybe their walk out will accomplish something.


My sister is a manager at a Claire's store and makes way the hell more than that. If she has management experience, why the hell is she at Walmart and not spending her time off applying for manager jobs at every other retail company in a 30 mile radius?
 
2012-11-18 04:51:20 PM  

Great Janitor: So, instead of making their big scene during black Friday when the stores, as planned, they are going to start early, meaning that they'll be fired by Wednesday and not have to worry about striking on Black Friday.

Honestly, if you don't like the way your company treats you, find another job. Staying there and thinking that you can change it from the inside is no different than idiot women who stay with their abusive husbands thinking that they can change them.


And this guy should know, he's a Great Janitor!
 
2012-11-18 04:51:21 PM  

PleaseHamletDon'tHurtEm: I'm stuck working at my temp call-center job on Friday, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...


I will be working at Walmart. I am far from stupid or unskilled. I have another part-time job and am a full-time student. I work at Walmart because I get health insurance and other benefits despite my telling Walmart that I'll only work a couple of evenings and one weekend day each week. Oh and I've never made minimum wage there, either.
 
2012-11-18 04:51:36 PM  

jshine: 404 page not found: jshine: hbk72777: Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK

Its not a religious holiday, you know.

There's nothing in the Bible that says "And verily did Jesus feast upon the turkeys and stuffing and mashed potatoes and pie, then get drunk and watch football. So sayeth The Lord. Amen".

[www.shadowlocked.com image 600x245]
WAR ON CHRISTIANS™!!!

[imageshack.us image 533x461]


That is glorious.
 
2012-11-18 04:52:00 PM  

Great Janitor: RanDomino: tbhouston
People choose to work at Walmart for what ever reason..no one is forcing them...

except for the police who will throw them out of their house and board it up if they don't, and places with plenty of food that demand these strange green slips of paper before they'll give any of it

Because the only employer is Walmart? No temp services, no restaurants or dry cleaners. No options at even self employment? Either work at Walmart or become homeless?


In a lot of rural communities, yeah. There are other employers, but the local retail economy, which typically has a fair amount of new hiring, consists of Wal-Mart and very little else.
 
2012-11-18 04:52:13 PM  

proteon: Good for chaos.


Let the Lord of Chaos rule?
 
2012-11-18 04:52:23 PM  

freewill: ^^^ This.

If you're at a company that treats you badly, do whatever you need to do to get out. Life is too short, and if the pay was good enough to justify it, you wouldn't feel like you needed to justify it anymore.



What happens when ALL the companies treat their employees badly?

Should a company merely be a profit centre at any cost or should profits be secondary to providing a good living to employees and excellent products and services to consumers?
 
2012-11-18 04:52:33 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Link Article from a Federal Way, WA, newspaper.

"Between 20 and 30" Walmart employees "from six Western Washington Walmart stores" gathered at one store for this rally.

Gonna have to step it up, people.

As for you free-marketers who say, "Well, the worker CHOSE Walmart," that's like saying a starving beggar chooses the guy who flips him just a penny. Fark you all.


They simultaneously believe that you can just up and get another job on a whim while there are hundreds of others waiting to fill that position for you. There's no way these can both be true.
 
2012-11-18 04:54:05 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 04:54:28 PM  
Great Janitor
Honestly, if you don't like the way your company treats you, find another job.

You sound "robotics graduate from Texas"y.

Because the only employer is Walmart? No temp services, no restaurants or dry cleaners. No options at even self employment? Either work at Walmart or become homeless?

Precarious workers have a wide selection of low-paying and dehumanizing jobs.


GranoblasticMan
You see, these two statements are directly at odds with each other.

The secret code is "Shut up and work harder, serf!"


deanayer
The unions drove the company into bankruptcy

The managers gave themselves 80% pay raises last year.
 
2012-11-18 04:54:44 PM  

GranoblasticMan: They simultaneously believe that you can just up and get another job on a whim while there are hundreds of others waiting to fill that position for you. There's no way these can both be true.


They are if your initials are F.Y.I.G.M.
 
2012-11-18 04:54:59 PM  
Strikers deserve the hero tag.
 
2012-11-18 04:55:12 PM  
Wal-Mart has over 2 million employees worldwide. I don't think a few hundred strikers are going to be missed.
 
2012-11-18 04:55:46 PM  

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.


Know how I know you've never read the details about unemployment?

/You aren't required to take a job that would net you less money than your unemployment checks.
 
2012-11-18 04:56:55 PM  
Most of the "big box" stores keep their employees down to 20 hours a week, so as not to pay full time benefits.

That also means I have to pay food stamps for people who would not need them otherwise, and every time I see a line at every register and 12--18 registers closed, I walk out, leaving the merchandise in the cart.

Doesn't do a damn bit of good but it makes me feel better.
 
2012-11-18 04:57:20 PM  

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

Everyone who works at Walmart really must love their job then, right?

Obviously. Why else would they continue working there, instead of taking the first stable mucking job that came available?

Obviously. Great, stable, high paying jobs for those qualified to work at Walmart are raining like a plague upon this nation.


If you are qualified to work at Walmart, I doubt there will any high paying jobs out there that share the same skill set.
 
2012-11-18 04:57:21 PM  

deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.


You sure about that?
 
2012-11-18 04:58:02 PM  

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

Everyone who works at Walmart really must love their job then, right?


Must love it enough to stay. But then, who in America love their jobs anyway. Fewer than you might believe. But they stay for their own reasons. Mind you, Wal*Mat is not a very fun place to work. I'd start looking for a better job a week after hiring on.
 
2012-11-18 04:58:08 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: p51d007: No one forces you to work at a particular job, quit, go somewhere else

Why do you hate it when people innovate to better their lot?

mbillips: Farmers and factory workers between 1870 and 1940 had it WAY worse than Wal-Mart employees today.

People in 1870 had it bad, so let's cut everyone's pay to what people made in 1880!


I don't want to go back to 1870s economics. I want to go back to post-WWII consensus economics (strong unions, and lots of government investment in people and infrastructure). Basically, get a time machine and tell Hinckley to buy something more powerful than a .22 (I keed, assassins suck, except maybe for Czolgosz).
 
2012-11-18 04:58:27 PM  

whatshisname: freewill: ^^^ This.

If you're at a company that treats you badly, do whatever you need to do to get out. Life is too short, and if the pay was good enough to justify it, you wouldn't feel like you needed to justify it anymore.


What happens when ALL the companies treat their employees badly?

Should a company merely be a profit centre at any cost or should profits be secondary to providing a good living to employees and excellent products and services to consumers?


Are you honestly so pessimistic as to think that all companies will one day treat their employees badly? I have a job right now with great hours, great bonuses, wonderful pay and the two company events I've been to the higher ups paid out of their pocket, the money for us lower level people to eat $30 steak dinners with open bar and dessert.

Companies honestly can't afford to treat their employees like garbage. Do that and you lose your good employees and are left with the ones who suck. Walmart does it because they know that high school students and college students would love that part time cashiering job, not to mention adults who'd settle for a minimum wage job. Companies that actually need talented or skilled workers can't pay their people poorly and treat them badly.
 
2012-11-18 04:59:03 PM  

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


which means since you choose to live in this country you have no right to protest any of the laws
 
2012-11-18 04:59:04 PM  

RanDomino: jshine
Maybe its the labor market saying "there are too many workers"?

Well let's just get rid of a few million of them, right?

Or maybe the problem isn't the number of workers, but the fact that most of the gains in productivity over the past several decades have been taken as profit by the business-owning class, rather than used to actually benefit humanity.

Capitalism- what other system can actually have a "crisis of overproduction"? That's right! Everyone's homeless and starving because we're TOO PRODUCTIVE! (and so the market is saturated and it's hard for investors/owners/managers to get returns by increasing sales, so they start cutting costs- wages and employment- to keep quarterly profits going up) Who still thinks this is a good idea, ffs??



Since the US is a democratic republic, it is possible for the large masses of workers -- if they feel they are being treated unfairly -- to simply raise taxes on the wealthy and/or businesses (or alter any other laws & regulations through their elected representatives) to rectify any perceived injustice. The fact that this isn't happening is what I find mysterious. Since I'm sure many of the Walmart workers also vote for people with an "R" next to their name, one can only assume that they're more concerned with social conservatism than with their own financial best interests.

...but hey, its a free country. If you'd rather stick it to the gays and teenage mothers and keep building up a bloated military (using the credit card) than raise taxes on the upper class, then that's your right as a voter, I suppose.

Democracy gives people exactly the government they want and exactly the government they deserve -- for better or worse.
 
2012-11-18 04:59:17 PM  

whatshisname: What happens when ALL the companies treat their employees badly?


Well, considering that there are no more robber barons, I think it's pretty safe to say that ain't happening.

Should a company merely be a profit centre at any cost or should profits be secondary to providing a good living to employees and excellent products and services to consumers?

Good companies balance both, but the tipping point is remaining profitable. Not profit at any cost, but maintaining the same level of profit on increased sales (typically with slightly higher margins or at least increased dollars).
 
2012-11-18 04:59:26 PM  
and my spelling at work sucks.
 
2012-11-18 04:59:34 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.

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.
 
2012-11-18 05:00:12 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: The central story of the United States is the idea that if you work hard, sacrifice, delay gratification, save and live frugally, in the end you will get ahead and your children will have an opportunity at a better life. Wal Mart, and other stores of their ilk, make a mockery of that ideal by having full-time employees still on public assistance. What is popularly railed-against as lazy people taking advantage of the system is often more a form of corporate welfare than one that benefits the individuals collecting the checks/food stamps/WIC vouchers, etc.


You are completely wrong about the central story of the US

It isn't that you WILL get ahead it is that you have the opportunity to get ahead


The central story is not one of entitlement and guarantees
 
2012-11-18 05:00:56 PM  

Brontes: So, corporations upper management can stand united when it comes to deciding employee benefits, but employees can't stand united to decide employee benefits?


Employees dont decide what benefits they get usually. There is this point everyone seems to forget, its when you are applying for the job and they tell you what they want you to do and what they are willing to pay you in terms of wages and benefits and then you think about the work it will take and what you get for it and you then say "yes I will take this job". If you decide you made a mistake later on and feel you should get more wages or benefits you can ask for it and if they say no you can then try to find a better job. If you can't find a better job you can improve your skills and become more valuable or you can reevaluate your worth to the job-offering world and realize that at your skill level there are many others who will take your job for the current offer. This is called REALITY if you happen to be taking notes.
 
2012-11-18 05:01:20 PM  

deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.


Bullshiat.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/11/16/who-killed-hostess - brands-and-twinkies/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/18/1162786/-Inside-the-Hostess- B ankery

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162355/--Hostess-Brands-is- a -microcosm-of-what-s-wrong-with-America
 
2012-11-18 05:01:34 PM  

dickfreckle: I love my local ACE store, even though they're a chain. It doesn't matter if a hammer is $2 more than the Chinese one at Wal-Mart...they take the time to help me, and all the elderly black ladies call me "dawlin.'" Always leave the store with a smile on my face, as opposed to risking a homicide charge whenever I go to Wal-Mart. You can't put a price on an intangible like that.


Apparently you can, and that price is $2.

In other news, FTFA:

The group, which is not a union but has close ties with the labour movement, is seeking to protest what it says is low pay, too few hours and retaliation by managers against workers who speak out.

Retail 101: If your complaint is "I don't get enough hours" walking out on your job isn't going to solve your problem.
 
2012-11-18 05:01:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: It isn't that you WILL get ahead it is that you have the opportunity to get ahead


You have the "opportunity" to beat your neighbor to death and take his television, too.
 
2012-11-18 05:01:59 PM  

Great Janitor: Companies honestly can't afford to treat their employees like garbage. Do that and you lose your good employees and are left with the ones who suck. Walmart does it because they know that high school students and college students would love that part time cashiering job, not to mention adults who'd settle for a minimum wage job. Companies that actually need talented or skilled workers can't pay their people poorly and treat them badly.


Well... at least until they can find talented and skilled people willing to work for less than their American counterparts.
 
2012-11-18 05:02:03 PM  
I shop there all the time. If you can't buy it at Gualmar, it's not worth buying
 
2012-11-18 05:02:25 PM  

Ed_Severson: Retail 101: If your complaint is "I don't get enough hours" walking out on your job isn't going to solve your problem.


What else should they do? Walkouts and strikes are labor's only tool.
 
2012-11-18 05:02:51 PM  

whatshisname: Should a company merely be a profit centre at any cost or should profits be secondary to providing a good living to employees and excellent products and services to consumers?


it doesn't have to be either or. but it should be up to the investors.
 
2012-11-18 05:03:07 PM  

FarkerSnow: Strikers deserve the hero tag.


imageshack.us


Indeed.
 
2012-11-18 05:03:23 PM  

LovingTeacher: 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.

Sadly in this labor market not all of the people working at Walmartare "unskilled" or "low-skilled" workers. The simple truth is that sometimes we don't have much of a choice in where we work. Despite being educated several times in my life I've just had to take the first job that came along. This has more to do with a bad attitude towards authority in my younger days than my actual skill level.


This. I'm highly skilled in my field, but jobs in my field aren't happening right now, so I have to take spotty temp-casual jobs, and the low-skill jobs are filled by low-skilled workers. I once applied to work at a coffee shop, and was denied because there were 200 applicants applying to work as a barista. The employer can be choosy in this environment.
 
2012-11-18 05:03:29 PM  

coco ebert: Awesome. Go for it, workers!


Remember- wages go up, the increase is passed onto the consumer. Win!
 
2012-11-18 05:03:30 PM  

whatshisname: What happens when ALL the companies treat their employees badly?

Should a company merely be a profit centre at any cost or should profits be secondary to providing a good living to employees and excellent products and services to consumers?


Two thoughts:

1) If all the loyal, capable employees left abusive employer relationships or at least worked hard in their off time to find a way to make themselves sufficiently desirable to the workforce to do so, there would certainly be fewer bad companies turning a profit. I'm not saying you're going to free every prisoner and topple the Wal-Marts of the world, but Great Janitor is right. You're sure not going to change it from the inside. The only thing you can do it take whatever value you actually bring to the company out the door with you.

2) A good living is important, but being underpaid is not the same thing as being abused by your employer. I've definitely worked a couple of companies where I was very happy being paid less than stellar wages because they were just plain decent people who treated me fairly. (Granted, I quit to join a company that literally doubled my salary, but still. The owner is still my friend and I still contract for him in my free time because he's just the best to deal with and he made it possible for me to leave in a way that we both respect each other a lot and want each other to succeed.)

In any case, my statement was not intended for the macro level. It's individual advice. I've been there. I gave two years of my life to a company that got off on psychologically abusing their employees while demanding 20-30 hours of overtime weekly. Despite already being underpaid, I would have been better off spending that time making 20% less somewhere moderately pleasant for a mere 40 hours a week.

/ POW/MIA. My former coworkers are not forgotten.
 
2012-11-18 05:04:00 PM  

jshine: hbk72777: Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK

Its not a religious holiday, you know.

There's nothing in the Bible that says "And verily did Jesus feast upon the turkeys and stuffing and mashed potatoes and pie, then get drunk and watch football. So sayeth The Lord. Amen".


it is a truly American Holiday and a day everyone living/working in the united states should be off to be thankful for all they have and for living here.
 
2012-11-18 05:04:47 PM  

ronaprhys: whatshisname: What happens when ALL the companies treat their employees badly?

Well, considering that there are no more robber barons, I think it's pretty safe to say that ain't happening.


WTF is wrong with your eyes?
 
2012-11-18 05:04:50 PM  

deanayer: If you can't find a better job you can improve your skills and become more valuable or you can reevaluate your worth to the job-offering world and realize that at your skill level there are many others who will take your job for the current offer.


Or you can unionize. If corporations can merge and enter joint ventures, why can't labor engage in profitable alliances?

jshine: Since I'm sure many of the Walmart workers also vote for people with an "R" next to their name, one can only assume that they're more concerned with social conservatism than with their own financial best interests.


Well... as long as you are sure about it.
 
2012-11-18 05:05:33 PM  

whistleridge:
Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?




I believe you're thinking of the Ames stores in the 1950's and 1960's that put a significant number of mom & pops out of business. Please study some business history before you post the well worn cliche. You may also want to read about hows malls really destroyed Main Streets in the 1960's and 1970's.

/shops at Walmart and has shopped at Toys-r-us, Barnes & Noble and Target.
//Sam Walton gave the max to Obama's Victory Fund two cycles in a row.
 
2012-11-18 05:06:01 PM  

Mike_LowELL: As the greatest philosopher, politician, businessman, and video game player to ever walk this Earth, you should take me seriously when I say that Wal-Mart is the highest form of art to ever exist.


hehe
 
2012-11-18 05:06:36 PM  
I bet Target is rubbing its hands with glee...
 
2012-11-18 05:06:37 PM  

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

Yeah, because people who work at Walmart have all these options just laid out in front of them.

Didn't you realize that they PICKED Walmart?


They picked an income. Money is money, no matter where it comes from. In fact, that's why they are striking: they want more income.
 
2012-11-18 05:06:43 PM  

jestme: PleaseHamletDon'tHurtEm: I'm stuck working at my temp call-center job on Friday, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

I will be working at Walmart. I am far from stupid or unskilled. I have another part-time job and am a full-time student. I work at Walmart because I get health insurance and other benefits despite my telling Walmart that I'll only work a couple of evenings and one weekend day each week. Oh and I've never made minimum wage there, either.


I hear it.

Work is work. Lots of people in my building having a hard time finding it elsewhere.

And we get treated pretty well for temps. Feel sorry for the folks in retail hell. At least our contacts can be put on hold when they go off.

/not above temp work or Wal-mart to earn my keep, but hoping for more
/in a few decades maybe?
 
2012-11-18 05:07:57 PM  
Nothing will change until you have multiple stores with strikes like they had in the coal mines a hundred years ago. THEN people will start paying attention and ask, "god damn, are their living conditions really that desperate?"
 
2012-11-18 05:08:37 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: jshine: Since I'm sure many of the Walmart workers also vote for people with an "R" next to their name, one can only assume that they're more concerned with social conservatism than with their own financial best interests.

Well... as long as you are sure about it.


Given Walmart's prevalence in areas of the map that are perpetually red in elections, do you really doubt that many Walmart workers are conservatives?

...and, that's really a moot point anyway. If it really is a 99%/1% issue (or even 75%/25%), then -- regardless of which company's name is on their paychecks -- it should be clear to most people where their best interests are.
 
2012-11-18 05:09:01 PM  

basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.


Pssh. They're going to bring in strike-busters from a correctional facility in AR.
 
2012-11-18 05:10:04 PM  

UsikFark: basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.

Pssh. They're going to bring in strike-busters from a correctional facility in AR.


Or maybe call Pinkerton to help with some historical reenactment.
 
2012-11-18 05:10:30 PM  

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.


memecrunch.com
 
2012-11-18 05:10:34 PM  
These fools should not qualify for Obamabucks since they are voluntarily getting themselves fired.
 
2012-11-18 05:11:10 PM  

jshine: hbk72777: Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK

Its not a religious holiday, you know.

There's nothing in the Bible that says "And verily did Jesus feast upon the turkeys and stuffing and mashed potatoes and pie, then get drunk and watch football. So sayeth The Lord. Amen".


That was farking hilarious
 
2012-11-18 05:12:41 PM  

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."
 
2012-11-18 05:13:26 PM  

ph0rk: What else should they do? Walkouts and strikes are labor's only tool.


Walkouts and strikes can be effective for other problems, but when you complain that you aren't allowed to work enough and then you willingly give up hours, nobody is going to listen to you. You just voluntarily gave up a shift -- you're probably never going to get that shift back and somebody who shows up to work and busts his ass will get the 8 hours per week that used to be yours.
 
2012-11-18 05:13:29 PM  

clowncar on fire: coco ebert: Awesome. Go for it, workers!

Remember- wages go up, the increase is passed onto the consumer. Win!


arch.413chan.net


If it means that those workers have a better life and perhaps even make enough to afford things at places other than WAL*MART, I'm all for it.

Remember, just because you fap to Ayn Rand doesn't mean that everyone does.
 
2012-11-18 05:13:32 PM  

jshine: hbk72777: Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK

Its not a religious holiday, you know.

There's nothing in the Bible that says "And verily did Jesus feast upon the turkeys and stuffing and mashed potatoes and pie, then get drunk and watch football. So sayeth The Lord. Amen".


Psst...it actually kind of is, just pushed back a tad. See: Feast of Tabernacles


Hate to think I'm living up to the old saw that atheists know biblical versus better than religious nuts.
 
2012-11-18 05:13:51 PM  

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

Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?

Wal-Mart is flat-out exploitative, and if you think otherwise, you're dreaming.


Give Walmart some credit. If a town consisted of only 20-30 small business- let's say 15 of them were retail-- do you really believe Walmart would even consider such a an economy that could only support 15 retailers?

Walmarts appear in economies where the consumers are.

I'm not denying that they don't displace the small retailers in areas where they set up shop, but the myth that they are taking over the fly over communities is wrong.
 
2012-11-18 05:14:08 PM  

hbk72777: Monday's headline "Walmart training 30 new employees"

/Every Walmart I've shopped in regularly, has had the same people there for years.

/Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK


WTH? I've always celebrated Thanksgiving, because I'm American, damnit. Maybe you meant Christmas?
 
2012-11-18 05:14:21 PM  

Ed_Severson: ph0rk: What else should they do? Walkouts and strikes are labor's only tool.

Walkouts and strikes can be effective for other problems, but when you complain that you aren't allowed to work enough and then you willingly give up hours, nobody is going to listen to you. You just voluntarily gave up a shift -- you're probably never going to get that shift back and somebody who shows up to work and busts his ass will get the 8 hours per week that used to be yours.


Those people are called "scabs".
 
2012-11-18 05:15:12 PM  

A Day Older than Yesterday: whistleridge:
Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?

I believe you're thinking of the Ames stores in the 1950's and 1960's that put a significant number of mom & pops out of business. Please study some business history before you post the well worn cliche. You may also want to read about hows malls really destroyed Main Streets in the 1960's and 1970's.

/shops at Walmart and has shopped at Toys-r-us, Barnes & Noble and Target.
//Sam Walton gave the max to Obama's Victory Fund two cycles in a row.


Sam Walton died in 1992, so I'm going to need a citation.
 
2012-11-18 05:15:26 PM  

404 page not found: 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.


I asked myself what Cage movie that still is from, because I see it all the time and am too lazy to Google.

And lo, the answer revealed itself to me in a still, soft whisper:

"All of them"
 
2012-11-18 05:16:29 PM  

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


Nah, they're the Cashier+ people who walk around, watch cashiers as they cash out their drawers and cash in, crack the whip when a given cashier gets a little slow or messes up, has to ring up booze when the cashier isn't yet 21, and handles all the little technical screw-ups with the hardware that never, ever happen because Wal-Mart provides the latest and greatest and properly maintains all its hardware.

Oh, who am I kidding. They're the assholes in red vests who stand in groups of two or three near the little podium things, keeping a hawk-eye on the one cashier out of 30+ aisles while directing traffic towards the U-scans.
 
2012-11-18 05:17:00 PM  

Ed_Severson: Walkouts and strikes can be effective for other problems, but when you complain that you aren't allowed to work enough and then you willingly give up hours, nobody is going to listen to you. You just voluntarily gave up a shift -- you're probably never going to get that shift back and somebody who shows up to work and busts his ass will get the 8 hours per week that used to be yours.


Do what those pilots did then... sick-outs, work shortages, repair chit deluges... there's plenty a discontented labor force can do besides go on strike.
 
2012-11-18 05:17:02 PM  

buckler: UsikFark: basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.

Pssh. They're going to bring in strike-busters from a correctional facility in AR.

Or maybe call Pinkerton to help with some historical reenactment.


They'll confiscate the radios and kill any strikers that approach the perimeter. The idea came to the store manager during the physical act of love.
 
2012-11-18 05:17:09 PM  

Great Janitor: So, instead of making their big scene during black Friday when the stores, as planned, they are going to start early, meaning that they'll be fired by Wednesday and not have to worry about striking on Black Friday.

Honestly, if you don't like the way your company treats you, find another job. Staying there and thinking that you can change it from the inside is no different than idiot women who stay with their abusive husbands thinking that they can change them.


Right but in the interim they're still working at Walmart.

I worked for three years at an exploitive company. I finally was hired elsewhere and my salary instantly doubled, I'm working less hours, and I'm only a contract employee.

So, between having the Walmart job now and the future job they want - they have every right to strike. Further, not having the perfect job now doesn't mean they've settled for this current position.
 
2012-11-18 05:17:16 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: XveryYpettyZ: The central story of the United States is the idea that if you work hard, sacrifice, delay gratification, save and live frugally, in the end you will get ahead and your children will have an opportunity at a better life. Wal Mart, and other stores of their ilk, make a mockery of that ideal by having full-time employees still on public assistance. What is popularly railed-against as lazy people taking advantage of the system is often more a form of corporate welfare than one that benefits the individuals collecting the checks/food stamps/WIC vouchers, etc.

You are completely wrong about the central story of the US

It isn't that you WILL get ahead it is that you have the opportunity to get ahead


The central story is not one of entitlement and guarantees


Wanna know how I can tell you're an asshole?

It isn't entitlement to say if you work hard and you save and you live frugally you deserve to get ahead. That's the goddamn social compact we entered into. The fact that you can disagree with that as sounding "entitled" is a sign of how far the Republican party has fallen.
 
2012-11-18 05:17:40 PM  
To those asking why that sara gilbert girl is making only 14k as a "manager" at walmart. I will explain, She is a part time employee. CSM's are not real managers, they are glorified cashier babysitters with the option of keyturn overrides.
 
2012-11-18 05:17:45 PM  

Ed_Severson: ph0rk: What else should they do? Walkouts and strikes are labor's only tool.

Walkouts and strikes can be effective for other problems, but when you complain that you aren't allowed to work enough and then you willingly give up hours, nobody is going to listen to you. You just voluntarily gave up a shift -- you're probably never going to get that shift back and somebody who shows up to work and busts his ass will get the 8 hours per week that used to be yours.


Really? I think I might be more inclined to listen to the guy who says he's so upset about his lack of work that he's willing to do less work in order to draw attention to it.
 
2012-11-18 05:18:20 PM  

mbillips: Sam Walton died in 1992, so I'm going to need a citation.


ACORN.

What was "Sam Walton" on paper was actually 473 Mexicans with photocopied green cards and checks forged in their names from George Soros.
 
2012-11-18 05:19:03 PM  

PleaseHamletDon'tHurtEm: 404 page not found: 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.

I asked myself what Cage movie that still is from, because I see it all the time and am too lazy to Google.

And lo, the answer revealed itself to me in a still, soft whisper:

"All of them"


lafinjack.net
 
2012-11-18 05:19:19 PM  

Great Janitor:
Because the only employer is Walmart? No temp services, no restaurants or dry cleaners. No options at even self employment? Either work at Walmart or become homeless?


A lot of small towns don't have many employment options once manufacturing shuts down and Walmart drives off the Mom n Pops. In southern Illinois, where my mom (and the rest of my family) lives, the self-employment market is over-saturated with people doing freelance handyman work, lawn care, auto detailing, selling puppies and/or meth, etc. They're not making enough to pay the bills, much less save up enough cash to move where the jobs are.
 
2012-11-18 05:19:27 PM  

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

Yeah, because people who work at Walmart have all these options just laid out in front of them.


Hey, if working for Wal*Mart is the best that these folks can do...

1 - I sorta feel sorry for them.

2 - They should try to make the best of it.

3 - There are equivalent positions at Home Depot, Lowes, various food stores, Target etc. It's hard to get on in a bad economy, but not impossible. They could at least try to get a better job.

4 - They should be grateful that SOMEBODY took them in. Below Walmart level employment would probably be a bunch of dangerous, difficult, backbreaking horror-jobs. Thank you Wal*Mart for saving these people 'from certain peril'
img17.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-18 05:20:22 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: jshine: hbk72777: Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK

Its not a religious holiday, you know.

There's nothing in the Bible that says "And verily did Jesus feast upon the turkeys and stuffing and mashed potatoes and pie, then get drunk and watch football. So sayeth The Lord. Amen".

Psst...it actually kind of is, just pushed back a tad. See: Feast of Tabernacles


Hate to think I'm living up to the old saw that atheists know biblical versus better than religious nuts.


So how did the one stem from the other? ...or is this just a matter of "There are two feasts, and both are around harvest, so therefore the one originated with the other." I'm guessing thats it, because according to Wikipedia, the two events don't share a lot in common (no pilgrimage to Jerusalem, Thanksgiving doesn't last 7 days, etc., etc.). And if "feasting at harvest time" is the extent of the connection, then one could just as easily say that Thanksgiving originated with Oktoberfest, since -- hey -- they're both in the fall.
 
2012-11-18 05:20:48 PM  

Trance354: 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.

Speaking as someone in one of those low-paying jobs, though admittedly I'm better off because of a narrow but much needed skill set withing this industry, the major box stores have been forever moving toward the wal-mart example, while at the same time trying to figure out why their turnover was so high. Recently the twits in charge of my current company hit on the idea of paying a decent wage and giving benefirts to full-time employees. After 3 years of biatching about wanting full time and benefits, I fianlly have a good paying 2nd job(not full time, though), that I don't want to stop(side benefits and such), I am in college for engineering, and I have my own start-up design business. They are just now going to full time for the majority of employees. And they wonder why I don't want to quit college and my other job.

/wait a minute, the job landscape will change


That's interesting that they are moving towards a full-time pay with benefits model. I wonder how that will go. Part of the difficulty in organizing for better work conditions, higher wages, and better benefits is that there are many people like you- that see it as a part-time thing as a stepping stone to something better (and there's nothing wrong with that by the way!). Unfortunately, not everyone will move up the career ladder, so making this type of work more humane (i.e. making it possible for someone to support themselves let alone a family), will benefit us as a society.
 
2012-11-18 05:20:50 PM  

Ed_Severson: ph0rk: What else should they do? Walkouts and strikes are labor's only tool.

Walkouts and strikes can be effective for other problems, but when you complain that you aren't allowed to work enough and then you willingly give up hours, nobody is going to listen to you. You just voluntarily gave up a shift -- you're probably never going to get that shift back and somebody who shows up to work and busts his ass will get the 8 hours per week that used to be yours.


"I'm not getting enough sex."

"Well, here, let me rape you."

"No!"

"Then it's your own damned fault you're not getting enough sex!"
 
2012-11-18 05:21:32 PM  

buckler: Ed_Severson: ph0rk: What else should they do? Walkouts and strikes are labor's only tool.

Walkouts and strikes can be effective for other problems, but when you complain that you aren't allowed to work enough and then you willingly give up hours, nobody is going to listen to you. You just voluntarily gave up a shift -- you're probably never going to get that shift back and somebody who shows up to work and busts his ass will get the 8 hours per week that used to be yours.

Those people are called "scabs".


Those people are also willing to work for what they have agreed to.
 
2012-11-18 05:21:50 PM  

buckler: Those people are called "scabs".


Not in this case. The article references 30 employees spread across six stores. The people picking up the shifts given up by those 30 are their co-workers who just went from 32 to 40 hours per week at the expense of somebody who complained they couldn't make it on 32 and volunteered themselves for 24.

It's simple: when you say you want to work more and then fail to show up for work, management will pay attention to your actions, not your words.
 
2012-11-18 05:21:52 PM  
what is traditionally the busiest shopping day of the year.


No it isn't! Quit repeating this lie, it makes you look dumb.
 
2012-11-18 05:22:04 PM  

andrewagill: clowncar on fire: coco ebert: Awesome. Go for it, workers!

Remember- wages go up, the increase is passed onto the consumer. Win!

[arch.413chan.net image 379x214]

If it means that those workers have a better life and perhaps even make enough to afford things at places other than WAL*MART, I'm all for it.

Remember, just because you fap to Ayn Rand doesn't mean that everyone does.


Yup.
 
2012-11-18 05:22:07 PM  
images.tribe.net
 
2012-11-18 05:22:11 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 05:22:37 PM  

mbillips: basemetal: Weaver95: basemetal: And in other news, WalMart is now hiring.

wal-mart's problem is that they've started to realize that they cannot actually fire their entire work force without it affecting their bottom line. turns out that even the min wage slaves play an important part in the business cycle.

Working for WalMart, other than management (and even them sometimes), is not rocket science, and it doesn't take that long to get an employee up to speed.

The union knows that, and that's why they're not doing a full-out strike. They're doing brief, targeted walkouts, which bleeds Wal-Mart, but doesn't get to the point where Wal-Mart would save money by firing the workers and hiring new ones.

If the Hostess unions had been as smart, you might still be able to buy Twinkies (probably not; that company was so mismanaged and overleveraged that labor problems were the least of it).


Hostess was telling them to go from a middle-class job to a minimum-wage one with no pension. At that point you really can't negotiate much.
 
2012-11-18 05:23:23 PM  

deanayer: This is called REALITY if you happen to be taking notes.


nothing says management and employees have to be in adversarial positions. There are plenty of companies where they aren't in opposition. And there are entire countries where if you suggested management butting heads with the employees to save a buck or something you'd be laughed out of the room.
 
2012-11-18 05:24:05 PM  

mbillips: A Day Older than Yesterday: whistleridge:
Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?

I believe you're thinking of the Ames stores in the 1950's and 1960's that put a significant number of mom & pops out of business. Please study some business history before you post the well worn cliche. You may also want to read about hows malls really destroyed Main Streets in the 1960's and 1970's.

/shops at Walmart and has shopped at Toys-r-us, Barnes & Noble and Target.
//Sam Walton gave the max to Obama's Victory Fund two cycles in a row.

Sam Walton died in 1992, so I'm going to need a citation.



Good God are you helpless, that statistic was on every political article/blog/comment this week. Some refer to Sam as CEO but he's actual heir. 

Typical liberal response to an argument they can't logically discuss: 1) call someone a name like we're still in the 4th grade, 2) ask for a citation to a known or easily ascertained idea 3) lie. 

Am so tired of the "citation" call by the lazy & stupid.
 
2012-11-18 05:24:37 PM  
Why is it that the WalMarts are being singled out? Maybe because of their massive profits vs. pay scale and benefits?
Other companies are really just as bad as WalMart. Look at McDonalds, Starbucks, Target, actually most retail places. They don't have benefits or pay very well either.
 
2012-11-18 05:24:54 PM  

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


Hey, people at Foxconn got to the point they'd rather jump out of windows than work there, and you saw what that got the workers...
 
2012-11-18 05:26:00 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: ronaprhys: whatshisname: What happens when ALL the companies treat their employees badly?

Well, considering that there are no more robber barons, I think it's pretty safe to say that ain't happening.

WTF is wrong with your eyes?


Nothing. What year did you fail history in?
 
2012-11-18 05:26:31 PM  

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

Hey, people at Foxconn got to the point they'd rather jump out of windows than work there, and you saw what that got the workers...


And I'm glad that American CEOs are taking their cues from China.
 
2012-11-18 05:26:43 PM  

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

Hey, people at Foxconn got to the point they'd rather jump out of windows than work there, and you saw what that got the workers...


Yeah: safety nets.
 
2012-11-18 05:26:58 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: vartian: tbhouston: People choose to work at Walmart for what ever reason..no one is forcing them...

Yeah, because people who work at Walmart have all these options just laid out in front of them.

Hey, if working for Wal*Mart is the best that these folks can do...

1 - I sorta feel sorry for them.

2 - They should try to make the best of it.

3 - There are equivalent positions at Home Depot, Lowes, various food stores, Target etc. It's hard to get on in a bad economy, but not impossible. They could at least try to get a better job.

4 - They should be grateful that SOMEBODY took them in. Below Walmart level employment would probably be a bunch of dangerous, difficult, backbreaking horror-jobs. Thank you Wal*Mart for saving these people 'from certain peril'. 
[img17.imageshack.us image 678x441]


I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in flyover country. Outside your affluent suburbs, they're AIN'T a lot of HDs, Lowes, food stores. In much of Amurka, there's Wal-Mart, Mickie D's and nothing.
 
2012-11-18 05:28:03 PM  

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

Hey, people at Foxconn got to the point they'd rather jump out of windows than work there, and you saw what that got the workers...

Yeah: safety nets.


Thanksfully, WalMart stores are generally on a single level, so jumping off the roof wouldn't be fatal anyway.
 
2012-11-18 05:28:51 PM  

A Day Older than Yesterday: whistleridge:
Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?

I believe you're thinking of the Ames stores in the 1950's and 1960's that put a significant number of mom & pops out of business. Please study some business history before you post the well worn cliche. You may also want to read about hows malls really destroyed Main Streets in the 1960's and 1970's.

/shops at Walmart and has shopped at Toys-r-us, Barnes & Noble and Target.
//Sam Walton gave the max to Obama's Victory Fund two cycles in a row.



You left off McDonalds, KMart, In-n-Out, Lowes, Home Depot, the former Borders, Kroger...................
 
2012-11-18 05:28:52 PM  
I don't shop a walmart, and I don't have a dog in this fight.
But I wanted to make a couple of observations.

Do people seriously believe that the purpose of a company is to "Better Humanity"?
That may be what you formed YOUR company to do, but it isn't what most others were formed for.

According to the google (various. I won't link them, but you can do your own search) Customer Service Managers make between $12 and $14 an hour.

I seriously doubt that the person in the article is making only $14,000 a year full time.
Minimum wage (what floor associates start at) is over $18,000 full time.

The last time the walmart in my area had a job fair, they had over 1000 people for each of 15 jobs apply.

They run the largest retail chain in history (and without my patronage. go figure). A pretty impressive feat.
 
2012-11-18 05:28:57 PM  

ronaprhys: Nothing. What year did you fail history in?


While we may not call them robber barons we have plenty of people acting like them, see Papa John's.
 
2012-11-18 05:29:15 PM  

andrewagill: Really? I think I might be more inclined to listen to the guy who says he's so upset about his lack of work that he's willing to do less work in order to draw attention to it.


Anecdotes are not evidence. However ...

In college, I worked at a supermarket. I can recall case after case after case --hundreds, perhaps -- of part-time employees requesting more hours. The ones who showed up on time every time they were scheduled were accommodated whenever possible. The ones who were chronically late or failed to show up for a shift? Fewer hours going forward, every single time. In a retail environment, if the company does not have 100% confidence that you will be at work when you're supposed to be at work, they will depend on you as little as they possibly can.
 
2012-11-18 05:29:38 PM  
Making $14,000/year is a rate of $6.74/hour for a 40 hour per week employee, which is below minimum wage.
Is this "Customer Service Manager" exempt? If so, she is being really and truly screwed. If not, then she is working less than 40 hours per week.
 
2012-11-18 05:30:07 PM  
How I know you will never have a job more intensive than pulling french fries from a french fryer:


Working for WalMart, other than management (and even them sometimes), is not rocket science, and it doesn't take that long to get an employee up to speed.
 
2012-11-18 05:30:42 PM  

Ed_Severson: ph0rk: What else should they do? Walkouts and strikes are labor's only tool.

Walkouts and strikes can be effective for other problems, but when you complain that you aren't allowed to work enough and then you willingly give up hours, nobody is going to listen to you. You just voluntarily gave up a shift -- you're probably never going to get that shift back and somebody who shows up to work and busts his ass will get the 8 hours per week that used to be yours.


Of course, you could look at it as the worker saying, "Okay, so you wanna keep me at as few hours as possible? How 'bout zero? That okay with you?"

/"Oh, and good luck hiring a replacement after I get done tellin' 'em my story."
 
2012-11-18 05:31:21 PM  

cig-mkr: Why is it that the WalMarts are being singled out? Maybe because of their massive profits vs. pay scale and benefits?
Other companies are really just as bad as WalMart. Look at McDonalds, Starbucks, Target, actually most retail places. They don't have benefits or pay very well either.

.

Because when Sam was alive, the employees did have good benefits. As soon as the dirt hit his coffin, Walmart has chipped away at everything he made respectable. I worked for walmart for six years. In those six years, I saw the 90 day raise go away, the sunday pay difference go away, the "extra" raise where if you were completely excellent, you got a second raise within your year raises, benefits get worse for those that were full time.

/Once had a Corporate manager ask me why I wasn't stocking eggs through a wall.
 
2012-11-18 05:31:53 PM  

WhyteRaven74: ronaprhys: Nothing. What year did you fail history in?

While we may not call them robber barons we have plenty of people acting like them, see Papa John's Apple.


FIFY
 
2012-11-18 05:32:20 PM  

Spirit Hammer: I don't shop a walmart, and I don't have a dog in this fight.
But I wanted to make a couple of observations.

Do people seriously believe that the purpose of a company is to "Better Humanity"?
That may be what you formed YOUR company to do, but it isn't what most others were formed for.

According to the google (various. I won't link them, but you can do your own search) Customer Service Managers make between $12 and $14 an hour.

I seriously doubt that the person in the article is making only $14,000 a year full time.
Minimum wage (what floor associates start at) is over $18,000 full time.

The last time the walmart in my area had a job fair, they had over 1000 people for each of 15 jobs apply.

They run the largest retail chain in history (and without my patronage. go figure). A pretty impressive feat.


I don't doubt her claim that she works "full time" (I am sure it is less than 40 hours) and depends on food stamps. That is something that we should all be concerned about.
 
2012-11-18 05:32:23 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Link Article from a Federal Way, WA, newspaper.

"Between 20 and 30" Walmart employees "from six Western Washington Walmart stores" gathered at one store for this rally.

Gonna have to step it up, people.

As for you free-marketers who say, "Well, the worker CHOSE Walmart," that's like saying a starving beggar chooses the guy who flips him just a penny. Fark you all.


Yeah, that's probably equivalent to the no-shows.
 
2012-11-18 05:33:05 PM  

coffee smells good: mbillips: A Day Older than Yesterday: whistleridge:
Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?

I believe you're thinking of the Ames stores in the 1950's and 1960's that put a significant number of mom & pops out of business. Please study some business history before you post the well worn cliche. You may also want to read about hows malls really destroyed Main Streets in the 1960's and 1970's.

/shops at Walmart and has shopped at Toys-r-us, Barnes & Noble and Target.
//Sam Walton gave the max to Obama's Victory Fund two cycles in a row.

Sam Walton died in 1992, so I'm going to need a citation.


Good God are you helpless, that statistic was on every political article/blog/comment this week. Some refer to Sam as CEO but he's actual heir. 

Typical liberal response to an argument they can't logically discuss: 1) call someone a name like we're still in the 4th grade, 2) ask for a citation to a known or easily ascertained idea 3) lie. 

Am so tired of the "citation" call by the lazy & stupid.


Oh, THAT Sam Walton. The grandson hippie lib'ral who has nothing to do with Wal-Mart.
 
2012-11-18 05:33:09 PM  

Ed_Severson: andrewagill: Really? I think I might be more inclined to listen to the guy who says he's so upset about his lack of work that he's willing to do less work in order to draw attention to it.

Anecdotes are not evidence. However ...

In college, I worked at a supermarket. I can recall case after case after case --hundreds, perhaps -- of part-time employees requesting more hours. The ones who showed up on time every time they were scheduled were accommodated whenever possible. The ones who were chronically late or failed to show up for a shift? Fewer hours going forward, every single time. In a retail environment, if the company does not have 100% confidence that you will be at work when you're supposed to be at work, they will depend on you as little as they possibly can.


I'm guessing Wal-Mart does not use the meritocracy model the supermarket you worked at does. Otherwise, the workers would be happy rather than pissed off.
 
2012-11-18 05:33:10 PM  

ronaprhys: BarkingUnicorn: ronaprhys: whatshisname: What happens when ALL the companies treat their employees badly?

Well, considering that there are no more robber barons, I think it's pretty safe to say that ain't happening.

WTF is wrong with your eyes?

Nothing. What year did you fail history in?


OK, let me see you define "robber baron" so that it cannot possibly apply to any contemporary businesspeople.
 
2012-11-18 05:33:27 PM  
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 skills, education, what ever.
 
2012-11-18 05:34:25 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 ...


larryfire.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-18 05:34:47 PM  

red5ish: Making $14,000/year is a rate of $6.74/hour for a 40 hour per week employee, which is below minimum wage.
Is this "Customer Service Manager" exempt? If so, she is being really and truly screwed. If not, then she is working less than 40 hours per week.


There is no universal standard when it comes to "full time" employee, the company gets to define it. I have seen it defined as 30 or 32 hours a week in some places.
 
2012-11-18 05:35:25 PM  

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

Hey, people at Foxconn got to the point they'd rather jump out of windows than work there, and you saw what that got the workers...

Yeah: safety nets.


Which is, ironically, more than what workers at Wal-Mart are getting.
 
2012-11-18 05:35:37 PM  
The "problem" with the Walmart strategy is that you and I pay their employee's benefits through taxes, whether we shop there or not.
 
2012-11-18 05:35:48 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 ...


Everyone isn't as awesome as you are.
 
2012-11-18 05:36:03 PM  

FarkerSnow: Strikers deserve the hero tag.


This was in the TF queue with a Hero tag.
 
2012-11-18 05:36:28 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 ...


Yeah, sure, but you're all bootstrappy. Normal worthless people aren't capable of improving their lot in life. They need the government to take care of them and the charity of CEO's. What are you thinking? Free will? Pshhh. What nonsense.

They are stuck at WalMart AND THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS!

/amidoinitright?
 
2012-11-18 05:36:50 PM  

coffee smells good: FIFY


Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever


and how exactly should they pay for that?
 
2012-11-18 05:37:04 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.


Their option came when they were kids. They chose not to study in school.
 
2012-11-18 05:37:10 PM  

IlGreven: Of course, you could look at it as the worker saying, "Okay, so you wanna keep me at as few hours as possible? How 'bout zero? That okay with you?"


In an economy like this one, with an 8% nationwide unemployment rate, management's response to that question is easy to predict:

"Zero sounds fine. Best of luck to you ... I'm going to go have a look through the 300 applications on my desk now. Don't forget to clean out your locker."
 
2012-11-18 05:37:39 PM  

WhyteRaven74: coffee smells good: FIFY

Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever

and how exactly should they pay for that?


Because going to the library costs money?
 
2012-11-18 05:37:53 PM  

Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever.


If everyone did this those who did it the least would still be stuck working at Wal Mart.
 
2012-11-18 05:38:18 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 ...


While social mobility exists, it is in decline. In short it is becoming more and more difficult for someone to better their position in our nation and those at the top like it that way.

Link
 
2012-11-18 05:38:18 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.


PS. Retail has ALWAYS been a minimum wage job.
 
2012-11-18 05:38:47 PM  

WhyteRaven74: ronaprhys: Nothing. What year did you fail history in?

While we may not call them robber barons we have plenty of people acting like them, see Papa John's.


Not even close.
 
2012-11-18 05:40:52 PM  

12349876: Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever.

If everyone did this those who did it the least would still be stuck working at Wal Mart

where people who refuse to better themselves belong.

FTFY

Also, it's already happening. Lots of successful people worked at Walmart earlier in their lives. The ones who went home and watched TV every night are the ones still working there.
 
2012-11-18 05:40:53 PM  

jst3p: There is no universal standard when it comes to "full time" employee, the company gets to define it.


Actually federal law does define it as 40 hours, however it can be defined as fewer hours. Though that big of wiggle room really should be done away with.

Ed_Severson: "Zero sounds fine. Best of luck to you ... I'm going to go have a look through the 300 applications on my desk now. Don't forget to clean out your locker."


and thanks to the turnover the company is going to have to spend more money. If Walmart treated their employees well, their turnover would be lower and they'd be making more money.

Silly Jesus: They need the government to take care of them and the charity of CEO's.


BTW Walmart's employment practices cost tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars.
 
2012-11-18 05:41:10 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 ...


Guess what, asshole? Not everyone is a skilled liar, which is the basic skill set for a sales job.
 
2012-11-18 05:41:37 PM  

IlGreven: I'm guessing Wal-Mart does not use the meritocracy model the supermarket you worked at does. Otherwise, the workers would be happy rather than pissed off.


Of course they do. When you have 500 labor hours to spend per week and you have 25 employees who all want 40 hours, supply is low and demand is high. The hours will go to the most reliable employees, and whatever's left over will be distributed among the rest.

And if you think a retail establishment ever existed where everyone was happy ... Oh boy, would you be disappointed.
 
2012-11-18 05:41:45 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: tenpoundsofcheese: XveryYpettyZ: The central story of the United States is the idea that if you work hard, sacrifice, delay gratification, save and live frugally, in the end you will get ahead and your children will have an opportunity at a better life. Wal Mart, and other stores of their ilk, make a mockery of that ideal by having full-time employees still on public assistance. What is popularly railed-against as lazy people taking advantage of the system is often more a form of corporate welfare than one that benefits the individuals collecting the checks/food stamps/WIC vouchers, etc.

You are completely wrong about the central story of the US

It isn't that you WILL get ahead it is that you have the opportunity to get ahead


The central story is not one of entitlement and guarantees

Wanna know how I can tell you're an asshole
wanna know how I can tell that you can't read??

It isn't entitlement to say if you work hard and you save and you live frugally you deserve to get ahead.

I never said someone like that doesn't DESERVE to get ahead. I said that the premise that they WILL get ahead is wrong. "WILL" implies a guarantee. There are no guarantees, even for people who deserve to get ahead.


That's the goddamn social compact we entered into.

Oh please, where is the social compact? Details? When does a person enter into it? How?

The fact that you can disagree with that as sounding "entitled" is a sign of how far the Republican party has fallen.

blah, blah, blah. Saying someone WILL get something is an entitlement.

 
2012-11-18 05:42:39 PM  

andrewagill: FarkerSnow: Strikers deserve the hero tag.



Indeed.


As it was submitted.
/not sure what happened
 
2012-11-18 05:42:49 PM  

DrPainMD: PS. Retail has ALWAYS been a minimum wage job.


no it hasn't and even today there are retailers that don't play min wage or very close to it. Costco doesn't pay min wage.

ronaprhys: Not even close.


yeah actually it is.
 
2012-11-18 05:43:19 PM  

WhyteRaven74: jst3p: There is no universal standard when it comes to "full time" employee, the company gets to define it.

Actually federal law does define it as 40 hours, however it can be defined as fewer hours. Though that big of wiggle room really should be done away with.

Ed_Severson: "Zero sounds fine. Best of luck to you ... I'm going to go have a look through the 300 applications on my desk now. Don't forget to clean out your locker."

and thanks to the turnover the company is going to have to spend more money. If Walmart treated their employees well, their turnover would be lower and they'd be making more money.

Silly Jesus: They need the government to take care of them and the charity of CEO's.

BTW Walmart's employment practices cost tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars.


They are the kind of people that would be 100% on the government teat if not for WalMart. I see it as WalMart subsidizing Obamabucks rather than the other way around.
 
2012-11-18 05:43:30 PM  

WhyteRaven74: ronaprhys: Nothing. What year did you fail history in?

While we may not call them robber barons we have plenty of people acting like them, see Papa John's.


If it weren't for the "robber barons," you wouldn't have cheap energy, free libraries, and most of what gives you one of the highest standards of living the human race has ever seen. But, go ahead and complain about them... it's edgy and in fashion, and your peers will consider you to be an intellectual.
 
2012-11-18 05:43:33 PM  
And so the 47% becomes 48%.
 
2012-11-18 05:44:11 PM  

DrPainMD: 12349876: Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever.

If everyone did this those who did it the least would still be stuck working at Wal Mart where people who refuse to better themselves belong.

FTFY

Also, it's already happening. Lots of successful people worked at Walmart earlier in their lives. The ones who went home and watched TV every night are the ones still working there.


I'm talking philosophically here. There will always be people at the bottom of the rung who are stuck at Wal Mart type jobs. Bottom of the rung used to be dropping out in the middle school, then high school, now it's a high school graduate and may in a few decades be a bachelor's degree and no matter how high it gets, there will be those at the bottom and there's not enough white collar jobs for them.
 
2012-11-18 05:44:19 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Oh please, where is the social compact? Details? When does a person enter into it? How?


living as a member of society
 
2012-11-18 05:44:31 PM  

deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.


Hostess was owned by two hedge funds with a long history of liquidating and looting companies, They stopped contributing to the employee pensions but tripled the CEO's salary, and gave similar raises and bonuses to other executives.

There was never any intention of coming to an agreement. They forced the confrontation so they could walk away with a giant stack of cash and no longer be encumbered by having to actually run a business.

The Hostess shutdown was a classic looting job. The fact that they got to blame he union is just icing on the cake.
 
2012-11-18 05:44:31 PM  
The chick in the article is a damn liar. If she was working full time and only bringing in $14,000 a year, that would mean she was working for around $6.73 an hour. We know as a matter of fact that can't be the case.
 
2012-11-18 05:45:28 PM  

DrPainMD: WhyteRaven74: ronaprhys: Nothing. What year did you fail history in?

While we may not call them robber barons we have plenty of people acting like them, see Papa John's.

If it weren't for the "robber barons," you wouldn't have cheap energy, free libraries, and most of what gives you one of the highest standards of living the human race has ever seen. But, go ahead and complain about them... it's edgy and in fashion, and your peers will consider you to be an intellectual.


gifrific.com
 
2012-11-18 05:45:41 PM  
Wal Mart has refused to let the employees unionize for quite some time, this is nothing new. Doesn't anyone remember that documentary they did on Wal Mart a few years back? With all the former managers and employees speaking out about their shady business practices and the threats of firing those who even began to SPEAK of forming a union?

I don't get how so many people can sit here and say "oh well they should just find a better job"...a lot of the people who worl at Wal Mart simply can't! I know a lot of the people who work at my local Wal Mart do so because it's in a mall where one of the few running buses continues to travel. And when you are an "unskilled" laborer, there aren't too many options available. A lot of these people are simply working the only job they are a) qualified for and b) able to actually get.

I feel sorry for the people who are too scared to protest and walk out; the ones who know that they can't even take the risk doing so, even though it would be a tremendous benefit for them to do so, because if they do, they're afraid they will lose their job and will be unable to provide for their families.
 
2012-11-18 05:46:46 PM  

DrPainMD: it weren't for the "robber barons," you wouldn't have cheap energy, free libraries, and most of what gives you one of the highest standards of living the human race has ever seen.


you're not even smart enough to realize what you're defending.

Silly Jesus: They are the kind of people that would be 100% on the government teat if not for WalMart. I


they wouldn't be, and if Walmart actually took care of their employees they wouldn't need government benefits at all.
 
2012-11-18 05:47:02 PM  

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

Hey, people at Foxconn got to the point they'd rather jump out of windows than work there, and you saw what that got the workers...

Yeah: safety nets.

Which is, ironically, more than what workers at Wal-Mart are getting.


My sly point is that many Walmart employees get public assistance - the "safety net" in order to survive.

You'd think that boostrappy types would tire of Walmart bolstering its profits at taxpayers' expense.
 
2012-11-18 05:47:50 PM  

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

Everyone who works at Walmart really must love their job then, right?


So if you don't love your job, you should strike. Sounds logical... For a liberal.
 
2012-11-18 05:47:59 PM  

DrPainMD: 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.

PS. Retail has ALWAYS been a minimum wage job.


I worked for 5 years at Radio Shack, I made well over minimum wage. I worked at Egghead Software for a few years (it used to be a thing) and made more than minimum wage. My ex wife works retail today (not in management) and she makes $11 an hour last I heard.

In Colorado the minimum wage is $7.63. If someone making minimum wage were to work 40 hours a week that puts the salary at $15,870.

Salary.com puts the average salary of a Retail "Sales Staff - Full Time" at almost $29k in Longmont Colorado.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about and should spend a couple minutes on google before posting things on the internet that make you look like an ignorant, misinformed, idiot.
 
2012-11-18 05:48:00 PM  

DrPainMD: WhyteRaven74: ronaprhys: Nothing. What year did you fail history in?

While we may not call them robber barons we have plenty of people acting like them, see Papa John's.

If it weren't for the "robber barons," you wouldn't have cheap energy, free libraries, and most of what gives you one of the highest standards of living the human race has ever seen. But, go ahead and complain about them... it's edgy and in fashion, and your peers will consider you to be an intellectual.


"Let's focus on that nice dinner we had instead of the rape" eh?
 
2012-11-18 05:48:24 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The chick in the article is a damn liar. If she was working full time and only bringing in $14,000 a year, that would mean she was working for around $6.73 an hour. We know as a matter of fact that can't be the case.


Depends on how you define full time, walmart may not define it as 40 hours for her position.
 
2012-11-18 05:49:07 PM  
Those of you folks who don't care to hear about anecdotal stories about how WM has badly treated local economies, well, those stories nonetheless represent REAL situations for REAL people. I won't go into detail but I've seen first-hand how local mom-n-pop stores in small towns have been eradicated by the arrival of a WM. And it's not like the people who live in small towns have a choice when it comes to what they are forced to deal with. WM takes advantage of small economies to the detriment of those local populations and that's a fact.
 
2012-11-18 05:49:32 PM  

tjfly: So if you don't love your job, you should strike. Sounds logical... For a liberal.


if you're being treated badly at your job, yes you should stand up for yourself.
 
2012-11-18 05:49:34 PM  

WhyteRaven74: jst3p: There is no universal standard when it comes to "full time" employee, the company gets to define it.

Actually federal law does define it as 40 hours, however it can be defined as fewer hours. Though that big of wiggle room really should be done away with.




The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define full-time employment or part-time employment. This is a matter generally to be determined by the employer. Whether an employee is considered full-time or part-time does not change the application of the FLSA, nor does it affect application of the Service Contract Act or Davis-Bacon and Related Acts wage and fringe benefit requirements.

Link
 
2012-11-18 05:49:41 PM  

DrPainMD: WhyteRaven74: ronaprhys: Nothing. What year did you fail history in?

While we may not call them robber barons we have plenty of people acting like them, see Papa John's.

If it weren't for the "robber barons," you wouldn't have cheap energy, free libraries, and most of what gives you one of the highest standards of living the human race has ever seen. But, go ahead and complain about them... it's edgy and in fashion, and your peers will consider you to be an intellectual.


Not sure why anybody would white knight for robber barons. The term itself is pejorative and implies their practices were unethical. Also, they well never sleep with you.
 
2012-11-18 05:50:05 PM  

DrPainMD: 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.

PS. Retail has ALWAYS been a minimum wage job.


It doesn't have to be and it wasn't always so. In my hubby's native Switzerland, people who work in retails are trained in their jobs and know their sh*t. They're also paid a decent wage and have good benefits. And actually, having read the history of retail in America, companies used to train their employees as well in the profession. We don't do that anymore. It doesn't have to be this way.
 
2012-11-18 05:50:19 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The chick in the article is a damn liar. If she was working full time and only bringing in $14,000 a year, that would mean she was working for around $6.73 an hour. We know as a matter of fact that can't be the case.


It is entirely possible if Wal-Mart defines full time employment at 32 hours.
 
2012-11-18 05:50:23 PM  

mbillips: EVERYBODY PANIC: vartian: tbhouston: People choose to work at Walmart for what ever reason..no one is forcing them...

Yeah, because people who work at Walmart have all these options just laid out in front of them.

Hey, if working for Wal*Mart is the best that these folks can do...

1 - I sorta feel sorry for them.

2 - They should try to make the best of it.

3 - There are equivalent positions at Home Depot, Lowes, various food stores, Target etc. It's hard to get on in a bad economy, but not impossible. They could at least try to get a better job.

4 - They should be grateful that SOMEBODY took them in. Below Walmart level employment would probably be a bunch of dangerous, difficult, backbreaking horror-jobs. Thank you Wal*Mart for saving these people 'from certain peril'. 
[img17.imageshack.us image 678x441]

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in flyover country. Outside your affluent suburbs, they're AIN'T a lot of HDs, Lowes, food stores. In much of Amurka, there's Wal-Mart, Mickie D's and nothing.


Hey, I'm raised in a friggin' swamp in Louisiana. My mother was a gator poacher when I was a kid. True. I still hate that place and will never go back. Well, on that note, here is what I did... I moved to a better place, then another and then another. Crappy jobs in every town. In my late forties, I finally had gone thru so many lousy jobs that I'd become a jack of all trades. I put this to use by starting an appliance repair company with only $800. I toughed out the first two years, but stuck with it and kept doing what I had to to eke out a living. This year, it appears that we will make it after all.

But I promise you this: Anybody who has little training and limited skills and little education will never get ahead in this county or anywhere else. I want these people to work at Wal*Mart if they can somehow get a job there. They'll never get ahead, but they'll never starve if they otherwise make smart decisions, such as living frugally.

My life has been pretty hard, but rather than whine about things, I silently walked away and moved on. Never had one really nice job. Now owning my own company, my family is doing okay, and maybe someday, we'll be doing well. This could never have happened had I not chosen early to move and move and move, and having quit and quit and quit.

/So, who says that running away won't solve your problems? It solved every problem I've ever had. Try it.

//If my neighborhood seems affluent to you, well come on over and let me introduce you to the $30k homes here. Move on in, neighbor. Glad to have you.
 
2012-11-18 05:50:59 PM  

WhyteRaven74: DrPainMD: it weren't for the "robber barons," you wouldn't have cheap energy, free libraries, and most of what gives you one of the highest standards of living the human race has ever seen.

you're not even smart enough to realize what you're defending.

Silly Jesus: They are the kind of people that would be 100% on the government teat if not for WalMart. I

they wouldn't be , and if Walmart actually took care of their employees they wouldn't need government benefits at all.


How do you figure they wouldn't be? Their skills and resourcefulness have taken them all the way up to the level of not showing up to work at WalMart. What's below that other than the government teat?

It's not the job of WalMart to "take care of" their employees. It's the job of Walmart to trade their money for the voluntary labor of their employees at a rate that the employees are worth to the company.
 
2012-11-18 05:51:18 PM  

Great Janitor: WhyteRaven74: coffee smells good: FIFY

Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever

and how exactly should they pay for that?

Because going to the library costs money?


If that really worked, universities would be out of business.
 
2012-11-18 05:52:35 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: You'd think that boostrappy types would tire of Walmart bolstering its profits at taxpayers' expense.


Yes, yes you would. And you would think that these same bootstrappy types would also balk at buying all that crap made in China, because of 'they took our jerbs'. Funny old world, isn't it?
 
2012-11-18 05:52:58 PM  

coco ebert: Trance354: 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.

Speaking as someone in one of those low-paying jobs, though admittedly I'm better off because of a narrow but much needed skill set withing this industry, the major box stores have been forever moving toward the wal-mart example, while at the same time trying to figure out why their turnover was so high. Recently the twits in charge of my current company hit on the idea of paying a decent wage and giving benefirts to full-time employees. After 3 years of biatching about wanting full time and benefits, I fianlly have a good paying 2nd job(not full time, though), that I don't want to stop(side benefits and such), I am in college for engineering, and I have my own start-up design business. They are just now going to full time for the majority of employees. And they wonder why I don't want to quit college and my other job.

/wait a minute, the job landscape will change

That's interesting that they are moving towards a full-time pay with benefits model. I wonder how that will go. Part of the difficulty in organizing for better work conditions, higher wages, and better benefits is that there are many people like you- that see it as a part-time thing as a stepping stone to something better (and there's nothing wrong with that by the way!). Unfortunately, not everyone will move up the career ladder, so making this type of work more humane (i.e. making it possible for someone to support themselves let alone a family), will benefit us as a society.


A minimum job should not be seen as anything else but a stepping stone. In theory- you start out minimum waged and as time goes by, and you've become proficient at a task, becoming an asset to your company with an increase in pay reflecting this. Eventually, you would take on more responsibility and should progress into a position of more responsibility, thus more pay. If you have been a cashier for two years and you are earning close to the same wages you started with, you need to ask yourself why. Did I fail to meet the requirements needed to move upwarded? Are others in similar positions moving but I'm not? Is everybody pretty much where they started out because this is a closed ended job (dead end) that does not offer any opportunity for advancement?

Minimum wage jobs were never intended as careers, only as an entry level stepping stone on the way to that career or as a supplement to another job.

From my many visits various Walmarts, most of them appeared to be manned by kids and workers augmenting other jobs. Kids really do not need healthcare or retirement benefits as they are still living with their parents. If given an opportunity to participate in a 401k with a partial annual match, I believe most of them would opt out for the immediate few bucks now.

Benefits are that carrot dangled in your face to attract you to a job. Better Jobs have better carrots. Minimum wage jobs offer no carrots. You want carrots, increase your set skills rather than remaining where you are. If you fail to move- you have to take what you get.
 
2012-11-18 05:53:05 PM  

mbillips: 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 ...

Guess what, asshole? Not everyone is a skilled liar, which is the basic skill set for a sales job.


WRONG!!! In sales I can not lie. When it comes to insurance, I lie to get a sale and I get sued. When it comes to a sale that results in residuals, lying only means that when they find out I will lose those residuals, so my future income would take a huge hit. Not just that, but I would then lose potential clients by having those I lied to spreading around that I lied to them.
 
2012-11-18 05:53:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: How do you figure they wouldn't be?


if they were paid better they wouldn't need food stamps and if they were provided benefits, like insurance, they wouldn't need help there.

It's not the job of WalMart to "take care of" their employees

Sam Walton felt differently
 
2012-11-18 05:53:34 PM  

Ed_Severson: andrewagill: Really? I think I might be more inclined to listen to the guy who says he's so upset about his lack of work that he's willing to do less work in order to draw attention to it.

Anecdotes are not evidence. However ...

In college, I worked at a supermarket. I can recall case after case after case --hundreds, perhaps -- of part-time employees requesting more hours. The ones who showed up on time every time they were scheduled were accommodated whenever possible. The ones who were chronically late or failed to show up for a shift? Fewer hours going forward, every single time. In a retail environment, if the company does not have 100% confidence that you will be at work when you're supposed to be at work, they will depend on you as little as they possibly can.


Sure, if one guy shows up late, they might cut his hours. If two people do it, in harmony, they might think they're both lovers and cut both their hours. But if all the employees in your store leave en masse, are you going to fire all of them? Are you going to spend weeks hiring and training people during the busiest time of the year? That is the essence of a strike, and why that sort of logic fails.
 
2012-11-18 05:53:54 PM  

jshine: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: jshine: There's nothing in the Bible that says "And verily did Jesus feast upon the turkeys and stuffing and mashed potatoes and pie, then get drunk and watch football. So sayeth The Lord. Amen".

Psst...it actually kind of is, just pushed back a tad. See: Feast of Tabernacles
...
So how did the one stem from the other? ...


He didn't say one came from the other. He's saying there's a parallel between the not-in-the-Bible Jesus quote above, and Deuteronomy 14:22-27 (especially 26, which some translations make sound more debauched than others) which is part of the official instructions for observing the Feast of Tabernacles.
 
2012-11-18 05:53:57 PM  

Silly Jesus: WhyteRaven74: DrPainMD: it weren't for the "robber barons," you wouldn't have cheap energy, free libraries, and most of what gives you one of the highest standards of living the human race has ever seen.

you're not even smart enough to realize what you're defending.

Silly Jesus: They are the kind of people that would be 100% on the government teat if not for WalMart. I

they wouldn't be , and if Walmart actually took care of their employees they wouldn't need government benefits at all.

How do you figure they wouldn't be? Their skills and resourcefulness have taken them all the way up to the level of not showing up to work at WalMart. What's below that other than the government teat?

It's not the job of WalMart to "take care of" their employees. It's the job of Walmart to trade their money for the voluntary labor of their employees at a rate that the employees are worth to the company.


Fair enough, then you agree it's the government's place to look after the employees then?

/Who am I kidding lol "Let them eat cake" right?
 
2012-11-18 05:54:00 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: Well, on that note, here is what I did... I moved to a better place, then another and then another


Sounding an awful lot like a "Soft on Immigration" Liberal with that garbage!
 
2012-11-18 05:54:19 PM  

WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: Oh please, where is the social compact? Details? When does a person enter into it? How?

living as a member of society


okay, I'll bite.

Please list out the terms of the social compact for the US.

I'll wait.
 
2012-11-18 05:54:31 PM  
I feel bad for those people. It's bad enough they have no skills or future, but then they're dumb enough to strike during the worst economic environment since the 1930's. They'll be lucky to make it through the end of the pay period.
 
2012-11-18 05:54:52 PM  

WhyteRaven74: and thanks to the turnover the company is going to have to spend more money.


They won't care if it unburdens them from having an employee who doesn't want to be there and may or may not show up for work. That costs the company money too.

Problem: Employee doesn't believe he gets enough hours per week.
Employee action: Skip work.
Employer response: Find someone else to cover that shift, permanently.

Every. Time.
 
2012-11-18 05:55:17 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: mbillips: EVERYBODY PANIC: vartian: tbhouston: People choose to work at Walmart for what ever reason..no one is forcing them...

Yeah, because people who work at Walmart have all these options just laid out in front of them.

Hey, if working for Wal*Mart is the best that these folks can do...

1 - I sorta feel sorry for them.

2 - They should try to make the best of it.

3 - There are equivalent positions at Home Depot, Lowes, various food stores, Target etc. It's hard to get on in a bad economy, but not impossible. They could at least try to get a better job.

4 - They should be grateful that SOMEBODY took them in. Below Walmart level employment would probably be a bunch of dangerous, difficult, backbreaking horror-jobs. Thank you Wal*Mart for saving these people 'from certain peril'. 
[img17.imageshack.us image 678x441]

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in flyover country. Outside your affluent suburbs, they're AIN'T a lot of HDs, Lowes, food stores. In much of Amurka, there's Wal-Mart, Mickie D's and nothing.

Hey, I'm raised in a friggin' swamp in Louisiana. My mother was a gator poacher when I was a kid. True. I still hate that place and will never go back. Well, on that note, here is what I did... I moved to a better place, then another and then another. Crappy jobs in every town. In my late forties, I finally had gone thru so many lousy jobs that I'd become a jack of all trades. I put this to use by starting an appliance repair company with only $800. I toughed out the first two years, but stuck with it and kept doing what I had to to eke out a living. This year, it appears that we will make it after all.

But I promise you this: Anybody who has little training and limited skills and little education will never get ahead in this county or anywhere else. I want these people to work at Wal*Mart if they can somehow get a job there. They'll never get ahead, but they'll never starve if they otherwise make smart decisions, such as living frugally.

My life ...


Bootstraps are just a right wing myth!!!

Most people can't work hard!!!

Most people are poor poor pitiful poor with no skills and no hope!!!!
 
2012-11-18 05:55:43 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Great Janitor: WhyteRaven74: coffee smells good: FIFY

Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever

and how exactly should they pay for that?

Because going to the library costs money?

If that really worked, universities would be out of business.


It can, it just isn't reliable. I make a very good salary and I don't have a high school diploma. I have since gotten a GED and am getting a degree now, but that is mostly to be an example to my kids.

Of course I am an outlier who had a lot of advantages. I am a white male (that helps a lot) that got a decent education (even if my grades didn't reflect it) and am more intelligent than many people. I also am pretty charismatic and healthy. I worked retail for awhile and at 25 decided I didn't want to wear a name tag anymore and bootstrapped myself into an IT career.

It can be done but it would be complete bullshiat to say anyone can do it.
 
2012-11-18 05:56:14 PM  

jestme: PleaseHamletDon'tHurtEm: I'm stuck working at my temp call-center job on Friday, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

I will be working at Walmart. I am far from stupid or unskilled. I have another part-time job and am a full-time student. I work at Walmart because I get health insurance and other benefits despite my telling Walmart that I'll only work a couple of evenings and one weekend day each week. Oh and I've never made minimum wage there, either.


OMG! You poor oppressed guy! Reading all the whiny stuff in this thread, I just know that you must be miserable. Why, if...
Hey, wait a minute. You get decent pay and medical benefits by working for Wal*Mart? Then tell us all what is all this fuss then. Is it just the newest attempt by the evil union bosses to throttle a big business? Say it isn't so!
 
2012-11-18 05:56:21 PM  

Fail in Human Form: It's not the job of WalMart to "take care of" their employees. It's the job of Walmart to trade their money for the voluntary labor of their employees at a rate that the employees are worth to the company.

Fair enough, then you agree it's the government's place to look after the employees then?


How did you make that leap?
 
2012-11-18 05:57:11 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Please list out the terms of the social compact for the US.


Check your 1040
 
2012-11-18 05:57:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Please list out the terms of the social compact for the US.


So you admit to having never read a word of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Jay et al? You know that's not helping your credibility around here.

Ed_Severson: They won't care if it unburdens them from having an employee who doesn't want to be there and may or may not show up for work.


the people are only striking as a last ditch measure, had Walmart taken care of them they wouldn't be striking. The problem is purely of Walmart's making.
 
2012-11-18 05:57:31 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: How do you figure they wouldn't be?

if they were paid better they wouldn't need food stamps and if they were provided benefits, like insurance, they wouldn't need help there.

It's not the job of WalMart to "take care of" their employees

Sam Walton felt differently


Too bad it's not his company anymore. The people running it get to decide such things.
 
2012-11-18 05:57:56 PM  

DrPainMD: Also, it's already happening. Lots of successful people worked at Walmart earlier in their lives. The ones who went home and watched TV every night are the ones still working there.


I can't argue with this part of your argument. After 5 years as a hospital corpsman in the Navy, I was pushing carts at Target making $7.25/hr. Now I'm a coont-hair away from a graduate degree and fixin' to pull in six-figures. My boot-straps go up to my armpits. My life story is a Republican's wet dream. But I don't identify with anything they stand for and since I come from the lower classes, I'll continue to support things that support the lower classes.

fark all these greedy corporations and their greedy executives. That goes for Wal-Mart, Hostess, and any other greedy piece-of-shiat corporation that treats their employees like garbage. 

P.s. I'm part of the 47% because I am not working (thus, not paying income taxes) and also using my G.I. Bill.
 
2012-11-18 05:58:41 PM  

Silly Jesus: Most people can't work hard!!!


Among the hardest working people around are people who make very little.
 
2012-11-18 05:58:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: Too bad it's not his company anymore. The people running it get to decide such things.


Stockholders, management controlling stockholders, something with stockholders!
 
2012-11-18 05:58:50 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Silly Jesus: WhyteRaven74: DrPainMD: it weren't for the "robber barons," you wouldn't have cheap energy, free libraries, and most of what gives you one of the highest standards of living the human race has ever seen.

you're not even smart enough to realize what you're defending.

Silly Jesus: They are the kind of people that would be 100% on the government teat if not for WalMart. I

they wouldn't be , and if Walmart actually took care of their employees they wouldn't need government benefits at all.

How do you figure they wouldn't be? Their skills and resourcefulness have taken them all the way up to the level of not showing up to work at WalMart. What's below that other than the government teat?

It's not the job of WalMart to "take care of" their employees. It's the job of Walmart to trade their money for the voluntary labor of their employees at a rate that the employees are worth to the company.

Fair enough, then you agree it's the government's place to look after the employees then?

/Who am I kidding lol "Let them eat cake" right?


Where did I say that?
 
2012-11-18 05:59:08 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Great Janitor: WhyteRaven74: coffee smells good: FIFY

Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever

and how exactly should they pay for that?

Because going to the library costs money?

If that really worked, universities would be out of business.


I gained skills, not just through college, but by other means as well. I learned computer programming at night by reading books and looking online. I learned the use of power tools by helping out friends who had the tools and needed an extra hand. I knew people who where skilled auto mechanics, so I learned from them.

Universities really aren't in the market of job training. If so then Liberal Arts majors wouldn't graduate and get jobs at Starbucks.
 
2012-11-18 05:59:09 PM  

whistleridge: Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown?


I don't blame Wal-Mart for that. The decline of the American downtown began with malls in the 1960s.

You can blame large chains, or the aggregation of stores in larger shopping centers, but ultimately American consumers are to blame. We collectively chose to have more stuff - cheap stuff - over having less with higher quality and service.

If Americans want the chains to go, and the local shops to come back, then you have to shop with your wallet, even if it means you get by with less. (I freely admit to failing at this myself - I'm willing to pay 30-40% more, but not 80-100%)
 
2012-11-18 05:59:10 PM  
rise up to the shining. and don't shop at Walmart

www.dariomollo.com
 
2012-11-18 05:59:45 PM  

Silly Jesus: Too bad it's not his company anymore. The people running it get to decide such things.


ah fark the dead, who cares if they had a superior way to do things.
 
2012-11-18 06:00:09 PM  
I'm imagining the chaos if all of the employees at even just one store participate on black Friday. Everyone shows up for work, they let the screaming horde of crazy black Friday shoppers in, and then they just leave? No cashiers, no loss-prevention, no one to stop an unruly mass of shoppers wrapped up in mob-mentality from just loading up their carts and walking out with free 55" TVs?

I wonder how long it would take to loot the store bare, or if the police would show up to stop it in time.
 
2012-11-18 06:00:14 PM  

andrewagill: But if all the employees in your store leave en masse, are you going to fire all of them?


Again, that's not what's happening here. The article cites 30 employees from 6 stores.

And, just so we're clear, in that scenario, nobody got fired.
 
2012-11-18 06:00:29 PM  

whatshisname: freewill: ^^^ This.

If you're at a company that treats you badly, do whatever you need to do to get out. Life is too short, and if the pay was good enough to justify it, you wouldn't feel like you needed to justify it anymore.


What happens when ALL the companies treat their employees badly?

Should a company merely be a profit centre at any cost or should profits be secondary to providing a good living to employees and excellent products and services to consumers?


Start your own business and find out.
 
2012-11-18 06:00:59 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Most people can't work hard!!!

Among the hardest working people around are people who make very little.


This. I have a phat salary and am likely to get a 5 figure year end bonus and I don't work "hard" at all. Hell I just had them change my desk to a standing configuration because I spend all day sitting on ass and I am getting flabby.
 
2012-11-18 06:01:03 PM  

WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: Please list out the terms of the social compact for the US.

So you admit to having never read a word of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Jay et al? You know that's not helping your credibility around here.

so you still have nothing, got it.
Do you think the social compact of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Jay were all the same or do you get to chose the person you agree with? Or can you just go with a mixture of things you agree with and for example agree with the social compact outlined by America's Survival Guide, or the left wing loonies, or OWS, or the Tea Party?

but I know you have nothing, so I won't expect a reply.


 
2012-11-18 06:01:09 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Most people can't work hard!!!

Among the hardest working people around are people who make very little.


OK...
 
2012-11-18 06:01:40 PM  

DrPainMD: Start your own business and find out.


or you could read up on Costco, much easier.
 
2012-11-18 06:01:41 PM  
One of the downsides of paying your workers crap is that you get crap in return. Employees just flat out don't give a fark. Employee theft goes through the roof, workers call in sick often, people work while they're "Chemically Enhanced", etc. All these cost companies millions in lost revenue, productive and training expenses. On top of that, the best workers will leave at the first sign of a better opportunity, leaving the place staffed with the 'slugs'.

By just paying people a few dollars/hour more and taking care of their workers, a company can actually get a positive return on their labor investments.
 
2012-11-18 06:01:57 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Too bad it's not his company anymore. The people running it get to decide such things.

ah fark the dead, who cares if they had a superior way to do things.


You are the decider of superior? Or the current CEO?
 
2012-11-18 06:02:27 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: tenpoundsofcheese: Please list out the terms of the social compact for the US.

Check your 1040


wut?
 
2012-11-18 06:02:59 PM  
i182.photobucket.com

i182.photobucket.com

i182.photobucket.com

i182.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-18 06:03:47 PM  

jst3p: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Most people can't work hard!!!

Among the hardest working people around are people who make very little.

This. I have a phat salary and am likely to get a 5 figure year end bonus and I don't work "hard" at all. Hell I just had them change my desk to a standing configuration because I spend all day sitting on ass and I am getting flabby.


Ditch diggers work "harder" than neurosurgeons. WTF is the point in this line of argument?
 
2012-11-18 06:03:49 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: so you still have nothing, got it.


so you want to argue no person has any social responsibility to any other? So I can come over and torch your house and steal your and you're cool with that? Sweeeeeet.
 
2012-11-18 06:04:11 PM  

MelGoesOnTour: Those of you folks who don't care to hear about anecdotal stories about how WM has badly treated local economies, well, those stories nonetheless represent REAL situations for REAL people. I won't go into detail but I've seen first-hand how local mom-n-pop stores in small towns have been eradicated by the arrival of a WM. And it's not like the people who live in small towns have a choice when it comes to what they are forced to deal with. WM takes advantage of small economies to the detriment of those local populations and that's a fact.


I care about anecdotal stories, but please answer me this, why are these small town folk so willing to shop their neighbors and sometimes themselves out of jobs if Walmart is so bad for the area? Just because a Walmart opens doesn't mean people are forced to shop there instead of Johnson's Grocery and Henderson's Butcher Shop.


I think it is the fact that the poorest people are most likely to go for the lowest prices even if it can be against their own self interest in the bigger picture. Upper income people can afford to shop with a "conscience".
 
2012-11-18 06:04:15 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm imagining the chaos if all of the employees at even just one store participate on black Friday. Everyone shows up for work, they let the screaming horde of crazy black Friday shoppers in, and then they just leave? No cashiers, no loss-prevention, no one to stop an unruly mass of shoppers wrapped up in mob-mentality from just loading up their carts and walking out with free 55" TVs?

I wonder how long it would take to loot the store bare, or if the police would show up to stop it in time.


creeper.naurunappula.com
 
2012-11-18 06:04:36 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Fail in Human Form: It's not the job of WalMart to "take care of" their employees. It's the job of Walmart to trade their money for the voluntary labor of their employees at a rate that the employees are worth to the company.

Fair enough, then you agree it's the government's place to look after the employees then?

How did you make that leap?


well if walmart, the richest company in the world, doesnt reasonably take care of their healthcare or retirement and decides to pay them so poorly that they cant take care of their family, what other recourse do people have? I know, I know. find a better job with your bootstraps. problem is, we have an abundance of people that will work for anything and a shortage of company execs that see the people on the bottom as living, feeling human beings.
 
2012-11-18 06:04:37 PM  

brantgoose: I predict that it will soon be even harder to spot a helpful employee in a WalMart store.

In my experience, in addition to occupying the locations of old K-mart stores, WalMart stores have this in common with the aged chain: if you look at an employee, they disappear.

They will happly stock shelves or stand around or whatever it is that employees do when they are not working, but the moment you have a question or have made a decision and need help getting something down from twenty feet over your head, they are nowhere to be found.

Soon they will not be waiting for you to decide to buy something. They will be gone.

There is something seriously quantum mechanical going on in the giant box retail trade. Is that an employee? Look and they will either disappear or turn out to be an employee who is serving somebody else and won't be free until they are done--at which time you will look again and they will be gone or else serving another employee.

It is impossible to get servce in a service economy. I can see why some nutters want to go back to a gold-based economy, but then it would be impossible to find any gold. Gold is too useful to sit around in vaults, so I favour a fiat currency which lets it get out and do something once in a while.


Take an African-American friend with you (not necessary if you are African-American) and go to a Wal-Mart in Redneckistan. You'll probably get plenty of attention.
 
2012-11-18 06:04:40 PM  

Silly Jesus: Ditch diggers work "harder" than neurosurgeons. WTF is the point in this line of argument?


That just because a person is poorly paid doesn't mean they don't work hard.
 
2012-11-18 06:05:03 PM  

deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.


Citation needed.

/ IMHO, it takes two to tango
// have worked at big companies with abysmal management...
 
2012-11-18 06:05:27 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: XveryYpettyZ: tenpoundsofcheese: XveryYpettyZ: The central story of the United States is the idea that if you work hard, sacrifice, delay gratification, save and live frugally, in the end you will get ahead and your children will have an opportunity at a better life. Wal Mart, and other stores of their ilk, make a mockery of that ideal by having full-time employees still on public assistance. What is popularly railed-against as lazy people taking advantage of the system is often more a form of corporate welfare than one that benefits the individuals collecting the checks/food stamps/WIC vouchers, etc.

You are completely wrong about the central story of the US

It isn't that you WILL get ahead it is that you have the opportunity to get ahead


The central story is not one of entitlement and guarantees

Wanna know how I can tell you're an asshole
wanna know how I can tell that you can't read??

It isn't entitlement to say if you work hard and you save and you live frugally you deserve to get ahead.

I never said someone like that doesn't DESERVE to get ahead. I said that the premise that they WILL get ahead is wrong. "WILL" implies a guarantee. There are no guarantees, even for people who deserve to get ahead.


That's the goddamn social compact we entered into.

Oh please, where is the social compact? Details? When does a person enter into it? How?

The fact that you can disagree with that as sounding "entitled" is a sign of how far the Republican party has fallen.

blah, blah, blah. Saying someone WILL get something is an entitlement.


Hey Jack, when somebody states the social compact that underlies the entire Protestant Work Ethic-- something you probably haven't bothered to educate yourself on-- and you denigrate it as "entitled," yes, you're an asshole. And it IS a sign of how far the Republican party has fallen that its membership can object to something as authentically American as that.

Oh, and nice backtracking... they "deserve" to get ahead if they "do everything right", but if they don't because they're getting screwed sideways by Wal Mart it's somehow degenerate "entitlement-mongering" to point that fact out.

Fark you.
 
2012-11-18 06:05:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: jst3p: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Most people can't work hard!!!

Among the hardest working people around are people who make very little.

This. I have a phat salary and am likely to get a 5 figure year end bonus and I don't work "hard" at all. Hell I just had them change my desk to a standing configuration because I spend all day sitting on ass and I am getting flabby.

Ditch diggers work "harder" than neurosurgeons. WTF is the point in this line of argument?


I didn't put it out there but the conservative "go to" line is that the poor are lazy, which is ironic as the working poor are, with some exceptions, probably the hardest working people in our society.
 
2012-11-18 06:05:33 PM  
LOL @ poor people striking
 
2012-11-18 06:05:34 PM  
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-18 06:05:42 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Please list out the terms of the social compact for the US.


It's in that funny thing called the Constitution that you misquote to back up your sick agenda. The country was established "to promote the general welfare" and I don't recall any clauses that say it only applies to a subset of the people.
 
2012-11-18 06:06:19 PM  

Silly Jesus: Ditch diggers work "harder" than neurosurgeons. WTF is the point in this line of argument?


That the "hard work" fetish is a smokescreen... compensation in this country is about skill sets, education, and personal relationship (connections). "Hard work" is a rhetorical device used on credulous people to keep them from realizing that you are screwing them over.
 
2012-11-18 06:06:21 PM  

WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: so you still have nothing, got it.

so you want to argue no person has any social responsibility to any other? So I can come over and torch your house and steal your and you're cool with that? Sweeeeeet.


Social responsibility to someone else has many definitions.

Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to not burn my shiat down? Sure.

Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to give me money because I have less than you? Nope.
 
2012-11-18 06:06:25 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: I think it is the fact that the poorest people are most likely to go for the lowest prices even if it can be against their own self interest in the bigger picture.


This coupled with "lots of people are dumb".
 
2012-11-18 06:07:53 PM  

jst3p: It is entirely possible if Wal-Mart defines full time employment at 32 hours.


Then that would put her at around $8.41 an hour, still not buying her story.
 
2012-11-18 06:07:57 PM  

WhyteRaven74: the people are only striking as a last ditch measure, had Walmart taken care of them they wouldn't be striking. The problem is purely of Walmart's making.


And? The only point I've been driving home is this: if your complaint is that you don't get enough hours, failing to show up for work is not an effective way to get what you want. It will not result in you getting the extra shift you're lobbying for.

It doesn't matter whose fault you think it is. All that matters is that these employees are complaining about something and then acting in direct opposition to the basis of their complaint, which is a guaranteed way to make sure nobody pays attention to you.
 
2012-11-18 06:08:32 PM  

12349876: DrPainMD: 12349876: Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever.

If everyone did this those who did it the least would still be stuck working at Wal Mart where people who refuse to better themselves belong.

FTFY

Also, it's already happening. Lots of successful people worked at Walmart earlier in their lives. The ones who went home and watched TV every night are the ones still working there.

I'm talking philosophically here. There will always be people at the bottom of the rung who are stuck at Wal Mart type jobs. Bottom of the rung used to be dropping out in the middle school, then high school, now it's a high school graduate and may in a few decades be a bachelor's degree and no matter how high it gets, there will be those at the bottom and there's not enough white collar jobs for them.


The bottom rung has always been people with no drive or ambition. I dropped out of high school, and I'm doing just fine (not in the top 1%, but easily in the top 5%). There's no excuse for not bettering yourself; libraries are free and ANYBODY can get a student loan. Even those with no skills can make good money... go to work on an off-shore oil rig (I put myself thru college with a job as a dishwasher on rigs in the North Sea [and was making more money than my dad, who was a colonel in the Army]) or take on some other high demand/low supply job.
 
2012-11-18 06:08:40 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Ditch diggers work "harder" than neurosurgeons. WTF is the point in this line of argument?

That just because a person is poorly paid doesn't mean they don't work hard.


I didn't mean in the physical sense ( I think that post was actually sarcastic anyway). I meant that they didn't work hard to move up or to gain necessary skills to provide for themselves and their family. Being a life long ditch digger at minimum wage is hard physical work, but that person hasn't worked very hard to get ahead in life. See the difference?
 
2012-11-18 06:09:13 PM  

deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.


Thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2012-11-18 06:09:52 PM  

Ed_Severson: And? The only point I've been driving home is this: if your complaint is that you don't get enough hours, failing to show up for work is not an effective way to get what you want. It will not result in you getting the extra shift you're lobbying for.


What if you can make your employer feel enough pain to comply with your wishes? You take a hit on the hours now, but you do it in such a way that the corporate office feels the pain too. Then they realize they need to play ball. Seems pretty basic to me.

Popcorn Johnny: Then that would put her at around $8.41 an hour, still not buying her story.


Seems fishy... I'm pretty sure Wal-Mart pays exceptional wages.
 
2012-11-18 06:10:22 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Among the hardest working people around are people who make very little.


Absolutely. Especially the most labor intensive jobs. I would watch my grandfather, father, and ex-husband work at LEAST 40 hour weeks doing various construction/HVAC/painting/contracting jobs throughout the years and as the economy has tanked, they have been making less and less each year while increasing their work loads at the same time. And because they are contractors, they don't have any kind of insurance plan in place to protect them should they get hurt at work or be otherwise unable to continue working.

Before my dad died, he was laid off from the construction crew he was working for and had to start supplementing his income by taking whatever jobs he could get; he was a "skilled" guy, too. He used to work as an engineer, had experience in CAD, went to college, etc. etc. but when the engineering firm he worked for went under, again, he took up work on the construction crew and would continue to search for work in his previous field. He was unable to ever find a position because most companies were hiring kids straight out of school with little to no experience in the field, but who were willing to work for less. Many companies prefer hiring the young ones because they know that if shiat hits the fan and they wind up having to do some lay offs, those kids are gonna be the first to go, and they won't have to feel as bad knowing they can fall back on their parents; basically, that they won't be out of work with 4 kids to feed and no gainful employment.

Dad wound up in retail, still trying to interview and search for that elusive "good job" he had been trying to find FOR YEARS...and he never did manage to find it again.
 
2012-11-18 06:10:36 PM  
If we just raised the minimum wage to 20 dollars an hour with mandatory 4 weeks vacation and full health insurance, there would be no more problems.
 
2012-11-18 06:11:36 PM  

jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Most people can't work hard!!!

Among the hardest working people around are people who make very little.

This. I have a phat salary and am likely to get a 5 figure year end bonus and I don't work "hard" at all. Hell I just had them change my desk to a standing configuration because I spend all day sitting on ass and I am getting flabby.

Ditch diggers work "harder" than neurosurgeons. WTF is the point in this line of argument?

I didn't put it out there but the conservative "go to" line is that the poor are lazy, which is ironic as the working poor are, with some exceptions, probably the hardest working people in our society.


I can only speak for myself, but I interpret it as "achievement lazy" or "success lazy." Sure, digging ditches your whole life at minimum wage is physically demanding, but you're "lazy" in that you've never been driven to get ahead or succeed. To obtain the skills needed to better provide for yourself and your family. Settled for literally the least that you can do and had no motivation for improvement.
 
2012-11-18 06:11:54 PM  

dopekitty74: Thatsthejoke.jpg


You suck McBain!

DrPainMD: There's no excuse for not bettering yourself; libraries are free and ANYBODY can get a student loan. Even those with no skills can make good money... go to work on an off-shore oil rig (I put myself thru college with a job as a dishwasher on rigs in the North Sea [and was making more money than my dad, who was a colonel in the Army])


True that... I had a job as a dishwasher's assistant on an oil rig and was making more money than my father who was a four-star admiral with lucrative consultant gigs that were totally ethical.
 
2012-11-18 06:12:11 PM  

Silly Jesus: Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to give me money because I have less than you? Nope.


What about a social responsibility to make sure someone working for you isn't out groveling for government benefits which in turn cost other people money?

Ed_Severson: All that matters is that these employees are complaining about something and then acting in direct opposition to the basis of their complaint,


They've been showing up for work and asking for hours that have never materialized. When plan A doesn't work, it's time for plan B.
 
2012-11-18 06:12:13 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.

Citation needed.

/ IMHO, it takes two to tango
// have worked at big companies with abysmal management...


Looks like Hostess may be bought out by a Mexican Bimbo. Maybe you'd prefer to sell them Walmart while we're at it.
 
2012-11-18 06:12:18 PM  

red5ish: DrPainMD: WhyteRaven74: ronaprhys: Nothing. What year did you fail history in?

While we may not call them robber barons we have plenty of people acting like them, see Papa John's.

If it weren't for the "robber barons," you wouldn't have cheap energy, free libraries, and most of what gives you one of the highest standards of living the human race has ever seen. But, go ahead and complain about them... it's edgy and in fashion, and your peers will consider you to be an intellectual.

Not sure why anybody would white knight for robber barons. The term itself is pejorative and implies their practices were unethical. Also, they well never sleep with you.


"Robber baron" is just that: a term. Unless you let others do your thinking for you, it doesn't mean anything. And I have no interest in sleeping with John D. Rockefeller... he was ugly back then and I'm sure he doesn't look too good today, either.
 
2012-11-18 06:13:09 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Silly Jesus: Ditch diggers work "harder" than neurosurgeons. WTF is the point in this line of argument?

That the "hard work" fetish is a smokescreen... compensation in this country is about skill sets, education, and personal relationship (connections). "Hard work" is a rhetorical device used on credulous people to keep them from realizing that you are screwing them over.


See my other two responses to this.
 
2012-11-18 06:13:13 PM  

seapig:

Before my dad died, he was laid off from the construction crew he was working for and had to start supplementing his income by taking whatever jobs he could get; he was a "skilled" guy, too. He used to work as an engineer, .


Did he "work as an engineer", or was he an engineer? Huge difference, one that likely means the difference between employability and unemployment.
 
2012-11-18 06:14:16 PM  

Tourney3p0: If we just raised the minimum wage to 20 dollars an hour with mandatory 4 weeks vacation and full health insurance, there would be no more problems.


Not until bread went up to $10 a loaf seeing how we could now all afford it.
 
2012-11-18 06:14:26 PM  
WalMart might liquidate and close its doors? If only!
 
2012-11-18 06:15:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: but that person hasn't worked very hard to get ahead in life.


the people who worked on Henry Ford's assembly lines didn't either, yet Ford saw to it they were well paid. Indeed they were very well paid. And it helped Ford make a fark ton of money. Indeed Ford didn't pay well at first and found that it was almost impossible to make money with high turnover. So he took care of the turnover issue and promptly started swimming in money. Oh and it also allowed Ford employees to be Ford customers quite easily.
 
2012-11-18 06:15:29 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: What if you can make your employer feel enough pain to comply with your wishes?


If there are 5 of you in one retail location that receives a few hundred job applications per week, you can't. These people are undercutting themselves for nothing. Even if 100 of them walked out, they can't all get more hours. The only way to achieve that is to make yourself 100% reliable and be more productive than the people around you.

Like I said initially, strikes and walk-outs can be effective in some situations, but you can't just apply them indiscriminately and expect results. For the specific complaint of not enough hours, a walkout is bad idea número uno.
 
2012-11-18 06:15:40 PM  

Gunderson: One of the downsides of paying your workers crap is that you get crap in return. Employees just flat out don't give a fark. Employee theft goes through the roof, workers call in sick often, people work while they're "Chemically Enhanced", etc. All these cost companies millions in lost revenue, productive and training expenses. On top of that, the best workers will leave at the first sign of a better opportunity, leaving the place staffed with the 'slugs'.

By just paying people a few dollars/hour more and taking care of their workers, a company can actually get a positive return on their labor investments.


Ah! So very very true.

I used to know not just one, but at least 3 different people, who worked at WAL MART who would steal anything in the store and bring it out the back for you as long as you paid them $20 to do it. They were in collusion with the also-underpaid security guards. TVs, high-end stereos, and electronics behind the glass cost you a bit more, but still were much less cheaper than actually buying them from the store. That's how my husband managed to outfit his old Camaro with the killer stereo system he had in it; also how we managed to furnish our first apartment together with all brand new items instead of having to scrounge up whatever we could find for free or second-hand.

And from what I understand, this is not an uncommon occurrence at all. I have a few good friends in other states who also know of Wal Mart employees that do similar things to supplement their Wal Mart wages.
 
2012-11-18 06:16:09 PM  

deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.


Sure, you go on believing that...
BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.
There is just no way they could have given their employees a penny more.....
Why are their so many gullible idiots in this world?
 
2012-11-18 06:16:11 PM  

WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: so you still have nothing, got it.

so you want to argue no person has any social responsibility to any other? So I can come over and torch your house and steal your and you're cool with that? Sweeeeeet.


Wow, so now you are conflating social compact and "social responsibility" with what has been codified in laws?

Seriously?

Man, I knew you had nothing on this social compact argument, but I just assumed you would turn and hide the way you usually do rather than now trying to argue that "social responsibility" is the same thing as whether you are allowed to burn someone's house down.
 
2012-11-18 06:16:28 PM  

Tourney3p0: If we just raised the minimum wage to 20 dollars an hour with mandatory 4 weeks vacation and full health insurance, there would be no more problems.


easterneurope.dow.com

Not sure if serious or just potato.
 
2012-11-18 06:17:23 PM  
Wobblies unite and circle the wagons.
 
2012-11-18 06:17:57 PM  

WhyteRaven74:
yeah actually it is.


Total fail. If you truly try to make the comparison, you'd fail. Where are the company towns? The credit, to that original company, to buy goods and services such that you could never quit because you were in hock to the company? That doesn't exist - at all. Where are the troops coming in to break up any strikes with violence and killing? Where are the illegal pricing practices?

The simple fact is that there are laws in place that prevent any robber barons. That doesn't mean that people can't pay low wages - but those low wages have a floor, unlike what a robber baron would do.

Face it - as much as you'd like there to be that comparison, it doesn't exist.
 
2012-11-18 06:18:03 PM  

Cyclometh: deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.

Hostess was owned by two hedge funds with a long history of liquidating and looting companies, They stopped contributing to the employee pensions but tripled the CEO's salary, and gave similar raises and bonuses to other executives.

There was never any intention of coming to an agreement. They forced the confrontation so they could walk away with a giant stack of cash and no longer be encumbered by having to actually run a business.

The Hostess shutdown was a classic looting job. The fact that they got to blame he union is just icing on the cake.



Be careful where you go with that argument, Dick Gephart and Tim Collins are big Democrats.
 
2012-11-18 06:18:30 PM  
garotasperversas.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-18 06:19:31 PM  

Silly Jesus: easterneurope.dow.com


you might want to look at Australia, they have a high minimum wage, lots of vacation leave, everyone has medical coverage and their economy is doing pretty darn well.

tenpoundsofcheese: social responsibility" is the same thing as whether you are allowed to burn someone's house down.


Well it is. That's why we have laws and courts and such for people who do burn down houses. The expectation is you don't damage someone's property and if you do, you get punished for it.
 
2012-11-18 06:19:38 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to give me money because I have less than you? Nope.

What about a social responsibility to make sure someone working for you isn't out groveling for government benefits which in turn cost other people money?

Ed_Severson: All that matters is that these employees are complaining about something and then acting in direct opposition to the basis of their complaint,

They've been showing up for work and asking for hours that have never materialized. When plan A doesn't work, it's time for plan B.


Depends on what they are providing me. I pay them what I think that their labor is worth to me. They voluntarily agree to my assessment of the worth of their labor. Sure, it'd be nice if everyone was paid $25 / hour with 0 skills, when their labor earns you $10 / hour, but why do you think that someone is a horrible person for not deciding to spend their money in that way?
 
2012-11-18 06:21:15 PM  

Tourney3p0: seapig:

Before my dad died, he was laid off from the construction crew he was working for and had to start supplementing his income by taking whatever jobs he could get; he was a "skilled" guy, too. He used to work as an engineer, .

Did he "work as an engineer", or was he an engineer? Huge difference, one that likely means the difference between employability and unemployment.


Well to be honest, I can't tell you for sure. I know he went to college on his G.I. bill; not sure what his major was, but he was with that company from the time I was born til I was about 10. I remember having to go to his office a few times and him showing us the work he was doing in Auto CAD; a lot of it looked like blue prints to me at the time. And I was more interested in the office fish tank than what he was trying to show us. He died when I was 16, but to be perfectly honest, I didn't ask my dad much about his life because I was too busy being a teenager, getting high and hanging out with my friends. Had I known how little time I had left with him, I would have bothered to learn more...
 
2012-11-18 06:21:19 PM  

RanDomino: jshine
Maybe its the labor market saying "there are too many workers"?

Well let's just get rid of a few million of them, right?

Or maybe the problem isn't the number of workers, but the fact that most of the gains in productivity over the past several decades have been taken as profit by the business-owning class, rather than used to actually benefit humanity.

Capitalism- what other system can actually have a "crisis of overproduction"? That's right! Everyone's homeless and starving because we're TOO PRODUCTIVE! (and so the market is saturated and it's hard for investors/owners/managers to get returns by increasing sales, so they start cutting costs- wages and employment- to keep quarterly profits going up) Who still thinks this is a good idea, ffs??


Okay. Read it three times trying to really grasp what you are trying to say. Allow me...

1 - "Capitalism- what other system..."
You think that America is a Capitalist country? Not even close.

2 - "Everyone's homeless and starving because..."
Nobody is starving. You say everybody is starving, but I don't know even one person who has starved to death in my life. Please return to reality. You are smarter than this. Prove it. Please.

3 - "Who still thinks this is a good idea..." Well, okay, nobody thinks that this is a good system. Wal*Mart did not invent this economy or the rules of business in our system; they just do what they can to make money. Making money is what business try to do. Wal*Mart is just better at it than most companies.

Well, to be honest, I'd like for you to lay out for us a better system. I'm sure you have one in mind. Since you cannot distiguish capitalism from fascism, I am hopeful that you do grasp the basic concepts of whatever system you find better. If it is a system already practiced in the world, please indicate which countries. If you want extra points, please reference the conceptual founders and moral implications of your better system. I really hope you come thru with this. The system we have now is a mess. Help us out here, please.
img836.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-18 06:21:55 PM  

ronaprhys: Where are the company towns?


Most robber barons didn't have company towns. And using violence to fight strikers was also not that common, indeed when it did happen it caused just a dust up that those running the companies found themselves in worse shape with the public.
 
2012-11-18 06:22:35 PM  

Wrencher: deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.

Sure, you go on believing that...
BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.
There is just no way they could have given their employees a penny more.....
Why are their so many gullible idiots in this world?


You saw them voting for Romney. There is a feakin' army of the idiots.
You sound suprised.
Welcome to Corporate Raiders R Us v. 2012.
Hell, the GOP sold Florida to Rick Scott.
Step up and putcher money(BIG MONEY) down!
 
2012-11-18 06:23:26 PM  

Ed_Severson: If there are 5 of you in one retail location that receives a few hundred job applications per week, you can't


Agreed.

Ed_Severson: These people are undercutting themselves for nothing. Even if 100 of them walked out, they can't all get more hours.


Probably.

Ed_Severson: The only way to achieve that is to make yourself 100% reliable and be more productive than the people around you.


Hold your horses. First of all, making yourself 100% reliable and more productive does not guarantee that you will get more hours. More fundamentally, that attitude has a poisonous "my coworkers are my enemies" undercurrent that I can't support.

Furthermore, that is not the only way. You're right about small-scale actions being ineffective against a behemoth like Wal-Mart. But toadyism is not the only way to secure decent hours (or any other concession). I think that Wal-Mart is susceptible to large scale activist operations.

Ed_Severson: Like I said initially, strikes and walk-outs can be effective in some situations, but you can't just apply them indiscriminately and expect results.


I can agree with that first sentence, but I don't think a work stoppage timed to coincide with the busiest shoppind day of the year qualifies as indiscriminate.
 
2012-11-18 06:23:42 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: but that person hasn't worked very hard to get ahead in life.

the people who worked on Henry Ford's assembly lines didn't either, yet Ford saw to it they were well paid. Indeed they were very well paid. And it helped Ford make a fark ton of money. Indeed Ford didn't pay well at first and found that it was almost impossible to make money with high turnover. So he took care of the turnover issue and promptly started swimming in money. Oh and it also allowed Ford employees to be Ford customers quite easily.


I'm all for employers following that model. I currently have an employer like that (having worked for ones more similar to the WalMart mentality previously) and my wife recently made the same kind of change. What I disagree with is the assessment of those that don't choose the Ford model as "robber barons" or "evil" etc. They choose to run their business that way. The labor is voluntary. People are suggesting that CEO's be imprisoned for "treating employees badly" etc. I think that's ludicrous.
 
2012-11-18 06:24:06 PM  

WhyteRaven74: They've been showing up for work and asking for hours that have never materialized. When plan A doesn't work, it's time for plan B.


Nothing in the article indicates that even one of them has either been promised more hours without actually getting them or been sent home from a scheduled shift.

They may all want 40 hours per week but they can't all have 40 hours per week. That's a reality of retail employment. There will always be more potential labor hours in the workforce than there are budgeted labor hours; otherwise the people who write the schedules have no flexibility to deal with sick days, vacations, and no-call/no-shows.
 
2012-11-18 06:24:32 PM  

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

Have you ever been to some towns in flyover country? You know, the ones where there used to be 20 - 30 businesses downtown, and now there's a Wal-Mart on the edge of the bunch of shuttered buildings that used to be downtown? Where do you think the folks that worked in those businesses went? Where else would they go?

Wal-Mart is flat-out exploitative, and if you think otherwise, you're dreaming.


When they started referring to Walmart's successes as a gauge of the USA's success I knew the country was doomed.
 
2012-11-18 06:24:42 PM  
What the fark is wrong with the people that shop there?

media.peopleofwalmart.com
 
2012-11-18 06:26:13 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: RanDomino: jshine
Maybe its the labor market saying "there are too many workers"?

Well let's just get rid of a few million of them, right?

Or maybe the problem isn't the number of workers, but the fact that most of the gains in productivity over the past several decades have been taken as profit by the business-owning class, rather than used to actually benefit humanity.

Capitalism- what other system can actually have a "crisis of overproduction"? That's right! Everyone's homeless and starving because we're TOO PRODUCTIVE! (and so the market is saturated and it's hard for investors/owners/managers to get returns by increasing sales, so they start cutting costs- wages and employment- to keep quarterly profits going up) Who still thinks this is a good idea, ffs??

Okay. Read it three times trying to really grasp what you are trying to say. Allow me...

1 - "Capitalism- what other system..."
You think that America is a Capitalist country? Not even close.

2 - "Everyone's homeless and starving because..."
Nobody is starving. You say everybody is starving, but I don't know even one person who has starved to death in my life. Please return to reality. You are smarter than this. Prove it. Please.

3 - "Who still thinks this is a good idea..." Well, okay, nobody thinks that this is a good system. Wal*Mart did not invent this economy or the rules of business in our system; they just do what they can to make money. Making money is what business try to do. Wal*Mart is just better at it than most companies.

Well, to be honest, I'd like for you to lay out for us a better system. I'm sure you have one in mind. Since you cannot distiguish capitalism from fascism, I am hopeful that you do grasp the basic concepts of whatever system you find better. If it is a system already practiced in the world, please indicate which countries. If you want extra points, please reference the conceptual founders and moral implications of your better system. I really hope you come thru with ...


Such pretty words, Fascism, Captialism, fictictious boogeymen used to derp the derpable.
Call a crooked game any damned thing you want, Republic and Democracy , Free Market, they all play good.

Doods, it is gone, start over.
 
2012-11-18 06:27:02 PM  

jst3p: This coupled with "lots of people are dumb".


Desperate, and without food security, are the more PC terms.
 
2012-11-18 06:27:07 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: easterneurope.dow.com

you might want to look at Australia, they have a high minimum wage, lots of vacation leave, everyone has medical coverage and their economy is doing pretty darn well.

tenpoundsofcheese: social responsibility" is the same thing as whether you are allowed to burn someone's house down.

Well it is. That's why we have laws and courts and such for people who do burn down houses. The expectation is you don't damage someone's property and if you do, you get punished for it.


Why is your anecdotal evidence better than mine?
 
2012-11-18 06:28:44 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: jst3p: This coupled with "lots of people are dumb".

Desperate, and without food security, are the more PC terms.


I say tomato, Wal-mart employee says "Hey, you gonna finish that tomato?"
 
2012-11-18 06:29:29 PM  

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

which means since you choose to live in this country you have no right to protest any of the laws


Oh come on Waldo. Total disconnect. You can do better than this. I've seen it. Why, I can come up with multiple come-backs for this with little effort, but mine would be on topic and make sense. If you need help conceptualizing something slever or funny, just ask. You can pretend you wrote it.
 
2012-11-18 06:30:18 PM  

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

Everyone who works at Walmart really must love their job then, right?


I didn't realize "loving' a job was a requirement of working there.
 
2012-11-18 06:31:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: Why is your anecdotal evidence better than mine?


Because yours had nothing to do with minimum wage, vacation leave or anything else relevant to the current discussion.
 
2012-11-18 06:33:06 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: First of all, making yourself 100% reliable and more productive does not guarantee that you will get more hours.


Never said it guarantees you anything. All I said was that not doing it guarantees you won't get what you want.

I don't think a work stoppage timed to coincide with the busiest shoppind day of the year qualifies as indiscriminate.

No, but a 5-man walkout to express your frustration over not working enough certainly is.

People should think before they act. The message you send when you walk out on a shift is that you can live without that 8 hours of pay. I hope they're not surprised when they find out the company has adopted their attitude about that 8 hours of pay, but they probably will be.
 
2012-11-18 06:34:13 PM  

cmackchase: To those asking why that sara gilbert girl is making only 14k as a "manager" at walmart. I will explain, She is a part time employee. CSM's are not real managers, they are glorified cashier babysitters with the option of keyturn overrides.


FTFA:
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.

Still, I'm missing something here. Full time, earning $14,000 a year. That's like $7 an hour.
 
2012-11-18 06:34:39 PM  

Great Janitor: WhyteRaven74: coffee smells good: FIFY

Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever

and how exactly should they pay for that?

Because going to the library costs money?


As you can see here, sir, I have over 10 years of experience going to the library on my resume...
 
2012-11-18 06:35:27 PM  

jst3p: I say tomato, Wal-mart employee says "Hey, you gonna finish that tomato?"


Walmart employees don't look they eat a lot of fruit, unless it is in pie form or in the center of a donut.
 
2012-11-18 06:37:18 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: jst3p: I say tomato, Wal-mart employee says "Hey, you gonna finish that tomato?"

Walmart employees don't look they eat a lot of fruit, unless it is in pie form or in the center of a donut.


Why is it that Target employees are far more likely to be a cute chick than Wal-mart cashiers?
 
2012-11-18 06:38:12 PM  
What caught my eye was the warehouse trouble.
These are Walmart's regional distribution centers.
It appears that in union states, Walmart uses temp service agencies to staff these places with people who work very low wage, no-benefit paying jobs.
In non-union states, these distribution center jobs are relatively well paid, full-benefits jobs. Like $16/hour to start with benefits and regular raises thereafter.

Funny how that works.
 
2012-11-18 06:38:36 PM  
If corporations are only obligated to serve the shareholders, how can we blame employees for wanting to be obligated to themselves? Management is essentially collective bargaining for the shareholders, employees should be able to team up bargain for themselves.
 
2012-11-18 06:40:11 PM  

jst3p: DrewCurtisJr: jst3p: I say tomato, Wal-mart employee says "Hey, you gonna finish that tomato?"

Walmart employees don't look they eat a lot of fruit, unless it is in pie form or in the center of a donut.

Why is it that Target employees are far more likely to be a cute chick than Wal-mart cashiers?

 
2012-11-18 06:40:41 PM  

GranoblasticMan: As you can see here, sir, I have over 10 years of experience going to the library on my resume...


Worked for Marx.
 
2012-11-18 06:40:47 PM  

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


No one was forced to live in East Germany. They could have moved to the other side of Berlin in 1944.
 
2012-11-18 06:40:48 PM  

grossmont: Still, I'm missing something here. Full time, earning $14,000 a year. That's like $7 an hour.


Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. For 52 weeks at 40 hours per week, that's $15080 annually.

I'm not sure about Wal-Mart but it's common practice now in retail that 32 hours per week is full-time. Factor that into the same annual take-home and her hourly wage would be $9.06. In all likelihood she makes about $9.00/hour, works around 35 hours per week, and nets about $14000 after taxes, etc.
 
2012-11-18 06:42:34 PM  

jst3p: DrewCurtisJr: jst3p: I say tomato, Wal-mart employee says "Hey, you gonna finish that tomato?"

Walmart employees don't look they eat a lot of fruit, unless it is in pie form or in the center of a donut.

Why is it that Target employees are far more likely to be a cute chick than Wal-mart cashiers?


Weird, but true. Kinda. Of the 3 Targets within a half hour drive of my house, one is staffed by ghetto/rednecks, but the other two are prime teenage/early 20's white suburban awesomness.
 
2012-11-18 06:42:45 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to give me money because I have less than you? Nope.

What about a social responsibility to make sure someone working for you isn't out groveling for government benefits which in turn cost other people money?

Ed_Severson: All that matters is that these employees are complaining about something and then acting in direct opposition to the basis of their complaint,

They've been showing up for work and asking for hours that have never materialized. When plan A doesn't work, it's time for plan B.


And by plan B, I assume you mean take their skillset to another employer that does have a need for this skillset and offer more than minimum wage? Or did you mean Plan B where they wave those tiny fists in the air as they watch their jobs hired out to someone else who finds the terms of employment to be acceptable.

The problem is: until there is noone else out there willing to step into your shoes, your employer holds all the cards. Unless you have a needed skillset, you are pretty much screwed. That's the only thing one should expect out of a minimum wage job- you learn the skillset in which you are paid for. You want to increase the pay, you need to move on, adopting more skillsets along the way. Eventually you build a portfolio of different skill sets (rather than hopping from one cashier job to the next) that you can approach an employer with and be able to nogotiate a more acceptable wage as you now have more to offer.

I have been employed 15 years with the same company. I make a point of attending advanced and service classes at least twice a year or as the are offered. I'm probably underpaid as my aquired skillset is greater than my required skillset, however I give up those few dollars in wages for an exchange of secure employment. Should I be forced to move on, I have no doubts about having the skills required to fill a similar position. At that time I would probably be in a position to ask for more than i am currently making.

Lesson learned: minimum wage jobs are just that- minimum. Use them as stepping stones aquiring needed set skills along the way- mini tech classes as it were-- and use those aquired skills as collateral when bargaining for a better job. I learned to dig holes and trenches with one landscape company. I learned the plant names and reading plans with another company. Installing irrigation plumbing with yet another. Eventually was able negotiate a position as foreman using all I had learned from my other series of minimum paying jobs for a short stint (not a huge demand during the winter months). Done in less then two years.
 
2012-11-18 06:42:52 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: GranoblasticMan: As you can see here, sir, I have over 10 years of experience going to the library on my resume...

Worked for Marx.


He had a good run.

991.com
 
2012-11-18 06:42:56 PM  

Spirit Hammer: and $14 an hour.

I seriously doubt that the person in the article is making only $14,000 a year full time.
Minimum wage (what floor associates start at) is over $18,000 full time.


Very few employees work 40 hrs a week at a Walmart. Very very few.
 
2012-11-18 06:43:45 PM  

Ed_Severson: I'm not sure about Wal-Mart but it's common practice now in retail that 32 hours per week is full-time. Factor that into the same annual take-home and her hourly wage would be $9.06. In all likelihood she makes about $9.00/hour, works around 35 hours per week, and nets about $14000 after taxes, etc.


If she has a family she's probably not paying anything in taxes at that income.
 
2012-11-18 06:44:38 PM  

Wrencher: deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.

Sure, you go on believing that...
BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.
There is just no way they could have given their employees a penny more.....
Why are their so many gullible idiots in this world?


In fairness, as true as this might be, those outrageous executive salaries are generally a drop in the bucket compared to the company's total numbers. This seems like one of those cases.

"a few executives got outrageous salaries they clearly did not deserve given the company's situation" != "the company could have afforded to pay 8,000 employees much more"

Hostess was making products people weren't buying. Sales were down and had been suffering for thirty years, the trend is away from crap processed junk food, and that market that is increasingly catering to consumers who don't have much money to spend. Executives sucking the last breath out of the dying company for themselves is reprehensible, but it was still the company's dying breath.

The union was misguided, too, though I wouldn't say they killed it. It's just unsurprising that a company that made a product people didn't really want wasn't going to keep paying solid wages.
 
2012-11-18 06:45:07 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Ed_Severson: I'm not sure about Wal-Mart but it's common practice now in retail that 32 hours per week is full-time. Factor that into the same annual take-home and her hourly wage would be $9.06. In all likelihood she makes about $9.00/hour, works around 35 hours per week, and nets about $14000 after taxes, etc.

If she has a family she's probably not paying anything in taxes at that income.


They withhold and she gets it back in Feb, and then some.
 
2012-11-18 06:45:21 PM  
static.themetapicture.com
 
2012-11-18 06:46:53 PM  

Spirit Hammer: I don't shop a walmart, and I don't have a dog in this fight.
But I wanted to make a couple of observations.

Do people seriously believe that the purpose of a company is to "Better Humanity"?
That may be what you formed YOUR company to do, but it isn't what most others were formed for.

According to the google (various. I won't link them, but you can do your own search) Customer Service Managers make between $12 and $14 an hour.

I seriously doubt that the person in the article is making only $14,000 a year full time.
Minimum wage (what floor associates start at) is over $18,000 full time.


It sure took a lot of reading before I found someone who caught that glaring math error.

$14k/yr full time is well below minimum wage. Her story doesn't add up.
 
2012-11-18 06:47:05 PM  

Silly Jesus: [static.themetapicture.com image 1x1]


Period?
 
2012-11-18 06:47:14 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to give me money because I have less than you? Nope.

What about a social responsibility to make sure someone working for you isn't out groveling for government benefits which in turn cost other people money?


I'm not following.
Do you think companies hire people to give them jobs?
Or do they identify tasks/jobs to be performed, decide what that work is worth to the company, and offer the jobs to anyone who agrees with the pay?
 
2012-11-18 06:47:24 PM  

GranoblasticMan: As you can see here, sir, I have over 10 years of experience going to the library on my resume...


In his defense, that's how I got my first job in my current field. After five years, I'm in the top 10% of earners in my community.

/ Well, it was a Barnes & Noble, not a library. Plus some online tutorials.
// I practiced what I learned at night while I was between real jobs, manning the desk at a 24-hour gym and folding towels.
/// Bootstrappy, I guess.
 
2012-11-18 06:47:32 PM  
We're getting closer and closer to taking the most impoverished out of the economic cycle entirely. I can't wait to live in Snow Crash.

Make-work will be here any day.
 
2012-11-18 06:47:50 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: MelGoesOnTour: Those of you folks who don't care to hear about anecdotal stories about how WM has badly treated local economies, well, those stories nonetheless represent REAL situations for REAL people. I won't go into detail but I've seen first-hand how local mom-n-pop stores in small towns have been eradicated by the arrival of a WM. And it's not like the people who live in small towns have a choice when it comes to what they are forced to deal with. WM takes advantage of small economies to the detriment of those local populations and that's a fact.

I care about anecdotal stories, but please answer me this, why are these small town folk so willing to shop their neighbors and sometimes themselves out of jobs if Walmart is so bad for the area? Just because a Walmart opens doesn't mean people are forced to shop there instead of Johnson's Grocery and Henderson's Butcher Shop.

I think it is the fact that the poorest people are most likely to go for the lowest prices even if it can be against their own self interest in the bigger picture. Upper income people can afford to shop with a "conscience".



I'll answer your questions: The folks in local [read: poor] economies are compelled to do what they have to do in order to survive. The local butcher shop, which used to serve people needs and didn't make much of a profit to begin with, survived by meeting the needs of the local economy. WM moves in and by economy of scale can offer lower prices and of course folks will migrate there to save money. That makes sense, in a way, and I don't argue about that. But in the meantime the local small business community is ruined. All of a sudden, the town becomes beholden to the company store. Is this REALLY a good thing?
 
2012-11-18 06:48:03 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: If she has a family she's probably not paying anything in taxes at that income.


In the end, no, but they'll still be deducted from her paycheck. Admittedly, I made an assumption there, and that assumption was that her quoted figure for annual pay is whatever her weekly net earnings are multiplied by 52. For some reason, most people tend to regard a tax refund as some sort of bonus instead of actual income.
 
2012-11-18 06:48:33 PM  

Ed_Severson: Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. For 52 weeks at 40 hours per week, that's $15080 annually.


About $12,818 after fed taxes.
Gross of somewhere between $9K and $11K after taxes and deductions, depending on the state.
Two hundred bucks a week in pocket.

/Been there, done that.
 
2012-11-18 06:49:01 PM  

clowncar on fire: Kids really do not need healthcare


Exactly!

Medical care is wasted on kids these days.

As Ayn Rand taught, God will provide, and if they die, they deserved it.
 
2012-11-18 06:50:08 PM  

Loren: Spirit Hammer: I don't shop a walmart, and I don't have a dog in this fight.
But I wanted to make a couple of observations.

Do people seriously believe that the purpose of a company is to "Better Humanity"?
That may be what you formed YOUR company to do, but it isn't what most others were formed for.

According to the google (various. I won't link them, but you can do your own search) Customer Service Managers make between $12 and $14 an hour.

I seriously doubt that the person in the article is making only $14,000 a year full time.
Minimum wage (what floor associates start at) is over $18,000 full time.

It sure took a lot of reading before I found someone who caught that glaring math error.

$14k/yr full time is well below minimum wage. Her story doesn't add up.


My pay supports a family of 4- at 14k annually you make more than me- quit biatchin' and get back to work!
 
2012-11-18 06:51:30 PM  
"An NFI spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment but the firm has said previously that it adheres to all legal labour standards."

What bugs me is companies that say this, but obviously rephrase or use other "legal" reasons to strike back... and the other, is some companies are actively trying to eliminate or roll back those protections, then what?
 
2012-11-18 06:52:00 PM  

clowncar on fire: My pay supports a family of 4- at 14k annually you make more than me- quit biatchin' and get back to work!


I am going to all shenanigans.
 
2012-11-18 06:52:35 PM  
Let it go, it's gone.
This is how you write the good old days.

Glad I didn't know it was my last deep fried twinkie(s) dunked in Jack infused Whipped cream. Whip it good!
Or this one time, we stuffed twinkies in glazed donuts, deep fry, slice on the bias, Hard Sauce.

This is gonna lay off some cardio surgeons, btw.
Oreos are doing well, it seems.
 
2012-11-18 06:53:00 PM  

Virulency: "An NFI spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment but the firm has said previously that it adheres to all legal labour standards."

What bugs me is companies that say this, but obviously rephrase or use other "legal" reasons to strike back... and the other, is some companies are actively trying to eliminate or roll back those protections, then what?


In other words, if it's NOT ILLEGAL, they'll do it, no matter how amoral or how it screws people.
Then along the way, they'll slip in the illegal stuff when nobody's looking, just for fun.
 
2012-11-18 06:53:38 PM  
If you don't like working at Walmart (or any place) then don't.

No one should have the right to tell someone (except by law) how to run their business.

If you don't like it start your own!
 
2012-11-18 06:54:01 PM  

Ed_Severson: grossmont: Still, I'm missing something here. Full time, earning $14,000 a year. That's like $7 an hour.

Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. For 52 weeks at 40 hours per week, that's $15080 annually.

I'm not sure about Wal-Mart but it's common practice now in retail that 32 hours per week is full-time. Factor that into the same annual take-home and her hourly wage would be $9.06. In all likelihood she makes about $9.00/hour, works around 35 hours per week, and nets about $14000 after taxes, etc.


Update: minimum wage in the state of Washington is $9.04.
 
2012-11-18 06:55:41 PM  

Spirit Hammer: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to give me money because I have less than you? Nope.

What about a social responsibility to make sure someone working for you isn't out groveling for government benefits which in turn cost other people money?

I'm not following.
Do you think companies hire people to give them jobs? (THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ACTUALLY BELIEVE)
Or do they identify tasks/jobs to be performed, decide what that work is worth to the company, and offer the jobs to anyone who agrees with the pay?

 
2012-11-18 06:55:56 PM  

freewill: Wrencher: deanayer: "Empowered by the Hostess strike"?? Seriously subby?? The unions drove the company into bankruptcy and now its dead, closed, out of business, gone. There is no more strike at Hostess because there is no more Hostess.

Sure, you go on believing that...
BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.
There is just no way they could have given their employees a penny more.....
Why are their so many gullible idiots in this world?

In fairness, as true as this might be, those outrageous executive salaries are generally a drop in the bucket compared to the company's total numbers. This seems like one of those cases.

"a few executives got outrageous salaries they clearly did not deserve given the company's situation" != "the company could have afforded to pay 8,000 employees much more"

Hostess was making products people weren't buying. Sales were down and had been suffering for thirty years, the trend is away from crap processed junk food, and that market that is increasingly catering to consumers who don't have much money to spend. Executives sucking the last breath out of the dying company for themselves is reprehensible, but it was still the company's dying breath.

The union was misguided, too, though I wouldn't say they killed it. It's just unsurprising that a company that made a product people didn't really want wasn't going to keep paying solid wages.


True.

/need to form myself a better habit of proofreading..^there
 
2012-11-18 06:57:40 PM  

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?

Spirit Hammer: Or do they identify tasks/jobs to be performed, decide what that work is worth to the company, and offer the jobs to anyone who agrees with the pay?


Here's the thing, if you don't take care of your employees well enough you're going to increase various costs for lots of people who have had no say in how you do things. Also you're not doing the economy any favors, which just hurts you in the long term.
 
2012-11-18 06:58:02 PM  

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


Not everyone lives somewhere that they have a lot of choices. There aren't a lot of options around here. Not for jobs, not for shopping.
 
2012-11-18 06:59:07 PM  

Silly Jesus: Do you think companies hire people to give them jobs? (THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ACTUALLY BELIEVE)


you'd have loved Hormel back during the Depression.....
 
2012-11-18 06:59:17 PM  

HempHead: clowncar on fire: Kids really do not need healthcare

Exactly!

Medical care is wasted on kids these days.

As Ayn Rand taught, God will provide, and if they die, they deserved it.


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

Minimum wage earning kids don't buy houses because they live with their mommy and daddy. Most minimum wage earning kids are looking for some scratch for party money, maybe a car, or money for those expensive designer close that mom and dad refuse to buy. My hat goes off to those kids smart enough to be saving for college- let's offer those kids some sort of matching program to be paid out should they enter college.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be the end all career. By the very nature of them, the employee should be looking for advancement as a way of wage increase. You choose to remain stagnant in a go nowhere job- don't expect the employer to pick up the tab for your complacency.
 
2012-11-18 07:01:12 PM  

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).
 
2012-11-18 07:01:12 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 07:02:23 PM  

clowncar on fire: HempHead: clowncar on fire: Kids really do not need healthcare

Exactly!

Medical care is wasted on kids these days.

As Ayn Rand taught, God will provide, and if they die, they deserved it.

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

Minimum wage earning kids don't buy houses because they live with their mommy and daddy. Most minimum wage earning kids are looking for some scratch for party money partying, maybe a car, or money for those expensive designer close clothing that mom and dad refuse to buy. My hat goes off to those kids smart enough to be saving for college- let's offer those kids some sort of matching program to be paid out should they enter college.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be the end all career. By the very nature of them, the employee should be looking for advancement as a way of wage increase. You choose to remain stagnant in a go nowhere job- don't expect the employer to pick up the tab for your complacency.


Beer + failure to preview? It never ends well.
 
2012-11-18 07:02:34 PM  
i511.photobucket.com

I'm afraid the WalMart will be quite operational when Black Friday arrives
 
2012-11-18 07:02:43 PM  

chiett: If you don't like working at Walmart (or any place) then don't.

No one should have the right to tell someone (except by law) how to run their business.

If you don't like it start your own!


Fascinating.
 
2012-11-18 07:03:06 PM  

clowncar on fire: Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be the end all career. B


minimum wage jobs used to pay a lot better as measured by what percentage of the median income you could make working full time at minimum wage. Currently they pay the worst they have ever paid. To put them back on the level they were in the late 40s you'd have to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr.
 
2012-11-18 07:03:49 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-18 07:04:01 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Great Janitor:
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 ...

Everyone isn't as awesome as you are.



And you can do it from the comfort of your home for only 2 hours a day!
 
2012-11-18 07:04:44 PM  

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."
 
2012-11-18 07:05:20 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 07:06:57 PM  

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

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


I laughed, nostrils were hurt, and beer was wasted. Damned you!
 
2012-11-18 07:07:13 PM  

Bippal: Not everyone lives somewhere that they have a lot of choices. There aren't a lot of options around here. Not for jobs, not for shopping.


How does that give people a right to biatch about what they're being paid? If not for having a Walmart in the area, they'd be bringing in 0 dollars an hour and likely paying more for the crap they buy.
 
2012-11-18 07:07:16 PM  

Great Janitor: WhyteRaven74: coffee smells good: FIFY

Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever

and how exactly should they pay for that?

Because going to the library costs money?


Because employers are so impressed when you respond to questions about your education with "I just go to the library. Same thing."
 
2012-11-18 07:08:18 PM  

WhyteRaven74: ronaprhys: Where are the company towns?

Most robber barons didn't have company towns. And using violence to fight strikers was also not that common, indeed when it did happen it caused just a dust up that those running the companies found themselves in worse shape with the public.


Those were examples of the type of things you'd expect with robber barons. The fact is that they aren't happening. While I'm sure some CEOs out there would love for them to exist, the simply fact is that they cannot. Not in this day and age. Decry Walmart all you want - personally, I refuse to shop there, unless I run into a situation where I've got no choice. Since I've been successful in only shopping there twice in about 15 years, I'm feeling pretty good about my efforts.
 
2012-11-18 07:08:44 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: How does that give people a right to biatch about what they're being paid?


so you're saying people have no right to demand to be treated well? also your assumption is rather flawed....
 
2012-11-18 07:09:07 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Do you think companies hire people to give them jobs? (THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ACTUALLY BELIEVE)

you'd have loved Hormel back during the Depression.....


So you actually DO believe that?
 
2012-11-18 07:09:42 PM  

LoneWolf343: Great Janitor: WhyteRaven74: coffee smells good: FIFY

Or Apple, or plenty of other companies. I just went with Papa John's cause they've been in the news the last week

Great Janitor: 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 skills, education, what ever

and how exactly should they pay for that?

Because going to the library costs money?

Because employers are so impressed when you respond to questions about your education with "I just go to the library. Same thing."


Semi-relevant.

media.giantbomb.com
 
2012-11-18 07:10:47 PM  
Striking on black friday? This is going to end well.
 
2012-11-18 07:11:00 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 07:11:32 PM  

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

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


I've stolen that. Just so you know.
 
2012-11-18 07:12:01 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.


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?
 
2012-11-18 07:12:08 PM  

swaxhog: Fail in Human Form: Great Janitor:
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 ...

Everyone isn't as awesome as you are.



And you can do it from the comfort of your home for only 2 hours a day!


I wonder what a poultice composed of nothing but herbalife and amway supplements would do when applied to the shaft?
 
2012-11-18 07:12:31 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 07:13:45 PM  

jst3p: Semi-relevant.


Wasn't he working as a janitor in that movie. Yeah, he was.
 
2012-11-18 07:14:41 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 07:14:59 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 07:15:43 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Popcorn Johnny: How does that give people a right to biatch about what they're being paid?

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


I can demand every cute teenage girl who walks down my street sleep with me, preferably in a threesome. but I don't have the right to force them.

/sadly
//my street if filthy with hot teenage quim...catholic high school two blocks away
 
2012-11-18 07:15:55 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Popcorn Johnny: How does that give people a right to biatch about what they're being paid?

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


They can demand it, and the company can say "no, go find another job."
 
2012-11-18 07:17:17 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 07:17:30 PM  

red5ish: jst3p: Semi-relevant.

Wasn't he working as a janitor in that movie. Yeah, he was.


I was just going for a small lul, Please tell me you aren't citing a work of fiction to make your point. That would be as dumb as pointing to Atlas Shrugged as a valid source of information.
 
2012-11-18 07:18:49 PM  

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 07:18:49 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.
 
2012-11-18 07:52:28 PM  

WhyteRaven74: 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


That is one of the reasons that they charge less- inferior versions such as containing cheaper componants or watered down features.

The secret is to go with the advertised price (take and ad or phone pic the price) and go to the competitor with the comparable item and see if they will match the competion's price. I found a "comparable" tv - by that I mean similar part number but with waterdowned features-- at Costco. I was able to take a cellphone pic and get the same price at Best Buy: saved nearly 200 dollars of Best Buy's asking price plus they tossed in a small voltage regulator.

Recent cellphone trick? Ask the provider if the company you work for gets a discount. Your employer often keeps this information on the lowdown, presumeably so that they can negotiate contracts. Ask you provider instead. Found out that the provider I had been with for the last 4 years had a 12% discount available to those who asked for it. Gave myself a tiny raise in the process as I now pay 12% less for basic service.
 
2012-11-18 07:53:52 PM  
Anybody who thins we're doing it right, needs to look at what they do in the Netherlands. Capitalist AND socialist paradise. Cradle to grave social safety net, and a buttload of rich capitalists.
 
2012-11-18 07:54:02 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: 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?


Are you trying to make the argument that Walmart's profit margin is so small that they cannot afford to pay their employees living wages? Because that sounds to me like the description of a business model that must fail in the free market.
 
2012-11-18 07:54:43 PM  

WhyteRaven74: 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.


Why? She's being paid at the replacement wage for her area. What that means, just to be clear, is that employees are paid exactly what it'd cost to replace them with someone else and provide the same level of profit.
 
2012-11-18 07:55:20 PM  

Spirit Hammer: 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.


A healthy economy, able to create middle class jobs, has a fair balance between workers and owners/management. Right now because of several factors: automation, offshoring, abundance of labor, workers are at a disadvantage. Nobody seems to know what to do about it or even agree that we should do anything about it.
 
2012-11-18 07:55:36 PM  

jst3p: 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.


And how much is that? If we're ever going to get anywhere, we have to get down to specific numbers. It's not enough to say, "I feel Walmart should be able to afford it."

Silly Jesus makes the interesting argument that Walmart "subsidizes" government welfare by keeping people employed. I would add that Walmart subsidizes consumers by underpaying its employees, too.

You get cheap underwear by forcing people onto food stamps. Shame on you!
 
2012-11-18 07:56:15 PM  

red5ish: 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 Walmarts do workers with no discernible skills 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 people with no skills government subsidized.


You think that businesses should act as charities (paying employees more than they are worth) before the employee gets to the government teat. I think that employees should gain some skills before they start suckling at the government teat. This is the fundamental difference here. I blame the failure of a person, you blame the successful business.
 
2012-11-18 07:56:22 PM  

ronaprhys: Fixed that for reality


actually Hormel was back to pretty solid production levels when WW2 hit. Just that when it did they started adding shifts to produce even more. Hormel didn't need WW2, it was just prepared for that bit of fortune because of decisions they made when things were bad.

DrewCurtisJr: That is a good point but I don't think the stores serve the same demographic.


interestingly they don't, yet when you compare prices there's no real difference. A huge swimming pool sized jar of mayo costs as much at Costco as at Sam's Club, so it's not the prices doing it. It's the image of the stores. And part of that goes back to how Costco treats employees.

BarkingUnicorn: What percentage of that should go to employees?


BTW the more Walmart pays their employees the more money Walmart will make.
 
2012-11-18 07:57:54 PM  

clowncar on fire: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Do I think you have the social responsibility to me to give me money because I have less than you? Nope.

What about a social responsibility to make sure someone working for you isn't out groveling for government benefits which in turn cost other people money?

Ed_Severson: All that matters is that these employees are complaining about something and then acting in direct opposition to the basis of their complaint,

They've been showing up for work and asking for hours that have never materialized. When plan A doesn't work, it's time for plan B.

And by plan B, I assume you mean take their skillset to another employer that does have a need for this skillset and offer more than minimum wage? Or did you mean Plan B where they wave those tiny fists in the air as they watch their jobs hired out to someone else who finds the terms of employment to be acceptable.

The problem is: until there is noone else out there willing to step into your shoes, your employer holds all the cards. Unless you have a needed skillset, you are pretty much screwed. That's the only thing one should expect out of a minimum wage job- you learn the skillset in which you are paid for. You want to increase the pay, you need to move on, adopting more skillsets along the way. Eventually you build a portfolio of different skill sets (rather than hopping from one cashier job to the next) that you can approach an employer with and be able to nogotiate a more acceptable wage as you now have more to offer.

I have been employed 15 years with the same company. I make a point of attending advanced and service classes at least twice a year or as the are offered. I'm probably underpaid as my aquired skillset is greater than my required skillset, however I give up those few dollars in wages for an exchange of secure employment. Should I be forced to move on, I have no doubts about having the skills required to fill a similar position. At that time I would probably be in a posi ...


img835.imageshack.us
FOR YOU SIR
 
2012-11-18 07:58:19 PM  

red5ish: 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.


You know who you are talking too, right?
 
2012-11-18 07:59:22 PM  

red5ish: 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.


So no personal responsibility whatsoever on the part of the person with no skills or discernible value other than breathing?
 
2012-11-18 07:59:37 PM  

jst3p: 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.


So if they took all their profits (nothing to stock holders, owners or anything) and divided it equally to their employees, then each would make an extra $150 or so a week.

Sounds fair.

And if Walmart takes a loss, should each employee be billed?
 
2012-11-18 07:59:40 PM  

clowncar on fire: Recent cellphone trick? Ask the provider if the company you work for gets a discount. Your employer often keeps this information on the lowdown, presumeably so that they can negotiate contracts. Ask you provider instead. Found out that the provider I had been with for the last 4 years had a 12% discount available to those who asked for it. Gave myself a tiny raise in the process as I now pay 12% less for basic service.


This is a good trick - what I've found, though, is that this discount changes yearly. Each year Mrs ap Rhys and I check and sometimes my company has a better deal, sometimes it's hers. I think we're up to 20 or 25% at this point. Of course, my company has now mandated that, if you want a mobile, they'll reimburse you either $40 (corporate) or $75 (field) towards your plan. Obviously, this doesn't pay for the phone plus the plan, but young people are stupid and they're already paying for this service, so they see this as a discount. Older crotchety types such as myself see this for what it is - a successful attempt to pass costs on to the employees.

Now they're getting ready to try this with laptops.
 
2012-11-18 08:00:24 PM  

Silly Jesus: I blame the failure of a person, you blame the successful business.


A business that doesn't pay employees enough to avoid welfare is not particularly successful. Sam Walton knew this. It's why when he was around Walmart treated their employees better than they do now. Sam was of the ''You put in a day's work for me, which I need, and I will make sure to provide for your needs". When Sam was around Walmart actually had one of the best systems for raises around as far as how often they happened and how much they were.
 
2012-11-18 08:00:26 PM  

Silly Jesus: I shouldn't have to


USA! USA!
 
2012-11-18 08:01:37 PM  

WhyteRaven74: 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.


No, you're right, companies should pay employees more than their labor is worth just to be charitable.
 
2012-11-18 08:02:00 PM  

ronaprhys: the standard practice is to give employees 32 hours/week.


That's not "full time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-time#Definitions_by_country
"Full-time workweeks:
...
United States: around 40 hours (not formally defined)
"

32 is not "around 40".
 
2012-11-18 08:02:25 PM  

red5ish: 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.


What segment of minimum wage employees are still living at home with their parents, working a second job for a little holiday scratch, or looking for a little spending money while attending college, where being homeless and starving is not likely to be an issue as a result of choosing a minimum paying job. Let's remove these from the count and decide whether we really have an issue or just manufactured rage.
 
2012-11-18 08:02:28 PM  

WhyteRaven74: ronaprhys: Fixed that for reality

actually Hormel was back to pretty solid production levels when WW2 hit. Just that when it did they started adding shifts to produce even more. Hormel didn't need WW2, it was just prepared for that bit of fortune because of decisions they made when things were bad.


I'd like to see something proving that. I've done a quick bit of looking and can't find much that backs your position. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'd like to see the facts. Pretty solid doesn't necessarily equate to making it long term, either. It could, but as I stated, I want actual numbers.
 
2012-11-18 08:03:37 PM  

Bippal: 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.


If Walmart couldn't get qualified employees at the wages they're paying, they'd be forced to raise the pay. Since that's not the case, they won't. It's mind boggling to me that you're trying to put the blame on Walmart instead of the people who have chosen to tread water through life as an unskilled worker.
 
2012-11-18 08:04:59 PM  

clowncar on fire: Let's remove these from the count and decide whether we really have an issue or just manufactured rage.


the more people, regardless of how much they work, you have being paid poorly the less the economy grows over time. What this means is that those who aren't poorly paid will find it harder to have their own incomes grow since without economic growth their own employers won't see much in the way of revenue growth.
 
2012-11-18 08:05:08 PM  

fredklein: ronaprhys: the standard practice is to give employees 32 hours/week.

That's not "full time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-time#Definitions_by_country
"Full-time workweeks:
...
United States: around 40 hours (not formally defined)"

32 is not "around 40".


It is in the medical world if you are a nurse (not always but not unheard of either).
 
2012-11-18 08:05:17 PM  
I used to work in restaurants and had to work holidays all the time. What's the big deal? Nation of whiners.
 
2012-11-18 08:05:53 PM  

fredklein: ronaprhys: the standard practice is to give employees 32 hours/week.

That's not "full time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-time#Definitions_by_country
"Full-time workweeks:
...
United States: around 40 hours (not formally defined)"

32 is not "around 40".


Maybe you should look at the actual definition you provide - it's not formally defined, except in the company handbook. As noted in this very thread, the Walmart goal is 32 hours per week - 4 8-hour days. So, and I'm thinking outside of the box here, you should actually do some research prior to posting.
 
2012-11-18 08:06:13 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: It's mind boggling to me that you're trying to put the blame on Walmart instead of the people who have chosen to tread water through life as an unskilled worker.


they've chosen it the same way a passenger on the Titanic chose to hit an iceberg.
 
2012-11-18 08:06:37 PM  

Spirit Hammer: jst3p: 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.

So if they took all their profits (nothing to stock holders, owners or anything) and divided it equally to their employees, then each would make an extra $150 or so a week.

Sounds fair.

And if Walmart takes a loss, should each employee be billed?


Wups.
My bad.
I mathed it wrong.(I got distracted by beer, and The Walking Dead)
The quoted profit was for a quarter, and I figured it for a year.
So each employee would get an extra $600 a week.
That's better.
I'd take it.
 
2012-11-18 08:06:51 PM  
Oh goodie, its the Marie Antoinette Memorial FARK Sociopath Hour!

'fark you, I've got mine?' Yeah, I think they're done getting farked. Amazing how that works.
 
2012-11-18 08:07:04 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: I blame the failure of a person, you blame the successful business.

A business that doesn't pay employees enough to avoid welfare is not particularly successful. Sam Walton knew this. It's why when he was around Walmart treated their employees better than they do now. Sam was of the ''You put in a day's work for me, which I need, and I will make sure to provide for your needs". When Sam was around Walmart actually had one of the best systems for raises around as far as how often they happened and how much they were.


But they ARE particularly successful...
 
2012-11-18 08:07:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: red5ish: 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 Walmarts do workers with no discernible skills 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 people with no skills government subsidized.

You think that businesses should act as charities (paying employees more than they are worth) before the employee gets to the government teat.


They have skills, very low skills, but still skills.

You say paying them a "living wage" is charity, but I disagree. If a company needs someone 40 hours a week, be it scrubbing toilets, or saying "hello" to people walking in the door they should be willing to pay them enough to live.

Right now Walmrt is the charity because they are getting a stable (up until now) work force by taxpayer subsidization.

I think that employees should gain some skills before they start suckling at the government teat. This is the fundamental difference here. I blame the failure of a person, you blame the successful business.

Nice little catch-22 there. The govt should help you out once you have skills. But until you do have skills, the govt shoudl say, fark you?

How do you propose someone who can't join the military and comes from a poor family gain those skills?
 
2012-11-18 08:07:40 PM  

Fista-Phobia: Silly Jesus: I shouldn't have to

USA! USA!


USSR! USSR!
 
2012-11-18 08:09:05 PM  
i131.photobucket.com

Dayyyyyyyyum look at all that derp.
 
2012-11-18 08:10:01 PM  

MsToad: "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.


"(Gilbert) earns $11.65 an hour and is her family's only source of income since her husband was laid off. They and their five children rely on state assistance for housing, food and healthcare." 

This source (a local paper, not a UK rag) says nothing about her annual income or working "full time". No source that I can find states what she means by "full time." IDK if that's Gilbert's obfuscation or the media's.

Even if she's working 40 hours a week, her family would still qualify for government aid. Poverty level for a family of 7 is $34,930.
 
2012-11-18 08:10:56 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: 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.


Would they be more miserable or would they be homeless and/or starving? That aside, it is relevant because a business model which depends on their workforce receiving public assistance is not a viable business model in a free market.
 
2012-11-18 08:11:02 PM  

Silly Jesus: But they ARE particularly successful...


given how much money they piss away on employee turnover and the like? Not really. Success in business isn't just how much you make, it's also about throwing money away due to bad policies. It's also about making sure things are god for the future. CEO's used to understand this, it's the source of the old "What's good for GM is good for America" line. What was good for GM is a robust economy, which is also of course good for America. Without a robust economy you can shift things all you want but you're not going to get much in the way of revenue growth and without revenue growth you're pretty well screwed.
 
2012-11-18 08:11:13 PM  

andrewagill: clowncar on fire: coco ebert: Awesome. Go for it, workers!

Remember- wages go up, the increase is passed onto the consumer. Win!

[arch.413chan.net image 379x214]

If it means that those workers have a better life and perhaps even make enough to afford things at places other than WAL*MART, I'm all for it.

Remember, just because you fap to Ayn Rand doesn't mean that everyone does.


Remember the main success of Wal-mart: keeping prices lower than the competitors (even Target). What most likely will happen is it'll encourage Walmart to cut back and become more automated, and/or perhaps limit hours (converting from 24-hour to limited). That screws with the "graveyard" crowd, and also adds more people to the unemployment line.
 
2012-11-18 08:12:23 PM  

WhyteRaven74: clowncar on fire: Let's remove these from the count and decide whether we really have an issue or just manufactured rage.

the more people, regardless of how much they work, you have being paid poorly the less the economy grows over time. What this means is that those who aren't poorly paid will find it harder to have their own incomes grow since without economic growth their own employers won't see much in the way of revenue growth.


Wage increases increase the price of goods which drives down demand also thus staggering the economy. If you can successfully increase wages without decreasing demand, then you have a situation where demand increase (thanks to that larger paycheck) which eventually drives up prices and thus putting low wage earners back where they started but taking out the higher wage earners with them as their dollar no longer has the same buying power due to inflation.
 
2012-11-18 08:12:57 PM  

Silly Jesus: But they ARE particularly successful..


By outright breaking labor laws in many cases, and skirting it through the use of contractors for things like cleaning and their sorting/shipping facilities.

Silly Jesus: No, you're right, companies should pay employees more than their labor is worth just to be charitable


The only reason people will work at those wages is that the govt is subsidizing them.
 
2012-11-18 08:13:05 PM  

clowncar on fire: HempHead: clowncar on fire: Kids really do not need healthcare

Exactly!

Medical care is wasted on kids these days.

As Ayn Rand taught, God will provide, and if they die, they deserved it.

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

Minimum wage earning kids don't buy houses because they live with their mommy and daddy. Most minimum wage earning kids are looking for some scratch for party money, maybe a car, or money for those expensive designer close that mom and dad refuse to buy. My hat goes off to those kids smart enough to be saving for college- let's offer those kids some sort of matching program to be paid out should they enter college.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be the end all career. By the very nature of them, the employee should be looking for advancement as a way of wage increase. You choose to remain stagnant in a go nowhere job- don't expect the employer to pick up the tab for your complacency.


Hey ClownCar. You dropped this one. I'll pick it up and finish for you, if I may...

"As Ayn Rand taught, God will provide, and if they die, they deserved it." WHAT! Only a fool would claim that Ayn Rand, the great atheist Ayn Rand, would suggest that a non-existent God could or would provide. You don't know that of which you speak. Citations please, or admit that you just made it up.

Man up on this one. Did Ayn Rand say that or did you lie. I just want the truth. 

[...and now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.]
 
2012-11-18 08:13:14 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Popcorn Johnny: It's mind boggling to me that you're trying to put the blame on Walmart instead of the people who have chosen to tread water through life as an unskilled worker.

they've chosen it the same way a passenger on the Titanic chose to hit an iceberg.


From what I've seen of poor people (and note that I grew up on military bases, the son of an enlisted man. Later in life, I managed to live in two different trailer parks, so to say I've no experience would be demonstrably false), most make poor choices. I could save some money and get ahead or I could buy an ATV. I could purchase an economical and reliable used car or an American pick-em-up truck and put expensive as hell tires on it, then let them get to bald. I could take classes and try to get ahead in life or just get drunk each night. I could buy condoms or have a passel of children.

The fact is that many poor people make very poor choices in life. This puts them in a position where they have limited options.

Lucky for me is that my family emphasized hard work, education, and smart choices. I've not been a paragon of those choices, but I'm certainly not doing poorly. In fact, I managed to do what most people here consider impossible - move up a few levels in the social strata. Honestly, it wasn't all that difficult. Good choices, sometimes very hard choices, a bit of luck (mostly defined as being ready when opportunity strikes), and not being an idiot.