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.

(Salon)   The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wal-Mart's Black Friday Showdown, which pits low-wage workers against greedy management and owners   (salon.com) divider line 128
    More: PSA, Wal-Mart, picket lines, forced labour, North Jersey, unfair labor practice, cover letters  
•       •       •

12434 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2012 at 10:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-20 10:46:22 PM
9 votes:

Too Pretty For Prison: AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.

but, but, but that's not FAIR! Sure, I have no skills and can only stack boxes on a shelf - but I'm ENTITLED to have a 65" TV, a new car, a large house, every available cable channel, and a cell phone for my 6 year old. I DEMAND you pay me more!!!


How about they get paid enough so they don't soak up welfare, SNAP, and Medicaid benefits?
2012-11-20 10:56:34 PM
8 votes:
As a taxpayer, i don't feel like i should foot the bill for Walmart employees that have to be on welfare just to get by even though they work. Pay your people a living wage for fark's sake.
2012-11-20 10:51:34 PM
7 votes:
Strike, baby, strike.

Wal-Mart is just one giant bundle of corporate welfare. They often get tax subsidies for opening new stores. Many of their employees qualify for low-income support programs like food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing and busing. I doubt the tax subsidies are going anywhere, but I would like to see their employees paid better.
2012-11-20 10:47:47 PM
7 votes:
photos1.blogger.com
2012-11-20 10:37:06 PM
7 votes:
What's wrong with the executives earning 1% less if it means your lowest paid staff member earns a living wage?
2012-11-20 10:35:03 PM
7 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.


Which I'm sure is a delight to the people at WalMart working poverty-level wages with no insurance coverage & forced and unpaid overtime. But hey, 5% of almost nothing!
2012-11-20 10:46:37 PM
5 votes:
The average minimum wage in Australia/Europe/Japan is $16.50.
2012-11-20 10:41:15 PM
5 votes:
FTA,
a Demos study that says that raising the salary of all full-time workers at large retailers to $25,000 per year would lift more than 700,000 people out of poverty, at a cost of only a 1 percent price increase for customers.

Instead of adding the price increase to the customers, why not take it out of the Walton family pay packet. You know who, those five of the top 10 richest Americans.
2012-11-20 10:39:45 PM
5 votes:
This thread is going to suck.
2012-11-21 12:15:40 AM
4 votes:

clowncar on fire: quit blaming others for being successful.


The Walton children would most likely be average people were it not for their father. Everything they have is because of their parents. They are a dynasty. That's not exactly an achievement worth respect.


clowncar on fire: You can't take a man's wealth through disproportionate taxation- justify it any way you want-- it's still stealing.


Sam Walton was given the environment to start his business and allow it to flourish because of the stability and economic opportunity the United States provided. No matter how boot strap-y he was, he depended on the people, the institutions and the infrastructure around him.

One of the tenants of progressive taxation says that you should pay back into that system if you become exceedingly successful. It isn't just that you can afford it - it is also to ensure that the system continues to be stable and robust, which is critical for the health of your company.

Many people who are worth more than a couple of million dollars who use terms such as "stealing" and "redistribution" when referring to taxes are hoarders. Being part of the 1% club isn't enough. No amount of wealth will every satisfy them. And they will come up with every excuse in the book to justify why they shouldn't give back to the system.

What do you call a man and his company who take and take and refuse to give back?
2012-11-21 12:08:25 AM
4 votes:
The thing is, if they paid their workers an extra $4 an hour, those workers would turn around and spend 3 of those extra dollars at WalMart. You know they would. They're not going to hoard it in an account in the Cayman Islands, where it does nothing to boost the economy.
2012-11-20 11:34:15 PM
4 votes:
Again, for all the folks who have a bug up their tochises about unions, I ask this:

Do you support Chambers of Commerce? Do you support industry associations? Do you support lobbying by industries? Do you support business owners freedom to call upon their Congresscritters?

If you do, then by extension, you should be supporting unions doing EXACTLY the same thing. Freedom of association. Freedom to pursue redress and file suit. Freedom to negotiate through intermediaries who know the law and who represent your interests. THAT is what unions do. They are a collective bargaining unit, representing a group of folks. Much like industry lobbying, and much like industry associations looking out for the interests of their constituent businesses.

Nothing more. And nothing less. If you support the right of owners to discuss with one another how their industries should proceed, then you should likewise be supporting the right of workers to do the same. Especially since the freedom of association is the freedom to assemble and the freedom to seek redress, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court already. If you like the Constitution, and you like the freedom of speech, and the freedom to assemble, then you should be likewise be in support of unions representing the interests of laborers who are busy working for a living.
2012-11-20 11:00:10 PM
4 votes:

EmmaLou: As a taxpayer, i don't feel like i should foot the bill for Walmart employees that have to be on welfare just to get by even though they work. Pay your people a living wage for fark's sake.


This. It's obscene that we live in a developed nation and many of our full-time workers can survive on their wages alone. There's something very, very wrong with a society where you can work full-time and not break even.
2012-11-20 10:43:42 PM
4 votes:

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: I'm confused; nowhere in the article does it explain that these people were FORCED to take these jobs without knowing what the wage was. I men, that had to be case, right? Otherwise...


While pay is part of the equation, just as much or more is about what is endured for such pay.

FTFA: Walmart employees across the country have a host of grievances including unsafe and unsanitary working conditions, sexual harassment, excessive hours, forced labor and low pay.

Wal-Mart is squeezing its workers for no other reason than it can.
2012-11-20 10:32:47 PM
4 votes:
base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.
2012-11-21 04:23:08 AM
3 votes:

j0ndas: Minimum wage was never intended to support a family. It was introduced by unions as a way to get rid of the cheap labor that was driving down their wages. Someone worth $7 an hour isn't going to be hired under an $8 an hour minimum wage, even if normally it might make good sense to hire two unskilled people at $7 rather than one skilled person at $15. The end result is that the poor and uneducated can't get jobs and end up in gangs or on welfare instead, while union employees are being paid 20-30% more than they're actually worth and US industry is going broke or moving overseas.


I'm very curious about this whole "worth" thing you are speaking of. You spoke of a person "worth" $7/hour.

There are two ways of looking at this. One, a person is of so little skill that their work only adds $7/hr to the company's net worth. This is the "supply side" way of looking at it.

The other way of looking at it is that you need particular work done that, like it or not, requires a human being to perform. This job simply cannot be completely automated with current technology. You need a person to make judgements based on available data, if it is something so simple as "put these boxes here until the pallet is full, then put the remaining boxes here", or so complex as "take this sheet and fill these orders from all around the warehouse, box them and package them correctly and place the correct address label on each one, then weigh each and affix the appropriate tags."

So, since you don't just need a human, you need that human to be alive, it would logically follow that that human must be paid enough money that he or she can purchase adequate food and shelter, and possibly medical treatment as needed. If you are asking a human to give up at least 9, but actually 10-11 hours per day (8-hr shift plus 1 hr. break plus 1 hr. getting ready and 1/2 hour each way for commuting) for five days per week. This is a good bit of someone's time, and it follows that they deserve fair compensation for it.

Wal-Mart relies on the taxpayers to fund their shortcomings in the form of food stamps and WIC and Medicaid. They do not fairly compensate their employees for their work, and they expect employees to do such idiotic things as show up to work at 10PM but not clock in until 11:55 because they kindly stayed an hour over twice earlier in the week at the request of management and if they clocked in at 10, they would get overtime. But they are also only considered a "part-time" employee, as their position is a "part-time" position, no matter that they are always scheduled 40 hrs, so they are not eligible for benefits.
2012-11-21 03:59:15 AM
3 votes:
I don't know what's with all the assumptions that people who work low paying jobs are idiots. I work as a supervisor at Rite Aid. I make a little over a dollar above minimum wage. I also have a Bachelors degree in psychology, a Masters degree in social work, AND my social work professional license in NY state. Someone in my position should be working somewhere with a starting salary of 40k. Luckily, I just got a new job that I'll be starting soon, but the economy is so bad that it's not even one that requires an LMSW. It's a site supervisor job at residential housing for adults with developmental disabilities, and will likely pay around 29k to start.
So what's my point? Don't look down at everyone that works retail. The economy is hard and only so many job positions are available. That person stocking shelves may be more educated than you.
2012-11-21 03:26:37 AM
3 votes:

p51d007: Since this is a somewhat liberal site, I'm sure to get flamed by this, but anyway....

People who work for Walmart, Target, or any other RETAIL store....well, suck it up!
You are working a RETAIL store! If people didn't come into those stores on Thanksgiving,
or 4am on black Friday, you would be able to stay home. The fault isn't the retailer, it
is the lazy a&& consumer who wants (or thinks they will get) a bargain.
If they didn't show up, the store wouldn't be open!
Also, yes, the economy is (if you live in real-ville) DOWN THE TOILET, so that might be
the reason you are working a low wage or minimum wage job. Now, if you are the countless
drones that are working low/minimum wage jobs, and you are at least in your 20's, you have
to stop and have someone toss a bucket of ice water in your face. Why? Because you
need to evaluate your life. How did you screw up your life, that you are only QUALIFIED to
be a minimum wage employee with little or NO skills in anything other than "do you want
fries with that". As the judge in Caddyshack said "the world needs ditch diggers".
When you were in high school, I'll just bet you were uber cool, skipping school, getting high
daily, girls falling all over you, getting kicked out of school for fighting....yeah, how cool are
you now? The rest of us, STUDIED, went to college (I paid my own way), and got a good
job, that allows us the freedom of having nights, holidays & weekends off!
So, suck it up, and take it in the butt....you have no one to complain to, but yourself!


In other words, people beneath your lofty perch deserve what they get. The "ditch diggers" don't deserve a living wage. Gotcha.

I love how some people allow their own success in life to create arrogance of this nature. It's like they really, really, believe that the pie is big enough for everyone to have a slice of pie as big as their own, and if everyone tried really, really, hard, and never ran into any bad luck, then there would be no need for janitors or pizza delivery guys or retail sales clerks and everyone would have jobs that paid well and allowed them to go out on weekends and holidays.

/actually, I don't love it. Arrogance is stupid.
2012-11-21 03:22:14 AM
3 votes:
I work there due to losing my decent paying job during the bubble collapse. It's pretty much as bad as anyone portrays. It's not a bad job in itself but profits go up not down. They throw out just enough of a bone in order for outsiders to say maybe they're not THAT bad. We're constantly hit up for donations for this and that for the sole reason of Walmart being able to say store XXX donated YYY to special cause ZZZ. The kind of PR compaign they like to present the public with. Walmart loves their associates and you. /puke

Nothing is ever going to change. You got people living paycheck to paycheck and looking at handouts of help fill in the gaps. You think this person is going to risk their job to send a message? No. Maybe somewhere somehow there'll be enough walkouts that Walmart has to publiclly address it to save face but have no illusions that they'll losen up the coffers in this process. It's a 100% greed machine that pretty much runs on automation and there's really no way to pull the plug. Anything they use to respond will be the absolute bare minimum that is needed for it to be forgotten until it comes back around next year. They're already trying to bribe workers to work their full Black Friday schedule with an extra 10% off one transaction. They still be making a profit off it it.
2012-11-21 12:48:28 AM
3 votes:

peeledpeas: I'm so tired of Walmart workers crying and whining about low wages. If you think you're so good at stacking toilet paper, go find someone that will pay you more to do it. IMO, none of the workers at my local Wally World are worth a squat. They know nothing. They push buttons and stack stuff. Big effing deal. No one is forced to work at Walmart. We really don't need the ability to make a "living wage" at an extremely low skilled job. If Americans get any dumber, there won't be an America for much longer.


and this, dear friends, is a prime example of America getting dumber.

Thank you for that wonderful demonstration and an insight into the mind of a callus little prick.
2012-11-21 12:04:44 AM
3 votes:
I'm always intrigued by these threads where people claim retail workers have no skills. I'd like to see those same people face down two thousand+ annoyed shoppers over the course of a 10+ hour day and somehow manage to a. help them, and b. not punch them all in the face. That takes something called self control.

Also while not 'major skills', counting/handling money (gasp), understanding stock procedures, understanding and regurgitating store policies to clueless shoppers, product knowledge (especially in electronics and other high tech industries), teamwork, customer service, and to some extent security, are all skills one picks up working long term in retail. A lot of people I've worked with in regular offices would be completely lost in a retail setting.

/six years retail
//not one customer complaint
///switching to IT because I dislike people in general
2012-11-20 11:48:45 PM
3 votes:
Threads like these are great for getting trolls and goddamn idiots to come out of the woodwork and yell that these selfish thugs chose to work minimum wage instead of getting a $200 an hour job that's just sitting there for them to take and they should be punished for it. They're also great for filling up ignore lists.
2012-11-20 11:09:56 PM
3 votes:
Ned Resnikoff at MSNBC flagged a leaked internal document (first obtained by HuffPo) that revealed that base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour (or $16,000 per year), with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

Long ago and far away, I was one of those flogged and underpaid drones (employee unit #XJ43061, if you must know). I started out at $8 an hour FT, and that made for a marginally acceptable living with someone else around to share expenses with. A few months in, while chatting with a sweetheart in softlines whose only fault was a massive overbite and a harsh hand dealt from time and poverty. It turned out she'd been there a number of years, and her pay wasn't even equal to mine.

As someone who has BT;DT - yes, the working conditions ARE that bad. It's better than nothing, but it's so degrading and soul-crushing, and is the sort of job that just keeps you awake at night long after you've thrown that farking vest somewhere out of sight. /CSB

/Walmart was so bad I started smoking
//Good luck, striking workers!
///Fark Black Friday
2012-11-20 10:48:39 PM
3 votes:

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: MFAWG: Have you looked for a job lately?

I was told the job situation was fixed. Thanks Obama!


No, seriously: You stated that nobody forced these people to take these jobs. These people have mouths to feed. That's what forces them to take these jobs.

So, have you looked for a job, ever?
2012-11-20 10:46:53 PM
3 votes:

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: I'm confused; nowhere in the article does it explain that these people were FORCED to take these jobs without knowing what the wage was. I men, that had to be case, right? Otherwise...

Seriously!!! These dumbasses take these low paying jobs when there are plenty of high paying jobs just sitting there unfiiled! Man those poor sure are stupid!
2012-11-20 10:39:03 PM
3 votes:
2012-11-20 10:37:43 PM
3 votes:
I make it a tradition to get rip-roaring drunk after Thanksgiving and therefore remove all potential that I will be doing any Black Friday shopping.
2012-11-20 10:37:14 PM
3 votes:
It is another Union trying to bleed poor unskilled workers of their union dues. Ask the Hostess how much their union has done for them.
2012-11-21 10:04:36 AM
2 votes:

TopoGigo:
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that Wal-Mart is wage slavery. I just disagree about why. I don't think Wal-Mart employees are underpaid; I think that there is a dearth of better-paying jobs. That's the problem that needs solving. Again, I don't know how to do that, other than lowering unemployment to increase competition for labor.


I'll argue that they're underpaid. Even if we let prices remain the same, even if we assume the 1% price increase it would take to allow WM to pay it's full time scrubs 25K a year would ruin everything, WM makes about 16B a year. So who's generating those earnings? What's a stockboy's contribution to that? (Actually, we should be talking about gross earnings if we want to ask what the stockboy contributes, rather than netting out GSA. But I'll do it this way, just to make clear that, even if the CEO is worth a zillion dollars, there's still plenty of money that's being generated.)
We don't worry about that too much. Instead, we say the stockboy is "worth" what we can hire him for. He's not worth what he contributes; he's worth what I can get him to work for, which isn't much. The reason it's not much is because he's poor, and he doesn't have any leverage to bargain for based on what he contributes.
We're funny. The only time we talk about what workers contribute is when we talk about productivity increases. And what's funny about that is, as workers become more productive, we don't say the worker is worth more. We say the guy who developed the technology or the process that makes the worker more productive is worth more. Often, we even claim the worker is worth less.
Saying someone is "worth" what he can get someone else to pay him for his time is sociopathic. What someone is worth is, he's worth feeding. He's worth allowing to see a doctor. He's worth allowing to have a family. Walmart doesn't pay people based on either their contribution to the company or what their worth.
2012-11-21 06:13:17 AM
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.


Wow. I just had to reply to this to say what an asshole you are. And you certainly don't represent the average American guy, you blatant troll.

/you got me.
2012-11-21 05:07:13 AM
2 votes:

Vector R: Ned Resnikoff at MSNBC flagged a leaked internal document (first obtained by HuffPo) that revealed that base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour (or $16,000 per year), with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

Long ago and far away, I was one of those flogged and underpaid drones (employee unit #XJ43061, if you must know). I started out at $8 an hour FT, and that made for a marginally acceptable living with someone else around to share expenses with. A few months in, while chatting with a sweetheart in softlines whose only fault was a massive overbite and a harsh hand dealt from time and poverty. It turned out she'd been there a number of years, and her pay wasn't even equal to mine.

As someone who has BT;DT - yes, the working conditions ARE that bad. It's better than nothing, but it's so degrading and soul-crushing, and is the sort of job that just keeps you awake at night long after you've thrown that farking vest somewhere out of sight. /CSB

/Walmart was so bad I started smoking
//Good luck, striking workers!
///Fark Black Friday


My wife worked at Walmart for 13 years, and when she left she was making just over $13/hr. She watched guys who worked there less time, do the same job and make more than her, even though her reviews were better and she never missed work. We also have no children, so they couldn't use the old "Guys get more because they don't go out on Maternity leave"-excuse.

Walmart is a soul-crushing, heartless, divisive and exploitative corporate entity, and they need to take better care of their employees. Period. We've getting by without my wife's income for over a year now, and while it would be nice to have more money in the bank, I'd prefer to scrape by than have her work for Walmart ever again.
2012-11-21 04:33:33 AM
2 votes:

GreenSun: Nobody is forced to work for Walmart. Before you sign up for any job, they tell you how much you'll get paid and all the terms. In the end, it's up to you whether or not you'll take what they offer or not. If you sign up for it, then you can't really complain


See, this is what so many people actually believe, but it is simply not true. No one has stuck a gun to my sister's head and "forced" her to work at Wal-Mart. It's simply pretty much the only job available in this town, because since Wal-Mart put in, several other small businesses went out of business.

And yes, my sister was given "terms" of her employment. Terms including "if you work 32+ hours per week, you are a full-time employee and you get benefits." Terms including "if you work more than your scheduled shift at the request of management, you will receive time-and-a-half overtime. Terms including "you will not be required to show up at work without being on the clock."

Don't act like you know more than other people about something like this. Wal-Mart is not honoring their own agreements, and this is why most of the employees are upset. They have every right to be. Wal-Mart executive management knows that their employees are dependent on their jobs and can't "just quit". They know how much of an upheaval it is to an entire family's schedule if Mom quits and since the family has only one car and Mom suddenly is working at a different time they have to make new arrangements to get the kids to school.

Wal-Mart takes advantage of people in these kinds of situations, and makes craploads of money off of them. I'm sorry, but whatever line you've been fed about Wal-Mart employees is a bunch of bull, and if you would make a stab at a little bit of empathy, you might understand things a bit better and not sound so arrogant and uninformed.
2012-11-21 04:12:36 AM
2 votes:

ladyfortuna: I'm always intrigued by these threads where people claim retail workers have no skills. I'd like to see those same people face down two thousand+ annoyed shoppers over the course of a 10+ hour day and somehow manage to a. help them, and b. not punch them all in the face. That takes something called self control.

Also while not 'major skills', counting/handling money (gasp), understanding stock procedures, understanding and regurgitating store policies to clueless shoppers, product knowledge (especially in electronics and other high tech industries), teamwork, customer service, and to some extent security, are all skills one picks up working long term in retail. A lot of people I've worked with in regular offices would be completely lost in a retail setting.

/six years retail
//not one customer complaint
///switching to IT because I dislike people in general


Most of my life I've worked retail and I've hired plenty of college graduates who couldn't handle the job. Long hours on hard floors, working past closing for last minute customers who may not spend a dime but just want to look around, and if your management you might as well give up your life. 95-100 hour work weeks during Christmas, someone on vacation.

this is a great comic about working retail and his book nails a lot of it on the money

Link
2012-11-21 02:14:10 AM
2 votes:
BTW there's a nice article over on the politics tab dealing with pay inequality and such, and coming down on the side of the poorly paid. Fark, it's from The American Conservative
2012-11-21 01:56:43 AM
2 votes:
tenpoundsofcheese (farkied: It ain't cheese): They have the basic necessities.

Thanks to Medicaid and food stamps. Which you Randroid pukes would be very happy to see abolished.
2012-11-21 01:02:45 AM
2 votes:

sid2112: Summoner101: sid2112: Summoner101: sid2112: Yeah because those workers had no idea what they were getting into when they SIGNED THE CONTRACT as they were hired by WalMart. I feel so terrible for those poor, duped bastards that wanted nothing more than 20 dollars an hour for doing a job that is worth around 6 dollars an hour. Seriously, my heart is bleeding for the people who got employed, signed a contract that clearly states what the expectations of the job were, and decided to fark off in school instead of actually trying to learn something.

Somewhere a fiddle is playing....

So what happens when Walmart breaks their end of this grand ole bargain? Tough shiat, they're the employee?

Show one instance where they have done that, just one. You won't find it because it never happened!

One instance ever? Well that was easy.
Where in the contract does it say he won't be hit by a cart? I was speaking of the contract! Try again.


Really, it was my fault for thinking you'd take this seriously.
2012-11-21 12:50:38 AM
2 votes:

rikkitikkitavi: Dinjiin: rikkitikkitavi: If I'm a Walton, I don't give two farks what you think about me. Serious.

Nor would I expect them to. But they shouldn't be surprised when the war of the classes target them as public enemy #1. To the Progressives, they are the poster children for why inheritance taxes should have more teeth.

I'm generally not in favor of taxing the same money twice, or thrice. It was taxed when it was earned. And any earnings on that invested income has been taxed. Simply changing hands, from one generation to the next shouldn't be taxable. At all. Period. If Bank of America taxed you a percentage just to move your money or hold onto it and not spend it, then you'd be biatching up a storm. What makes you think the government gets that right to tax money that's already been taxed?


You might want to take a gander at what those well known Commie Founders of this nation thought of the estate tax, as well as that pesky Ebbil Socialist Adam Smith:

"A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."
2012-11-21 12:47:26 AM
2 votes:

rikkitikkitavi: I'm generally not in favor of taxing the same money twice, or thrice. It was taxed when it was earned. And any earnings on that invested income has been taxed. Simply changing hands, from one generation to the next shouldn't be taxable. At all. Period. If Bank of America taxed you a percentage just to move your money or hold onto it and not spend it, then you'd be biatching up a storm. What makes you think the government gets that right to tax money that's already been taxed?


There is no way your supposed scenario wouldn't end with an entrenched and decadent aristocracy thrown down violently by angry peasants.
The government has the right to tax money as it pleases because it's the entire reason the money exists as a vehicle for trade.
2012-11-21 12:32:05 AM
2 votes:

superdude72: They're not going to hoard it in an account in the Cayman Islands, where it does nothing to boost the economy.


The rate of savings and investment for people at or below the median income is close to zero. As soon as a dollar comes in, it goes out. If they have any equity, it is in a home they reside in.

It takes money to make money. Usually, you park it in investments for decades and allow it to grow. You have to have spare income to do that, which means you're talking middle class and above. The higher you go, the more money you see diverted to investments, and the more it grows.

At some point, your investments return more money than you can reasonably spend before you die. These are the people who are supposed to seed trickle-down economics. But how can it trickle down if it is locked for decades? And if the kids have any smarts, they'll take that inheritance and lock it away in investments as well.

I'd bet that if Wal-Mart bumped their starting FTE salary to $25K and made most employees full-time, you'd see an immediate benefit to the economy, especially in economically depressed areas where Wal-Mart stores are more common.
2012-11-21 12:03:32 AM
2 votes:

clowncar on fire: You divide your day into three 8 hour blocks- that may include weekends. you get a job during block a (dayshift) making it clear you will only be available during block a. Now get a second job, making it clear that you will only be available during blocks b or c. Never will there be a conflict in your schedule.


And, if you'd read the rest of the comment, there's not always a guarantee that the your employer gives a flying fark about your schedule. Tell him all you like that you're no available during block a, but if that means you get scheduled for even fewer hours during block b, it really doesn't do you much good.
2012-11-20 11:51:50 PM
2 votes:
blogs-images.forbes.com
2012-11-20 11:35:15 PM
2 votes:
ZERO skilled labor striking in a bad economy with a huge pool of unemployed? ... This is why they work at walmart
2012-11-20 11:23:39 PM
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Linkster: Coelacanth: The average minimum wage in Australia/Europe/Japan is $16.50.

What's the average living costs in these countries? One piece of the puzzle, forms no argument.

Not to mention exchange rate. JPY vs USD has been ridiculously skewed in the past few years.


They also get all kinds of benefits we can only dream of in this country, plus health care.
2012-11-20 11:16:45 PM
2 votes:
There aren't any other jobs to be had, and the jobs there are... pretty damn bad.

I just don't get it. People like my mom ("UNIONS ARE TERRORISITS", she's fond of saying these days, "How?" "They just are!". ...she swears she's not a Republican) would BENEFIT from this stuff, but..

I dunno.

/Mom finally found a job. Maybe her brain will start kicking in
//Making 14 an hour and forced to split the bills with my mother.
2012-11-20 11:16:14 PM
2 votes:
Why doesn't the union just open up its own wal-mart competitor and pay everyone 25,000 per year.
I'm sure they could get nice discounts from suppliers that are union shops. They wont even need that 1% price increase. But that 1% more, plenty of people will go there instead.
Then, they can drive wal-mart out of business.
2012-11-20 10:56:40 PM
2 votes:

drewsclues: The situation is as fixed as it ever was. The only difference is that this time the unemployed have gadgets and an internet to tell you how the situation is. I DON'T HAVE A farkING JOB! #noteventrying


Try telling that to the Middle East. Try telling that to the Egyptians, to the Libyans, to the Tunisians, to the Yemans. Look at what the unemployed did with their gadgets and the internet over there.
2012-11-20 10:56:09 PM
2 votes:

Summoner101: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Summoner101: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with the executives earning 1% less if it means your lowest paid staff member earns a living wage?

Because it's socialism and we can't have that in our completely free market capitalism.

It's not even socialism though. It's a net positive for society, even with a heavily capitalist mixed economy, to have a strong and thriving middle class.

Time and time again throughout history, it's clearly demonstrated that severe discrepancies in income (with 1 or 2% holding a supermajority of wealth) leads to wholesale financial collapse.

In the long-term, the rich would be better served by being a little less rich in the short-term in exchange for an economically secure labor force.

Just to let you know, I was being facetious and I agree with you.


No, I know, I was just clarifying because some people out there really so think that way.

And for the people who are saying "Guess thy should have got a better job!" - This is the United States. I want this to be a nation where working a full-time job, even a menial low-skill job, affords one the basic necessities of life. We need a living wage, not a race-to-the-bottom minimum wage.
2012-11-20 10:52:12 PM
2 votes:
Still relevant:

www.theconnextion.com
2012-11-20 10:51:27 PM
2 votes:

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Not the point at all. But taking a minimum wage job and expecting it to be something more than that is not exactly bright.


FTFA: Walmart employees across the country have a host of grievances including unsafe and unsanitary working conditions, sexual harassment, excessive hours, forced labor and low pay.

Pay someone enough, and they'll endure all of that. Since Wal-Mart wasn't, and still subjecting its employees to it, this is far askew of what expectations of a minimum wage job should be.
2012-11-20 10:44:59 PM
2 votes:

Too Pretty For Prison: but, but, but that's not FAIR! Sure, I have no skills and can only stack boxes on a shelf - but I'm ENTITLED to have a 65" TV, a new car, a large house, every available cable channel, and a cell phone for my 6 year old. I DEMAND you pay me more!!!


You forgot refrigerator, you hyperbolic fark.
2012-11-20 10:44:46 PM
2 votes:

Summoner101: I was told they're striking because they just don't want to work holidays.

/I know it's because they want to form a union without Walmart quashing them


And it really would be a good idea for Walmart employees to unionize, if possible.

The types of worker hours policy shenanigans Walmart is trying to pull is little better than slave driving.
2012-11-20 10:44:20 PM
2 votes:
The one up the road from me has been targeted, and I fully expect to go to cheer the workers on, then go inside and buy something just to add to the workload.

LULZ will be had by all.

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: I'm confused; nowhere in the article does it explain that these people were FORCED to take these jobs without knowing what the wage was. I men, that had to be case, right? Otherwise...


Have you looked for a job lately?
2012-11-20 10:43:07 PM
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.


but, but, but that's not FAIR! Sure, I have no skills and can only stack boxes on a shelf - but I'm ENTITLED to have a 65" TV, a new car, a large house, every available cable channel, and a cell phone for my 6 year old. I DEMAND you pay me more!!!
2012-11-20 10:41:11 PM
2 votes:
Best advice: Shop local.
2012-11-20 10:38:00 PM
2 votes:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with the executives earning 1% less if it means your lowest paid staff member earns a living wage?


Because it's socialism and we can't have that in our completely free market capitalism.
2012-11-20 10:37:17 PM
2 votes:
I was told they're striking because they just don't want to work holidays.

/I know it's because they want to form a union without Walmart quashing them
2012-11-20 10:35:27 PM
2 votes:
Go greedy management! Squeeze those workers! They thought they could just fark around in high school and get away with it? Hah.
2012-11-22 08:52:35 AM
1 votes:
Free-market capitalism (which, despite what one thinks, hasn't been tried save -maybe- in Texas). The problem is too many people want their "freebies" from the backs of people. If all goes as the state would like, the good doctors would be driving in Pintos, while the bad doctors still have a job.

I feel like your response is one part idealism and another part oversimplification.

First of all, the 'state' isn't an actual thinking thing. It truly is a headless entity (despite having a head of state) that doesn't move deliberately towards one particular configuration. Needless to say, it is a complex system full of difficult to model parts - perhaps some that cannot actually be modeled. The "state" doesn't "want" doctors to drive Pintos or to keep bad doctors. Corrupt people within the state may want this, but you can't use corruption as an argument for or against any system because corruption is a result of power and every system you could advocate for will inevitably converge towards a position where few have managed to acquire power over many. In my opinion there is little to be gained by trying to advocate for systems that don't acknowledge this, and the only way we can go forward with progress as a species is to make decisions that deliberately acknowledge this and work through it.

When it comes to free-market capitalism, I have to ask: What is the incentive to better society? Even if you make a fairly compelling argument (and, I think most people now feel like the argument fails to acknowledge decades of history) as to why it would -- this is usually something along the lines of competition makes everyone fight to provide you with better things, so you end up getting to choose from a better and better pool of goods and services and that drives innovation and health and prosperity -- I make the argument that the other configuration, the one we're seeing now, will still happen: competition inherently means winners and losers. In the game of enterprise, winners tend to grow, losers are consumed or absorbed. With each iteration, the barrier to entry becomes greater meaning it's less likely that an honest, hard-working person with a "good idea" will actually be able to take on the winners and enact change. Consider the case of Wal-Mart, where they can operate at a loss for such a long time that they could drive out any small but otherwise competitive business. What this means is that it becomes a game of kings, of titans, where 99.99% of the population of the planet have no way of really participating in the game and can only show up to work.

Now you may say, what is the matter with that so long as our benevolent corporate overlords provide us with a good, slowly increasing in quality, life? I guess nothing, I mean, I don't care about the philosophical aspects of freedom, I can appreciate that all other systems have been disasterous when implemented and as far as the animal kingdom goes we can enjoy a hell of a lot more safety, stablity and peace of mind than any other organsims. But that's not what's happening. While you make accusations that the government, the state, intends to keep bad doctors and pay everyone poorly, the reality is that the absolute definition of a for-profit entity is that it must seek out as much profit as possible. There is absolutely no such thing as a corporation saying "Oh, we've made enough profit already this year." - now how do they do this? They do this by charging as much as they can get away with (until it prohibatively reduces their sales in such a way that it outweighs the extra profit) as well a reducing their costs: which, for most things either directly or indirectly, is wages. So the system has a completely intrinsic state of stress between trying to charge more and pay people less which means they can't afford to pay more. The only reason the system doesn't come flying apart due to that simple stress (which is entirely placed on those that show up to work and actually produce) is because there are still enough entities in existence that they compete with each other and people quit and go work elsewhere. But this again is competition - which means winners and losers. But that's a separate competition: The winners/losers of the corporate word are not the same thing as the winners/losers of the employed world. Wal-Mart is a corporate "winner" but the people that work there are the employment "losers", and the reason we have Wal-Mart is because people want to pay less for more and we seem to be OK with the idea of treating the people that work there poorly (in a way that we would never want to be treated) - because it's not our problem. It will be, some day, when you're downsized or outsourced or whatever, but it's not your problem now.

I don't adore the state. I don't think the government is infalleable or perfect or even "good". But they lack the one thing that makes me feel they are the lesser of two evils: the profit motive. I think that this is a better starting position, and with the right set of tools: total transparency (open source software through all of government, complete public record of all conversations, and so on), total accountability (more local government, the ability to evict politicans from their positions with ease, no lobbying or money in it), etc. we can achieve something that does a better job. I don't think anyone, no matter how state-aligned, has ever thought that the government should not be afraid of its citizens. It's not a blank cheque, it's not an OK to be wasteful. Those are real issues that need to be addressed, but how can you go from "stop being wasteful" to "make a bunch of profit" and think it's going to benefit you, the average joe?
2012-11-21 11:01:24 PM
1 votes:

People_are_Idiots: The problem is too many people want their "freebies" from the backs of people.


I disagree. I think people just want a living wage in exchange for contributing 40-45 hrs. per week to society. Whether that be as a janitor or an assembly line worker or a stocker at Wal-Mart, they feel that they are contributing to our society and deserve a reasonable lifestyle in exchange for their time and effort. People are beginning to see that citizens of other countries such as Sweden and Germany are achieving this, and they wonder what is wrong with our country that it has so much wealth, but the standard of living for so many of its citizens is far below that of many other countries.

I don't think that anyone would argue that people that work "harder" (whether that be through spending more hours, or working a more demanding job, or one that requires an investment in education) should be compensated more. However, the fact is, we're not providing a reasonable living for many of the individuals such as janitors or stockers or cashiers on which the functioning of our society depends. They're not at the forefront, making breakthroughs that make everyone's life easier; they are the people that help maintain the standard of living we have come to expect. Their jobs really are important, and if they choose to do these jobs, they deserve to be compensated for them.

Which would you notice first: if half of the garbage collectors disappeared, or half of the lawyers? Half of the hospital orderlies, or half of the health insurance executives? Half of the public transit workers, or half of the lobbyists? Half of the grocery store cashiers, or half of the private equity executives who own the food companies?
2012-11-21 08:37:10 PM
1 votes:

A Shambling Mound: People_are_Idiots: The question though is this: What is the "Living Wage" in all the US? What is poverty in CA is rich in TX.

That is not completely accurate and the reality is much more complicated. Even within Texas an $8.00 per hour job in Mineral Wells or Vidor will do you just fine. I mean, you still live in Mineral Wells or Vidor but at least you have a little jingle in your pocket after paying rent, buying food and whatever other costs you feel you can afford.

That same job won't get you into a studio apartment in Austin much less buy you frivolous things like food, water and electricity.


$8 an hour can't get you a paper bag in the middle of the street in CA.
2012-11-21 12:53:59 PM
1 votes:

rikkitikkitavi: Dinjiin: rikkitikkitavi: If I'm a Walton, I don't give two farks what you think about me. Serious.

Nor would I expect them to. But they shouldn't be surprised when the war of the classes target them as public enemy #1. To the Progressives, they are the poster children for why inheritance taxes should have more teeth.

I'm generally not in favor of taxing the same money twice, or thrice. It was taxed when it was earned. And any earnings on that invested income has been taxed. Simply changing hands, from one generation to the next shouldn't be taxable. At all. Period. If Bank of America taxed you a percentage just to move your money or hold onto it and not spend it, then you'd be biatching up a storm. What makes you think the government gets that right to tax money that's already been taxed?


When you buy something with money, it's taxed. When you are paid money, it's taxed. When the rich pay themselves, well that's sacred and we can't expect them to pay taxes on money that's already taxed, even though everyone else has to.
2012-11-21 12:14:27 PM
1 votes:

peeledpeas: We really don't need the ability to make a "living wage" at an extremely low skilled job. If Americans get any dumber, there won't be an America for much longer.


You provide the perfect example of a dumbed-down American with that bolded statement.

Please, go fark yourself with a rusty pitchfork. You are everything that is wrong with this nation.
2012-11-21 11:55:46 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: JosephFinn: AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.

Which I'm sure is a delight to the people at WalMart working poverty-level wages with no insurance coverage & forced and unpaid overtime. But hey, 5% of almost nothing!

Beggars can't be choosers.


People willing to work shouldn't have to be beggars and definitely shouldn't have the likes of you calling them that. Because WalMart pays poverty level wages, its workforce must get foodstamps and other safety net programs just to get by. Which we all then pay for. In other words, Walmart is shifting its moral obligations onto all of us taxpayers as our burden. AND they and their partners in crime have shifted the conversation so much that they can pretend it's not even their moral obligation to start with.
kab
2012-11-21 11:48:58 AM
1 votes:
ITT: folks clinging desperately to trickle down economics, despite it simply not working in practice.
2012-11-21 11:23:42 AM
1 votes:

rikkitikkitavi: Sergeant Grumbles: The government has the right to tax money as it pleases because it's the entire reason the money exists as a vehicle for trade.

patently false

hubiestubert: You might want to take a gander at what those well known Commie Founders of this nation thought of the estate tax, as well as that pesky Ebbil Socialist Adam Smith:

Jefferson voted to repeal the first Estate tax legislation. The pursuit of property (wealth) is a fundamental tenant to the American foundation. And no, the government can't just take it from you because you'd died.


From The Economist, circa 2010:

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" - in fact an inheritance tax - on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Even stalwart members of the latter-day Republican Party, the representatives of business and inherited wealth, often emphatically embraced these tenets of economic equality in a democracy. I've mentioned Herbert Hoover's disdain for the "idle rich" and his strong support for breaking up large fortunes. Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first president to propose a steeply graduated tax on inheritances, was another: he declared that the transmission of large wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.''

In her debate in Delaware yesterday, the Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell asserted that the estate tax is a "tenet of Marxism." I'm not sure how much Marx she has read, but she might want to read the works of his fellow travelers Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Herbert Hoover, and Theodore Roosevelt before her next debate.


You might want to rethink Jefferson on this: Because his opposition to an estate tax was because he wanted something a sight more radical...

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living."
2012-11-21 10:38:16 AM
1 votes:

Too Pretty For Prison: AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.

but, but, but that's not FAIR! Sure, I have no skills and can only stack boxes on a shelf - but I'm ENTITLED to have a 65" TV, a new car, a large house, every available cable channel, and a cell phone for my 6 year old. get off food stamps, afford private insurance instead of Medicaid, and move out of public housing. I DEMAND you pay me more!!!


FTFY, douchebag. Why do you want your tax money to subsidize some mouthbreather instead of making 5 of the 10 richest Americans forgo that second sports franchise? Especially if it's only going to cost you an extra 15 cents for that bag of Cheetos and gallon jug of hand lotion.
2012-11-21 10:10:39 AM
1 votes:

Lsherm: drewsclues: Best advice: Don't shop on Thanksgiving.

Amen to this. Actually, don't shop on Black Friday, either.




Black Friday is the best time for Anthropoligists to study the American in their natural habitat.

much useful data can be obtained in a relatively short period of time.
2012-11-21 09:43:28 AM
1 votes:
Let's be honest, WalMart got themselves in this pickle by being so systematically terrible to their employees. Plenty of other retail establishments will be open on Thanksgiving and on the day after, and on other holidays and times when workers would rather not be working but home with their families - but they are willing to accept it because they need the job and aren't 100% sick of the employer. WalMart has managed to so completely piss off their employees with their abuses (locking them inside at closing to force them to do unpaid work closing the store after hours is a favorite trick) that even low-skill low-paid workers are sick enough of them to make a point like this and probably lose their jobs.
2012-11-21 09:42:06 AM
1 votes:

TopoGigo: Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that Wal-Mart is wage slavery. I just disagree about why. I don't think Wal-Mart employees are underpaid; I think that there is a dearth of better-paying jobs. That's the problem that needs solving. Again, I don't know how to do that, other than lowering unemployment to increase competition for labor.


I said this upthread, but I think it needs to be repeated. Like it or not, these jobs require a human being to perform. They simply cannot be automated with today's technology. If a human being is needed, then that human deserves a living wage for their contribution to the business. A ub-par living wage, no matter how "little" one might feel a person contributes, is just inexcusable. Build a robot or train a monkey, just don't expect a human to give up 9-11+ hrs per day (including breaks and commute and "getting ready") for something they cannot survive on.

If everyone "bettered" themselves through education or "bootstraps" or what have you, then who would clean the toilets or empty the trash or stock the shelves? It is silly to think of some jobs as being so "unimportant" although they are in their own way every bit as vital to society as those "better" jobs.

Which would we notice first: Half of the lawyers dropping dead or half of the garbage collectors? Half of the hedge fund managers or half of the janitors? Half of the executives at Wal-Mart taking sick or half of the cashiers?
2012-11-21 09:16:18 AM
1 votes:

TopoGigo: Besides, even if it's a more demanding job than I think, if there were decent jobs out there, nobody would do tht job for $8. Problem solved.


If the only other option was "watch your family starve", then most people would work at Foxconn for 15-16 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week for $400/month and no benefits.

Like you said, the higher-wage jobs just don't exist, and Wal-Mart is systematically running other retailers out of business, thereby further limiting the options. There is less and less competition for employees, so there is no incentive to raise wages. Who are they competing against for the best stockers and cashiers?
2012-11-21 09:04:22 AM
1 votes:
I don't see how someone who is free market could be against unions. Unions are the ultimate expression of market theory applied to labor.
2012-11-21 09:01:28 AM
1 votes:

TopoGigo: Minimum wage is just fine where it is. In fact, Wal-Mart pays a decent wage. The only problem is that the fast-food joints and Wal-Marts of the world should be staffed by high schoolers and chronic fark-ups. There should be plenty of higher wage, higher skill jobs out there. There ain't. If there are 100 jobs available, and only 10 of them are decent paying jobs, then you can't say that the other 90 people just "work harder and get a better job". How do you force employers to pay a living wage for semi-skilled labor, and pay a good wage for skilled labor? Hell if I know. 5% unemployment would be a start, but it wouldn't solve the problem by itself.


Why do people consider working at Wal-Mart to be "unskilled" labor? Can anyone who hasn't worked at Wal-Mart understand how to use a Telzon for inventory management? Can anyone who hasn't worked stock before understand how to efficiently load a pallet from the stockroom so that the items it contains are all grouped close to one another on the sales floor, but the heavier items are on the bottom? Can anyone who hasn't worked at Wal-Mart walk in and do a Wal-Mart "Associate"'s job with little to no training?

These jobs do take some skills. The employees do put in a hard day's work. A living wage without relying on the government for food stamps and health care to make up for the shortcomings is NOT a lot to ask for.
2012-11-21 08:52:52 AM
1 votes:

Bisu: In the healthcare plan's defense, apparently a lot of them already don't get 40 hours.


My sister (and many others at the Wal-Mart she works at) suffer from the opposite problem. Her position is considered "part-time" so that they do not have to give her full-time benefits such as 401K contributions and health insurance, but she has been scheduled for less than 40 hours only twice in the past ten months. She has brought this up, but the replies she gets from management are basically, "You are in a part-time position."
2012-11-21 08:43:36 AM
1 votes:

JosephFinn: Trafficguy2000:

Dont worry obamacare will save them!

The insurance exchanges, to be sure, are a good start.



Yes, they'll get a subsidy from the government when they buy their own insurance. Walmart will help them out by cutting everyone to 28 hours a week so that they aren't required to provide them insurance themselves. Which do you think people making $8 an hour need more, health insurance or those 12 hours a week of lost wages (30% of their income)?

In the healthcare plan's defense, apparently a lot of them already don't get 40 hours.
2012-11-21 08:37:02 AM
1 votes:

rumpelstiltskin: ox45tallboy: sinschild: Since they skipped the economic development part of your studies and you seem to be under the impression that skill set is worth more than $10 an hour, I would like to offer you employment as a fluffer on my new film.

Define "worth". I see several people using it in this thread, but I've yet to see anyone define it in the way that they think they are using it.

If you can make a man hungry, you can make him worth whatever you want to. Adam Smith would cry if he saw what we've done to Capitalism.


I would love to know how many Free Marketeers have read Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments
2012-11-21 08:33:24 AM
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: sinschild: Since they skipped the economic development part of your studies and you seem to be under the impression that skill set is worth more than $10 an hour, I would like to offer you employment as a fluffer on my new film.

Define "worth". I see several people using it in this thread, but I've yet to see anyone define it in the way that they think they are using it.


If you can make a man hungry, you can make him worth whatever you want to. Adam Smith would cry if he saw what we've done to Capitalism.
2012-11-21 08:00:14 AM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: ox45tallboy: CujoQuarrel: Since they had to know the store is open 24hrs a day and that there would need to be extra help on T'day/Blackfriday who do they think would be working those shifts?

Well, my sister figured she'd be working. She just didn't figure she would be tagged for "security", told that she was supposed to "keep people from cutting in line and fighting and stuff" but given no training or even policy statements as to how she should go about doing this. She also did not expect to be scheduled for 45 hours, as management is rather insistent that she is a "part-time" employee and thus not eligible for benefits although she has been scheduled less than 40 hours only twice in the past ten months. She also figured she might get some overtime or holiday pay, but as it turns out, management is supposed to send people home early on other shifts in order to prevent overtime, and get everyone else to "pitch in" and cover the labor shortage on those shifts.

Don't try to excuse Wal-Mart's labor policies. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Which 'Facts' am I making up

But does she at least get a Taser? Now that would be fun.

"I'm sorry ma'am but you cut line. Zaaappppp!!!!!!


Wal-Mart considers the employees expendable here. If the employee does anything at all, even touches a customer as the customer is punching them, they will be fired. They probably give them no training on purpose so that they can take no liability. One heck of a sucky job, and I'm tired of subsidizing the WalMart employees with my tax dollars to the tune of 2 billion per year.
2012-11-21 07:39:55 AM
1 votes:
I'm generally not a fan of unions. I think that most of them do only what's best for the union and not for the workers. But, I sincerely hope that this shuts Wal-Mart down hard. If the workers want to unionize and want to bargain for decent pay and decent conditions, that is their right. I haven't been in one of their wretched stores for years and this crap just reinforces my distaste for their business practices.
2012-11-21 07:39:46 AM
1 votes:
My thoughts:

If Walmart didn't want unions in thier stores all they had to do was treat their employees like human farking beings. That doesn't necessarily mean paying everyone $20 an hour (I've been on well-paying soul crushing jobs). It means not forcing people to work unpaid OT and middle management that has a farking clue how to treat its employees. Most of the workers (at least here in the South) would have been ok with the shiatty pay (with room for raises and advancement) if they where just treated fairly and civil.

Summoner101:

How about they get paid enough so they don't soak up welfare, SNAP, and Medicaid benefits?


Bears repeating. It seems logical to me. How they hell Walmart gets away with this and STILL get tax breaks is beyond me. No, they are not under any obligation to offer health care to thier employees. But if I where a city or county looking into letting Walmart open in my community with the hope that it will take some of the citizens off the dole, I'd think long and hard about forking over a tax break that only cost me more in the long run.

And let these poor dumb bastards break bread with their families on Thanksgiving! One farking day won't break Walmart! Is there no end to how much farking over the Waltons will do to turn a buck? Politics and religion aside, Chic-fil-A is closed one day a week and makes a metric ass ton of money. So you're telling me Walmart can't manage to close for one extra day a YEAR?
2012-11-21 07:33:29 AM
1 votes:

sinschild: They want the job they feel entitled to instead of the job they agreed to. Pretty standard really.


Actually, you're rather misinformed if you believe this. I don't know of any who agreed to work 40 hours a week as a "part-time" employee with no benefits. I don't know of any who agreed to come in at their scheduled time and then sit for two hours outside in the parking lot in order that they not get overtime after being asked by management to stay late and help out a couple of times earlier in the week. I don't know of any of them that agreed to work "Security" on Thanksgiving Day, outside of their normally scheduled shift.

Pretty standard, really.
2012-11-21 07:17:15 AM
1 votes:

aevorea: p51d007: The rest of us, STUDIED, went to college (I paid my own way), and got a good
job, that allows us the freedom of having nights, holidays & weekends off!
So, suck it up, and take it in the butt....you have no one to complain to, but yourself!

Interesting implication that education automatically equates to a non-retail job, especially considering I received my IB diploma with high marks in all subjects, I received my 4 year college diploma (3.71 GPA) and completed a two-year certificate program in only one year (3.7 GPA), and had 5+ years of experience in my field (with excellent annual reviews). And yet, when the economy tanked, I was laid off and couldn't find any job for a year within the state in which I resided. In fact, I didn't receive a single call or email with an invitation to an interview for three months and I was sending out anywhere from 10-30 applications A DAY. I finally did find a job, but that required moving to another state. That job was a full-time retail position.

TL;DR - highly educated persons do work in hourly retail positions because, sometimes, it's the only work available. Their choices are 'menial' hourly jobs or starving/facing eviction/etc.


I failed to mention that those weekends and holidays that were earned? Those actually came about because of union members that fought for them decades ago. But hey, you hit that homerun from third base so you get a nice participation trophy.
2012-11-21 06:32:33 AM
1 votes:

p51d007: The rest of us, STUDIED, went to college (I paid my own way), and got a good
job, that allows us the freedom of having nights, holidays & weekends off!


I went to college and had to do a stint in retail after school. I had good grades, studied, and still was one of the drones.

Why? No one was hiring. Not even for entry level jobs. I've even had office work experience and did an internship.

Fun Fact: Not all of the drones are toothless high school drop outs. There are a lot of retail people that did go to college. There are also those who served in the military. They do the job to put food on the table and pay the bills. Many of them (where I worked) tried to not go on food stamps or on assistance. They didn't want to suck on the government teat.
2012-11-21 06:24:15 AM
1 votes:

madgonad: My niece works at Wal*Mart at the deli counter. She is 30 years old, unmarried, with a two year-old. Why yes, she is on food stamps and Medicaid - why do you ask?


Because your niece is a slut and irresponsibly got knocked up and the baby is probably biracial anyway so it's also a guaranteed leech on our American society as well.

/Spewing the older generation's attitude, sorry.
//I voted republican since '88 until '08.
///Got a girl knocked up in college, we stuck together, made it thanks to social programs like WIC, etc. at the time.
////Now considered to be "middle class small business owner"....still will never forget those frequent moments of "How can I pay for this can of infant formula?!?" And sympathize with those fo through
2012-11-21 06:16:18 AM
1 votes:

I sound fat: And speaking of that, have you people ever WORKED for a mom and pop retailer? They normally pay worse than walmart, certainly dont have benefits, and cost society money on purchases.

lets not talk about advancement opportunities....

/but hey, lets protect mom and pop from big evil walmart that saves everyone money that they are able to spend -- get this -- IN THE COMMUNITY on other things.


I've worked in a couple of different fields for small business owners. I got paid well, I enjoyed my bosses, and I actually felt like my health and well being mattered. Show me a WalMart manager who invites employees to their house for Christmas, hell show me a WalMart that has a Christmas party where the employees not only get dinner and drink but presents form their bosses, and not only that, but presents that actually take the recipient into consideration. My bosses knew me, they cared about me and treated me(And other employees) like family.

Yeah, you get that with WalMart all right...
2012-11-21 05:58:52 AM
1 votes:

GreenSun: Most of the things that can be bought from Walmart are just the same if you were to buy them from other shops. For example, clothes, shoes, computer games, food.


Except that WalMart has contracts with manufacturers to sell lower quality versions of their products at WalMart. When I used to buy underwear and socks there, I saw it all the time. UNderwear would wear out in no time, the socks a little longer, and this was with the same brands I buy elsewhere. Since I stopped going to WalMart, the shelf life of these thing shas at least doubled. I would also have the tag fall off of my underwear, revealing another tag underneath with a totally different materials list on it. A shaittier combination of rayon and cotton, or whatever underwear is made out of. This seems to be so that when you bought it, it would appear to be made of better materials, but it was also technically stil labeled correctly with the actual material count, that one was just buried.

Also, you can check out a documentary called Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
. I still haven't gotten around to watching it, but my brother in law has, and he said that it was rather eye-opening.
2012-11-21 05:34:55 AM
1 votes:

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: I'm confused; nowhere in the article does it explain that these people were FORCED to take these jobs without knowing what the wage was. I men, that had to be case, right? Otherwise...


You're probably also the same guy who insists that nobody can get a job in today's job market, thanks to Obama, right?
2012-11-21 05:25:31 AM
1 votes:
One day I'll see if any of the fox/rush/boortz fanboys can explain in rational terms why it's OK for Fred Phelps to spew his hate speech on first amendment grounds, but when it's a union suddenly it's a perfectly legitimate tactic for the courts to restrict free speech & assembly rights. Til then all I hear is a constant stream of 'job creator' derp
2012-11-21 05:25:08 AM
1 votes:
CSB time.
I worked a month and a half seasonal position at Wal-Mart while I was attending college part-time. I had evening classes on Tuesday and Thursday, and not only was that listed on my application, but I brought it up again in the interview just to be certain. I was hired, and did my job well. The second week, I was scheduled to work evenings on both Tuesday and Thursday. I spoke with the personnel manager who was in charge of the scheduling, and she told me that there was nothing she could do about it. I spoke to the store manager, and within half an hour my schedule was changed. The next week rolls around, and I'm AGAIN scheduled on Tuesday and Thursday evening. I spoke to the personnel manager again, and she told me she couldn't fix it. I spoke to the store manager, and my schedule was fixed again. Finally after that, I stopped being scheduled on nights I couldn't work, but was passed over for a permanent hiring for a guy who royally screwed up changing a display (he put more expensive televisions there before changing the price, so 3 tvs were sold at $150 that should have cost $250). Fast forward 7 years, and I'm out of the Air Force. It's harder finding a job than I expected, so I apply at Wal-Mart to get at least some income while I hunt for a better opportunity. I get turned down even though I'm willing to work for the normal starting pay with wide open availability. I ask a friend who works management at a store in a different area to check things out for me, and it turns out the fat whore of a personnel manager had left a note in my employee profile that I was a trouble-maker and unreliable.
/CSB
2012-11-21 03:47:02 AM
1 votes:

randomjsa: That's ALL this is about. The unions want to get their hands on more money. That's it.


Better them than the executives really. Granted if it was up to me I'd just have the SEC suspend all trading on Walmart stock until they resolve their issues. And give them two weeks to do it. If they don't? So much for being a public company. Being a public company is a privilege, if you act in a manner not befitting the privilege, you lose it.
2012-11-21 03:05:25 AM
1 votes:

rikkitikkitavi: I'm generally not in favor of taxing the same money twice, or thrice. It was taxed when it was earned. And any earnings on that invested income has been taxed. Simply changing hands, from one generation to the next shouldn't be taxable. At all. Period. If Bank of America taxed you a percentage just to move your money or hold onto it and not spend it, then you'd be biatching up a storm. What makes you think the government gets that right to tax money that's already been taxed?


Moving money from bank to bank does not alter whose hand is owner. Willing money to your heirs *is* a change in hand. And the tax collector is always there to take his cut when it does. That is how society works.

Furthermore, society has a vested interest in preventing dynasties. Money is power and power corrupts absolutely. We do not need a plutocracy. And as history has shown, it is very ugly and disruptive to society when the people rise against them.

OTOH, the word "guillotine" rolls off the tongue so very well. It is a shame that we do not get a chance to use it more often.
2012-11-21 02:54:14 AM
1 votes:

People_are_Idiots: Summoner101: Still relevant:

[www.theconnextion.com image 500x500]

Even more relevant: Link


I generally like Penn & Teller, but that was a horribly made video. They contradict the horrible pay by citing average Walmart FULL-time pay when many of their workers are PART-time. Then they go on to say those PART-time workers were on government assistance anyway so it doesn't count. It does because Walmart has steadily increased it's PART-time employment so the workers it hires either remain on assistance or are forced on to assistance. Maybe if Penn did a little more research he would've realized some of his criticisms of the doc were bullshiat.

Even the schedule one was bullshiat and was essentially nit picking to address the point. Yea, employers set employee schedules. Good job Penn. His point was that they switch employees shifts too often from day to nights with little employee input. Yea Penn, sometimes employers work with employees to schedule shifts more beneficial to the employee and doesn't fark them sideways.
2012-11-21 02:16:13 AM
1 votes:

peeledpeas: you think you're so good at stacking toilet paper, go find someone that will pay you more


Costco would pay them more. And provide good benefits. Alas there's not that many around so kinda hard to get a job in and also their turnover is lower than Walmart's, which further ads to the difficulty of getting a job there.
2012-11-21 02:08:06 AM
1 votes:

tjfly: Think about it this way, libs: Walmart is effectively paying more per worker, but the government is taking the increase and redistributing it to the workers in the form of poorly managed health care... In 2014... So why aren't these people out of poverty now that they have thousands in free health care covered by Uncle Sam?


What the eff am I even reading?

Are you trying to claim that Obamacare (not effective until 2014) is the reason that poverty still exists in America in 2012?
2012-11-21 02:04:19 AM
1 votes:

Richard Johnson: I do my best to stay the hell out of WallyWorld as I can. I don't think that I have been inside one in 3 years.


Well their low pay costs you money whether you shop there or not. WalMart is a rich corporate welfare queen to the tune of at least $3.6 Billion every year.
2012-11-21 12:48:38 AM
1 votes:

rikkitikkitavi: Dinjiin: rikkitikkitavi: If I'm a Walton, I don't give two farks what you think about me. Serious.

Nor would I expect them to. But they shouldn't be surprised when the war of the classes target them as public enemy #1. To the Progressives, they are the poster children for why inheritance taxes should have more teeth.

I'm generally not in favor of taxing the same money twice, or thrice. It was taxed when it was earned. And any earnings on that invested income has been taxed. Simply changing hands, from one generation to the next shouldn't be taxable. At all. Period. If Bank of America taxed you a percentage just to move your money or hold onto it and not spend it, then you'd be biatching up a storm. What makes you think the government gets that right to tax money that's already been taxed?


Considering inheritance would be considered a gift, any inheritance above 13,000 dollars would be taxable.

/Really, any time money changes hands, it's taxed if it meets a certain threshold. This isn't new.
2012-11-21 12:43:21 AM
1 votes:
Store management is pretty low paid too. It's like the lower-middle vs. the working class.
2012-11-21 12:42:30 AM
1 votes:
I'm so tired of Walmart workers crying and whining about low wages. If you think you're so good at stacking toilet paper, go find someone that will pay you more to do it. IMO, none of the workers at my local Wally World are worth a squat. They know nothing. They push buttons and stack stuff. Big effing deal. No one is forced to work at Walmart. We really don't need the ability to make a "living wage" at an extremely low skilled job. If Americans get any dumber, there won't be an America for much longer.
2012-11-21 12:42:30 AM
1 votes:

rikkitikkitavi: Dinjiin: rikkitikkitavi: If I'm a Walton, I don't give two farks what you think about me. Serious.

Nor would I expect them to. But they shouldn't be surprised when the war of the classes target them as public enemy #1. To the Progressives, they are the poster children for why inheritance taxes should have more teeth.

I'm generally not in favor of taxing the same money twice, or thrice. It was taxed when it was earned. And any earnings on that invested income has been taxed. Simply changing hands, from one generation to the next shouldn't be taxable. At all. Period. If Bank of America taxed you a percentage just to move your money or hold onto it and not spend it, then you'd be biatching up a storm. What makes you think the government gets that right to tax money that's already been taxed?


Why do you hate black people?
2012-11-21 12:32:18 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: JosephFinn: AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.

Which I'm sure is a delight to the people at WalMart working poverty-level wages with no insurance coverage & forced and unpaid overtime. But hey, 5% of almost nothing!

Beggars can't be choosers.


And maybe we shouldn't have entire industries of beggars? Maybe?
2012-11-21 12:29:23 AM
1 votes:

sid2112: Summoner101: sid2112: Yeah because those workers had no idea what they were getting into when they SIGNED THE CONTRACT as they were hired by WalMart. I feel so terrible for those poor, duped bastards that wanted nothing more than 20 dollars an hour for doing a job that is worth around 6 dollars an hour. Seriously, my heart is bleeding for the people who got employed, signed a contract that clearly states what the expectations of the job were, and decided to fark off in school instead of actually trying to learn something.

Somewhere a fiddle is playing....

So what happens when Walmart breaks their end of this grand ole bargain? Tough shiat, they're the employee?

Show one instance where they have done that, just one. You won't find it because it never happened!


One instance ever? Well that was easy.
2012-11-21 12:27:02 AM
1 votes:
If you worked as hard at learning a skill as you do demanding more stuff just because, you might be better off.
2012-11-20 11:59:50 PM
1 votes:

Nutsac_Jim: Why doesn't the union just open up its own wal-mart competitor and pay everyone 25,000 per year.
I'm sure they could get nice discounts from suppliers that are union shops. They wont even need that 1% price increase. But that 1% more, plenty of people will go there instead.
Then, they can drive wal-mart out of business.


Virtually impossible. Walmart has all their suppliers over a barrel. Walmart is so much of their business they basically get to force suppliers to whatever price point and conditions Walmart demands.

Here's the story of one supplier who said no to Walmart. It "only" cost him 20% of his business.

"every year the price has come down. Every year the content of the product has gone up... at the price I'm selling to you today, I'm not making any money on it. And if we do what you want next year, I'll lose money."
2012-11-20 11:49:00 PM
1 votes:

sid2112: Yeah because those workers had no idea what they were getting into when they SIGNED THE CONTRACT as they were hired by WalMart. I feel so terrible for those poor, duped bastards that wanted nothing more than 20 dollars an hour for doing a job that is worth around 6 dollars an hour. Seriously, my heart is bleeding for the people who got employed, signed a contract that clearly states what the expectations of the job were, and decided to fark off in school instead of actually trying to learn something.

Somewhere a fiddle is playing....


So what happens when Walmart breaks their end of this grand ole bargain? Tough shiat, they're the employee?
2012-11-20 11:45:31 PM
1 votes:
I don't have any special skills to increase the value of my labor. But gosh darnit, I want to be paid like I do. Stupid entitled people.

Slutter McGee
2012-11-20 11:38:54 PM
1 votes:
icepriestess
Eh, try to strike from a company that has claimed Bankruptcy 3 times in the last 10 years

and yet was still able to give their executives 80% pay raises last year
2012-11-20 11:35:38 PM
1 votes:

smitty04: It is another Union trying to bleed poor unskilled workers of their union dues. Ask the Hostess how much their union has done for them.


Eh, try to strike from a company that has claimed Bankruptcy 3 times in the last 10 years and they are bound to go under for good. My hope is that the next company that buys the brand makes some decent food for once.
2012-11-20 11:33:31 PM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Such as?


Unless you want to give me a TotalFark subscription, I'm not looking up anything else tonight. Sorry.
2012-11-20 11:33:07 PM
1 votes:
I predict complaints of Walmart workers after they end up in the united food and commercial workers' union. They are complaining about 20 and 40 cent an hour raises? That's exactly what they'll get as union employees. Except there won't be any by-passing the time in job stuff. Oh and they will have to pay union entrance fees and union dues and so on and so forth. They'll be lucky to be above minimum wage after their union obligations.

Of course the union officers will get richer and there's nothing more important than that for a union.

I'll just sit back and watch the show.
2012-11-20 11:30:25 PM
1 votes:

diaphoresis: My niece loves her job.. 8a-4p Sun-Thu. You must mean a different Wal-Mart


Min Wage isn't bad when you don't have to take shiat far above your pay grade. I've seen enough of the good and the bad to know that your niece could be perfectly happy and her store might be a great place to work even for peanuts, and that others put you through so much shiat that no amount of money would ever justify it.

My wife is a pharmacy tech for Walgreens. She's worked at many of them as I've moved around for work. Some are great, and she'll have a set schedule of roughly the same time every day, every week and knows it won't change for the next four months. Others she has to call the store on Monday because the manager hasn't posted a schedule, has her closing, then opening, then opening again, then a mid shift, a day off, and a closing, and it varies every week with no rhyme or reason.
2012-11-20 11:21:59 PM
1 votes:
Since this is a somewhat liberal site, I'm sure to get flamed by this, but anyway....

People who work for Walmart, Target, or any other RETAIL store....well, suck it up!
You are working a RETAIL store! If people didn't come into those stores on Thanksgiving,
or 4am on black Friday, you would be able to stay home. The fault isn't the retailer, it
is the lazy a&& consumer who wants (or thinks they will get) a bargain.
If they didn't show up, the store wouldn't be open!
Also, yes, the economy is (if you live in real-ville) DOWN THE TOILET, so that might be
the reason you are working a low wage or minimum wage job. Now, if you are the countless
drones that are working low/minimum wage jobs, and you are at least in your 20's, you have
to stop and have someone toss a bucket of ice water in your face. Why? Because you
need to evaluate your life. How did you screw up your life, that you are only QUALIFIED to
be a minimum wage employee with little or NO skills in anything other than "do you want
fries with that". As the judge in Caddyshack said "the world needs ditch diggers".
When you were in high school, I'll just bet you were uber cool, skipping school, getting high
daily, girls falling all over you, getting kicked out of school for fighting....yeah, how cool are
you now? The rest of us, STUDIED, went to college (I paid my own way), and got a good
job, that allows us the freedom of having nights, holidays & weekends off!
So, suck it up, and take it in the butt....you have no one to complain to, but yourself!
2012-11-20 11:20:49 PM
1 votes:

Vector R: It turned out she'd been there a number of years, and her pay wasn't even equal to mine.


Women are bad at negotiating. Doesn't matter if it's salary or asking her partner to wear a condom.
2012-11-20 11:18:01 PM
1 votes:
The only thing unions care about is they are hoping the "Black Friday on Thursday" shenanigans can get them to break into Walmart and get those tasty union dues from the countries largest private employer.

/only the the US DOD has more employees then WalMart.
2012-11-20 11:03:49 PM
1 votes:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: EmmaLou: As a taxpayer, i don't feel like i should foot the bill for Walmart employees that have to be on welfare just to get by even though they work. Pay your people a living wage for fark's sake.

This. It's obscene that we live in a developed nation and many of our full-time workers can survive on their wages alone. There's something very, very wrong with a society where you can work full-time and not break even.


What compounds the problem is that people have come to some agreement that unions are unnecessary because of state/federal laws except many of the anti-labor business practices Walmart employs would take a union to combat.
2012-11-20 11:02:26 PM
1 votes:

Sergeant Grumbles: Pay someone enough, and they'll endure all of that. Since Wal-Mart wasn't, and still subjecting its employees to it, this is far askew of what expectations of a minimum wage job should be.


I'd argue that there is an inverse bell curve in effect for that. On the upper end, people eat shiat because they're paid very well to do so. On the bottom end, people do so because they have no choice. If they could get a better job, they probably would. Everyone in the middle has the skills or opportunity to work someplace better, so they do.

Hostess fell in the middle of that curve. In a few years, wages were expected to be half of what they were when the VC firm purchased them. Their pension plan was also in shambles. So they decided it was splitsville, which saved what remained of their pensions by kicking it to the Feds.
2012-11-20 11:00:56 PM
1 votes:
cant* survive
2012-11-20 10:53:21 PM
1 votes:

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: MFAWG: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: MFAWG: Have you looked for a job lately?

I was told the job situation was fixed. Thanks Obama!

No, seriously: You stated that nobody forced these people to take these jobs. These people have mouths to feed. That's what forces them to take these jobs.

So, have you looked for a job, ever?

Yes I have.. Many times. And the minimum wage ones I had were a good starting point, but I was under no illusions that they would have sustained me and my family for long.


So you quit as soon as you couldn't take the shiat any longer?
2012-11-20 10:51:45 PM
1 votes:

MFAWG: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: MFAWG: Have you looked for a job lately?

I was told the job situation was fixed. Thanks Obama!

No, seriously: You stated that nobody forced these people to take these jobs. These people have mouths to feed. That's what forces them to take these jobs.

So, have you looked for a job, ever?


Yes I have.. Many times. And the minimum wage ones I had were a good starting point, but I was under no illusions that they would have sustained me and my family for long.
2012-11-20 10:51:11 PM
1 votes:

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Blue_Blazer: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: I'm confused; nowhere in the article does it explain that these people were FORCED to take these jobs without knowing what the wage was. I men, that had to be case, right? Otherwise...
Seriously!!! These dumbasses take these low paying jobs when there are plenty of high paying jobs just sitting there unfiiled! Man those poor sure are stupid!

Not the point at all. But taking a minimum wage job and expecting it to be something more than that is not exactly bright.


So you deny them their right to complain? How very.
2012-11-20 10:50:36 PM
1 votes:

gopher321: Should start taking bets on how many get trampled/pepper-sprayed in what cities.


upload.wikimedia.org
Pepper spray? What sort of pansy is running this company?
2012-11-20 10:49:18 PM
1 votes:

Summoner101: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with the executives earning 1% less if it means your lowest paid staff member earns a living wage?

Because it's socialism and we can't have that in our completely free market capitalism.


It's not even socialism though. It's a net positive for society, even with a heavily capitalist mixed economy, to have a strong and thriving middle class.

Time and time again throughout history, it's clearly demonstrated that severe discrepancies in income (with 1 or 2% holding a supermajority of wealth) leads to wholesale financial collapse.

In the long-term, the rich would be better served by being a little less rich in the short-term in exchange for an economically secure labor force.
2012-11-20 10:49:08 PM
1 votes:

Summoner101: Too Pretty For Prison: AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.

but, but, but that's not FAIR! Sure, I have no skills and can only stack boxes on a shelf - but I'm ENTITLED to have a 65" TV, a new car, a large house, every available cable channel, and a cell phone for my 6 year old. I DEMAND you pay me more!!!

How about they get paid enough so they don't soak up welfare, SNAP, and Medicaid benefits?


Oh SNAP!
2012-11-20 10:48:32 PM
1 votes:

drewsclues: sgnilward: This thread is going to suck.

You're goddam right.

Hickory-smoked: Best advice: Shop local.

Best advice: Don't shop on Thanksgiving.


Best advice is shop online and buy groceries at Meijer, Walmart or Kroger and curse all of them for putting the milk in the far back corner.
2012-11-20 10:47:14 PM
1 votes:

smitty04: Ask the Hostess how much their union has done for them.


Yes, ask them.
2012-11-20 10:45:30 PM
1 votes:

MFAWG: Have you looked for a job lately?


I was told the job situation was fixed. Thanks Obama!
2012-11-20 10:44:29 PM
1 votes:

sgnilward: This thread is going to suck.


You're goddam right.

Hickory-smoked: Best advice: Shop local.


Best advice: Don't shop on Thanksgiving.
2012-11-20 10:40:56 PM
1 votes:
I'm confused; nowhere in the article does it explain that these people were FORCED to take these jobs without knowing what the wage was. I men, that had to be case, right? Otherwise...
2012-11-20 10:36:39 PM
1 votes:

JosephFinn: AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.

Which I'm sure is a delight to the people at WalMart working poverty-level wages with no insurance coverage & forced and unpaid overtime. But hey, 5% of almost nothing!


Dont worry obamacare will save them!
2012-11-20 10:27:52 PM
1 votes:

gopher321: Should start taking bets on how many get trampled/pepper-sprayed in what cities.


Not many, it's the ones in the stores who will get trampled.

Link
 
Displayed 128 of 128 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report