Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Think Progress)   When you pay your workers badly, nobody wants to work for you. When nobody wants to work for you, you can't keep shelves stocked. When you can't keep shelves stocked, sales tank. When sales tank, so does you stock price. Don't be Wal-mart   (thinkprogress.org ) divider line 155
    More: Obvious, Walmart, fixed costs, Walmart U.S., supermarket chains  
•       •       •

4061 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 Feb 2014 at 11:38 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 10:26:33 AM  
wally world going down the tubes?

I am OK with that.
 
2014-02-12 10:32:25 AM  
FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.
 
2014-02-12 10:39:32 AM  

spman: Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.


That, and you don't have to pay benefits or Social Security or unemployment or anything - the temp agency is responsible for all of that. I had a "temp" job that was a full-time job for just shy of a year.  In CT, after a year, they have to hire you full time, so they let me go. I got unemployment, but through the temp agency.  I could have gotten benefits, but they were too expensive.  That has a lot to do with it as well.  (This was years ago, maybe things changed some)
 
2014-02-12 10:45:57 AM  
Wool*Mort.
Shiatty goods.
Shiatty help.
Lower prices.
 
2014-02-12 10:52:57 AM  

serpent_sky: spman: Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

That, and you don't have to pay benefits or Social Security or unemployment or anything - the temp agency is responsible for all of that. I had a "temp" job that was a full-time job for just shy of a year.  In CT, after a year, they have to hire you full time, so they let me go. I got unemployment, but through the temp agency.  I could have gotten benefits, but they were too expensive.  That has a lot to do with it as well.  (This was years ago, maybe things changed some)


Plus in CT we now have that stupid mandatory sick leave law that only encourages employers to keep on as many part time employees with as few hours as possible, along with companies doing everything they can to dodge Obamacare mandates. It won't be long until people are no longer working one job for 40 hours a week and instead start working 8 jobs for 5 hours a week.
 
2014-02-12 11:01:28 AM  

spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.


This is not the fault of restrictive labor laws, Wal-mart has exactly ZERO difficulty firing someone they dislike, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous and not grounded in reality.  Period.  labor protections in at will states for hourly retail workers are simply non-existent.  Wal mart hires temps simply because they can get away with it and they can screw them out of benefits
 
2014-02-12 11:13:15 AM  

Magorn: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

This is not the fault of restrictive labor laws, Wal-mart has exactly ZERO difficulty firing someone they dislike, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous and not grounded in reality.  Period.  labor protections in at will states for hourly retail workers are simply non-existent.  Wal mart hires temps simply because they can get away with it and they can screw them out of benefits


They CAN but they don't. Any large company now won't allow managers to fire employees without a long chain of documentation of policy violations and / or negligence. It's done to win unemployment disputes for terminated employees, and to avoid lawsuits that fired employees were discriminated against, or singled out, or were fired for retaliatory reasons, or whatever. It's not as simple as telling a person they're fired and to go home anymore.
 
2014-02-12 11:13:30 AM  

Magorn: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

This is not the fault of restrictive labor laws, Wal-mart has exactly ZERO difficulty firing someone they dislike, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous and not grounded in reality.  Period.  labor protections in at will states for hourly retail workers are simply non-existent.  Wal mart hires temps simply because they can get away with it and they can screw them out of benefits


Yes.  It is easy to fire someone, but not easy to fire someone without getting having your Unemployment Percentage Rate increased.  When you fire anyone, unless there is well-documented negligence, the employers have to pay a higher rate.  That rate is applied to ALL payroll.  For example:  in Nebraska a starting company starts with a UI rate of 8%.   8% of your payroll!  Paid by the company.  That goes down as there are no unemployment claims against you each year.  If you have claims, then it goes up.  Sorry.  8% vs 1% of payroll being taken in state and federal UI tax is a BIG difference.   Completely justifies hiring temp workers first to avoid the hassle.
 
2014-02-12 11:37:52 AM  
costco ftw!
 
2014-02-12 11:39:34 AM  
imageshack.com

Caption?
 
2014-02-12 11:41:37 AM  
My wife and I finally got around to checking out the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market in our area. It had a lot more food items than our local Target with a grocery, but the place was a huge mess. Trash bins were overflowing, spilled cereal was on the floor, and everything just had a overwhelming whiff of being run with too few people that were not being paid enough to care.
 
2014-02-12 11:43:18 AM  
I keep reading stories about managers trying to meet quotas by understaffing so they can get their bonus.
result: no one to stock shelves because they are running the registers.

this catches up to you at some point.
 
2014-02-12 11:43:58 AM  

spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.


What? It's super easy to fire people in almost any state. That's what "at will" employment is all about. As long as the worker did not receive an expectation of long term employment etc. (which nobody ever does really) then you can fire them at any time for any reason.
 
2014-02-12 11:47:29 AM  

nocturnal001: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

What? It's super easy to fire people in almost any state. That's what "at will" employment is all about. As long as the worker did not receive an expectation of long term employment etc. (which nobody ever does really) then you can fire them at any time for any reason.


and pay higher unemployment taxes as a result, along with opening yourself up to huge liability when you empower managers to fire anyone they want, and then it turns out that one of those managers is a racist who only fires black people. I'm not saying you CAN'T fire anyone for any reason, I'm saying that the majority of companies WON'T, or at the very least make it very very difficult.
 
2014-02-12 11:48:03 AM  

AntiGravitas: Magorn: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

This is not the fault of restrictive labor laws, Wal-mart has exactly ZERO difficulty firing someone they dislike, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous and not grounded in reality.  Period.  labor protections in at will states for hourly retail workers are simply non-existent.  Wal mart hires temps simply because they can get away with it and they can screw them out of benefits

Yes.  It is easy to fire someone, but not easy to fire someone without getting having your Unemployment Percentage Rate increased.  When you fire anyone, unless there is well-documented negligence, the employers have to pay a higher rate.  That rate is applied to ALL payroll.  For example:  in Nebraska a starting company starts with a UI rate of 8%.   8% of your payroll!  Paid ...


That payment only applies to the first $7,000 (or so, I forget exactly) of employee wages, not the entire salary.  Just FYI (yeah, you probably already know).
 
2014-02-12 11:48:38 AM  
I knowingly spend more money buy shopping at our local grocery store over Wal-Mart.

Am I being foolish? or am I doing the right thing?

I am conflicted. I like saving money, however, I recognize that shopping at the evil empire promulgates wage inequality.
 
2014-02-12 11:49:54 AM  
* That should be "by" shopping.....damn auto-correct.
 
2014-02-12 11:51:01 AM  
Out of the millions of equity firms who rank companies, one single company ranked them underperform, while every other place has them at buy.

The one firm's choice is covered with an article, rather than the 99.9% consensus the other direction.
 
2014-02-12 11:53:15 AM  
If I ever become CEO of a major company, I have a brilliant plan to increase profits. Simply fire all of the employees. If you don't have to pay anyone, everything you make is pure profit.

/This is how America's business leaders currently think
 
2014-02-12 11:53:29 AM  

AntiGravitas: Magorn: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

This is not the fault of restrictive labor laws, Wal-mart has exactly ZERO difficulty firing someone they dislike, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous and not grounded in reality.  Period.  labor protections in at will states for hourly retail workers are simply non-existent.  Wal mart hires temps simply because they can get away with it and they can screw them out of benefits

Yes.  It is easy to fire someone, but not easy to fire someone without getting having your Unemployment Percentage Rate increased.  When you fire anyone, unless there is well-documented negligence, the employers have to pay a higher rate.  That rate is applied to ALL payroll.  For example:  in Nebraska a starting company starts with a UI rate of 8%.   8% of your payroll!  Paid ...


As a lawyer who has done more a little employment law, and hired and fired more than my share of employees, I think you are somewhere between mildly and wildly misinformed on this.  It really is not at all hard to fire someone for cause, and then they do not get UI benefits.  Yes large corporations do tend to have fairly extensive HR processes , mostly to make sure that your firing doesn't run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  But this is often the case for white-collar professional jobs, retail companies like Wal-mart don;t bother with  such niceties, and many manager can hire and fire without any involvement from corporate or even district offices. (Wal-mart on a corporate level acts as if they are immune from the generally applicable laws of the US, the hold labor law s in special contempt, second only to their willingness to ignore the rules of discovery when they are sued.  They have faced judicial sanction for discovery violations (itself a rare thing judges do only for repeated , blatant violations) more times than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined.)
 
2014-02-12 11:54:48 AM  

spman: nocturnal001: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

What? It's super easy to fire people in almost any state. That's what "at will" employment is all about. As long as the worker did not receive an expectation of long term employment etc. (which nobody ever does really) then you can fire them at any time for any reason.

and pay higher unemployment taxes as a result, along with opening yourself up to huge liability when you empower managers to fire anyone they want, and then it turns out that one of those managers is a racist who only fires black people. I'm not saying you CAN'T fire anyone for any reason, I'm saying that the majority of companies WON'T, or at the very least make it very very difficult.


That has not been my experience, having been on both sides of the axe.
 
2014-02-12 11:54:59 AM  

Magorn: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

This is not the fault of restrictive labor laws, Wal-mart has exactly ZERO difficulty firing someone they dislike, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous and not grounded in reality.  Period.  labor protections in at will states for hourly retail workers are simply non-existent.  Wal mart hires temps simply because they can get away with it and they can screw them out of benefits


Or Walmart hires temps because we don't live in a dictatorship and people have freedom of thought.

If people didn't want to work as temps, there would be no temps for Walmart to hire.
 
2014-02-12 11:56:13 AM  

Bullseyed: Out of the millions of equity firms who rank companies, one single company ranked them underperform, while every other place has them at buy.

The one firm's choice is covered with an article, rather than the 99.9% consensus the other direction.


A dissenting opinion usually draws attention.  There are millions of equity firms?
 
2014-02-12 11:57:19 AM  
No one wins in a race to the bottom.
 
2014-02-12 11:57:44 AM  

spman: nocturnal001: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

What? It's super easy to fire people in almost any state. That's what "at will" employment is all about. As long as the worker did not receive an expectation of long term employment etc. (which nobody ever does really) then you can fire them at any time for any reason.

and pay higher unemployment taxes as a result, along with opening yourself up to huge liability when you empower managers to fire anyone they want, and then it turns out that one of those managers is a racist who only fires black people. I'm not saying you CAN'T fire anyone for any reason, I'm saying that the majority of companies WON'T, or at the very least make it very very difficult.


Liberals won't let things like your facts get in the way of their bigoted hate speech against Walmart.
 
2014-02-12 11:58:20 AM  

Magorn: AntiGravitas: Magorn: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

This is not the fault of restrictive labor laws, Wal-mart has exactly ZERO difficulty firing someone they dislike, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous and not grounded in reality.  Period.  labor protections in at will states for hourly retail workers are simply non-existent.  Wal mart hires temps simply because they can get away with it and they can screw them out of benefits

Yes.  It is easy to fire someone, but not easy to fire someone without getting having your Unemployment Percentage Rate increased.  When you fire anyone, unless there is well-documented negligence, the employers have to pay a higher rate.  That rate is applied to ALL payroll.  For example:  in Nebraska a starting company starts with a UI rate of 8%.   8% of your p ...


Funny, I ran a business and got hit many times with "not enough" justification recorded for terminating an employee.  Saw my UI rate go up a couple of times.  Enough so, that we made plenty sure that there was a lot of documentation:  an overload really.  I do know what I am talking about.
 
2014-02-12 12:01:30 PM  

Bullseyed: Magorn: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

This is not the fault of restrictive labor laws, Wal-mart has exactly ZERO difficulty firing someone they dislike, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous and not grounded in reality.  Period.  labor protections in at will states for hourly retail workers are simply non-existent.  Wal mart hires temps simply because they can get away with it and they can screw them out of benefits

Or Walmart hires temps because we don't live in a dictatorship and people have freedom of thought.

If people didn't want to work as temps, there would be no temps for Walmart to hire.


*looks at the article*

Well, yeah. That's apparently a valid point.
 
2014-02-12 12:02:05 PM  

Delta1212: If I ever become CEO of a major company, I have a brilliant plan to increase profits. Simply fire all of the employees. If you don't have to pay anyone, everything you make is pure profit.

/This is how America's business leaders currently think


Not all of them

Costco

Starbucks
 
2014-02-12 12:04:17 PM  

Beerguy: I knowingly spend more money buy shopping at our local grocery store over Wal-Mart.

Am I being foolish? or am I doing the right thing?

I am conflicted. I like saving money, however, I recognize that shopping at the evil empire promulgates wage inequality.


I got screwed over by CVS on a recent prescription and opted for Wal Mart.

Oh...my...GAWD!!!

At first, it seemed OK as the insurance was processed properly and I received text notifications for refills.  The only problem is that with every new prescription, the cashier walks the medicine to a different window where the pharmacist "counsels" the patient.  I'm a middle-age, college educated white male with all of my teeth who dresses in clean clothing and I bathe daily.  Unlike the rest of the unwashed, mouth breathing clientele, I DO NOT need to be instructed that eye drops and pills are not to be administered via my bunghole.  My one doctor and I decided to eliminate one medication from my regimen and he has been reducing my dosage gradually.  This means each new dosage means a visit with the pharmacist where I quickly say, "Yeah, been on it for a while, he's dialing me down, I know what it does."  Sheesh.

This last go around has been a sheer joy.  Long waits in line where I'm stuck behind chatty-Cathys and/or people who bathe one-a-month whether they need it or not.  I went to the window three  times and was told each time, "Oooooh, we're backed up right now, give us another 15-minutes."  OK, so I would wander around for another 30-minutes as I didn't want to have to return the next day.  On the third go-around the clerk tells me, "Oh, we don't have that dosage in stock.  Do you have enough at your old dosage to last through the weekend?"  Gee, now you tell me.  **eyeroll**

She keeps insisting  that I call to see when it's ready.  I said, "For some reason, I got a text message stating I opted out of all notifications.  I never did that, so can you reset my account to notify me when it's ready?"  You'd think I asked her to factor the square root of Pi.  She kept insisting that I take one of their cards and call.  I gave up and said I'd just come back.

Long story short, my brother recommended I find a locally owned pharmacy.  I may pay more, but that is more than made up for in service.  That alone is reason enough not to patronize Wal Mart.
 
2014-02-12 12:05:01 PM  

spman: Magorn: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

This is not the fault of restrictive labor laws, Wal-mart has exactly ZERO difficulty firing someone they dislike, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous and not grounded in reality.  Period.  labor protections in at will states for hourly retail workers are simply non-existent.  Wal mart hires temps simply because they can get away with it and they can screw them out of benefits

They CAN but they don't. Any large company now won't allow managers to fire employees without a long chain of documentation of policy violations and / or negligence. It's done to win unemployment disputes for terminated employees, and to avoid lawsuits that fired employees were discriminated against, or singled out, or were fired for retaliatory reasons, or whatever. It's not a ...


Sounds like a company policy issue. But, go ahead, blame the "labor laws."
 
2014-02-12 12:06:50 PM  

Bullseyed: spman: nocturnal001: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

What? It's super easy to fire people in almost any state. That's what "at will" employment is all about. As long as the worker did not receive an expectation of long term employment etc. (which nobody ever does really) then you can fire them at any time for any reason.

and pay higher unemployment taxes as a result, along with opening yourself up to huge liability when you empower managers to fire anyone they want, and then it turns out that one of those managers is a racist who only fires black people. I'm not saying you CAN'T fire anyone for any reason, I'm saying that the majority of companies WON'T, or at the very least make it very very difficult.

Liberals won't let things like your facts get in the way of their bigoted hate speech against Walmart ...


You went too far. Caught a few, but this is over the top. Know when to quit.
 
2014-02-12 12:07:36 PM  
I'm still amazed at how poorly the WalMart by me is staffed, merchandised and stocked. The main aisles are pretty much unwalkable as they just drop pallets of merchandise and overjammed racks of crappy clothes. Plus you can tell they're taking longer to restock as they start clogging up the aisles even worse as early as 7pm and don't finish until around 10 to 11am.
 
2014-02-12 12:14:11 PM  

Bullseyed: spman: nocturnal001: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

What? It's super easy to fire people in almost any state. That's what "at will" employment is all about. As long as the worker did not receive an expectation of long term employment etc. (which nobody ever does really) then you can fire them at any time for any reason.

and pay higher unemployment taxes as a result, along with opening yourself up to huge liability when you empower managers to fire anyone they want, and then it turns out that one of those managers is a racist who only fires black people. I'm not saying you CAN'T fire anyone for any reason, I'm saying that the majority of companies WON'T, or at the very least make it very very difficult.

Liberals won't let things like your facts get in the way of their bigoted hate speech against Walmart ...



Mean old gubmint making it impossible to fire people!

Total nonsense. Sure maybe there are some costs associated but that's business. The only way firing somebody could be easier would be if you could just grab them and physically toss them out the door.

The law is pretty clear. Anyone saying they didn't have enough justification, odds are that was an internal rule.

[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms

And that is from the super commie nazi liberal land of California.
 
2014-02-12 12:25:00 PM  

Beerguy: Delta1212: If I ever become CEO of a major company, I have a brilliant plan to increase profits. Simply fire all of the employees. If you don't have to pay anyone, everything you make is pure profit.

/This is how America's business leaders currently think

Not all of them

Costco

Starbucks


And Whole Foods.  But what do they all have in common?  The vast majority of their customers are middle to upper class.  They can afford to pay a realistic wage and have decent working conditions.  WalMart is in the business of selling low cost shiat to people who make shiat.  The only way to achieve that with any realistic scale is to keep labor costs as low as possible.
 
2014-02-12 12:25:12 PM  

nocturnal001: Bullseyed: spman: nocturnal001: spman: FTA:

Walmart itself previously recognized this problem, adding more full-time workers ahead of the holiday season last year after consumers shunned the empty shelves and sales plummeted. But it may be coming out of a deep hole, as its workforce has dropped by 120,000 over the past five years even as more stores opened up, and one survey last summer found most of its stores only hiring temp workers.

Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

If you hire someone as a temp, and they're a shiatty employee, you can dump them after 90 days, if they're good, you can bring them on permanently. This achieves two goals, 1. You don't need to pay unemployment since the job was only temporary, and 2. There's no longer much of any room for disgruntled employees to file nonsense discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.

What? It's super easy to fire people in almost any state. That's what "at will" employment is all about. As long as the worker did not receive an expectation of long term employment etc. (which nobody ever does really) then you can fire them at any time for any reason.

and pay higher unemployment taxes as a result, along with opening yourself up to huge liability when you empower managers to fire anyone they want, and then it turns out that one of those managers is a racist who only fires black people. I'm not saying you CAN'T fire anyone for any reason, I'm saying that the majority of companies WON'T, or at the very least make it very very difficult.

Liberals won't let things like your facts get in the way of their bigoted hate speech against Walmart ...


Mean old gubmint making it impossible to fire people!

Total nonsense. Sure maybe there are some costs associated but that's business. The only way firing somebody could be easier would be if you could just grab them and physically toss them out the door.

The law is pretty clear. Anyone saying they didn't have enough justification, odds are that was an internal rule.

[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms

And that is from the super commie nazi liberal land of California.



Yes, but you are talking about reality. In Teabagger Fantasy Land, Obama made firing an employee for any reason a felony punishable by double castration.
 
2014-02-12 12:29:46 PM  

gingerjet: Beerguy: Delta1212: If I ever become CEO of a major company, I have a brilliant plan to increase profits. Simply fire all of the employees. If you don't have to pay anyone, everything you make is pure profit.

/This is how America's business leaders currently think

Not all of them

Costco

Starbucks

And Whole Foods.  But what do they all have in common?  The vast majority of their customers are middle to upper class.  They can afford to pay a realistic wage and have decent working conditions.  WalMart is in the business of selling low cost shiat to people who make shiat.  The only way to achieve that with any realistic scale is to keep labor costs as low as possible.


Good point.
 
2014-02-12 12:33:01 PM  
Walmart's pay tends to be better than most shiatty retail jobs but their hours suck worse than the rest

Don't be a no-skill worker and you won't have to have these kinds of shiat jobs.
 
2014-02-12 12:35:46 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Walmart's pay tends to be better than most shiatty retail jobs but their hours suck worse than the rest

Don't be a no-skill worker and you won't have to have these kinds of shiat jobs.


Well there is something to that. Some people are just shiat workers, period.
 
2014-02-12 12:38:28 PM  
The vast majority of their customers are middle to upper class.

At Costco? I guess things must be different elsewhere, because this certainly isn't true around here. I've only been in a Walmart a couple times, but didn't see any difference between their customers and Costco's.
 
2014-02-12 12:39:53 PM  
So subby is saying that Walmart is being punished by the market because it is offering insufficient quality and service?

Great. That's how it's supposed to work. Free market FTW, as always.
 
2014-02-12 12:40:13 PM  

Gary-L: Long story short, my brother recommended I find a locally owned pharmacy.  I may pay more, but that is more than made up for in service.  That alone is reason enough not to patronize Wal Mart.


Boom, this.

There's a Walmart right next to a Target in my town.  I've been in the Walmart exactly twice, and only ever bought one thing (Their shiatty wash cloths are 6 for $2, and while they're terrible washcloths, they make great cleaning cloths).

I HATE going in there.

/Seriously, it's rich NIMBY's and techies.  How the fark can you support a Walmart?
 
2014-02-12 12:40:47 PM  

Beerguy: gingerjet: Beerguy: Delta1212: If I ever become CEO of a major company, I have a brilliant plan to increase profits. Simply fire all of the employees. If you don't have to pay anyone, everything you make is pure profit.
/This is how America's business leaders currently think
Not all of them
Costco
Starbucks
And Whole Foods.  But what do they all have in common?  The vast majority of their customers are middle to upper class.  They can afford to pay a realistic wage and have decent working conditions.  WalMart is in the business of selling low cost shiat to people who make shiat.  The only way to achieve that with any realistic scale is to keep labor costs as low as possible.
Good point.


What about Trader Joes? I've walked out of there with far more food for $40-$60 than I usually get from Supertarget, let alone Whole Foods. And they pay their people just as well. Are they partially subsidized by the nearby Aldi stores?
 
2014-02-12 12:46:45 PM  

spman: serpent_sky: spman: Blame this one in shiatty labor laws and lawyers, just about all retail or service industry jobs are doing this now. Even in supposedly at will employment states, it's really hard to get rid of a crappy employee for anything other than gross negligence. Human resource departments in most big companies now are run by lawyers whose job it is not to properly manage human resources, but to shield the company from liability.

That, and you don't have to pay benefits or Social Security or unemployment or anything - the temp agency is responsible for all of that. I had a "temp" job that was a full-time job for just shy of a year.  In CT, after a year, they have to hire you full time, so they let me go. I got unemployment, but through the temp agency.  I could have gotten benefits, but they were too expensive.  That has a lot to do with it as well.  (This was years ago, maybe things changed some)

Plus in CT we now have that stupid mandatory sick leave law that only encourages employers to keep on as many part time employees with as few hours as possible, along with companies doing everything they can to dodge Obamacare mandates. It won't be long until people are no longer working one job for 40 hours a week and instead start working 8 jobs for 5 hours a week.


Clearly the answer is to capitulate and give the companies everything they want.  Either that, or drop the part time cap from 30 to 20.  Let's see how loyal and productive their employees are at that rate.
 
2014-02-12 12:49:26 PM  
Curious: how well (or badly) does walmart treat its skilled professional staff? IT, accounting, etc?
 
2014-02-12 12:53:26 PM  

pueblonative: Clearly the answer is to capitulate and give the companies everything they want.  Either that, or drop the part time cap from 30 to 20.  Let's see how loyal and productive their employees are at that rate


Finally a reasonable compromise!
 
2014-02-12 12:56:42 PM  
Friend of mine is a Walmart manager. He's always afraid to talk work around the rest of our group of friends because a lot of us are anti-walmart. I simply asked him if the stories are true about firing temps and the such to get a bonus. He simply said, you are standing in my bonus (his house) Basically he saved all his bonuses for 18mon to afford a nice house in a nice neighborhood. I asked if he felt bad and he said yea but his family needed a better house than their apartment so he did what he had to do. He gets transferred to area Walmart's to teach other managers how to be "more efficient"
 
2014-02-12 12:59:24 PM  

Beerguy: I knowingly spend more money buy shopping at our local grocery store over Wal-Mart.

Am I being foolish? or am I doing the right thing?

I am conflicted. I like saving money, however, I recognize that shopping at the evil empire promulgates wage inequality.


I tried shopping at Walmart once but was turned away at the door. Apparently they have a dress code and will only let you in if youre wearing sheitstained pajama pants.
 
2014-02-12 12:59:40 PM  

clkeagle: Beerguy: gingerjet: Beerguy: Delta1212: If I ever become CEO of a major company, I have a brilliant plan to increase profits. Simply fire all of the employees. If you don't have to pay anyone, everything you make is pure profit.
/This is how America's business leaders currently think
Not all of them
Costco
Starbucks
And Whole Foods.  But what do they all have in common?  The vast majority of their customers are middle to upper class.  They can afford to pay a realistic wage and have decent working conditions.  WalMart is in the business of selling low cost shiat to people who make shiat.  The only way to achieve that with any realistic scale is to keep labor costs as low as possible.
Good point.

What about Trader Joes? I've walked out of there with far more food for $40-$60 than I usually get from Supertarget, let alone Whole Foods. And they pay their people just as well. Are they partially subsidized by the nearby Aldi stores?


Aldi is owned by Aldi Sud and Trader Joe's is owned by Oldi Nord. The two brothers that owned Aldi got in a fight over selling cigs in the 60s and split the company up.
 
2014-02-12 01:00:52 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Walmart's pay tends to be better than most shiatty retail jobs but their hours suck worse than the rest

Don't be a no-skill worker and you won't have to have these kinds of shiat jobs.


You know places that pay less than minimum wage? Alert the Department of Labor.  Most Wal-mart positions are minimum wage jobs, they only get away with saying their "average" wage is $10.00/hr because they factor in their CEO and senior executives into that average.  The Mean wage is estimated to be $8.81 and that only applies to full time permanent workers.  Temps and part-timers (and they manipulate many people's hours so they fal an hour short of full time status) make less
 
2014-02-12 01:08:59 PM  

eagles95: Friend of mine is a Walmart manager. He's always afraid to talk work around the rest of our group of friends because a lot of us are anti-walmart. I simply asked him if the stories are true about firing temps and the such to get a bonus. He simply said, you are standing in my bonus (his house) Basically he saved all his bonuses for 18mon to afford a nice house in a nice neighborhood. I asked if he felt bad and he said yea but his family needed a better house than their apartment so he did what he had to do. He gets transferred to area Walmart's to teach other managers how to be "more efficient"


I'm glad to see that Wal-Mart's mission statement for store managers is:

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report