I believe one of the biggest differences in political viewpoints is how we see the rich and the poor. I believe republicans are proud of the rich and democrats are ashamed of the poor. I believe they are both right on this, but too often conservatives describe any discussion of the rich to be "class warfare". I think any discussion of the poor also qualifies for the moniker. I am a liberal, therefore I want to discuss one of the issues that I see as fixable by our economic policies.
For discussion purposes, I want to use the largest employer in America, Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart has 1,800,000 American employees. That is more than numbers two, three, four, and five combined (McDonald's - 447,000, United Parcel Service - 407,000, Sears/KMart - 355,000 and Home Depot - 345,000).
Over half of the employees of Wal-Mart qualify for food stamps. These employees and their families also need other public assistance programs like free school lunches and subsidized housing. Wal-Mart has been reported to offer employee assistance and training to help fill out the necessary government forms.
According to Forbes magazine, Four of the richest people in America are heirs to the Wal-Mart empire. Christy Walton is worth $24.5 billion, Jim Walton $21.1 billion, Alice Walton, $20.8 billion, and S. Robson Walton worth $20.5 billion. Together they are worth just under $87 billion.
Wal-Mart is successful. It now controls 51% of all U.S. grocery sales, dominates most major categories and last year ooperated on a 24.7% profit margin. Wal-Mart stock was up 11% for the year, nearly three times the percentage of the Dow increase in 2011.
Wal-Mart themself gets over $1 billion a year in local public dollars (CNN says 91 Wal-Mart stores last year received individual subsidies ranging from $1 million to about $12 million, in the form of free or reduced-priced land, job training funds, sales tax rebates, tax credits and infrastructure assistance, including investment in roads).
How can we get people off of government assistance when doing what Wal-Mart does is making the rich richer? Is the success of Wal-Mart what is wrong with America's economy?
WalMart aggressively fights unionization as well. Now, before some of you start railing against unions, let's consider a couple of those items Michael mentioned, like food stamps, public assistance, and subsidized housing. These are government programs supported with tax dollars, so in effect, the taxpayers are helping to increase WalMart's profits. If it were direct assistance, like TARP funds, I'd expect that our conservative contributors would be loudly objecting to it.
A unionization effort at WalMart would directly benefit both employees and taxpayers. First, through collective bargaining, employees gain better wages and benefits. Please remember that a contract results when both parties find the terms agreeable, so let's skip the usual rhetoric about greed on both sides. Taxpayers benefit by seeing those WalMart employees are off the government assistance rolls, something that you'd think our conservatives would favor. Sure, prices would probably rise, but I'd suspect that with the enormous economy of scale that WalMart enjoys, those price increases would be modest at best.
So how's that for an argument regarding unionization being in line with typically Republican goals?
If every Wal-Mart employee in America made $40 more per week, it would cost Wal-Mart $3.75 billion dollars. The stores showed $422 billion in revenue.
Sharing less than 1% of their revenue would mean a $2,000 pay raise per year for 1,800,000 employees. That would change lives and many of those dollars would be spent right back in their stores.
Nothing ends a conversation faster than someone alleging you are "playing the race card" or "exploiting class warfare". That needs to stop. There is racism in America, there is heavily skewed income disparity in our country. No use defending either or using them as weapons. They simply exist and must be considered as part of our makeup. We have dealt with both for two centuries.
That said, our system provides winners, losers and low performers individually and corporately. Sears, Penney's, Woolworth, Dayton-Hudson, etc. all held Wal-Mart's position at one time. Ironic to me that Wal-Mart depends on the same market demographic for its success that its employees represent, the bottom 1/2 of the population in education, income and social status.
I personally hate Wal-Mart as a general purpose retailer. Sometimes they have what I need but usually they have very little choice of products. The internet gives me more for my money and I am increasingly using it for stuff Home Depot, Wal-Mart and Target used to sell me. Walmart doesn't market well on the net imo.
Each cycle has its own theme. I watched tons of Twilight Zone this holiday and determined that the themes of those shows, from 1958 to 1985 was somber, fearful of the future, yet thoughtful, appreciative of wise leadership and optimistic. Commercial aviation, Jets, Nuclear weapons, Social injustice, the results of Nuclear holocaust were all common story lines. Nothing much about economics, income disparity, sports and mega-corporate intrusion into personal life. Even though we went through at least two recessions and Viet Nam during that time.
This business cycle? Popular TV shows have been Seinfeld, Friends, How I Met Your Mother, American Idol and Survivor. All focused on competition, networking and teams. We agonize about the BCS and argue about everything sports related. That says something. Our movies concentrate on war, corporate issues, financial issues, Terrorists, Aliens, Ghosts, Superheroes and Love. IOW, fantasy and stuff most people feel hopeless about.
I preferred the Twilight Zone cycle myself.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 02, 2012, 06:26:15 PM
I believe one of the biggest differences in political viewpoints is how we see the rich and the poor. I believe republicans are proud of the rich and democrats are ashamed of the poor. I believe they are both right on this, but too often conservatives describe any discussion of the rich to be "class warfare". I think any discussion of the poor also qualifies for the moniker.
If the discussion were more about how to raise the poor rather than how to punish the rich, the term class warfare could go away. This depends on whether or not you believe there is a finite amount of wealth.
Quote
I am a liberal, therefore I want to discuss one of the issues that I see as fixable by our economic policies.
For discussion purposes, I want to use the largest employer in America, Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart has 1,800,000 American employees. That is more than numbers two, three, four, and five combined (McDonald's - 447,000, United Parcel Service - 407,000, Sears/KMart - 355,000 and Home Depot - 345,000).
Over half of the employees of Wal-Mart qualify for food stamps. These employees and their families also need other public assistance programs like free school lunches and subsidized housing. Wal-Mart has been reported to offer employee assistance and training to help fill out the necessary government forms.
According to Forbes magazine, Four of the richest people in America are heirs to the Wal-Mart empire. Christy Walton is worth $24.5 billion, Jim Walton $21.1 billion, Alice Walton, $20.8 billion, and S. Robson Walton worth $20.5 billion. Together they are worth just under $87 billion.
Wal-Mart is successful. It now controls 51% of all U.S. grocery sales, dominates most major categories and last year ooperated on a 24.7% profit margin. Wal-Mart stock was up 11% for the year, nearly three times the percentage of the Dow increase in 2011.
Wal-Mart themself gets over $1 billion a year in local public dollars (CNN says 91 Wal-Mart stores last year received individual subsidies ranging from $1 million to about $12 million, in the form of free or reduced-priced land, job training funds, sales tax rebates, tax credits and infrastructure assistance, including investment in roads).
How can we get people off of government assistance when doing what Wal-Mart does is making the rich richer? Is the success of Wal-Mart what is wrong with America's economy?
Other than potentially removing the $1 Billion in public dollars (a potential $555 reduction in annual pay for the 1.8 million employees) what do you propose as a fix. I see complaints, some legitimate, but no fixes. If you propose making the rich poorer by legislation with the specific goal of passing that money to the poor, you are back to class warfare in my opinion.
WalMart has a bad reputation regarding their employees. I would like to know how many part time jobs are at WalMart that would not exist as full time jobs. Some jobs to replace no jobs. I personally know a few (If I were Heiron, I would use literary exaggeration to make a point and say hundreds of people.) people who have worked part time at WalMart to supplement their regular job. Reputation says WalMart is the worst but how does WalMart actually compare to Target, K-Mart, and others? Are you saying WalMart needs to fail to fix America's economy?
Quote from: Ed W on January 02, 2012, 07:03:26 PM
So how's that for an argument regarding unionization being in line with typically Republican goals?
Spoken like a true union card carrying liberal. Mutually agreeable terms for a contract are frequently made under duress so I don't think it is realistic to dismiss the greed on both sides rhetoric.
Fine. Don't shop at Wal-Mart. If you do, you are contributing to your perceived problem.
Okay, I'm done being a hard donkey. I appreciate what you are trying to say here, but you are enamored with the easy targets for discussion: all the surviving Waltons are mega billionaires and they have employees who work near the poverty line or below.
As a pure matter of economics, if you raise the wages on every employee who works for Wal-Mart, whatever market share Wal-Mart controls in dry goods and groceries will have to go up which will penalize many people who live near or below the poverty line.
Many of their employees do jobs which are un-skilled and command an unskilled wage. If they had skills above and beyond what it takes to work at Wal-Mart, they could work somewhere else. In those figures, it doesn't take into consideration the retirees who work there and have supplemental income, nor the college students who only want or need 20 to 30 hours a week worth of work to get by. You really aren't painting a realistic picture here Michael and in doing so are trumping up inaccurate conclusions about who their work force is. These are not the sort of jobs which any retailer is willing to pay $15 or $20 an hour for.
Walmart delivers low cost at volume. Out of nearly $500billion in revenue the profit was $16 billion. A margin of only 3%. Paying each employee another $2 (solving nothing) would nearly eliminate the entire profit margin. So to cover it they need to raise prices... losing their market edge, and potentially costing jobs.
The rich from walmart are now old money. Their family started a mega company... paying each employee more or doing anything else to distribute more company assets doesn't hurt them. It would hurt me... a middle class working guy with stock in wmt in my 401k.
Unfortuantely if an employee makes a wage such that they still qualify for welfare one must assume their qualifications and skillset aren't in line with $50k a year.
I don't have an answer, but requiring walmart to pay $15 an hour isn't an answer.
/on phone, sorry for short response
Quote from: Conan71 on January 02, 2012, 09:14:05 PM
Fine. Don't shop at Wal-Mart.
I don't shop at Wal-Mart.
I have friends who work at the corporate offices in Bentonville and I have worked with them on environmental issues over the years. Environmentally, Wal-Mart is great. They are the world's largest purchaser of organic food and organic cotton clothing. That has forced farmers all over the world to stop using chemicals on their crops. If chemicals are causing global warming, Wal-Mart is changing the temperature. That is the kind of power they have because of their size.
But what should fair wages be? Just because you can find people to work 29 hours a week at $9 an hour doesn't mean you should. Especially when they expect the rest of us to take care of them. Why should the taxpayers spend money when the owners and shareholders are making millions? I would think that conservatives would embrace the opportunity to stop welfare for these workers.
Fair wages and fair profits are possible at the same time.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 02, 2012, 07:27:44 PM
Walmart doesn't market well on the net imo.
I don't like any of the web sites WalMart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes, Sears....
They are almost as bad as E-Bay links in getting to your destination product.
Hi, we have screwdrivers (tools, not drinks). Look through 897 different items, not sortable by Phillips #2. Spend the next hour trying to find one item that you could walk directly to in the store. Unless... that item is an Ove' Glove in Target. Details on request but I have never enjoyed my shopping experience at Target. Plus, (call me whatever derogatory terms you choose) I refuse to put my credit card number on my computer. I am OK with making a phone call and having you put it on your computer and assuming the responsibility for security. Many places don't even make a provision for that any more.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 02, 2012, 09:29:46 PM
But what should fair wages be?
I think everyone at WalMart should make as much money as an Oklahoma Licensed Professional Engineer. I would quit my job right now, work part time as a stock person, get health benefits, 401K matching contributions, have NO responsibility, call in sick whenever I feel like it. In fact I probably would not have bothered to get an education. Can you imagine what 6-1/2 years of wages/salary earned nearly 40 years ago instead of going to college would be worth now at compound interest? A bunch I'd bet.
Better yet, they should make as much as a person running a regional recycling program (I don't know your exact title and have no idea of your salary, nor do I really care, but doubt you are living in poverty unless it is the name of a housing addition in Tulsa.)
/sarcam
When WalMart runs out of workers willing to work for $8.25 per hour (not 9) they will start to raise their wages. And not before. It is happening in other parts of the country where workers are in short supply. Better companies like Whole Foods and Costco pay much better than WM. It has nothing to do with their skill sets however. I have worked those jobs the last few years and was stunned to find out how many of the workers have 2-4yrs of college and had to pull out of college or change careers for one reason or another. Pre-law students, pre-med, business students are common place, so are semi-retired and just plain stupid.
You either believe in supply and demand or you don't. WalMart is playing by the rules laid out and should not be penalized for their success. However, neither they or their competitors should they be getting taxpayer subsidies.
The answer to our income disparity doesn't reside in the operations of WM.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 02, 2012, 09:59:47 PM
When WalMart runs out of workers willing to work for $8.25 per hour (not 9) they will start to raise their wages. And not before. It is happening in other parts of the country where workers are in short supply. Better companies like Whole Foods and Costco pay much better than WM. It has nothing to do with their skill sets however. I have worked those jobs the last few years and was stunned to find out how many of the workers have 2-4yrs of college and had to pull out of college or change careers for one reason or another. Pre-law students, pre-med, business students are common place, so are semi-retired and just plain stupid.
You either believe in supply and demand or you don't. WalMart is playing by the rules laid out and should not be penalized for their success. However, neither they or their competitors should they be getting taxpayer subsidies.
The answer to our income disparity doesn't reside in the operations of WM.
I would not have expected the post above from you, but OK and I agree.
Most WalMart jobs are easily moved to another store/company by the employee and eventually WalMart should feel the strain.
Seriously, what is the difference in hourly income between a Walmart checker and a Reasors' checker? I don't know. Also, why does the argument always seem to boil down to: "Well, company X had a $__M net earning last year so of course they should pay their workers more!" Each Walmart job belongs to Walmart and its shareholders. Period. Don't like that, or that reality, can't help you. Don't shop or work there. Problem solved. Oh wait, problem not solved because people still work and shop at Walmart (although I am cutting down because of piss poor customer service).
Walmart jobs, unless you are in management, accounting, etc., is in large measure an unskilled labor force. Stocking shelves, scanning products, unloading trucks, taking returns, saying "Welcome to Walmart" does not require much more than OJT. Same goes for restaurants, movie theater workers, etc. having similar job skill requirements.
The days of working in retail as a career are not what they might have been 20-30 years ago.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 02, 2012, 10:48:48 PM
I would not have expected the post above from you, but OK and I agree.
Most WalMart jobs are easily moved to another store/company by the employee and eventually WalMart should feel the strain.
I am not surprised that you are surprised. You are proud of your Engineering degree but I am proud of my Business degree. This is not politics, this is business. Walmart may own their jobs, but they don't own the labor to execute them. Most non business degreed people seem to misunderstand that concept. The market (eventually) determines labor rates. The stronger corporations become, the more likely they are to try and artificially affect those labor rates through unofficial means. The minimum wage attempts to offset that.
Guido, when was the last time you worked the jobs whose descriptions you just listed? Likely when you were an undergrad. Those jobs, like many others, have become more difficult as labor saving practices have been adopted. Jobs descriptions have been combined to reduce labor cost, technology has increased, the computer skills necessary to do even the simplest of jobs have increased and the knowledge base to do these "simple" jobs isn't what it was 20-30 years ago. Sales pressure is intense. Then add in the fact that the best corporate minds don't gravitate to retail industries so workplace condititions are abysmal. I couldn't spend 15 minutes working in a WM. Of course like most jobs, they eventually become repetitive in nature but at the lower levels that is more likely to lead to repetitive stress injuries. My guess is that most college educated people can do these jobs with the additional training required and enough anti-depressant, but it is not easy to make a change from sedantary office worker to a combination of physical labor, social interaction and sales. Many of your co-workers simply couldn't do it.
In short, everyone thinks they have the hardest jobs and other people are lazy underachievers.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 02, 2012, 07:18:28 PM
If every Wal-Mart employee in America made $40 more per week, it would cost Wal-Mart $3.75 billion dollars. The stores showed $422 billion in revenue.
Sharing less than 1% of their revenue would mean a $2,000 pay raise per year for 1,800,000 employees. That would change lives and many of those dollars would be spent right back in their stores.
This was the subject of a case study I had in economics about 20 years ago. That was during the big stir about Walmart unveiling Super Centers in small towns. The first of these just just opened as a test in Wagner Ok I think. We used Walmart and UPS as case study subjects and ran scenarios where we manipulated price and employee salary/benefits packages.
Basically this is what the result of your proposal yields:
Lets say that Walmart increases their hourly amount. . .currently they pay associates an average of $8.80 an hour (with a scale that goes up to $19 an hour based on performance). That's almost a dollar more than Target stores $7.96, and significantly more than the minimum wage that your local grocery/retail/tire-lube store pays (Reasor's $7.00/hr, Hibdon $8.25/hr, Kohl's $8.04/hr).
If Walmart, who is already accused of shutting out local competition by offering low low prices and excellent service, increases their pay arbitrarily to $9-$20 an hour, just to make some social statement, their competition would have to do likewise to remain somewhat competitive in the jobs market. To do this, they would have to increase the prices of their goods and services, and further the divide between them and Walmart, or they would have to operate with less staff, or go out of business.
This scenario would probably be a great move for Walmart as that it would not cut into their profits that much, but only for the short-term. The problem is with sustainability. Community is very important to any business. Walmart has been accused of doing exactly the opposite by moving into communities and offering product at prices that small retailers cannot compete with. At the same time, they have been heralded with moving into the exact same communities and providing employment in declining local economies. They have literally saved towns like Mustang and Yukon where there had been a mass exodus of population due to lack of employment and lack of staple retail offerings. When other retailers are fleeing, that's when Walmart sees opportunity.
So, what would an artificial increase (any increase above the current competitive wage landscape) in wages do? would probably shut down the local grocery/hardware/clothing/electronics/tire-lube/pharmacy/garden/fuel retailer who can't afford to pay that much, and who already struggles with benefit packages. Small businesses that compete with Walmart by offering better customer service would have a hard time keeping prime employees who could make more money, work less hours, and get more benefits by working at the local Walmart. This would drastically change the economy in small towns like Wagner, Tahlequah, Mustang, Yukon, and hundreds of others where the Walmart stores are the primary competition for ALL of the other retail offerings combined.
Besides the effect on local competition, this would have a significant effect on businesses that do not compete directly with product, but compete only in the job market. Everyone would want a job at Walmart rather than working at the local diner, Ace Hardware ($8.67/hr), or virtually any local business.
If Walmart were to offer salaries that were not commensurate with similar positions in the local economy, that would be irresponsible. Everyone likes to pick on Walmart because they are a big blue and yellow target. They are a massive employer, and they make a ton of profit. They, however, are not irresponsible, and that is why they have survived and remained so profitable and reliable as an investment for years.
Lets turn this concept on its ear. . .The primary reason that their are so many Walmart employees that qualify for food stamps is not the fault of Walmart. If a woman works the register for $8.80/hr at Walmart, has 2 kids, no education, and a spouse that does not work (or no spouse) you can't blame Walmart. In fact, if anything has taught me, my experiences with Walmart indicate that the retailer hires, trains, and advances people that couldn't find employment anywhere else! You can't fault the employer for the life choices of the employees.
Keep in mind, if you have 2 kids and make $10/hr or less, you qualify for food stamps!. . . So to use that as a barometer for pay scale is not saying much.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 02, 2012, 09:59:47 PM
When WalMart runs out of workers willing to work for $8.25 per hour (not 9) they will start to raise their wages. And not before. It is happening in other parts of the country where workers are in short supply. Better companies like Whole Foods and Costco pay much better than WM. It has nothing to do with their skill sets however. I have worked those jobs the last few years and was stunned to find out how many of the workers have 2-4yrs of college and had to pull out of college or change careers for one reason or another. Pre-law students, pre-med, business students are common place, so are semi-retired and just plain stupid.
You either believe in supply and demand or you don't. WalMart is playing by the rules laid out and should not be penalized for their success. However, neither they or their competitors should they be getting taxpayer subsidies.
The answer to our income disparity doesn't reside in the operations of WM.
Great post, AM.
The only correction I'd make on it is that the sort of tax subsidies WM is getting are likely property tax and state-based tax credits for job creation programs, the sort of oxycontin all major employers look for now when they build or expand in a new area. Wal-Mart can act as an able anchor in bringing additional retail establishments to a previously underserved area and create more jobs than the local five and dime was ever capable of doing.
Along those lines, the sort of traditional retailers that Wal-Mart has pushed out of business over the years didn't offer high wages to their employees either. Those retailers also typically could not offer insurance or retirement plans, something Wal-Mart is able to do. If anything Wal-Mart has probably
improved the condition of the average American retail worker via more jobs created and better benefits.
I'm no Wal-Mart fanboy. I try to avoid Wal-Mart at all cost, but there are times they are more convenient than other places.
That was a pretty good analysis Gas. It doesn't take into account other variables like retailers who do not rely on price alone as their draw. Many businesses compete well with WM because they have geographical, demographic or product superiority as well as better service. They also treat their suppliers better. Pettys, Whole Foods, Costco.
It also doesn't factor in the effect that the increased pay scales would have on consumption patterns in the small community. Even if it forced competitors to either pay up to the new level, change their model or shut down and even if that effect may only be temporary. That extra money in the pockets is a stimulator for the community, which gets more bank deposits, more new car sales, etc. It acts like a private sector stimulus package. Eventually it levels out again but hopefully there is some residual growth.
As long as WM learns from the past failures of leading retailers like Sears, Penneys, K-Mart, that they must know what their business is and be prepared to evolve with changing demographics, then they will remain the king.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 03, 2012, 10:20:20 AM
Great post, AM.
The only correction I'd make on it is that the sort of tax subsidies WM is getting are likely property tax and state-based tax credits for job creation programs, the sort of oxycontin all major employers look for now when they build or expand in a new area. Wal-Mart can act as an able anchor in bringing additional retail establishments to a previously underserved area and create more jobs than the local five and dime was ever capable of doing.
Along those lines, the sort of traditional retailers that Wal-Mart has pushed out of business over the years didn't offer high wages to their employees either. Those retailers also typically could not offer insurance or retirement plans, something Wal-Mart is able to do. If anything Wal-Mart has probably improved the condition of the average American retail worker via more jobs created and better benefits.
I'm no Wal-Mart fanboy. I try to avoid Wal-Mart at all cost, but there are times they are more convenient than other places.
Sears had a good employee package. Many of their long term employees were able to buy their stock cheap through payroll deduction and since they were so large their insurance costs were low. After 20 years of service their stock allowed many to retire in comfort. I interviewed with them and Kroger out of college and was pretty impressed. They prided themselves on utilizing technology to lower their costs and they truly respected their employees. All that came to a crashing end in the 80's when WM and a more price conscious generation emerged. Many of the Sears and K-Mart management migrated to WM. Sears and the others had only disdain for them and the small cities and markets they served. WM had its roots there and grew where they were planted.
As far as tax enticements to them, one has to wonder why we disrespect our small employers who need the help worse than WM but can never get their stroke. But that is the nature of the world...those who need worst are least likely to get! Would like to see such taxpayer funded enticements disappear to make a more level field.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 03, 2012, 11:15:31 AM
Would like to see such taxpayer funded enticements disappear to make a more level field.
I agree. Until it becomes a consistently lousy investment, that will never end.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 03, 2012, 08:02:02 AM
I am not surprised that you are surprised. You are proud of your Engineering degree but I am proud of my Business degree. This is not politics, this is business. Walmart may own their jobs, but they don't own the labor to execute them. Most non business degreed people seem to misunderstand that concept. The market (eventually) determines labor rates.
My only real gripe against Business people is when short sighted goals are made at the expense of sustainability.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 03, 2012, 12:18:22 PM
My only real gripe against Business people is when short sighted goals are made at the expense of sustainability.
Pretty much sums up the 46th state.
I would like to know which Wal-Marts pay part-time associates $8.80 an hour. I wouldn't mind making a few extra bucks on the side.
Quote from: nathanm on January 20, 2012, 05:01:14 PM
I would like to know which Wal-Marts pay part-time associates $8.80 an hour. I wouldn't mind making a few extra bucks on the side.
Zero's favorite newscaster claimed that Mitt made $40,000 an hour giving speeches....
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 20, 2012, 05:15:27 PM
Zero's favorite newscaster claimed that Mitt made $40,000 an hour giving speeches....
That's even better, but I'm not yet willing to lie through my teeth in public, even for that kind of money.
Quote from: nathanm on January 20, 2012, 05:01:14 PM
I would like to know which Wal-Marts pay part-time associates $8.80 an hour. I wouldn't mind making a few extra bucks on the side.
Replying to myself, I know. I suspect this figure is much like the average hourly wage in the US being $23.24. True, but misleading.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 02, 2012, 08:59:17 PM
WalMart has a bad reputation regarding their employees. I would like to know how many part time jobs are at WalMart that would not exist as full time jobs. Some jobs to replace no jobs. I personally know a few (If I were Heiron, I would use literary exaggeration to make a point and say hundreds of people.) people who have worked part time at WalMart to supplement their regular job. Reputation says WalMart is the worst but how does WalMart actually compare to Target, K-Mart, and others? Are you saying WalMart needs to fail to fix America's economy?
As in most cases, no need to exaggerate at all. Two nephews, one niece, and two very close friends have worked there for varying times. The nephews/niece still there. Treated fair, and given their education levels, doing ok. Coming up on 5 years, so we will see.
The two friends were both treated like crap. One in particular was kept for 4 years, 11 months and about 3 weeks. Other one only made it 4 years and about 6 months. Must be something about a 5 year clock for WalMart. Will keep you posted if the others make it past the 5 years.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 22, 2012, 10:54:44 PM
Must be something about a 5 year clock for WalMart.
Benefits change? Many places add a week of vacation at 5 years.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 02, 2012, 09:11:41 PM
Spoken like a true union card carrying liberal. Mutually agreeable terms for a contract are frequently made under duress so I don't think it is realistic to dismiss the greed on both sides rhetoric.
Oh, pullleeeeaaazzzzeeee!! What duress is any company under? None. The is NO law that says they have to agree to any kind of union demand or contract whatsoever. No matter what The Disciples of The Script would have you believe. Nobody has ever said that the owners of a company has to stay in business or keep losing money just to make a contract.
It is a mutually agreed to situation entered into voluntarily by both parties. Just because the management is so incompetent they hurt the company entering into that agreement only points to the grotesque injustice engendered by the fact that we (that's you, too) have to subsidize that incompetence with a tax deduction for the pay and bonuses and ISO's of that same management.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 22, 2012, 11:03:23 PM
Benefits change? Many places add a week of vacation at 5 years.
Not sure. They also don't get 40 hours a week. Average about 34 to 36. Will have to ask about that in more detail. No laws about 5 year becoming "full time", so maybe it is a company thing.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 22, 2012, 11:11:47 PM
Oh, pullleeeeaaazzzzeeee!! ...
Standard Heiron script number 11. (I like prime numbers.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 23, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
Standard Heiron script number 11. (I like prime numbers.)
Deflection/dissemination alert! Trying to deflect attention form the topic without addressing original point....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 23, 2012, 11:18:40 AM
Deflection/dissemination alert! Trying to deflect attention form the topic without addressing original point....
Sure I did. It's the same as when jokes go around the office so many times that you just say a number, everyone knows which joke it is and laughs. No need for details.
I tried that and said "21" to the crowd. Everybody just stared at me. I asked why and they said, "you told it wrong".
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 23, 2012, 02:27:46 PM
I tried that and said "21" to the crowd. Everybody just stared at me. I asked why and they said, "you told it wrong".
I like pie!
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 02, 2012, 09:11:41 PM
Spoken like a true union card carrying liberal. Mutually agreeable terms for a contract are frequently made under duress so I don't think it is realistic to dismiss the greed on both sides rhetoric.
What's the problem with duress? What's the problem with marshalling all your legal leverage to advance your interests? If you subscribe to classical models of capitalism -- and I know you do -- then you agree that Management will always try to minimize costs in order to increase their profit. Labor is, of course, a primary cost, and management will always try to minimize it. Why wouldn't Labor, understanding this dynamic, try to fight back?
Also, why is it hard not to see the inherent conflict in this? Duress on one side or the other is baked into the cake.
Quote from: we vs us on January 23, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
What's the problem with duress? What's the problem with marshalling all your legal leverage to advance your interests? If you subscribe to classical models of capitalism -- and I know you do -- then you agree that Management will always try to minimize costs in order to increase their profit. Labor is, of course, a primary cost, and management will always try to minimize it. Why wouldn't Labor, understanding this dynamic, try to fight back?
Also, why is it hard not to see the inherent conflict in this? Duress on one side or the other is baked into the cake.
I see the inherent conflict and accept that it will be there. The greed is on both sides as you described above. What problem do you have with "I don't think it is realistic to dismiss the greed on both sides rhetoric."? That was my point.
How about some cat warfare?
I think I prefer the guys at the Occupy sites that crap on police cars to these people. Much higher class of person. But hey, it's an Arkansas RWRE. What can 'ya say?
http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-democrats-cat-killed-painted-liberal-211435575.html