|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 9, 2011 11:55:31 GMT -5
It is well known that retail operations cap hours below 40 hours to prevent workers from accessing full time benefits. Many are even rather open about it.
I've worked retail... and also other low skill jobs. None offered any benefits at all.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 9, 2011 11:57:05 GMT -5
The bottom line is I reject the underlying premise of the statement. It is not axiomatic to me that a company either pays someone the wages they desire to support them in the lifestyle of their choosing, or the taxpayers have to subsidize that person. I don't deny that the current reality is that we have EITC, WIC, Medicaid, etc., but I would end those programs and lower taxes and decrease regulation. This would create more jobs, and lower the cost of living across-the-board.
I mean honest to goodness- is the math that hard? If Wal-Mart pays a lower wage (which isn't even true- they're very competitive), but everything costs less-- how would that be bad?
The real "irony" is that the people that complain that Wal-Mart, which has lowered the cost of goods and services- effectively raising the standard of living for the average family, pays less; also support a "living wage" which would pay people more on paper, but lower their standard of living because it would make everything cost more.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 9, 2011 11:57:32 GMT -5
No, Swamp's point was that she found it hypocritical that WCP would be talking about how great Walmart is when many of their employees are subsidized by the govt. It has nothing to do with walmart specifically, but rather pointing out WCP's views seem contradictory on this subject.
The problem is not Walmart, it is govt providing the benefits in the first place. Walmart, just like other retailers, provide jobs that pay low wages. This is not a revelance of epic proportions....
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,593
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2011 11:58:38 GMT -5
Dem, the big box I worked for defined full-time as 32 hours a week and above. They wouldn't schedule 40 hours a week because retailers hate paying overtime because it drives up their costs. The employment agreement implied full time workers would get no fewer than 32 hours a week scheduled but when I was there I was aware of several FTers who had weeks of 28-30 hours scheduled in the slow times. So at 32 hours a week anyone qualified for buying into various health plans but few did due to affordability.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 9, 2011 11:59:50 GMT -5
I don't see that as exploiting a loophole, I just see it as a business decision. Many retailers keep their staff at part-time levels. Also, I don't believe their is any requirement that companies over a certain size must offer health insurance.
As far as the inability to purchase health insurance - that is why I am glad for the recent healthcare bill. No one will be forced to rely on their companies health insurance.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Mar 9, 2011 12:02:18 GMT -5
It is well known that retail operations cap hours below 40 hours to prevent workers from accessing full time benefits. Many are even rather open about it. I've worked retail... and also other low skill jobs. None offered any benefits at all. Same here. Those that offer benefits are the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 9, 2011 12:05:32 GMT -5
Dem, the big box I worked for defined full-time as 32 hours a week and above. They wouldn't schedule 40 hours a week because retailers hate paying overtime because it drives up their costs. The employment agreement implied full time workers would get no fewer than 32 hours a week scheduled but when I was there I was aware of several FTers who had weeks of 28-30 hours scheduled in the slow times. So at 32 hours a week anyone qualified for buying into various health plans but few did due to affordability. I believe 32 hours is the govt. definition of full-time. I don't believe there is any rules as to what a company has to offer full-time workers. But, I think there are rules that state all full-time workers must have the same benefits available. Since management earns more & is worth more, generally a company would want to offer health insurance, probably partially covered. Whereas, just a clerk is worth very little & doesn't need the extra benefit. So, they have to keep the clerk at part-time so they don't have to offer the benefits they offer management. I could be wrong on this, but I know in my company if I go below 40, then they will continue to subsidize my insurance, but if I go below 32 they will no longer subsidize my health insurance.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 9, 2011 12:06:42 GMT -5
I worked for Outback. I had no previous experience in restaurants. I started at less than min. wage plus tips, and I was offered benefits, an Employe Stock Ownership Program (ESOP) that vested in 5 years, benefits if I wanted them (to pay for them) provided I worked a min. number of hours-- I think 30 was the number-- each week, and paid vacation after my second year if I was full time 35+ hours a week, and we got bonuses for the performance of our store.
Within a year, I was trained as head wait, bar tender, and shortly after that-- a "key employee" which is front of house management and I could have gotten on the management track, became an assitant manager (roughly $40K a year) and after that if I could raise (at that time) $25K I could have become a managing parter-- making $70 and up-- I have seen partners make $200K a year.
The trick is, you have to actually have a strong work ethic. But if you will work, and you're a teachable, trainable person-- opportunities like this abound.
I'm sick of lazy a** whiners complaining about low wages at Wal-Mart. Find a better opportunity-- or, here's an idea-- look for opportunities at Wal-Mart. A company that size SURELY promotes from within, and I bet there are plenty of ways to get ahead there.
You're never going to make $100K a year part time, or with minimal responsibilities, and/or minimal risk. Ever.
Some people are just uncomfortable with the idea of actually working, and unions are all-too-willing to cash in and take a cut of these people's low wages by making promises with company (or taxpayer money) they can't keep.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 9, 2011 12:09:29 GMT -5
I'm sick of lazy a** whiners complaining about low wages at Wal-Mart. Find a better opportunity-- or, here's an idea-- look for opportunities at Wal-Mart. A company that size SURELY promotes from within, and I bet there are plenty of ways to get ahead there.
I believe I pointed out earlier that Walmart is one of the only companies that some one with no education past high school, can move very easily into management. Their retail staff is only part of their entire staff.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 9, 2011 12:09:34 GMT -5
My friend Jose started as a bus boy who only spoke Spanish. He worked like a DOG. He became AKM (assistant kitchen manager), then kitchen manager, and he's now the regional food tech in one of the Outback areas. That was in 1996- we started about the same time. My rough guestimate is that he makes about $70K.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,593
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2011 12:10:06 GMT -5
"I would end those programs and lower taxes and decrease regulation. This would create more jobs, and lower the cost of living across-the-board. "
Given our former history when there was less regulation and the conditions birthed people that started unions I think this is great in theory but not as likely in reality. More jobs might be created or companies might choose to take more profits or compensate their higher management more. Also the jobs created could continue to be outside of America and further drain the economy.
The cost of living is not just impacted by regulation. The influx of richer people into an area can drive up housing costs dramatically and make it less affordable for those who live there. After 911, many NYC workers were buying NJ real estate or being perceived to be and costs and the types of construction went up in price a lot making the area less affordable.
Lastly just like house sellers, landlords are not that quick to drop their prices based on market conditions. What's more likely is a rise of unrelated people living in 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom apartments illegally to make ends meet.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 9, 2011 12:13:22 GMT -5
It is well known that retail operations cap hours below 40 hours to prevent workers from accessing full time benefits. Many are even rather open about it. So, what? Wal-Mart has to compete for customers, AND for labor. IF there was a better place to shop, or go to work-- they'd go out of business.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 9, 2011 12:13:53 GMT -5
I agree with WCP
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,295
|
Post by swamp on Mar 9, 2011 12:15:55 GMT -5
I agree too. However, I still think it's a little weird to be lauding a company that grew as big as it did partially because of the crap wages/no benefits and the Uncle Sam picked and continues to pick up the tab for the healthcare costs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 9:13:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2011 13:00:56 GMT -5
Walmart gets ALL their merchandise from China and beats the heads in of their suppliers too. Such a race to the bottom fuels all kinds of nasty business including the use of Chinese prison labor. So, if things aren't tough enough for the average Chinese citizen, think what it is like for those who cross the regime and wind up in prison where they can also make money for the corrupt leadership of the country. Although I have the greatest respect for the Chinese people, many of who have made tremendous contributions to this country, I have little respect for the totalitarian government of China. Under Mao, ten percent of the population, a number far in excess of the Jewish Holocaust under Hitler, were executed as enemies of the people during a reign of terror that continued for decades. These are just the people we need to become financially dependent on. Walmart is one of our biggest customers. I do not work in China.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 9, 2011 13:21:12 GMT -5
My point is-- as the subject line of this thread suggests-- that wages are less of a concern due to the fact that Wal-Mart has single-handedly negotiated a lower cost of living for me-- as well as for people that really benefit from a lower cost of living / higher standard of living, the millions of lower paid, lower skilled, workers for whom $7 instead of $18 for cold medicine really makes a BIG difference in their lives.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 9, 2011 13:26:23 GMT -5
This is very true & I like what walmart has been doing to try to go green. Ultimately they do it for their bottom line, but I still like it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 9, 2011 13:41:43 GMT -5
For their bottom line-- market demand-- is the ONLY reason a company should ever do anything, including "going green". It would concern me as a shareowner [edit] ...if they did anything for any other reason.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 9, 2011 14:24:39 GMT -5
I'm currently consulting for an American company that has Walmart as their largest customer as well. This is a billion dollar consumer products company and everything they manufacture is made here in the USA. I have often found Made in the USA merchandise at Walmart, sometimes next to a Made in China equivalent, and the prices are rarely very far apart, if at all...
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 9, 2011 14:35:23 GMT -5
It is well known that retail operations cap hours below 40 hours to prevent workers from accessing full time benefits. Many are even rather open about it. This is not exclusive to retail. DS works as a transporter for a local hospital and routinely works 40+ hours every week. He was officially hired as PRN (pro re nata meaning "when necessary") not full time so he gets no benefits.
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Mar 9, 2011 15:06:06 GMT -5
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41890202/ns/business-careersBeware: Doing good at work can sometimes get you fired Companies have strict rules and policies designed to protect them from lawsuits There was public outrage recently when four employees at a Walmart store in Utah lost their jobs for safely disarming a gun-toting shoplifter. But no one should be too surprised by the retail giant’s tough stance. Walmart, the largest U.S. employer, has a long history of steadfastly enforcing its own rules and this recent example is no different. The retailer’s policy states that security personnel should step away from a thief if the individual has a gun, but in this instance the employees involved — including Justin Richins, Shawn Ray, Lori Poulsen, and Gabriel Stewart — felt compelled to subdue the gunman........ There was a public outcry in 2009 when Joseph Casias, a star Walmart employee at a Battle Creek, Mich., store, was fired for legally using medical marijuana to deal with pain caused by an inoperable brain tumor. Casias hadn’t used the drug while on duty as an associate, but the retailer had enforced its strict policy regarding drug use among it staffers. And after news of the Layton firings came to light, James Dallin, a long-time assistant manager at a store in Cedar Hills, Utah, told the Deseret News, a local newspaper, that he was fired for being in breach of Walmart policy when he separated an angry husband from a female worker at the store. Just a few months later, Wichita, Kan., Walmart associate Heather Ravenstein was fired for stopping a thief from stealing a computer, according to The Wichita Eagle. “We do look at the individual situations and we conduct a thorough review to make sure we consider each instance individually,” Walmart spokesman Lorenzo Lopez stressed, adding that “we have policies in place to protect the safety of associates and customers.” Many corporations’ rules are designed to protect them from lawsuits if someone is injured, and insurance companies investigating such injuries look at whether the actions of employees were reasonable or not and thus determine what they’ll cover, said Sheryl Willert, a member of the labor and employment law committee of DRI, an organization of attorneys defending the interests of businesses and individuals in civil litigation. To be sure, Walmart isn’t the only company enforcing workplace rules. Last month, Teresa Danford, an employee of Crane Interiors in Woodbury, Tenn., was suspended without pay after taking a phone call on her cell phone during work hours from her son who was deployed in Afghanistan, according to CBS-affiliate WTVF in Tennessee. And earlier this year Tiffany Langeslay, an assistant manager at a McDonald’s in Eden Prairie, Minn., lost her job after breaking store rules by allowing a football running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Adrian Peterson, to use the bathroom after the store had just closed, according to NBC Sports. Story: Want that new job? Give up the smokes In these two examples, the employers swallowed their policy pride. Danford got an apology from management and Langeslay got her job back. Will Walmart’s management change its mind? Right now it doesn’t look like it will.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 9, 2011 15:57:32 GMT -5
If the Democrats in Congress would stop blocking tort reform, maybe these businesses wouldn't have to be so rigid in enforcing these rules.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 9, 2011 16:05:16 GMT -5
If the Democrats in Congress would stop blocking tort reform, maybe these businesses wouldn't have to be so rigid in enforcing these rules.
Union work rules also cause numerous, and unintended problems.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 9, 2011 16:07:32 GMT -5
It's funny how liberals hate when a corporation does this (centralizing control), but love when the government does it...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 9, 2011 16:14:38 GMT -5
Since then, the fire doors have remained open, however employees are repeatedly told they can't use them unless there's a fire. They're told they can be fired if they do. Some of these employees are disabled (including those who are mentally challenged) and are truly afraid of losing their jobs. It's understandable, to me, they'd not know what to do in a case of emergency that wasn't a fire. Ummm, yeah...that fire door may very well be attached to an alarm system. So if someone were to use that door it would set off an alarm/silent alarm and then the parking lot would be full of fire trucks and police cars. There's a reason it is labeled "Fire Door" - to be used in case of fire or emergency...not because someone doesn't want to walk the extra hundred feet to the main doors.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 9, 2011 16:18:09 GMT -5
"Perhaps they are not exploiting loopholes, but providing flexible work schedules their employees are asking for." Would be nice if that's true, but its corporate bottom line policy and I've watched documentaries and read about manager's who felt bad about cutting worker's hours who needed the money but their hands were tied. And what's stopping you or them from building their own store to compete...and you can pay your employees as much wage and benefits as you please. Oh, and forget that whole "bottom line" stuff - as it is meaningless to successful business, right? Every business can work like government and spend without consideration of debt.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 9, 2011 16:25:15 GMT -5
Fair enough, I guessed I missed your point. That is not even a point. Retail has historically paid low, and not provided benefits. Has nothing to do with Walmart. No, Swamp's point was that she found it hypocritical that WCP would be talking about how great Walmart is when many of their employees are subsidized by the govt. It has nothing to do with walmart specifically, but rather pointing out WCP's views seem contradictory on this subject. Actually government doesn't subsidize anything - it takes money from businesses, incomes, etc and then picks and chooses who gets what. If government would stop doing this then maybe it would kick some of the people in the ass to improve themselves instead of trying to live a ghetto-fabulous lifestyle as a cashier in a big box store... All those subsidies do is allow people to live an irresponsible life without any goals to improve themselves. So, in reality, it is government addicting people to entitlements (causing government dependency) which allows them to live in perpetual poverty...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,593
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2011 16:28:11 GMT -5
My point is-- as the subject line of this thread suggests-- that wages are less of a concern due to the fact that Wal-Mart has single-handedly negotiated a lower cost of living for me-- as well as for people that really benefit from a lower cost of living / higher standard of living, the millions of lower paid, lower skilled, workers for whom $7 instead of $18 for cold medicine really makes a BIG difference in their lives. My point is that the people you believe it helps so much, may in fact be not helped so much. If before Walmart came to town you were making $9/hr and worked 40 hours a week for Mom & Pop and after they rolled into town the best you've been able to get is 30hrs a week and less at Walmart for $8/hr saving $11 on cold medicine is really not going to make up for the loss in wages from your former employer.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 9, 2011 16:30:12 GMT -5
My point is that the people you believe it helps so much, may in fact be not helped so much. If before Walmart came to town you were making $9/hr and worked 40 hours a week for Mom & Pop and after they rolled into town the best you've been able to get is 30hrs a week and less at Walmart for $8/hr saving $11 on cold medicine is really not going to make up for the loss in wages from your former employer.
You are assuming one would earn that much at a mom & pop. At Walmart, one has much more opportunities for growth and promotion. I'd pick Wally World over a mom & pop.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,593
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2011 16:30:15 GMT -5
"And what's stopping you or them from building their own store to compete...and you can pay your employees as much wage and benefits as you please."
In my case and I would guess those living paycheck to paycheck money for start up costs.
|
|