Walmart

[HSKR]

I always get a kick how people love to bash Walmart and at the same time their place of employment would never in a million years consider giving many of the people who work there an opportunity for employment and benefits of any kind, yet Walmart is supposed to treat their employees better according to the self righteous.

[The Dude]

I always get a kick how people love to bash Walmart and at the same time their place of employment would never in a million years consider giving many of the people who work there an opportunity for employment and benefits of any kind, yet Walmart is supposed to treat their employees better according to the self righteous.

There's definitely some truth to this.

[sd'sker]

I always get a kick how people love to bash Walmart and at the same time their place of employment would never in a million years consider giving many of the people who work there an opportunity for employment and benefits of any kind, yet Walmart is supposed to treat their employees better according to the self righteous.

 

is that an argument for all workers' conditions to merely match the lowest common denominator or the bare minimum? the problem with wal-mart is that with such a large workforce, the benefits they provide or deny affect the entire economy. should the discussion not be to get better conditions for all workers?

[Conga3]

is that an argument for all workers' conditions to merely match the lowest common denominator or the bare minimum? the problem with wal-mart is that with such a large workforce, the benefits they provide or deny affect the entire economy. should the discussion not be to get better conditions for all workers?

Uh, no.

 

If Walmart posts a job opening, and a worker fills it - we know that two parties entered into private arrangement and agreed to the terms.

 

If Walmart posts a job opening, and nobody fills it - Walmart will be forced to increased compensation until it gets filled.

 

Freedom works. Free Market works.

 

Standing on the sidelines, decrying the "conditions" that Walmart employees suffer is asinine.

[sd'sker]

is that an argument for all workers' conditions to merely match the lowest common denominator or the bare minimum? the problem with wal-mart is that with such a large workforce, the benefits they provide or deny affect the entire economy. should the discussion not be to get better conditions for all workers?

Uh, no.

 

If Walmart posts a job opening, and a worker fills it - we know that two parties entered into private arrangement and agreed to the terms.

 

If Walmart posts a job opening, and nobody fills it - Walmart will be forced to increased compensation until it gets filled.

 

Freedom works. Free Market works.

 

Standing on the sidelines, decrying the "conditions" that Walmart employees suffer is asinine.

so i guess we should try to match china's workers' conditions to get some of those jobs back that have been outsourced. maybe instead of making a few owners and shareholders obscenely rich, the purpose of employment should be to give workers a better quality of life. you know, kind of like how every classical economist imagined it. who does 'freedom' work for and when has the free market ever worked for the average worker?

 

wait, are you saying workers should go on strike or unionize to get what they want? i suppose that is how they can exercise their freedom and get what they want from their employers.

[Conga3]

is that an argument for all workers' conditions to merely match the lowest common denominator or the bare minimum? the problem with wal-mart is that with such a large workforce, the benefits they provide or deny affect the entire economy. should the discussion not be to get better conditions for all workers?

Uh, no.

 

If Walmart posts a job opening, and a worker fills it - we know that two parties entered into private arrangement and agreed to the terms.

 

If Walmart posts a job opening, and nobody fills it - Walmart will be forced to increased compensation until it gets filled.

 

Freedom works. Free Market works.

 

Standing on the sidelines, decrying the "conditions" that Walmart employees suffer is asinine.

so i guess we should try to match china's workers' conditions to get some of those jobs back that have been outsourced. maybe instead of making a few owners and shareholders obscenely rich, the purpose of employment should be to give workers a better quality of life. you know, kind of like how every classical economist imagined it. who does 'freedom' work for and when has the free market ever worked for the average worker?

 

wait, are you saying workers should go on strike or unionize to get what they want? i suppose that is how they can exercise their freedom and get what they want from their employers.

Hmmm....I don't know if I've ever really met anyone that freedom works for, or someone who has made a good life for themselves by exploiting the free market.

 

Oh wait...

 

--

 

And yes I support the freedom to gather as a group and work towards your shared goals. Labor Unions, Lobbyists, Flash Mobs, etc...

 

I find the act of striking, however, to be coercive in nature and can't completely support it since I find coercion immoral.

[HSKR]

I always get a kick how people love to bash Walmart and at the same time their place of employment would never in a million years consider giving many of the people who work there an opportunity for employment and benefits of any kind, yet Walmart is supposed to treat their employees better according to the self righteous.

 

is that an argument for all workers' conditions to merely match the lowest common denominator or the bare minimum? the problem with wal-mart is that with such a large workforce, the benefits they provide or deny affect the entire economy. should the discussion not be to get better conditions for all workers?

 

How can it be about better work conditions when the vast majority of places won't even give them work in the first place? Let's have every business including the place you work for hire greeters and their pay comes out of everyone else's pay, including yours. Then after we do that, demand that everyone gets paid more. See how that works for you. It amazes me how many people think that the majority of people who work at Walmart want to do it as a full time career. Many, many people who work there, do it as a supplemental income because their other job doesn't pay good enough to start. So don't complain about Walmart hiring part timers, complain about the company's that don't pay their employees enough that they have to get a second job. Many, many other people who work there do so because they only want to work part time hours to start. They may have kids at home to care for and only work evenings or weekends when their spouse can trade off the family duties. Let's see how many businesses, including yours allow that flexibility.

 

Do you even know anyone who works at Walmart? I know several who do or did in the past. Sure they would like to get paid more, hell, who wouldn't? But at the same time they are glad to have the job and the flexibility it provides. If you really want to improve the conditions for workers at Walmart, then every other business should improve theirs so the hiring competition forces Wally to improve theirs, but we all know that will never happen.

[sd'sker]

I always get a kick how people love to bash Walmart and at the same time their place of employment would never in a million years consider giving many of the people who work there an opportunity for employment and benefits of any kind, yet Walmart is supposed to treat their employees better according to the self righteous.

 

is that an argument for all workers' conditions to merely match the lowest common denominator or the bare minimum? the problem with wal-mart is that with such a large workforce, the benefits they provide or deny affect the entire economy. should the discussion not be to get better conditions for all workers?

 

How can it be about better work conditions when the vast majority of places won't even give them work in the first place? Let's have every business including the place you work for hire greeters and their pay comes out of everyone else's pay, including yours. Then after we do that, demand that everyone gets paid more. See how that works for you. It amazes me how many people think that the majority of people who work at Walmart want to do it as a full time career. Many, many people who work there, do it as a supplemental income because their other job doesn't pay good enough to start. So don't complain about Walmart hiring part timers, complain about the company's that don't pay their employees enough that they have to get a second job. Many, many other people who work there do so because they only want to work part time hours to start. They may have kids at home to care for and only work evenings or weekends when their spouse can trade off the family duties. Let's see how many businesses, including yours allow that flexibility.

 

Do you even know anyone who works at Walmart? I know several who do or did in the past. Sure they would like to get paid more, hell, who wouldn't? But at the same time they are glad to have the job and the flexibility it provides. If you really want to improve the conditions for workers at Walmart, then every other business should improve theirs so the hiring competition forces Wally to improve theirs, but we all know that will never happen.

so i guess the best any employer has to do for their employees is as good as the worst employer? and what does it matter if it is supplemental income or not? also, are you saying it is a good thing that people need two jobs to make ends meet? wal-mart should pay as much as it can while maintaining profitability rather than only making the owners and shareholders obscenely rich. you do not think that the employees deserve more of the incredible wealth they have created for the owners?

 

also, wal-mart choose to hire greeters. what is your point? so hard working stockers and cashiers and deli workers deserve less pay and less benefits because wal-mart decided to hire a greeter? i find it funny that you think you have to offer the same compensation to greeters as you do to cashiers or other employees.

 

this is factual, so take it as you will: link.

[HSKR]

I always get a kick how people love to bash Walmart and at the same time their place of employment would never in a million years consider giving many of the people who work there an opportunity for employment and benefits of any kind, yet Walmart is supposed to treat their employees better according to the self righteous.

 

is that an argument for all workers' conditions to merely match the lowest common denominator or the bare minimum? the problem with wal-mart is that with such a large workforce, the benefits they provide or deny affect the entire economy. should the discussion not be to get better conditions for all workers?

 

How can it be about better work conditions when the vast majority of places won't even give them work in the first place? Let's have every business including the place you work for hire greeters and their pay comes out of everyone else's pay, including yours. Then after we do that, demand that everyone gets paid more. See how that works for you. It amazes me how many people think that the majority of people who work at Walmart want to do it as a full time career. Many, many people who work there, do it as a supplemental income because their other job doesn't pay good enough to start. So don't complain about Walmart hiring part timers, complain about the company's that don't pay their employees enough that they have to get a second job. Many, many other people who work there do so because they only want to work part time hours to start. They may have kids at home to care for and only work evenings or weekends when their spouse can trade off the family duties. Let's see how many businesses, including yours allow that flexibility.

 

Do you even know anyone who works at Walmart? I know several who do or did in the past. Sure they would like to get paid more, hell, who wouldn't? But at the same time they are glad to have the job and the flexibility it provides. If you really want to improve the conditions for workers at Walmart, then every other business should improve theirs so the hiring competition forces Wally to improve theirs, but we all know that will never happen.

so i guess the best any employer has to do for their employees is as good as the worst employer? and what does it matter if it is supplemental income or not? also, are you saying it is a good thing that people need two jobs to make ends meet? wal-mart should pay as much as it can while maintaining profitability rather than only making the owners and shareholders obscenely rich. you do not think that the employees deserve more of the incredible wealth they have created for the owners?

 

also, wal-mart choose to hire greeters. what is your point? so hard working stockers and cashiers and deli workers deserve less pay and less benefits because wal-mart decided to hire a greeter? i find it funny that you think you have to offer the same compensation to greeters as you do to cashiers or other employees.

 

this is factual, so take it as you will: link.

and what does it matter if it is supplemental income or not? Part of the whining about Wally is the lack of hours employees get, if they are working part time hours as a supplement to their other job then yes that is a huge reason that Walmart uses a part time force so yes it matter greatly.

 

also, are you saying it is a good thing that people need two jobs to make ends meet? No, I am saying that is part of the problem, the other jobs aren't paying enough, but nobody bitches about those employers because they aren't the easy target Walmart is. Right over your head on that one.

 

wal-mart should pay as much as it can while maintaining profitability rather than only making the owners and shareholders obscenely rich. That's simply laughable since 99% of all businesses do the exact same thing in the US but once again, Wally is the convenient target due to their massive size.

 

If you don't think the average small business owner keeps as much as he can for himself and gives his employees just enough to keep them there and keep them productive, then the odds are you have no experience in small business or any business for that matter.

 

Not sure what your link was supposed to tell us that we didn't already know.

[sd'sker]

I always get a kick how people love to bash Walmart and at the same time their place of employment would never in a million years consider giving many of the people who work there an opportunity for employment and benefits of any kind, yet Walmart is supposed to treat their employees better according to the self righteous.

 

is that an argument for all workers' conditions to merely match the lowest common denominator or the bare minimum? the problem with wal-mart is that with such a large workforce, the benefits they provide or deny affect the entire economy. should the discussion not be to get better conditions for all workers?

 

How can it be about better work conditions when the vast majority of places won't even give them work in the first place? Let's have every business including the place you work for hire greeters and their pay comes out of everyone else's pay, including yours. Then after we do that, demand that everyone gets paid more. See how that works for you. It amazes me how many people think that the majority of people who work at Walmart want to do it as a full time career. Many, many people who work there, do it as a supplemental income because their other job doesn't pay good enough to start. So don't complain about Walmart hiring part timers, complain about the company's that don't pay their employees enough that they have to get a second job. Many, many other people who work there do so because they only want to work part time hours to start. They may have kids at home to care for and only work evenings or weekends when their spouse can trade off the family duties. Let's see how many businesses, including yours allow that flexibility.

 

Do you even know anyone who works at Walmart? I know several who do or did in the past. Sure they would like to get paid more, hell, who wouldn't? But at the same time they are glad to have the job and the flexibility it provides. If you really want to improve the conditions for workers at Walmart, then every other business should improve theirs so the hiring competition forces Wally to improve theirs, but we all know that will never happen.

so i guess the best any employer has to do for their employees is as good as the worst employer? and what does it matter if it is supplemental income or not? also, are you saying it is a good thing that people need two jobs to make ends meet? wal-mart should pay as much as it can while maintaining profitability rather than only making the owners and shareholders obscenely rich. you do not think that the employees deserve more of the incredible wealth they have created for the owners?

 

also, wal-mart choose to hire greeters. what is your point? so hard working stockers and cashiers and deli workers deserve less pay and less benefits because wal-mart decided to hire a greeter? i find it funny that you think you have to offer the same compensation to greeters as you do to cashiers or other employees.

 

this is factual, so take it as you will: link.

and what does it matter if it is supplemental income or not? Part of the whining about Wally is the lack of hours employees get, if they are working part time hours as a supplement to their other job then yes that is a huge reason that Walmart uses a part time force so yes it matter greatly.

 

also, are you saying it is a good thing that people need two jobs to make ends meet? No, I am saying that is part of the problem, the other jobs aren't paying enough, but nobody bitches about those employers because they aren't the easy target Walmart is. Right over your head on that one.

 

wal-mart should pay as much as it can while maintaining profitability rather than only making the owners and shareholders obscenely rich. That's simply laughable since 99% of all businesses do the exact same thing in the US but once again, Wally is the convenient target due to their massive size.

 

If you don't think the average small business owner keeps as much as he can for himself and gives his employees just enough to keep them there and keep them productive, then the odds are you have no experience in small business or any business for that matter.

 

Not sure what your link was supposed to tell us that we didn't already know.

first, you said, "Let's have every business including the place you work for hire greeters and their pay comes out of everyone else's pay, including yours. Then after we do that, demand that everyone gets paid more. See how that works for you." why would it have to come from the employees instead of the ceo who makes $27 million per year? second, i got your point about people needing two jobs. but are you saying that since the other jobs do not pay their employees enough, that means wal-mart should not have to either? as far as 99% of businesses not giving their employees a fair share of profits, so that means no one should? how do you feel about wal-mart encouraging their employees to go on welfare and food stamps and limiting their pay and hours so they qualify? should we as taxpayers have to subsidize wal-mart's employees? it is kind of ridiculous that we can not criticize wal-mart because there are other corporations that are just as bad or worse. that makes no sense whatsoever.

[krc1995]

Don't like walmart shop from Amazon. You can find the same products and have them delivered to your doorstep. Really, you as a consumer have options. Exercise them

[knapplc]

Don't like walmart shop from Amazon. You can find the same products and have them delivered to your doorstep. Really, you as a consumer have options. Exercise them

 

Exactly. I haven't shopped at Wal-mart out of necessity for years. If I ever go - and I do a few times a year - it's by choice

[HSKR]

 

so i guess the best any employer has to do for their employees is as good as the worst employer? and what does it matter if it is supplemental income or not? also, are you saying it is a good thing that people need two jobs to make ends meet? wal-mart should pay as much as it can while maintaining profitability rather than only making the owners and shareholders obscenely rich. you do not think that the employees deserve more of the incredible wealth they have created for the owners?

 

also, wal-mart choose to hire greeters. what is your point? so hard working stockers and cashiers and deli workers deserve less pay and less benefits because wal-mart decided to hire a greeter? i find it funny that you think you have to offer the same compensation to greeters as you do to cashiers or other employees.

 

this is factual, so take it as you will: link.

and what does it matter if it is supplemental income or not? Part of the whining about Wally is the lack of hours employees get, if they are working part time hours as a supplement to their other job then yes that is a huge reason that Walmart uses a part time force so yes it matter greatly.

 

also, are you saying it is a good thing that people need two jobs to make ends meet? No, I am saying that is part of the problem, the other jobs aren't paying enough, but nobody bitches about those employers because they aren't the easy target Walmart is. Right over your head on that one.

 

wal-mart should pay as much as it can while maintaining profitability rather than only making the owners and shareholders obscenely rich. That's simply laughable since 99% of all businesses do the exact same thing in the US but once again, Wally is the convenient target due to their massive size.

 

If you don't think the average small business owner keeps as much as he can for himself and gives his employees just enough to keep them there and keep them productive, then the odds are you have no experience in small business or any business for that matter.

 

Not sure what your link was supposed to tell us that we didn't already know.

first, you said, "Let's have every business including the place you work for hire greeters and their pay comes out of everyone else's pay, including yours. Then after we do that, demand that everyone gets paid more. See how that works for you." why would it have to come from the employees instead of the ceo who makes $27 million per year? second, i got your point about people needing two jobs. but are you saying that since the other jobs do not pay their employees enough, that means wal-mart should not have to either? as far as 99% of businesses not giving their employees a fair share of profits, so that means no one should? how do you feel about wal-mart encouraging their employees to go on welfare and food stamps and limiting their pay and hours so they qualify? should we as taxpayers have to subsidize wal-mart's employees? it is kind of ridiculous that we can not criticize wal-mart because there are other corporations that are just as bad or worse. that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

how do you feel about wal-mart encouraging their employees to go on welfare and food stamps and limiting their pay and hours so they qualify? Crap, more Obama voters!

 

Criticize Wally all you want. The problem is when you ignore every other business who does it, which in reality is every other business, it seems hypocritical and falls on deaf ears. It reminds me of a personal story I encountered of the hometown hardware store owner who paid his employees crap with low hours and at the same time retired in a $350 house while it his employees scraped by. Of course he was the first one to complain when Walmart wanted to build but very few ever complained about how he ran his business and sold the same cheap Chinese crap that Walmart wanted to sell.

[HSKR]

Don't like walmart shop from Amazon. You can find the same products and have them delivered to your doorstep. Really, you as a consumer have options. Exercise them

 

Exactly. I haven't shopped at Wal-mart out of necessity for years. If I ever go - and I do a few times a year - it's by choice

 

 

1%er

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sd'sker]

 

so i guess the best any employer has to do for their employees is as good as the worst employer? and what does it matter if it is supplemental income or not? also, are you saying it is a good thing that people need two jobs to make ends meet? wal-mart should pay as much as it can while maintaining profitability rather than only making the owners and shareholders obscenely rich. you do not think that the employees deserve more of the incredible wealth they have created for the owners?

 

also, wal-mart choose to hire greeters. what is your point? so hard working stockers and cashiers and deli workers deserve less pay and less benefits because wal-mart decided to hire a greeter? i find it funny that you think you have to offer the same compensation to greeters as you do to cashiers or other employees.

 

this is factual, so take it as you will: link.

and what does it matter if it is supplemental income or not? Part of the whining about Wally is the lack of hours employees get, if they are working part time hours as a supplement to their other job then yes that is a huge reason that Walmart uses a part time force so yes it matter greatly.

 

also, are you saying it is a good thing that people need two jobs to make ends meet? No, I am saying that is part of the problem, the other jobs aren't paying enough, but nobody bitches about those employers because they aren't the easy target Walmart is. Right over your head on that one.

 

wal-mart should pay as much as it can while maintaining profitability rather than only making the owners and shareholders obscenely rich. That's simply laughable since 99% of all businesses do the exact same thing in the US but once again, Wally is the convenient target due to their massive size.

 

If you don't think the average small business owner keeps as much as he can for himself and gives his employees just enough to keep them there and keep them productive, then the odds are you have no experience in small business or any business for that matter.

 

Not sure what your link was supposed to tell us that we didn't already know.

first, you said, "Let's have every business including the place you work for hire greeters and their pay comes out of everyone else's pay, including yours. Then after we do that, demand that everyone gets paid more. See how that works for you." why would it have to come from the employees instead of the ceo who makes $27 million per year? second, i got your point about people needing two jobs. but are you saying that since the other jobs do not pay their employees enough, that means wal-mart should not have to either? as far as 99% of businesses not giving their employees a fair share of profits, so that means no one should? how do you feel about wal-mart encouraging their employees to go on welfare and food stamps and limiting their pay and hours so they qualify? should we as taxpayers have to subsidize wal-mart's employees? it is kind of ridiculous that we can not criticize wal-mart because there are other corporations that are just as bad or worse. that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

how do you feel about wal-mart encouraging their employees to go on welfare and food stamps and limiting their pay and hours so they qualify? Crap, more Obama voters!

 

Criticize Wally all you want. The problem is when you ignore every other business who does it, which in reality is every other business, it seems hypocritical and falls on deaf ears. It reminds me of a personal story I encountered of the hometown hardware store owner who paid his employees crap with low hours and at the same time retired in a $350 house while it his employees scraped by. Of course he was the first one to complain when Walmart wanted to build but very few ever complained about how he ran his business and sold the same cheap Chinese crap that Walmart wanted to sell.

i agree that guy was egregious, but wal-mart is huge. as such, it has a bigger impact on the national (and global) economy. our economy would be a lot stronger if they provided living wages and benefits. the point is that workers should be treated with as much respect as feasible as possible. that creates a stronger economy and it becomes a human rights issue. but the fact is, wal-mart employs a lot of people. if those people could spend more, then the economy would be stronger with more consumers and less relying on gov't aid (cheese).

 

wal-mart is also the easyist to criticize because it is the biggest, but also wal-mart's problems extend far past employees' wages and benefits.

 

i do not think anything you said was necessarily wrong, but i think the issue is not whether or not wal-mart is any worse or deserves criticism when others are left of the hook. the issue should be what employees deserve and what can be done to help enhance workers' rights throughout america. it makes for a stronger economy and helps to prevent our descent into a third-world country.