It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D.C. Council votes to Force Walmart to pay "living wage"--50% over minimum wage.

page: 20
19
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Workers on minimum wage just want to get off benefits for goodness sake. Give them a break, they're not demanding untold riches in payment for their hard work, they just want to afford to live.


Unfortunately , Raising the minimum wage is not going to help them.
You raise the minimum wage and the prices of good and services goes up as well. Their buying power stays the same at best, if not decrease .

When you and other well paid people ever had wage increases, did it result in higher goods and services costs and therefore reduce your spending power? I somehow don't think so.


I have owned a restaurant before and I can tell you that raising the prices is not an easy thing and the customers notice and complain about it. Therefore, you try to minimize the amount of times you increase the prices.

Hence when my cost of doing business went up I had to not only raise the price to accommodate the new additional expense , but I also had to forecast future increases into the prices for fluctuation.

So you didn't raise wages but your business costs increased anyway, and not the other way around.

And it's ok for you to acquire yourself increased income to accommodate your rising living and business costs by raising your prices, but you begrudge the working poor a wage increase so they too can afford to live to a decent standard?


So when the minimum wage employee makes $1 per hour , a gallon of milk cost .50
Then when the minimum wage goes to $2, then the gallon of milk will likely go up to $2.10 to cover the cost of operations plus a little more.

But you increased your product prices even though you didn't increase wages. So better wages don't force costs up at all because as you have stated, costs will still increase even when wages don't.

When you realised that the cost of living and business had increased, how did you think your workers on minimum pay would cope with these same increases? You provided for yourself by raising your prices, but you chose to keep the extra income all for yourself and your workers had to carry on struggling. A common case of 'I'm alright Jack and I'm pulling the ladder up'. Nice.




posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 



So are you saying that people should put up with current schitt wages and continue claiming top-up benefits or the alternative is doomier and gloomier? Choice of crap pay or no pay? If that's the case, then you people earning a living wage and over won't have a problem with paying high taxes to accommodate their benefits.


No.. What I am saying in my position is much simpler than that. I'm saying the whole debate ought to be moot to start because it is not and have never been the place of Government at Federal, State OR Local level to dictate terms of business to a private business where those terms didn't apply to the entire class the business belongs to. Never, in general practice, has the United States seen or tolerated "reach down" from political office to the literal dollars paid on a payroll sheet among private industry. Minimum Wage is the exception and an exception it makes because there is absolutely nothing direct, personal or specific about it. It's to EVERYONE who hires an employee in the nation, with a few special designations that cover entire classes of workplace. Even there, never specific, like this.

If Walmart's practices piss you off or represent something you cannot stomach, that's fair. Don't shop there. In our system, if enough people agree? Walmart will be forced to change their practices as their stores see empty isles and quiet registers. Unfortunately, the vast majority either don't agree or (more likely) just don't care enough to so much as voice an opinion in society .....and having a Government Body IMPOSE what those who do care would like is never an answer. It's tyranny-lite. It's the stepping stone to the full version, yet to come.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven
I read and I have more to say, I really do but I headed home to drink some Woodford and watch my 17 month old son play in the yard ... Maybe tomorrow = )


No problem. Enjoy the family time and will discuss more tomorrow.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by doobydoll
 


They really don't get it. A person cannot pay someone 50% below the cost of living AND complain about having to pay into government assistance programs.

Create the circumstance / Live with the consequence

Either way, they're going to have to pay. One would think they'd choose the option to improve their public image.

No they don't get it.

I can't work out how they come to the conclusion that a living wage is too much to pay a worker, but the ones whining are also the ones who are already earning a living wage or above, and don't consider themselves as paid too much



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


You are working on the idea that Target will stay, and is willing to take the profit margin hit.

People, in general, don't understand or see the difference between an increase/decrease in sales vs. increase/decrease in profit margin.

Take my business for example.
I am hit with an excise tax once I sale a certain number of widgets.
Say I make 300 widgets a year. Say at $3000.
Now, say it costs me $1800 for the raw items to make my widget.
The work is done by myself and my brother, we are the owners.
Each widget takes about 8 single man hours to make.
In total sales, we have $900K
Now, take 10% off the sale price, and we have $2700. So, we have a profit of $900.
So, 300 sold with $900 in profit is $270k.
Minus $8400 in yearly hard expenses, $12000 for company vehicles, $9500 for health insurance and $15k for research/development/ and $15k for new equipment.
We now have a profit of $210k, or $105k split between the owners.
So, that is a margin of 23%

Now, say I want to increase production to 400 a year. Hard costs stay the same.
So, sales is now $1.2m. Profit of $360k
Add the cost now of employment. A single employ with a salary of $45k. Now, double that for all the associated costs for having an employee, and we are now at around $80k.
Hard costs are around $59900. Plus $80k. So, $139900.
Left over is $220k. A whole $10k was made, just to increase numbers of units by 100.
Margin is 18%.

So, hiring someone take a big hit to the profit margin.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by doobydoll
 



So are you saying that people should put up with current schitt wages and continue claiming top-up benefits or the alternative is doomier and gloomier? Choice of crap pay or no pay? If that's the case, then you people earning a living wage and over won't have a problem with paying high taxes to accommodate their benefits.


No.. What I am saying in my position is much simpler than that. I'm saying the whole debate ought to be moot to start because it is not and have never been the place of Government at Federal, State OR Local level to dictate terms of business to a private business where those terms didn't apply to the entire class the business belongs to. Never, in general practice, has the United States seen or tolerated "reach down" from political office to the literal dollars paid on a payroll sheet among private industry. Minimum Wage is the exception and an exception it makes because there is absolutely nothing direct, personal or specific about it. It's to EVERYONE who hires an employee in the nation, with a few special designations that cover entire classes of workplace. Even there, never specific, like this.

If Walmart's practices piss you off or represent something you cannot stomach, that's fair. Don't shop there. In our system, if enough people agree? Walmart will be forced to change their practices as their stores see empty isles and quiet registers. Unfortunately, the vast majority either don't agree or (more likely) just don't care enough to so much as voice an opinion in society .....and having a Government Body IMPOSE what those who do care would like is never an answer. It's tyranny-lite. It's the stepping stone to the full version, yet to come.

I agree in that ALL companies should be forced to pay living wage, not just Walmart.

Minimum wage was meant to be a starting point for wages, but companies have turned it into maximum pay and refuse to pay more. If they could get away with paying less they wouldn't hesitate, and this is why minimum pay was brought in in the first place. Look how many really take the piss by taking on Workfare labour and are happy to pay hard-working people NOTHING AT ALL.

Everyone who works should be paid enough to live a good standard of living, they shouldn't be so broke they're forced to claim hand-outs. What's the point of working when your maximum pay is also minimum pay and leaves you destitute? People who WON'T work should be the ones destitute, not those who do work.
edit on 1-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Forget supply and demand. Typical childish thinking from Usual Suspects. Some jobs that require little skills or knowledge simply aren't worth even minimum wage. No one should expect to be able to live independently on minimum wage jobs. Without incentive, motivation, our society will be more screwed than it is.




That's one of the most elitist, disgusting things I've read on here in a while.

So you don't think anyone should be able to live independently on minimum wage jobs? Nevermind the fact that many people have to rely on minimum wage jobs to survive. Nevermind the fact that when people can't survive on the minimum wage jobs they get, they often turn to the government for assistance. So I can only assume you're in favor of government assistance programs like foodstamps. That's very kind-hearted of you, but I don't think some would agree that the government should have to pay out even more money, out of everyone's taxes, because megacorps like walmart don't want to pay their employees a fair wage.

And also, nevermind the fact that it is the company itself, that decides whether a position will be a "minimum wage job."


And especially nevermind the fact that the current federal minimum is barely enough for someone to survive on if they're working over 40 hours a week... which many employers are not willing to give-- so they can weasel their way out of paying overtime, or giving their hardworking employees the benefits they deserve. For what? So the profit margins can be a little fatter? So the guys at the top can make an extra $250,000 a year and get to take two vacations every year instead of letting the little guys at the bottom feed themselves?


How disgusting. And I'll remind you-- the common argument from disgusting corporate apologists-- that these companies are "job creators" and without them, the economy would be worse off... (I'm sure you know the argument I mean. i'm sure you've used it before). You see... there is a reverse side of that argument-- without all these millions of low wage workers, who according to you don't deserve enough money to live, companies like walmart would make NO profits. There would be no business, without many many people at "the bottom" performing menial tasks. These low-wage workers literally build these companies on their backs-- by their labor-- not the BS paper / managerial work of a few jerks on top. And I'm not saying those guys aren't important to the company. But if we really want to figure out which position is more important....? It's clearly the many many many people at the bottom.



Now a personal aside: I know someone who works at a walmart. This person told me a story about their store. The managers get shares in walmart as part of their package. As such, they get to attend the shareholders meetings. Now, these managers are only required to be in store 20-30 hours a week. Which is part time, to not quite full time. This one particular manager, who for this story we shall call The Incompetent Jerk, or "Jerk" for short.... this manager, "Jerk" wasn't very good at his job. And he liked to sit around as much as possible, and work as little as possible. Some narcissistic jerks are just like that (though to be fair, not all managers are-- some are great workers, and great people.) So Jerk, who is also a shareholder, attends one of the shareholder meetings, where they are voting on some things that will affect the store. This particular store is the biggest and busiest in its area. But they have been having shortages of cashiers, especially around closing. And at this meeting, Jerk voted to not only cut back the number of cashiers scheduled (making a bad problem even worse) but at the same time to give himself a raise up to something like $150,000 a year.

$150,000 a year for working 20-30 hours per week.

At the expense of having fewer cashiers (when they already had too few) decreasing customer satisfaction, increasing complaints. Just so he could make more money for sitting around.

Meanwhile the cashiers, some of whom really bust their butts to make this store function smoothly, are being denied full time hours. And the ones who make full time hours, or close to it, are pulling in less than $20,000 a year... for busting their butts... while this guy sits on his, for less hours, for more than seven and a half times as much pay


This is a true story. How is that fair? Why does that guy deserve so much more money, for doing so little (incompetently, I might add)? But I bet someone with a screwed-up, backwards view like yours would agree with, and probably have much in common with a guy like Jerk, huh?
edit on 1-8-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

Find where I said that you shouldn't do anything.


That attitude that raising wages will only raise costs across the board without offering a solution of your own says enough.



However, the proposed solution to raise the taxes will in essence accomplish you nothing at best, because the minimum wage buying power will remain the same despite making more money per hour.


Not if these corporations don't increase their prices. Don't give me "they'd have to", because they wouldn't. Fifty years ago businesses could afford their merchandise AND still manage to pay their workers a living wage.
In a way, Wal-Mart can do this far easier than businesses in the past. They buy their stock in such large quantities that they get to dictate their own purchasing price, which means they aren't shackled to costs the same way smaller department stores are/where.

The arguement doesn't fly.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


I was talking about Washington DC CITY employees, not Federal GS employees, big difference.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


It is good to see there are still some humane politicians (though I can hardly believe it - wish to god we had some in the UK), God bless these anti slavery and humane decent folk, let's hope big bucks wallmart does not have it overturned by a higher authority.
Good to see decent people in authority taking a moral stand for what is right for a change.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Tazkven
 


Sorry to get in the way of your bash walmart fest, proceed.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll


Minimum wage was meant to be a starting point for wages, but companies have turned it into maximum pay and refuse to pay more. If they could get away with paying less they wouldn't hesitate, and this is why minimum pay was brought in in the first place.


Um, yeah.....So the company I work for, starts certain positions at minimum wage, yet there are people that work their way up in pay and job.
I surely don't work for minimum wage, and I just started here about 10 months ago.

So......What you actually mean is that people that stay in a company, at the same position, never going forward or upward, should get an increase in pay, regardless. Sounds like every Union person I have ever come into contact with.

Let's get the terms down correctly then.

Living wage is basically equal to pay increase for time in service.
How it works now, is pay increase for merit and job performance or advancement.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam


That's one of the most elitist, disgusting things I've read on here in a while.

So you don't think anyone should be able to live independently on minimum wage jobs?

No. if you want a higher paying job, become educated on the job that pays more.
Otherwise, why should people go to 4 years of college, or a trade school, to be paid higher then the burger flipper.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by doobydoll


Minimum wage was meant to be a starting point for wages, but companies have turned it into maximum pay and refuse to pay more. If they could get away with paying less they wouldn't hesitate, and this is why minimum pay was brought in in the first place.


Um, yeah.....So the company I work for, starts certain positions at minimum wage, yet there are people that work their way up in pay and job.
I surely don't work for minimum wage, and I just started here about 10 months ago.

So......What you actually mean is that people that stay in a company, at the same position, never going forward or upward, should get an increase in pay, regardless. Sounds like every Union person I have ever come into contact with.

Let's get the terms down correctly then.

Living wage is basically equal to pay increase for time in service.
How it works now, is pay increase for merit and job performance or advancement.


No, not at all.

I mean that minimum wages should be increased to a living wage and all companies should be forced to pay it. If I had meant living wage be equal to service-related pay rises, I would have stated so.

Nice try by the way on trying to twist my words, better luck next time
heh.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


So, with the increase in starting pay, my pay should be increased, as I am a senior person in my chosen career field, thus making it so the price of good and/or services goes up, with no guaranteed increase in supply and/or demand.

Yeah, sounds SOOO very great.

What fantastic way to bankrupt a company.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
if people are so worried about their wages at mcdonalds and such, vote to have them classified as employees who would earn tips and tip them.
help them earn that living wage.
put up you know..... probably dont want to go that far though huh?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by doobydoll
 


So, with the increase in starting pay, my pay should be increased, as I am a senior person in my chosen career field, thus making it so the price of good and/or services goes up, with no guaranteed increase in supply and/or demand.

Yeah, sounds SOOO very great.

What fantastic way to bankrupt a company.

Why do you think that you should be paid more than a living wage, but unskilled workers should work for less than they need to live on? They may be uneducated and unskilled but they work hard too, just as you do. And for the same reasons - to provide a living for their families, same as you.

Yes, I agree you should be paid more than living wage as a company senior, I'm not saying otherwise and I am happy some earn huge wages, good on them I say. But you people on high earnings seem to resent unskilled workers anything better than a working life of destitution and outright poverty, and I am really finding it difficult to understand why that is.

It's as if you all hate minimum-wage earners just because they're uneducated and poor, and for that they deserve nothing but scummy hard work, discrimination and poverty wages. How could you be so hateful to other human beings. I just don't understand it.


edit on 1-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Workers on minimum wage just want to get off benefits for goodness sake. Give them a break, they're not demanding untold riches in payment for their hard work, they just want to afford to live.


Unfortunately , Raising the minimum wage is not going to help them.
You raise the minimum wage and the prices of good and services goes up as well. Their buying power stays the same at best, if not decrease .

I have owned a restaurant before and I can tell you that raising the prices is not an easy thing and the customers notice and complain about it. Therefore, you try to minimize the amount of times you increase the prices.

Hence when my cost of doing business went up I had to not only raise the price to accommodate the new additional expense , but I also had to forecast future increases into the prices for fluctuation.

So when the minimum wage employee makes $1 per hour , a gallon of milk cost .50
Then when the minimum wage goes to $2 , then the gallon of milk will likely go up to $2.10 to cover the cost of operations plus a little more.

The end result the minimum wage employee lost some buying power, even though he makes more money.


This is a myth. Low wage employees, particularly those on minimum wage could be paid more, the company would just be a bit less profitable, or the high ups in the company would make a little less money. I posted minimum wage statistics back on page 17, rather than repeat them I'll just point out that on minimum wage you could pay rent for the month with 56 hours of work today it's 109 hours, in a large city it's even worse than that. That represents a severe decline in the purchasing power of minimum wage.

It's entirely possible to do, last I looked the 1950's weren't some era of corporate destitution.
edit on 1-8-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


150k for working 30 hrs a week?

about as crazy as 12-15 per hour for working the register at walmart if you ask me...

i am mentioning mcdonalds too cause there are discussions involving them. apparently they have employees striking and walking off the job to hold signs cause they want $15 per hour.
huffington had an interview with one of them.

said he cant support his kids on under $8 per hour. said he asked the manager several times for more hours. then he said the manager called him in on saturday to work. next statement was that he was used by getting called in on his day off cause he could have been spending time with his kids.

so they want more hours but when they get them they complain that they are being used...? very confusing.
you cant have it both ways. but what i see is they want the money but dont want to put the effort in.
not 100% of them but a good deal of them.

as i said, there are jobs that will be happy to start you at $12 with plenty of room for advancement and 25 hours a week overtime. thats too much though. right?

it's called work for a reason. cause it sucks. nobody really wants to go bust ass but we have to.

sorry but walmart employees have no idea what 'slave labor' or bust ass work is.

if one of them switched jobs with me i promise you i could handle their job, do it just as well as them and climb the chain. i guarantee you they wouldnt last 2 days doing what i do.

so no, they really dont get any sympathy from me.

a lot of the people interviewed for that strike were early 20's and had 3-4 kids. complaining they cant support them. well, that sucks and i am sorry for a point but nobody made them pump out all those kids. a little personal responsibilty goes a long way.
walmart or mcdonalds 'can' afford to pay them $15 an hour so they 'should'?
i dont see why.
bottom line is the work they do is NOT worth that much pay.

again not all but some could get jobs paying $12 to start but they will not like it and they will not last.


these are low skill, low responsibility jobs out there. they need to be filled by someone. there are a lot of factors in an individuals life that makes it hard to make ends meet. i dont see how an employer should pay an employee that works there by their own free will $4-$5 an hour more than what the job is worth.

i dont see how it can be justified. i shop at walmart all the time.
the girls walking around the kids clothes section folding stuff and rehanging clothes do NOT deserve to be paid more than what they are.
no need to sugar coat it.


i love that guy complaining about being used when he got called in on his day off when he asked for the hours. i dont get it.

i think some of you would be suprised to see the jobs that are available and the people that want/need work but are not willing to do the job. i see handfulls of people every WEEK that straight up walk off the job. some dont make it through the day. some make it untill their first check.

its awesome too cause when they leave like that with no notice their metatarsal boots are then not paid by the company so if they were $12 an hour and only worked 5 hours and left, they dont even get a check. they owe $120 for the boots. ha

if you do suck it up and do the work, your boots are paid for. they have to do this cause the foundry was dishing out $120 per person for boots and not even getting a days work out of them and they leave in the middle of the day.
and yes, they furnish boots for us. they give employees $120 a year for boots.

i think some of you dont really know of what you speak..... sorry but its true



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


well wally world shows up and makes small business owners who make "living" wages into minimum wage employees. then those minimum wage jobs which are typically for kids end up being taken by adults with a family.

then walmart flips a profit but instead of paying its employees better ... it makes a new store and puts more business owners out of business... then it creates more crappy jobs ... then with those savings on wages ...

they expand and make more crappy jobs all the while buying products from china and putting more business owners out of business.. since they can't compete with china wages.. then those employees from those closed businesses can look forward to low pay jobs at walmart...

and those businesses who want to compete move to china to take advantage of low wages to make their products..



I work in a company that does not train its employees, does not upkeep its infrastructure and keeps cutting back the work force by "cross training"(by cross training it means they assign to a job a few times a week with someone watching you, no formal training.. and the people doing the job never go trained either) and firing... they do all this by saying times are hard and blah blah blah..

then the ceo and all the execs get bonuses..

the company did something shady... a lawsuit was filed... it was judged the work force in my area get back pay... suspiciously enough they fire two salary people around the time they cashed out that back pay... and oddly enough those people fired would have added up to the cost to do that.


I think the D.C. council should make salary caps and force them to invest not only in their infrastructure but in their work force. If they don't they tax the crap out of them to the point where it is more profitable to invest in their company and people.


if this minimum wages sticks this is what you will see.. the execs, ceos get the their stated bonuses, the minimum wage is raised and hours cut... prices are raise on the consumers.

everyone will suffer but those who cannot be touched.. those who are protected even by those who are oppressed by them.

this is the status quo in the USA,

profits for big business up

wages for the common laborer down

destruction of small businesses(competiton) up

cost of living up

working as intended.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join