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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Tazkven
 


So...because Walmart has money, you are, by rights, entitled to what you think is your fair share of it? :shk:

I don't care if Walmart has all the money on Earth and has God doing their laundry. It changes absolutely nothing to local labor markets where they open stores and what going wages are for people. If Walmart paid too far under going wages as supplied by others in comparable work? They'd fail. Who would work for them, if others paid much more and Walmart, alone, stood as the cheapskate screwing everyone? They pay what they have to for workers ...like every other business in the nation hiring entry level help.

What blows me away is how anyone can ever first look at the size and worth of a company before demanding a wage for ENTRY level work. Ummm.... That's not feeling entitled, that's carrying an ego a semi truck is needed to haul around, IMO.
edit on 31-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 



And don't give me the free ride complaint. Fact is, Americans these days work longer and harder than they did 40 years ago to try and pay for a cost of living that is leaving them choking on its dust. Back in the 70s a father could be the sole bread winner, buy a home, purchase a new car, take an annual vacation, and send one or both kids to college on his salary alone. Now both parents are forced to work just to make it to the next month where they'll again have to make the decision "food or bills?"


I don't dispute the problem and I don't dispute the need to see about solving it. I DO dispute the right Government has to dictate wages to ANY private sector business without it applying to EVERY private sector business. If D.C. wants to force higher wages? Fine... Raise Min. Wage and see how that works out for them.

Otherwise, it's politicians seeing a BIG target in Walmart, seeing a public they can score votes from, and attacking them like a dog with a bone. As someone earlier in the thread noted, even D.C. itself doesn't pay all it's workers their own "Living Wage" definition. Do as I say, not as I do, as usual. Government *IS* the problem, not the ones to go running to for breathless solutions to pass yesterday.

THAT is how we GOT here.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I am not entitled to anything from Wal-Mart, I do not, have not, and will not ever work there.

But you are close ... The job creators should have a responsibility to those they employee and it shouldn't be my responsibility to have to pay for their food stamps or medicaid because the Waltons want to make 16,000 bucks an hour.

I work for a company that hires unskilled workers, they start at a livable wage with medical insurance from day 1, retirement and pensions and Wal-Mart makes more money than they do. So why is it an unskilled worker sitting in a chair screwing a bolt into a dishwasher frame can stay off of government assistance but a Wal-mart employee cannot?

But your guys logic, err economics, people on government assistance would be tripled and we would be paying even more taxes ...



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Getting rid of the minimum wage and letting the market do what may is the real way to save the country. If your goal in life is low quit complaining



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




Why does Costco do so much, so differently? Well, apparently Costco's business model allows for it and Walmarts really doesn't. I mean, look at comments here. Look at the general feeling, right or wrong. Walmart is despised by a good % of people ...and among those who STILL shop there. Why? They are, in most every case, the cheapest. When Americans rarely EVER have enough these days to feel like everything is paid and everything in need has been bought, every month? Dollars matter ...and spending $20 more to buy things at Target means $20 worth of things that were needed, won't be purchased now.


That's an unfair comparison. You'd do better to compare Sam's Club to Costco (Sam's Club being the Wal-Mart equivalent to Costco). I mean, there are 4,690 Wal-Marts in the U.S. How many people have access to a Costco? Our nearest Costco is 30 miles away, yet there are 8 Walmarts between here and there.

Here are some stats on the two companies:





So it would seem that people, when given the choice, prefer the more fair company, over the evil juggernaut.

As for the Target/Wal-Mart Comparison. I find Target's prices comparible; some things cost more, others cost less. I'd much rather shop at a Target where the employees appear to actually enjoy their jobs, even if I'm spending a couple of bucks more per visit. Wal-Mart is such a depressing place. Every employee you meet seems liek they're a day or two away from taking a walk to the sporting goods section to blow their heads off.


According to pricing studies conducted by Customer Growth Partners, a consumer research firm, January, February and March all revealed Target's prices were lower than Wal-Mart's. The monthly study, which is conducted in four states, compares products across segments, including 30 fresh, frozen and nonperishable groceries, eight household chemicals, paper and other consumables like detergent, seven health and beauty aids like shampoo and counter medicines, and 10 general merchandise items like apparel and toys.


Link



Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

I don't dispute the problem and I don't dispute the need to see about solving it. I DO dispute the right Government has to dictate wages to ANY private sector business without it applying to EVERY private sector business. If D.C. wants to force higher wages? Fine... Raise Min. Wage and see how that works out for them.


They're not just targeting Wal-Mart, but all large retailers. Seems that anyone that can afford to pay a fair wage is going to have to, though Wal-Mart is to blame for this action since it decided to throw a temper tantrum when confronted with an ultimatum.





edit on 31-7-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Tazkven
 


My point here isn't to defend Walmart either way. I hauled freight in and out of their Distribution Centers for most of my career and they are *NOT* my favorite people. Cheesy, nitpicking, penny pinching little scrooges. Personally, I won't feel bad to see their corporate fortunes fall over time. Perhaps even crash at some point.

My disagreement is a basic one. Equal Protection under the Law. Do we watch the STATE single out Walmart for a real special kind of hate or do we watch them single out that whole sector of the economy where non-union labor is used? (what this is ALL really about and has been for many years of non-stop fighting).

If Government is to nationalize American business and industry to the level of dictating payroll policy to SOME and not to OTHERS? We might as well hoist the Hammer and Sickle and call each other Comrade. We ARE in a full state of central Government control over every aspect of every life in this nation at that point. They may not have USED it to touch everyone, but that will have established it for now and forever.

That's one hell of a thing to cede to Washington's central authority over a paycheck not being what people want it to be. Especially when, again, Walmart is following the NORMAL PRACTICES for business in the United States, among their sector of the economy. Sure...SOME pay more. It is NOT Government's place or authority on ANY level to get into choosing winners by economic policy or punitive measure against others they "think" deserve it.

...but again, Walmart is extra special for all this attention ...rather than being intellectually honest with the topic like D.C. COULD be and just say *EVERYONE* is being raised on pay, period. That at least makes it Constitutional for that equal protections clause.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


Sorry you went to all that reply time. If you look back, I didn't bring up Costco. I was replying to who DID choose that comparison. I don't much care for it myself, as Costco is more a regional operator while Walmart is fully international in scope these days and plays on a WHOLE different level in almost every way. I was being decent in not just throwing out the example wholesale though. That seemed cheap in a discussion like this, whatever I thought of choosing it.

I will note though, the Distribution Centers of Costco and Walmart are like night/day difference for treatment and conditions. Costco seems to care if you leave happy or not as a driver. Walmart are the ones happy when you just LEAVE without losing tempers or otherwise making a scene. They work so hard to cause them, so often.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

Yea, its not like another bloated government intervention is not already hurting those workers, You know how many people are being moved from full time to part time, or hours cut to make sure they don't sneak into 40 hours on accident just to skip the insurance requirement?


really hate to tell you that has NOTHING TO DO WITH "the insurance requirement". that IS and HAS BEEN a thing wal-mart has done for YEARS. after Christmas hours are drastically cut for employees, 28 hours/week for full timers as that is the minimum allowable for full timers (at least in the area i was), with some part timers getting ONE SHIFT EVERY TWO WEEKS. then gradually getting more hours during the spring/summer, then getting 40 hours per week and even overtime for the "Christmas season" for full timers, some "part timers" even get that many hours at Christmas. then right after Christmas back down to the minimums again. that goes back to the 1990's oh i forgot there IS one other time employees get 40 hours plus a week, about a month or so leading to inventory



We end up paying for these companies by their employees having to receive benefits from the government just to live.


again that IS NOTHING NEW, that has ALSO been going on for years. like wal-mart employees needing foodstamps.


OH poor walmart needs to pay its employees jack and !@#$ in order to reap the full benefits that the government allows them by allowing cheep trade tariffs and the exportation of jobs.


you are right there, they even go so far as to work hard at harassing old employees to get them to leave so they can PAY someone LESS to take their place since a "new employee" hasn't gotten that TWENTY FIVE CENT RAISE EVERY YEAR. oh you can get a bigger "merit" raise but that creates all sorts of hassle for your management, so they avoid doing it (even "apologizing" for not giving it to you, but that would mean head office on their backs wondering WHY you got one), in THAT regard they will even throw out or "loose in the files" customer feedback cards" that would get you that raise.


another trick they pull to get rid of old "better paid" staff is when they have a department that has a lot of "lots of years employees", they will do crap like CUT THE BUDGET (not done in hours but in money), so that either they can get the employees to leave due to not getting enough hours or that the management finds reasons to FIRE THEM, as since they don't have the "budget" to properly staff the department they get in trouble because not enough work gets done.



Cry me a river for walmart Wrabbit, Lets Cut the government out, tax export goods like we should, let walmart buy their goods while facing the same cost with out the tax breaks, and lets see how the free market works this out.


you don't even know the half of it. wal-mart constantly FORCES companies to CUT THEIR PRICES/PROFITS in order to get wal-mart a cheaper price (than even other companies get the SAME merchandise for), while NOT LOWERING THEIR SALE PRICE. these suppliers have no choice or wal-mart just does not sell their product. probably the REAL REASON more and more product is "Chinese" made, as North American companies CAN NOT LOWER THEIR PRICE ENOUGH and still make at least SOME money so their products are not sold at wal-mart.


OH no? thats not what we are asking? we are asking walmart pay their god damn employees a wage they can survive on?


and what is WRONG with paying an employee a "living wage" and getting them off government support? i think this needs to be done with EVERY COMPANY ESPECIALLY in the RESTAURANT industry. if YOU WORK you should be able to AFFORD to LIVE without holding TWO OR THREE JOBS, and spending most of your days slaving away just to TRY to make ends meet, or being ON GOVERNMENT SUPPORT and FOODSTAMPS.


How screwed are we as a country.


yup we are screwed up. and one of the MAIN REASONS the economy is so screwed up is that people can not AFFORD to buy stuff without BORROWING MONEY (like credit cards), and thus not buying stuff that would CREATE JOBS. in order to get the economy going people need to be able to AFFORD to buy and use services. can't sell something without someone being able to afford it. the ONLY BLAME the GOVERNMENT has is the fact they have LET companies pay people so poorly while raking in the profits. if COMPANIES were to PAY employees MORE than those employees would BUY MORE thus providing yet MORE JOBS. the BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE ECONOMY IS LOW PAY.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Oh, I really HAVE to mention something else...

For everyone SUDDENLY worried and whining about how Walmart workers take food stamps? Where was all that outrage or even a passing care or thought as the stories come out on the sheer %'s of MILITARY families on Food Stamps? Do we ever....EVER...hear of "living wage" debates for our armed forces? Hell no... No one cares then, it seems.

So the selective outrage over food stamps from workers is just that. SO selective, it's sickening. Go chat up a married PFC or Corporal and see how happy his finances are back home. That IS our own Government and OUR own Congress controlling the pay. No need to cross lines or establish new precedent......yet, again, the outrage is HIGHLY selective.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven
Furthermore ...

Every time one of these threads gets started business owners, yes we know who you are, start whining and complaining about how hard they got it, let me make this very clear.

If you are paying people poverty wages with no medical insurance the dilemma we are facing is YOUR fault.

Oh, yes it is ...

You want to complain about food-stamps, Obama-care, the deficit and high taxes and guess what? Because you wanted to kick the can down the road, someone had to pick up YOUR slack and guess who it was? All of us, yes ... even you. Your business is costing ALL OF US money. So quit complaining.

ALL OF US are reaping what you sowed.

Thanks, BTW ...


I agree. If business owners bitch, whine, moan and complain -- maybe they shouldn't be in business for themselves. Maybe, just maybe they ought to work for someone else instead of owning a business. No one is forcing them to employ other people.

If the "cost of business" is to high because you are actually having to pay people a respectable wage, then close your business. If you can't have sympathy for the people that cook your food, clean your offices, watch your kids, and keep food on store shelves -- then I can have absolutely no sympathy for you (business owner).



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven
you are clinging to some absurd "ideal" that if a cashier or a floor sweeper made 20 bucks an hour, the Doctors are going to get pissed off and demand more money because of some class you took

It's called INFLATION. Educate yourself. And that 'some class' I took ... economics and business economics.

Oh .. and if cashiers are making $20 an hour for a job that has no requirement for skills or education ... then they are paid just fine and shouldn't get a raise. So what are you whining about? Answer .. nothing.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Oh, I really HAVE to mention something else...

For everyone SUDDENLY worried and whining about how Walmart workers take food stamps? Where was all that outrage or even a passing care or thought as the stories come out on the sheer %'s of MILITARY families on Food Stamps? Do we ever....EVER...hear of "living wage" debates for our armed forces? Hell no... No one cares then, it seems.

So the selective outrage over food stamps from workers is just that. SO selective, it's sickening. Go chat up a married PFC or Corporal and see how happy his finances are back home. That IS our own Government and OUR own Congress controlling the pay. No need to cross lines or establish new precedent......yet, again, the outrage is HIGHLY selective.


Now that is just double dipping.

Military members can eat at the mess hall on post, and they have access to discounted groceries from AAFES. The housing allowance (BHA) in my area is upwards of $1,500 a month for an enlisted Staff Sgt. That would rent a two bedroom apt, or pay the mortgage on a nice 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath home. Work clothes? Oh you get an allowance to spend on uniforms too.

The problem is, these enlisted soldiers marry these baby factories with production line uterus's. The food stamp program takes into account how many mouths you have to feed.

My friend (a Tech Sgt.) makes enough for him and his wife to live very, very comfortably off base. He practically has no real bills of his own except food, utilities (gas/electric), and gasoline for his stupidly large jeep. (Has anyone noticed that enlisted guys LOVE to buy huge trucks?)

No, IMO people in the military should not get food stamps. The military should have it's own program to take care of it's own -- and maybe encourage the use of birth control too.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Tazkven
you are clinging to some absurd "ideal" that if a cashier or a floor sweeper made 20 bucks an hour, the Doctors are going to get pissed off and demand more money because of some class you took

It's called INFLATION. Educate yourself. And that 'some class' I took ... economics and business economics.

Oh .. and if cashiers are making $20 an hour for a job that has no requirement for skills or education ... then they are paid just fine and shouldn't get a raise. So what are you whining about? Answer .. nothing.



Originally posted by Tazkven
Now show me proof that this is ruining the economy, that the doctor's are in a uproar or even a shred of proof these Cashiers making 20 bucks an hour is making the price of good's go up.

It's ok, I'll wait



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Tazkven
 


My point here isn't to defend Walmart either way. I hauled freight in and out of their Distribution Centers for most of my career and they are *NOT* my favorite people. Cheesy, nitpicking, penny pinching little scrooges. Personally, I won't feel bad to see their corporate fortunes fall over time. Perhaps even crash at some point.

My disagreement is a basic one. Equal Protection under the Law. Do we watch the STATE single out Walmart for a real special kind of hate or do we watch them single out that whole sector of the economy where non-union labor is used? (what this is ALL really about and has been for many years of non-stop fighting).

If Government is to nationalize American business and industry to the level of dictating payroll policy to SOME and not to OTHERS? We might as well hoist the Hammer and Sickle and call each other Comrade. We ARE in a full state of central Government control over every aspect of every life in this nation at that point. They may not have USED it to touch everyone, but that will have established it for now and forever.

That's one hell of a thing to cede to Washington's central authority over a paycheck not being what people want it to be. Especially when, again, Walmart is following the NORMAL PRACTICES for business in the United States, among their sector of the economy. Sure...SOME pay more. It is NOT Government's place or authority on ANY level to get into choosing winners by economic policy or punitive measure against others they "think" deserve it.

...but again, Walmart is extra special for all this attention ...rather than being intellectually honest with the topic like D.C. COULD be and just say *EVERYONE* is being raised on pay, period. That at least makes it Constitutional for that equal protections clause.


Wow, well said brother ...

On that level I believe you make great points about a great many things with far reaching consequences, maybe some of which we cannot see. I must concede I am a Skilled Trade Union Journeyman working in a Unionized factory and understand exactly what you are saying, although maybe from a different angle.

I know you dislike Unions =p

But in the end I still blame corporate greed and the Walton's for all of this and I believe they brought what is happening upon themselves.

Sooner or later somebody had to stand up and do something about it, corporate greed that is and us tax payers having to pay for the Walton's greed.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Oh, I really HAVE to mention something else...

For everyone SUDDENLY worried and whining about how Walmart workers take food stamps? Where was all that outrage or even a passing care or thought as the stories come out on the sheer %'s of MILITARY families on Food Stamps? Do we ever....EVER...hear of "living wage" debates for our armed forces? Hell no... No one cares then, it seems.

So the selective outrage over food stamps from workers is just that. SO selective, it's sickening. Go chat up a married PFC or Corporal and see how happy his finances are back home. That IS our own Government and OUR own Congress controlling the pay. No need to cross lines or establish new precedent......yet, again, the outrage is HIGHLY selective.


*raises hand*

I care and still do ... Start a thread and we can battle it out there to = )



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
That company isn't hurting. They can afford to pay their workers more.

Just because they COULD, doesn't mean that they SHOULD. The purpose of a business is to make money and pay the stock holders with profits ... not to give it away with uber-high salaries that unskilled/uneducated workers don't earn.


Originally posted by Tazkven
Why can't someone who works for a multi-billion dollar company EARN a fair wage?

Minimum wage IS a fair wage for unskilled/uneducated starting level positions in a company.
Not every job is supposed to be for people to earn a 'living wage' on.


Originally posted by Tazkven
What the hell is wrong with you people?

The same could be said about you ... but we already know what is wrong with your thought process. You think that because a company is successful that it 'owes' the people in starting level positions in the company more money than they are worth. That simply isn't true.


I"m seeing a lot of far left attitude on this thread .... if someone else earns money then the folks here think they have a right to pick the pocket of the big money earner. Guess what ... that isn't your money. That's theft. You don't have a right to it. Neither do the entry level workers. If people want to EARN more money, then they should learn skills, learn a trade, or go to college. They need to work their way up from the starting level positions. It's just that simple.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Wow... That's one of the more hateful posts I've seen in a good awhile regarding our men and women in the enlisted ranks. I'll assume...HOPE...you just had no idea how much or how little they are actually paid to get shot at?

2013 Military Pay Scale Chart - Effective January 1st, 2013

Your Staff Sargent example is pushing the high side of enlisted ranks and, as the next piece notes, at the level most "promote out" of the need to get Government help to keep families fed.


A Department of Agriculture report last year showed that more than 5,000 of the 48 million Americans receiving Supplementary Nutritional Assistance Program (food stamps) listed their employment status as "active duty military," the Pentagon officials said.

"Military members who receive SNAP tend to be made up of members in junior pay grades with larger than average household sizes," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman.

"Military members normally 'promote out' of the need for additional subsistence benefits, due to the corresponding raises in basic pay and other allowances as one moves to a higher pay grade," Christensen said in an e-mail statement.
Source

So, basically, when a Walmart employee has to take food stamps we should be enraged and demand change by Government ripping right through more boundaries between State and Private life. Yet....when our troops are paid crap on a cracker, they just married baby factories and/or are gaming the system. (facepalm)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
So...because Walmart has money, you are, by rights, entitled to what you think is your fair share of it? :shk:

That is the attitude that a lot of people have. They think that because others earn it .. they somehow have a right to it. They think that because others earn it ... they somehow have a right to dictate their 'moral values' onto others as to what they should do with that money. It's obnoxious. And it shows a severe lack of understanding about economics.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven
A simple No, I have no proof of any of this would suffice bro

I said it ... INFLATION. That ruins economies. Learn to read. Go to school and get educated.
BTW .. I"m not a 'bro'. :shk:



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Losers always hate winners so lets make winning illegal and share the spoils of the winners.

That won't last long



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Tazkven
 


It's good to reach a point of some common ground, I must say. We'll never agree on all for this topic, or even most..perhaps. We do agree on corporate greed and runaway focus on not just profit but higher profit every quarter or the specter of failure for not showing it, driving a good deal of what has gone wrong in our nation.

We disagree on the solution ..or more to the point, whom would be in charge of it...but not the problem. I will say that without qualification.

BTW... I don't hate Unions.
Private sector ones are a personal issue and, in many cases, a personal problem. Not all...and some, I'd imagine, do great by their members. Mileage sure varies. It's PUBLIC sector unions I blow my top over. That's raping a captive audience that cannot, under any circumstances, do anything about the rape. We just have to take it and say 'Yessir, may I have another sir?'. Private unions, we can at least buy other products or shop elsewhere, right?




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join