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: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


It isn't about not liking them ...

I have said it a hundred times, it is about us the tax payers having to pay for their food stamps and medicaid because Wal-Mart DOES NOT pay a livable wage.

You can throw a whole slew of other businesses in their too. Anyone who qualifies for government assistance is NOT making a livable wage PERIOD.

Why is it our responsibility as tax payers to supplement the income of workers who work for a multi-billion dollar company?

I could care less about what the Walton's make or how they live until my tax money is being used to support their workers, something very, very wrong here.




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I never said they aren't entitled to 'fair wages'. In fact ... what I'm arguing IS for fair wages ... and not the unfair INFLATED wages that people here are calling for. Your argument is damn near a pro-theft from those who are successful remark.


Working 37 hours per week, because the company has refused to allow a 40hr week, and having to bring in a roommate to help pay for living expenses is not a fair wage, especially considering the average American now earns roughly half of what Americans earned 40 years ago for the same amount of work.

Sorry, but I'm not going to agree that people should live in poverty while working the same amount, if not more, hours than a company head.

I mean, if wanting people to be able to pay bills, buy food without government assistance, and take an annual trip with the family after working as long and hard as anyone else in this country is "theft", then I guess I'd better throw on a bandana and bandolier.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven
it is about us the tax payers having to pay for their food stamps and medicaid because Wal-Mart DOES NOT pay a livable wage.

It's about tax payers having to pay for their food stamps and medicaid because THOSE PEOPLE didn't stay in school or didn't make an effort to learn a trade or because they pumped out 5 babies and didn't know who the daddies were .... etc etc etc.

Walmart says 'We have jobs if anyone wants them. This is what we pay'.
People can say 'Yes, I'll take it' or 'No, I don't want it'. It's that simple.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 




Paying employees that work in your place of business is not "giving it away."
Wal-Mart's CEO, Mike Duke, received $20 million this past year as he gave himself yet another pay raise, while his distribution workers earned 10% less than the market standard.


One of my idols summed it up best so I’ll share his words….maybe something will sink in!!










The "you're uneducated, thus not entitled to fair wages" argument is damn near a pro-slavery remark.
The problem is that the definition of “FAIR” is constantly changed; it’s used by a certain group in this country (I won’t name names) to buy votes. We’ve got to understand that they have no intention of helping anyone but themselves!



Do they care that their policies put companies out of business and employees out of work? Do they care about inflation? Take a look at prices in Australia where minimum wage is $20 per hour. Take a look at prices in Canada where they have a high national sales tax. There can be negative consequences when you manipulate the marketplace.



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



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
So..


They'll get 2x as much money to spend right back at Walmart, there-fore more goods purchased and more money in the pockets of Chinese state-gov't so they can buy more North American resources. (Like my company)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Tazkven
 

Oh .. union dude ... that explains it.
If the company you work for can afford it and is willing to pay it ... fine. But no one should demand that walmart overpay entry level employees simply because the company is successful.


Well, Wal-Mart can afford it then why are the tax payers paying to support Wal-Marts entry level employees? I fail to see the logic in your "economics", sorry ... I don't.

By you're logic, all entry level unskilled workers should require government assistance to survive, putting triple the amount of people we have now on government assistance thus raising our taxes ... great plan!



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
Working 37 hours per week, because the company has refused to allow a 40hr week, and having to bring in a roommate to help pay for living expenses is not a fair wage,

It's a fair wage for that position. If people want to make more money .. then they need to learn a trade, or go to school, or gain experience on the job and move up from the starting positions.

You people are acting like these starting positions are a career or something.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
THOSE PEOPLE didn't stay in school or didn't make an effort to learn a trade or because they pumped out 5 babies and didn't know who the daddies were .... etc etc etc.


Wow!

"Profile" much?

I admit defeat, you win!



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Tazkven
 



By you're logic, all entry level unskilled workers should require government assistance to survive, putting triple the amount of people we have now on government assistance thus raising our taxes ... great plan!


How about they work as quickly as possible to better themselves and become SKILLED workers.

Is that to much to ask of able-bodied Americans today?


While they're at it, how about they stop demonizing the JOB CREATORS in this country!!


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



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
The thing is, some people will never be able to learn/gain high value skills.

Here's the cold hard truth - that's not walmarts problem. They aren't a charity. They are a company. The purpose of a company is to earn money for it's shareholders. That's it. It's not required to overpay entry level employees simply because it's a successful company.


It's not overpaying them, it's keeping up with inflation. Someone doing the same shelf stocking job in the 60's could afford a much better lifestyle than today.

What I am saying is that in some of these neighborhoods/communities these people's only real choice of job is Walmart. They don't care about higher education or learning a trade -- they need immediate funds to buy baby formula, socks, ect.

And no, it's not Walmart's problem about educating people, and no they aren't a charity. Their greed, however, and ever increasing profit margins compared to the inflation index are KILLING a sector of the middle class.

We've let these corporations stagnate their wages for decades, and yet our inflation levels are rising steadily. 20 years ago I could have bought my home for 1/3 of what I paid for it. And, 20 years ago I would only be making a a couple of dollars less than I am now.

The disparity between wage/inflation is the real issue -- not the actual minimum wage. We all should be making about twice what we all are:


The minimum wage should have reached $21.72 an hour in 2012 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity, according to a March study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by Garkiniss
 
I actually DO live in a community where exactly that occurred- difference being that people of the community had enough of it and fought back! We still have Walmart, but we also have many, many competing businesses that do extremely well now with at least a dozen new retailers opening within just the last year.



And how exactly did these upstart community businesses "compete" with Wal-Mart?
Wal-Mart can actually dictate its buying price because it buys in such massive volumes. There isn't a privately owned business on the planet that can compete.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You people are acting like these starting positions are a career or something.



With all the jobs lost to "outsourcing" due to "free trade" they actually are for some, wake up!!



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Tazkven
 



By you're logic, all entry level unskilled workers should require government assistance to survive, putting triple the amount of people we have now on government assistance thus raising our taxes ... great plan!


How about they work as quickly as possible to better themselves and become SKILLED workers.

Is that to much to ask of able-bodied Americans today?


While they're at it, how about they stop demonizing the JOB CREATORS in this country!!


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


Like I said earlier, lets just end the whole debate by making robots to do all these "unskilled" jobs. Then, we can send all the newly unemployed people to colonize Mars; because colonizing it will be hard (and that is something that these people apparently need to learn).




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
reply to post by Hefficide
 


A SuperCenter with average of 300 "associates" working 2000 hr/each is 600,000 hr at $4.50/hr over minimum wage is $2.7 million/year. So if by moving the store location by 2-3 miles they would save that much, do I think they would do it?? Yup. I would. Might get better clientele anyway.


Moving the store 2 - 3 miles away wouldn't benefit Walmart. 2 - 3 miles away at every corner there's already a Walmart in the DC, MD, VA area.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven
Wal-Mart can afford it then why are the tax payers paying to support Wal-Marts entry level employees?

- Just because walmart can afford to pay more doesn't mean that it has to or that it should.
- Walmart having to pay more for entry level positions simply because they are successful, is a penalty on being successful.
- Walmart shouldn't have to overpay workers simply because those workers couldn't be bothered to stay in school, or couldn't be bothered to take birth control, or couldn't be bothered to learn a trade. It's not walmarts responsibility to be a charity company and give away it's profits.
- Taxpayers are screwed over by these people .. not by walmart. It's not walmarts fault. Walmart has no obligation to give away money in inflated paychecks.


By you're logic, all entry level unskilled workers should require government assistance to survive,

What part of 'entry level' don't you get?? These are not career jobs. They are entry level positions for people without skills and without education. They don't deserve big money for the positions. They haven't earned it.

Blame the unskilled and uneducated people for sucking your tax money.
Don't blame a successful corporation for being successful.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Love 'em or hate 'em, we shouldn't overlook the fact that government is singling out a particular business, and forcing their wage decisions beyond the current law. How does the law define "certain" businesses to target with this?

And if you're living in DC, (probably the highest cost of living next to NYC), and making minimum wage, you are seriously doing something VERY wrong (simply put, you're an idiot). In this market, I'm sure though, that Walmart would find no shortage of folks wanting to make minimum wage.

Here's what Walmart will do though. They'll go to another area to build their new stores. Anybody making less than the new requirement (in the existing stores in the district) will have their hours cut down to where the increase will net to zero.

So, in the end, the city gains nothing (and loses a bunch of would-be jobs), nor do the employees they are trying to help. Good job!



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You people are acting like these starting positions are a career or something.

With all the jobs lost to "outsourcing" due to "free trade" they actually are for some, wake up!!


Dude ... then those people need to get off their backends and learn a trade, or go to school.
(or stop popping out baby after baby when they can't afford it) etc etc.
It's not walmarts responsibility to over pay people simply because those people are in
starting positions. This isn't communism and we don't penalize a company simply because
it's successful.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 



There isn't a privately owned business on the planet that can compete.


That's why the only successful businesses will be niche ones, selling products or services Walmart doesn't offer.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Please watch "The Walmart effect" every thing you just used to defend walmart happens when walmart comes to a city meaning they kill mom and pop shops in the surrounding areas so why worry about an increase in minimum wage. Successful lol they rob their workers blind. Ever wonder why there are soooo many checkout lanes and so few open? They under staff on purpose, They force their workers to go off the clock and still work over time. They then schedule them fewer hours next week to account for the pay meaning they add their over time to the next weeks paycheck for regular hours " great people" regular hour pay for overtime work. o yeah full time at walmart is 28 hour a week like i said previously.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


This is very simple to combat. WalMart doesn't deploy to that area, which forces people to drive out of the city to purchase at Walmart. Plus, it requires those working at Walmart to drive that same distance.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot DC council.

Now, the next step is for them to force Walmart to open there, or remain there.
What a joke this Govt has become.


Only until Target takes advantage of this and moves right on in. Then people go to Target and pay their normal prices. Meanwhile, Walmart loses customers because Target is closer and the prices are the same.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join