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.

 

Wal-Mart to Employees: Donate Food to Coworkers w/o Enough to Eat

page: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

undo
reply to post by Kali74
 


well do you have an explanation for why there's only walmarts now?
let's see how that works:

1. make the small businesses go bankrupt by bringing in mega corps who have nearly unlimited funds to bankrupt their competition.
2. create loopholes so the mega corps can write off all their taxes while making sure small business pays out the nose.
3. remove regulations from the globalists but make sure the local businesses have so many regulations and have to pay such exorbitant sums to even start a business that few if any, will ever succeed. you don't want them to succeed anyway because capitalism is evil. for everybody but the globalists, of course. and you agree to the globalists being rich cause they support socialism.

rinse wash repeat.


What are you on about? You're correct up until you start blaming Socialism for this.... this is capitalism heavily tinged with fascism (look up ALEC if you really want answers). Move on to someone else, your ignorance is getting extremely annoying.




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I am basing that on what my relatives (especially older people) have told me about the regime. They lived under it. As I said many older people do not look back very badly at that time, as currently poor people, people under pension live worse than back then, at least when it comes to affording basics compared to back then- gas, electricity, basic foods produced locally (potatoes, carrots etc) , books(including academic) were incredibly cheap. Even when one was at very low salary he could afford lots of these every month easily. Rent was incedibly cheap, while more luxurious items - exotic foods (bananas, oranges etc), cars, foreign clothes, tech were very expensive etc. For getting a pair of Adidas sneakers, my uncle had to work all summer long. There was near to none assortment on things one bought. Nearly every kid was wearing similar clothes, as that was what stores had for sale.

In comparison salaries and costs - low salary 50-100 rubles, specialist 100-150, government-owned company leader - 200-400 rubles rough salares. Near to fixed salaries for all spots, although there was lots of corruption and non-official jobs

Costs from 70s - especially called and asked just for you
- rent - 3 bedroom=13-14 rubles, smaller ones significantly less 2-5 for one-two bedroom. Eating at restoraunt 0.1-0.3 rubles a meal (one for soup, three for large meal) , large rye bread 0.1 rubles, liter of milk 0.1 rubles fiction books 0.1 rubles a book, academic books 0.4 rubles a book. Electricity 0.04 rubles a month, 0.02 in some houses, gas 0.4 rubles a liter. Car- 3000-10,000 rubles, radio 200 rubles, TV 500 rubles, apartment 4000-10,000 rubles. Coffee 5 rubles a kilo, bananas/oranges 1-2 rubles, Adidas sneakers 150-200 rubles.Half a liter of vodka - 2 rubles.
Even for 50 rubles you could get a lot, considering how cheap rent and food were.

Due to nearly inexistent rent and utility prices and very cheap food, poor people could live very well compared to nowadays. I can not imagine how people on pension or people who earn near to minim salary can live currently, considering cheapest rent places (small apartments) are over 50% of minimum salary, while food is also very costly. For very poor back then was significantly easier than nowadays, as they did not have to worry about having to go streets or starve. For myself in a better insulated house in winters, the cost of keeping the aparment warm is more than minimum salary...

I do not justify or support such system Overally these times were not good, although I believe certain elements should be tried to apply in current democratic systems (as they already are in many countries) to ensure that even poorest members do not have to starve or live in cold or streets.

edit on 20-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


Well, again, your considerable depth of opinion is in direct contrast to what I saw and knew of the Soviet Union in daily news, conversations with Russian Ex-pats since and the general experience of living the tail end of the days of the Soviet Empire. It was quite a system to see fall and good riddens to it. All of it. I've yet to hear anyone that lived under that system as well as living under Western systems since....long for the old days or suggest that living under Soviet Communism was a better situation.

So, that was why I was asking for specific examples of how the system worked prior to the fall of the Wall and the day the world changed from it. We could debate opinions from 1st hand living the times or 2nd hand hearing about them for pages....direct and literal examples of economics under that system for daily life and function of commerce is very instructive though. I take it you didn't have any of that available?



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Now McDonalds is telling their employees to sell their xmas presents on ebay for extra cash and breaking up their food into smaller pieces to make it look and feel like more.

Does this not set off warning bells screaming in your head that soon we are to call the Waltons by noble titles and request audiences with McDonalds managers if your fries are cold?



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Cabin
 


Well, again, your considerable depth of opinion is in direct contrast to what I saw and knew of the Soviet Union in daily news, conversations with Russian Ex-pats since and the general experience of living the tail end of the days of the Soviet Empire. It was quite a system to see fall and good riddens to it. All of it. I've yet to hear anyone that lived under that system as well as living under Western systems since....long for the old days or suggest that living under Soviet Communism was a better situation.

So, that was why I was asking for specific examples of how the system worked prior to the fall of the Wall and the day the world changed from it. We could debate opinions from 1st hand living the times or 2nd hand hearing about them for pages....direct and literal examples of economics under that system for daily life and function of commerce is very instructive though. I take it you didn't have any of that available?


For average citizen it is easier nowadays in Western Countries, of course.

I am talking about poorest members a´la 15-20% lowest-salaries in certain western countries, especially in post-soviet countries and countries with weak social safety nets.

Economics during these days was extremely hidden. The system was very corrupt after all and nobody, at least among common people, knew the actual numbers, as these were not announced publicly.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Kali74
Now McDonalds is telling their employees to sell their xmas presents on ebay for extra cash and breaking up their food into smaller pieces to make it look and feel like more.

Does this not set off warning bells screaming in your head that soon we are to call the Waltons by noble titles and request audiences with McDonalds managers if your fries are cold?


not to worry, christmas is such a bourgeois concept anyway. we'll just outlaw it and take over mcdonalds by force, fire all the employees, kill anyone that resists, and make it into the people's mcdonalds which will no longer sell greasy burgers or shakes but soup and soup and maybe some soup or gruel perhaps.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




But what about my eariler story. My wife works in a state run mental hospital as a nurse. They do something similar. Should we not expect our government to put as much effort into the care of mental patients as it does drafting gun legislation? Would the "unlivable wage" issue in her state facility not be just as negligent on the part of our mental services? Why can the State of Texas HHS facilities do this kind of thing, but Wal Mart can't?

Wal Mart makes a fortune becaose of the money spent there by folks like you and I. The same folks who for years have complained about how Wal Mart treats their people.


Wait, you're saying that the state of Texas is starving mental patients but that they are paying comparable wages as Wal-Mart to the nurses and staff?

I think Wal-Mart makes it's fortune by making sure they give up as little profit as possible anywhere. Even if it means starving most of their employees.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




But what about my eariler story. My wife works in a state run mental hospital as a nurse. They do something similar. Should we not expect our government to put as much effort into the care of mental patients as it does drafting gun legislation? Would the "unlivable wage" issue in her state facility not be just as negligent on the part of our mental services? Why can the State of Texas HHS facilities do this kind of thing, but Wal Mart can't?

Wal Mart makes a fortune becaose of the money spent there by folks like you and I. The same folks who for years have complained about how Wal Mart treats their people.


Wait, you're saying that the state of Texas is starving mental patients but that they are paying comparable wages as Wal-Mart to the nurses and staff?

I think Wal-Mart makes it's fortune by making sure they give up as little profit as possible anywhere. Even if it means starving most of their employees.


No. I am saying that mental hospitals under pay people that are charged with helping provide therapy to our mentally ill. That my wife recounts the past 10 years where Christmas sees a hospital hosted drive to gather food and gifts to give to "needy employees". They do exactly what Wal Mart does. Except Wal Mart employees are not charged with providing therapy to other humans. And the failure of Wal Mart to provide there services adequately has yet to end up in a senator in Virginia being stabbed by his son, or a school in Connecticut from being shot up by a disturbed young man, or a movie theater in Denver being shot up by a different young man.

We worry too damn much about Wal Mart. Its like we kick them out of boredom. Meanwhile, the exact same thing people are here bitching about happens in other industry's, other facilities. And in THOSE facilities it would appear the results to humanity are markedly more disastrous.

In short: until we pay mental health workers a livable wage, each one of us should be ashamed. Ashamed for what we allow to happen to our own mentally ill neighbors. And ashamed that we worry about how much money Wal Mart makes instead of worrying about other humans who are crying out so loud for help that they are murdering our children, senators, and other family.
edit on 20-11-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


OK, just clarifying. I guess what this always boils down to is the corporate or institutional morality so to speak. They have to want to be supportive and care about their employees or all is down the tubes.

A place I worked a while back was like that when I started but degenerated. When I started working there even their temp worker janitors earned a living wage with medical benefits. I know because I started through the same temp agency. Once full time things were even better.

Any charity type program, food drive, etc was matched by the company, simply fill out an email send it to HR and it happened. Then came the unleashed greed and the company's moral compass went south. Kind of like Wal-Mart and many others. They lost any corporate moral stance they ever had.

With government institutions I'd think it a little different, we get what we vote for or are tricked into believing we voted for.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


OK, just clarifying. I guess what this always boils down to is the corporate or institutional morality so to speak. They have to want to be supportive and care about their employees or all is down the tubes.

A place I worked a while back was like that when I started but degenerated. When I started working there even their temp worker janitors earned a living wage with medical benefits. I know because I started through the same temp agency. Once full time things were even better.

Any charity type program, food drive, etc was matched by the company, simply fill out an email send it to HR and it happened. Then came the unleashed greed and the company's moral compass went south. Kind of like Wal-Mart and many others. They lost any corporate moral stance they ever had.

With government institutions I'd think it a little different, we get what we vote for or are tricked into believing we voted for.


"Corporate morals" relate strictly to shareholder sentiment. If a corporation undertakes philanthropy at the cost of shareholder dividends, the executives find themselves in court, being sued by the shareholders they had at one time served.

Have a couple of tough quarters on the earnings report and most corporate execs will throttle down the community involvement budgets quite harshly (along wth travel, continuing ed, etc). From a business standpoint, it makes sense. Its just that many in our country don't understand business, and don't know how to follow the money.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




"Corporate morals" relate strictly to shareholder sentiment. If a corporation undertakes philanthropy at the cost of shareholder dividends, the executives find themselves in court, being sued by the shareholders they had at one time served.


Not quite always the case and it didn't happen where I was at. I remember the bean-counters freaking out about the fact that every floor of every building (lots of them) had break-rooms with free beverages of every imaginable size and type. Free food and goodies flowed at almost any excuse. When the accountants complained the CEO said "Too bad, it stays." That stuff remains to this day.

Some things are more important than just the money and some CEO's (very few true) understand that a companies people are it's most valuable asset.
edit on 921pm3838pm32013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

solongandgoodnight
Blood sucking, greedy, heartless b@st@rds. They probably don't have a clue as to why this is wrong they are so blinded by their own greed.



Hmmmmmm.....to me, it's simply of suggestion that your charity can help the people you interact with each day first....as in "Charity begins at home".

It would be great for morale too.

As far you your other comment....well, when you grow up, hopefully, it will be clearer to you.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The owners of wal mart and their cronies make me wish The Purge became a true event and that the first year the haves would not "Have Security" yet.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


From a businessmans perspective:

giving stuff to employees should have two goals:

- be timely in presentation (i.e., be useful)
- return on the investment

If I am giving food to employees, as a smart business man, I am doing it at times that I am needing to achieve a result. Example: Hey....think you can work a couple hours of OT tonight? Im ordering pizza in for the All Star Crew that stays to help me. Another example: we are committed to making sure that fresh coffee and donuts is availalbe while you are here at work....we know how difficult focus can be while telemarketing for 8 hours a day"

What I am not likely going to do, as a smart business man:

"We are putting unlimited groceries in the breakroom for you guys to graze on."

Taking care of your people isn't just giving them all sorts of benefits. Its also making sure you don't outspend your means, and that the company stays healthy so that employment can continue (and possibly grow).

A lesson I learned as a young manager: never hire more than you absolutely need, unless you want to have to lay them off. I was not well liked the day I learned that lesson....and I have never made that mistake again.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

solongandgoodnight
Blood sucking, greedy, heartless b@st@rds. They probably don't have a clue as to why this is wrong they are so blinded by their own greed.


And they are only at the No.2 slot of the Fortune 500 list, making £15 billion profit each year.

money.cnn.com...

The Federal government should have the right to garnish a corporations profits if any of their employees qualify for financial assistance from the government.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 

Thia country has depended on low wage workers for long enough, I cant wait for the revolution to begin, it's like im already fighting just to keep my head above water, so what's the difference.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

ArchAngel_X
So a store that sells food (among other items) is soliciting its workforce to provide food for the workers of said store who can't afford to buy enough food.

I was going to type a follow-up to that statement, but my mind is blank. It just can't process any rationale beyond that.



The Onion: "Walmart embarks on pro-Onionization drive: Real Life at Walmart, Before you read it on The Onion!"
edit on 20-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

stormcell
The Federal government should have the right to garnish a corporations profits if any of their employees qualify for financial assistance from the government.



THIS ^^^^ I agree wholeheartedly.

In my company our profits "suffer" so that we can take care of our employees by paying fair wages and bonuses. We just paid off an employees deductible (on insurance we pay 73% of) so the could have surgery. Meeting human need is a duty of leadership. And we should full expect a corporation with an army of employees to exhibit leadership.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

solongandgoodnight

Blood sucking, greedy, heartless b@st@rds. They probably don't have a clue as to why this is wrong they are so blinded by their own greed.


DCPatriot

Hmmmmmm.....to me, it's simply of suggestion that your charity can help the people you interact with each day first....as in "Charity begins at home".


If corporations are people too, charity begins at the billionaire's home too.



It would be great for morale too.


Oh, I'm sure it would.

In the barricades.


As far you your other comment....well, when you grow up, hopefully, it will be clearer to you.


I've grown up. They don't literally suck blood.
edit on 20-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stormcell
 


that is flipping brilliant. although adding more regs onto businesses, enforced by gov, especially that branch of globalist banking known as the irs, is, in the long run, probably not a very good idea. next thing it will be, if your employees don't live in a home with sufficient room for all its family members, you should be forced to buy them a new home or foot the bill for renovations. hehe it's just already way out of control, thusly why most of our businesses jumped ship and moved to places where they don't have to pay even a tenth of american minimum wage (and also why only megacorps can survive here).
edit on 20-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join