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

perhaps a reward system would be better. like incentivize the companies to be exceedingly good to their people. since most megacorps don't end up paying much (if any) taxes, it'll have to be better than tax relief. maybe, for the more they pay their own employees, the cheaper they can buy their goods as regards import fees. hmm, that might not work either as megacorps most likely already have little (if any) import fees.

you gotta figure if they can save money on the cost of putting goods in their stores, this reflects in cheaper prices of goods, which then is passed down to the customer who can be lured into their store to buy the exact same item that the other store is selling for more. more customers equals more sales, like people who buy stuff they didn't really intend to buy when they walked in, but upon seeing it, think --- ooo, i have always wanted one of those. sale. cha-ching. more sales equals more profits and more profits is a reward for being good to their employees.

hmmm

any suggestions?

p.s. there would have to be different incentives for different types of businesses, too. and this starts to take on the spectre of being an entirely new branch of government, with miles of red tape and interference

one more thought: they are probably losing alot of money right now, in the small business permit offices, as the fewer small businesses buying permits, the less money available to justify the offices that handle the permits. maybe the state and federal level offices that handle business permits and licenses, should be overhauled to reflect the actual necessity of their employees and then use those employees to create and maintain these incentive programs, so you aren't losing any employees. and since you don't have to hire any new employees until the business permits and license demand, goes up again, you save money and upon the rise in new business, create even more jobs to replace those that transistioned to the incentive programs.

thinking outloud, mostly

MystikMushroom
An ironic thing is, how many of us complain about how evil Walmart is, yet still find ourselves shopping there anyway?

I never did until I moved here. Right now I am forced to shop at Wal-Mart or drive 30 minutes for my groceries. All grocery stores here suck too because of Wal-Mart. MA has strong anti-Wal-Mart laws that prevent them from being grocery stores, and the real supermarkets thrive. Food quality is horrible too, produce is just .. ugh.

OccamsRazor04

MystikMushroom
An ironic thing is, how many of us complain about how evil Walmart is, yet still find ourselves shopping there anyway?

I never did until I moved here. Right now I am forced to shop at Wal-Mart or drive 30 minutes for my groceries. All grocery stores here suck too because of Wal-Mart. MA has strong anti-Wal-Mart laws that prevent them from being grocery stores, and the real supermarkets thrive. Food quality is horrible too, produce is just .. ugh.

If it was important to you, you would drive the 30 minutes. Doing otherwise is tacit approval of Walmarts business methods.

bigfatfurrytexan

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.

I like this idea, a lot.

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.

Do you find this to be a problem? Once a company has shareholders it has a legal duty to seek out the highest profits and return on shareholder investment possible. A lot of really bad things can be justified in the name of higher profits. Outsourcing jobs, lowering compensation, government subsidies, and so on. I think that if we simply got rid of the requirement for publicly traded companies to seek to maximize shareholder returns things would turn around. Shareholders can invest with whoever they want, if they don't like that one company wants to manufacture everything in the US in order to provide jobs at the cost of having 30% lower profits, then they can invest elsewhere rather than forcing the company to outsource.

reply to post by Aazadan


There is a balance between shareholder input and sanity. I think we are missing that balance.

I do agree that a shareholder should have some interest in the direction of the company. Should there be a managing interest? That is hard to say....there is ownership issues at stake. If I own 60% of a corporation, I am the one who owns more than anyone else.

I don't have an answer. But I agree with your observation. We need to divorce shareholder sentiment from management direction. HOw that could happen....i dunno.