Walmart Treating Their Employees Even Worse

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by seabag
Please explain how well your business would fare if your 12 employees formed a union and demanded $25 per hour, full medical benefits, 4 weeks vacation, 401k and 35 hour work week?

That's a straw man argument. The simple fact is that any company that is unionised has brought it on itself.

edit on 14-6-2013 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because, eh?

True....the company either pays employees too much already with benefits, or they pay to little with promise of future benefits...either way when employees start rallying to get unionized the company is screwed....hence why some close down and move out of country/state.

AND YOU WONDER WHY BIG COMPANIES OUTSOURCE LABOUR TO OTHER COUNTRIES?!?!?!?

I rest my case

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by seabag
Please explain how well your business would fare if your 12 employees formed a union and demanded $25 per hour, full medical benefits, 4 weeks vacation, 401k and 35 hour work week?

That's a straw man argument. The simple fact is that any company that is unionised has brought it on itself.

edit on 14-6-2013 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because, eh?

True....the company either pays employees too much already with benefits, or they pay to little with promise of future benefits...either way when employees start rallying to get unionized the company is screwed....hence why some close down and move out of country/state.

AND YOU WONDER WHY BIG COMPANIES OUTSOURCE LABOUR TO OTHER COUNTRIES?!?!?!?

I rest my case

edit on 15-6-2013 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)

How do you explain companies that outsource without being threatened by their employees unionizing? Greed perhaps, with no regard to the employees that will be laid off.

I rest my case....

reply to post by olaru12

How do you explain companies that outsource without being threatened by their employees unionizing? Greed perhaps, with no regard to the employees that will be laid off.

If by "greed" you mean "profit" then yes! Heaven forbid a company tries to remain profitable.

Why did you allow yourself to drink the left's Kool Aid and believe that profitability is a bad thing? Also, why do you feel that any corporation is beholden to its employees??? A company is beholden to its customers and shareholders, not its employees. You really sound like a communist! The company you work for is only obligated to compensate you for your labor. It's the company's choice what that compensation is and it's the employee's choice whether to accept it or seek other employment. Unions are nothing but a gangs of thugs who seek to strong arm the companies that employ them.

Originally posted by Urantia1111
"More For Me And Less For Everyone Else". Bitch about it all you want, but don't pretend that people start businesses to "help communities". That's a PR illusion that all companies use to gain customers. Mom & Pop have always used the same business techniques, just not as efficiently. You guys like capitalism? This what it creates. There has to be a winner.

This is true, but the difference between the Mom and Pop Family Owned Business and the Goliath's of Today like Walmart, is that they have the political and monetary power to rig the system to their favor.

When you had thousands of mom and pops spread through out the country, power and $$$ was also spread throughout the country, and they never had enough power alone to rig the system.

The centralization of power through the Federal Government, Large MultiNational Corporations and Central Banks always ends in failure, because they end up destroying what was created in the beginning. Like Monopoly, they soon have all the money and power and everyone else has nothing.

It is not capitalism when you can buy the government to create the market how you want.

That would be closer to Russian Style State Communism.

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
So let this be a starting point in finding a right career elsewhere instead of job hunting.

SW2011

Remember? We are a service economy now. All the Main Manufacturing and Factory Jobs along with the Tech Know-How that can't be automated was moved to China to build them up militarily and economically.

All with the traitorous Politician and Wall Street Bankers blessing.

Originally posted by MindpurelyMind
And this is why Unions ( can I say that word on here?) where needed in the first place.

And it has gotten worse since Unions have been on the decline.
The balance of power needs to be shifted back.

Unions represent a very small segment of the population.
Let's look at their monetary power compared to other sectors when it comes to political influence.

www.opensecrets.org...

From, 1998 to 2013

Misc Business $5,544,515,585
Health $5,485,875,161
Finance/Insur/RealEst $5,481,782,185
Communic/Electronics $4,516,081,244
Energy/Nat Resource $4,080,975,358
Other $2,948,801,871
Transportation $2,836,188,460
Ideology/Single-Issue $1,818,958,765
Agribusiness $1,659,448,396
Defense $1,570,287,009
Construction $601,718,742
Labor $548,211,641
Lawyers & Lobbyists $395,086,969

They are basically at the bottom of the list.
Obama Care is a gift, not to liberals, or to the working man, or to small business.
It is a gift to Big Pharma , Insurance and Wall Street. They are at the top of the list.

I went grocery shopping the other day. While browsing the meat aisle, I noticed something about the ground beef. If I buy a small package of beef, it costs $2.89 a pound. If I buy a medium-sized pack, it costs only $2.79 a pound. If I buy the family size pack, it costs $2.69 a pound. Why? Because the more meat they sell, the more money they make, so they cut the customer's cost a little to convince them to buy more.

Now, what would happen if the little packs were $2.89, the medium packs were $2.99, and the family packs were $3.49? Would anyone here still buy the family packs? I know I wouldn't; I would buy a whole bunch of the little packs and save my money.

The Affordable Health Care Act has made it law that any company hiring an employee who works 30 hours or more per week must be supplied with health insurance options. Health insurance is expensive. So if an employee works for 29 hours a week at $10 an hour, their employer pays $290 salary, workman's comp, FICA, and unemployment insurance. The total cost is maybe $350-$400 a week, or like that employee is actually costing between $12 and $13,80 an hour. If that employee works 30 hours a week, their employer must also pay for health insurance... say an extra $100 per week. Now the cost is between $450 and $500 per week, or an hourly cost of $15 to $16.70 per hour. The employee is still making $10 an hour the whole time, but the cost of paying them that $10 per hour goes up a LOT.

Now, how many employers are going to buy the family size when it costs more per hour than the little packages?

An employee is worth whatever they are willing to work for. As long as someone is willing to work for $7.25 for 29 hours a week and no benefits, then that is what they are worth. Value is not solely the realm of the seller, but also of the buyer. I could easily say a bale of hay is worth $1,000,000... doesn't mean anyone is going to buy it from me, especially when the guy down the road is selling them for $1 each. Just because I say it's worth it doesn't affect whether or not it is worth it.

Those screaming about employees having a hard time making it are missing one thing: those employees agreed to this. They allowed their value to be set by WalMart. They have a choice: quit. Are there consequences to this choice? Yes! But those are the decisions one makes in life.

I am pretty much unemployed at the present, although I do work very part-time for a merchandising company. Every so often I used to get 45- 50 hours in a single week, but then I would be back to 3-4 hours a week for a few months. I just found out yesterday that will no longer happen. Now, I am limited to a maximum of 29 hours in a single week. So instead of having those few good weeks once in a while, I now will get a few so-so weeks every one in a while. Why? Because the company cannot afford to pay for health insurance. The price for me to work a decent week just got too expensive, not because of my pay, but because of a law.

WalMart is a lousy company ever since Mr. Sam died; I'll grant that. They lost their direction and concentrated on pure profit rather than growth. They'll probably dwindle down to another K-Mart after some time, but in the meantime they'll continue to run on the momentum Mr. Sam established. Their downfall will only occur when people stop buying from them. They will not fail because people complain about their labor policies or about their low pay, because they get to pay whatever they want just like I get to buy whatever I want when I walk through the grocery store. They will not fail because people refuse to work for them as long as there are more people who are willing to do so. You want to fix the problem with WalMart? Fix the problem with the government, because WalMart is simply working the policies the government established.

But, never mind what I say. I'm just an old redneck who buys the cheapest packages.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


You hit the nail on the head redneck.
Our governmented created foreign economic policies are to blame.

reply to post by PrincessTofu


You do realize Walmart is one of the only retailers in the US to offer medical benefits to part time employees? You could say they are doing that with the Temps, and you could possible link their actions to them trying to figure out how to deal with Obamacare, but part of your argument is wrong from the start.

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
True....the company either pays employees too much already with benefits, or they pay to little with promise of future benefits...either way when employees start rallying to get unionized the company is screwed....hence why some close down and move out of country/state.

AND YOU WONDER WHY BIG COMPANIES OUTSOURCE LABOUR TO OTHER COUNTRIES?!?!?!?

I rest my case

You might note that the nasty state of affairs that you recount is precisely what built the American middle class. You know...that one that is falling into decay. You blame the workers...but it was not them who allowed the work to be shipped offshore in the first place. the Henry Ford brand of capitalism called for paying his workers enough to buy his product. Folks seem to have missed the fact that about the same time communism failed...capitalism was too, but it was propped up by credit so it was more discrete.

What used to cost dollars in labour is now costing pennies...but has the price of a car dropped accordingly? Nope!

If you want to find a bad guy...look for the one who is pocketing the difference. I suspect the mailing address is on Wall Street. Meanwhile, stop blaming the neighbour with a good union gig and try boycotting foreign-made products and demanding that the government buy locally...at least continentally...made products and get that economy rolling again. Corporate greed pits you against your fellows, and laughs all the way to the bank.

With your assistance.

Originally posted by Connman
reply to post by Daedalus

 

Well this thread is actually about the cutting people to under 30 hours and hiring more part time to fill the gaps. Not about all of Walmarts bad doings again I blame the Government for and allowing it to be able to happen.
And sorry I mentioned this is not the only company doing it although it is true but oh that evil Walmart is to be singled out.

Walmart is here to stay and most people shop there very very few don't. Until the Government fixes the economy and work laws there isn't much to stop a business oops Walmart from taking what they can do legally and making the company profits.
Besides thought Obama was supposed to be passing some type thing on this very matter a while back making 30 hour work weeks full time employment.

mate...look at the title of the bloody thread...

it IS about walmart...

if the title were "Walmart, and a bunch of other companies are all scumbags", your argument might hold water....

do you have some kind of personal stake in walmart? you seem AWFULLY protective of them, and far too eager to defend them....you really seem to wanna try to mitigate their wrongdoing, by CONSTANTLY pointing out that OTHER companies are doing bad things too....

walmart is the topic of discussion here....yes, other companies do bad things, but we're not talking about other companies...

do you get it yet?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by olaru12

 

How do you explain companies that outsource without being threatened by their employees unionizing? Greed perhaps, with no regard to the employees that will be laid off.

If by "greed" you mean "profit" then yes! Heaven forbid a company tries to remain profitable.

Why did you allow yourself to drink the left's Kool Aid and believe that profitability is a bad thing? Also, why do you feel that any corporation is beholden to its employees??? A company is beholden to its customers and shareholders, not its employees. You really sound like a communist! The company you work for is only obligated to compensate you for your labor. It's the company's choice what that compensation is and it's the employee's choice whether to accept it or seek other employment. Unions are nothing but a gangs of thugs who seek to strong arm the companies that employ them.

being profitable is not bad. being greedy is.

you can still be profitable, and treat your employees like human beings, instead of animals..

companies kinda ARE beholden to their employees....without employees, work does not get done, and profits are not made. in other words "Without us, you make no money, and this all comes crashing down"

it is in the best interest of a company to treat it's employees well, because happy workers are productive workers....

Unions, i will agree, do get out of control sometimes, but their purpose is to act as a protective mechanism, to ensure that employee's rights are being respected, and that the employees are being treated properly..that includes fair compensation for their labor, and at least basic benefits....because let's face it, benefits are WAY cheaper when you're buying as a group..

how you can think it's ok for a company's leadership to treat the people who's labor they are making their living from, like garbage, pay them crap, and go home with huge bonuses, while the "little people" struggle to keep a roof over their head, and food in their belly, is beyond me...

The bottom line is... well, the bottom line. In an "ideal" world, corporations would have no employees at all and would be allowed to dump any kind of toxic waste into the environment. Corporations do not care about their customers, employers or environments. The only thing they care about is money.

I can't wait until they devise machines to replace employees in order to maximize profits. Then the unemployed masses won't be able to afford to buy the products causing the corporations to go out of business. But those self-replicating/self-maintaining machines will still be running...

reply to post by PrincessTofu


I live in a small city of about 75,000, but we have two freaking Walmarts, and I hate it! I hate going to Walmart and I hate the way they treat employees. I have multiple friends who worked there and all 3 were never allowed health care because they "magically",every week, only got 29 hours of work. The fact that a "American" company that states that it supports American people and American Economy can,ON PURPOSE, cut employes hours to keep from having to offer them health insurance is DESPICABLE! I don't know how they can look at themselves in the morning.
In my home-town Walmart wants to build another Walmart! That will be three! We have tried to keep it out, the land they wanted to build on is next to a Famous Civil War era cotton plantation and cemetery. We were hoping there would be unmarked graves on land so they couldn't build there, but there wasn't. So now another Devilmart is coming. And while they do bring jobs, these jobs tend to be benefitless. I can also count on one hand the times I have seen them support the community.
Can someone tell me how Walmart can legally cut employee hours to keep them from being eligible for health care!? That seems like it would be illegal to me?

Originally posted by ultimafule
I can't wait until they devise machines to replace employees in order to maximize profits. Then the unemployed masses won't be able to afford to buy the products causing the corporations to go out of business. But those self-replicating/self-maintaining machines will still be running...

What...like ATMs and self-checkout at the grocery? Robots on assembly lines?

reply to post by Daedalus

being profitable is not bad. being greedy is.

The only greedy ones I see are those who have done nothing except show up for work (and get paid for it, by the way) and then demand profit sharing. Why does a company have to bend over and take it from employees?

you can still be profitable, and treat your employees like human beings, instead of animals.

I hear garbage like this a lot but we’re talking about low wages, reduced hours and no medical benefits. Do you have some examples of Wal-Mart using shock collars, leashes and kennels on its employees?

Part of the reason the country is in the mess it’s in is because people have granted the federal government power to interfere in every aspect of our lives. Now many are pleading with the government to go after corporations and force them to provide things to us??? You’re simply replacing one goon with another more powerful goon. What happened to self-reliance? If Wal-Mart was as bad as you make it out to be then why is it the largest employer in the world?? Please explain that! Are they rounding people up by bus and carting them to the local Wal-Mart slave camps??

reply to post by MadDuchess

The fact that a "American" company that states that it supports American people and American Economy can,ON PURPOSE, cut employes hours to keep from having to offer them health insurance is DESPICABLE!

I’m glad you said that. So tell me, what do you think of this?

In an executive order, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has issued a requirement to state-run organizations and agencies to find ways to reduce part-time worker hours to below 30 in order to avoid health insurance regulations put in place by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

greatwealthstrategies.com...

FoxNews.com is reporting that Regal Theaters—the nation’s largest movie theater chain with more than 500 theaters in 38 states—has begun cutting employee hours to avoid their responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act.

www.forbes.com...

The small-business backlash against Obamacare continues. A Wendy’s fast-food franchise in Nebraska is cutting the hours of non-management employees so its owners won't be required to pay health benefits.

money.msn.com...

Papa John’s profits are up 25 percent—that’s why CEO John Schnatter’s threat to cut workers’ hours and raise the price of pizza by up to 14 cents to offset the company’s cost of Obamacare resulted in a widespread boycott of the pizza chain.
“I got in a bunch of trouble for this,” Schnatter said. “That’s what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don’t think people know what they’re going to pay for this.” The Affordable Care Act dictates that companies with 50-plus full-time employees must provide healthcare coverage to those workers. That means some companies will need to cut back on employee hours to avoid added healthcare costs, according to Schnatter.

www.diversityinc.com...

You see, this isn’t something limited to Wal-Mart; all companies are affected. Don’t be surprised when most companies with over 50 employees do the same thing…it’s happening already. This is what happens when people demand FREE STUFF. Nothing in life is FREE!! Everything we buy is going to cost more as a result.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Yes, exactly! Only self-replicating and self-maintaining. There are still way too many people with jobs. I'd like to see 100% unemployment. A fully automated world where the only labor that exists are labors of love driven by passion would be nice, right? Kinda like Logan's Run without the blinking chips. But this scenario is a long ways off and I'm getting off topic...

Part of the reason the country is in the mess it’s in is because people have granted the federal government power to interfere in every aspect of our lives.

A really small part, I think, especially in this context. I figure it has more to do with Wall Street magic trickery (derivatives) and tax dollars used to bail out failing corporations - many that outsource their labor.

Decades ago the administrative departments of Wal-Mart and all other corporations responsible for employees were called "Personnel". The root word being, of course, "person". Corporations recognized their employees as people.

But then, I don't know when, seemingly en-masse, all corporations changed the name of "Personnel Department" to "Human Resources". Curious, isn't it? Why did they do that? What's wrong with the title "Personnel"? I'm a person not a resource.

But then, of course, we all know how corporations treat natural resources!

Peace

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by PrincessTofu

 

They will never let an employee work enough hours to qualify for medical benefits.

Obamacare kicks in 2014, they'll be feeling that one. It'll hit small business owners alot worse, maybe even put many out of business. Wal-mart just got slapped with a $110 million dollar fine for getting caught illegally dumping toxic waste , so theyre going to start reaping what they have sewn.

110 million dollars is like a speeding ticket for any of the senior share holders.

That may be true, but i don't get tickets often and when i do i feel butthurt over it, so odds are they will feel butthurt over it too when they think "how dare they fine me!". Oh the indignation will burn.