D.C. Council votes to Force Walmart to pay "living wage"--50% over minimum wage.

Originally posted by Garkiniss


We're not talking about minimum wage workers being elevated to a middle class salary. We're talking about making enough to get them off food stamps and other government assist programs. They'll still be poor, they just won't be destitute. I see nothing wrong with that, especially if the companys' CEOs want to complain about having to pay health insurance and in taxes for government aid. You can't have it both ways.

If Govt would remove it's tentacles from life and business, like free Govt handout and such, maybe the Companies wouldn't be taxed as much, and then maybe, just maybe pay would increase.
Companies are mad because the Govt is coming in, and acting as if they own the place. The Govt is not the parents to the people. The Govt is supposed to provide minimal intrusion.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
You either pay a living wage or you pay taxes to support your workers. Either way you're going to have to promote the common welfare.

And both are a forced scam.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

I'm a few years older than Gen Y and I can tell you that this boils down to the value of human lives, not jealousy over "wealth."

You keep telling yourself that. You complain about others values being pushed upon you, yet you turn right around and try to force yours on others, all in the false name of "humanity".
Yeah, jealousy is the true term you are looking for. They have, you want, it's not fair.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
Walmart is abusive to the system and now they have to pay.

What abuse??? Oh, you mean the same system used by GE, Apple and all other corporations??? The same system used by huge contributors to Govt. The same Govt run by the Tyrant 0bama???

Funny, as I don't see you whining about other companies using the same system to their advantage.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
I'm sorry if you're upset that there are consequences to inhumanity.

Oh, so a One Worlder as well.
Walmart pays people what the market shows to be fair, for the job performed.

Look, I'm all down with the evil Walmart thing....

But I'm NOT down with the government telling ONE and only ONE business how to pay their employees, when they are already complying with applicable law. That is a huge slippery slope that sets a very dangerous precedent (the ability to make legislation that does not apply to all, but instead, a singled out entity).

Anyone for this law really needs to educate themselves on how our legal system works based on precedents...to see how dangerous this really is.

Originally posted by pavil
So people here think the minimum wage should be $12.50 an hour. Some here on Detroit radio are calling in saying $15.

Just to put this into perspective:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, or BLS, all paramedics and EMTs made an average annual wage of $34,030, or $16.36 per hour. The middle 50 percent of this group earned between $24,420 and $40,440, or $11.74 and $19.44 per hour. The median salary was $30,710 per year, equaling $14.77 per hour.

In its May 2011 figures, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports an average hourly wage of $12.22 for nursing assistants and related staff, or $25,420 per year. There is a considerable variance between the highest and lowest earners, with 10 percent of nursing assistants earning $8.68 per hour or less, and 10 percent earning $16.91 per hour or more. Assuming a 40-hour work week, this represents earnings of $18,060 per year at the low end of the scale and $35,170 at the high end. Their median income was $11.63 per hour, or $24,190 per year.

So someone working at a Minimum wage job should earn the same money as an entry level paramedic or a nurse's assistant?

How much will you now pay the current managers at McDonalds or other mainly minimum wage businesses? Surely they should make a wage that is more than the entry level employee, no?

There are more entry level people for politicians to dangle the proverbial cash carrot for future votes. That's all this is about. Securing a base.

This quote is a resounding fact of where we are destined: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Originally posted by Bearack

If you've lost your job, you reallocate your priorities. You drop the phone service and get something more affordable. You trade in the 40K car and get a payment that won't strip your savings. Take personal responsibility for the situation you're in by conserving your resources and live within your means. Most people, even with a job today, still live well outside of their means. Why do people need 4 large screen TV's in their home?

I don't know anyone with 4 large screen tvs in their home or elsewhere. I will concede that many don't recognize the gravity of unemployment in this economy. Most hold on to those cars believing they'll find work in a few weeks, a month or two, and all will be okay. They keep these things to maintain some semblance of happiness or in some cases sanity. The reality is most will search for work for at least 1 year, though 2 years is more realistic.
Keeping the phones I can understand. Most businesses these days don't even use paper applications. All resumes are accepted digitally. My nephew just went job hunting a month ago. He hit the streets and inquired with roughly 40 different business. Out of those 40, only 2 or 3 still used paper applications.

We live in a digital age and having a cell phone or computer is a necessity to exist in the job market.

And you paid into that system for that security blanket. That's exactly why it's there. The problem is, people have come to see these programs as not security blankets, but entitlements now and will opt for an easier job to ensure they do not disrupt the flow of their "entitlement".

There will always be those that abuse the system, hence our current economy. The housing bubble didn't burst because people were following the rules.

Then I absolutely disagree they could afford those luxuries. The way I look at it a person can afford luxuries when they can be without a job for a year and still afford their existing bills and live comfortably. If you can't afford to live off one wage for a period, then you are living above your means. I could take a 50% pay cut today, as well as my wife, and yet I could still pay my mortgage, my car loan and provide for my family. That would be including having to shell out the inflated cost of Cobra insurance. We've planned for such events for over 15 years now.

If we were to lose our jobs, we have a full years savings (took a while to build and sacrifice) that would cover everything we currently have. I could even work for Walmart @ $10 an hour and push that to nearly 2 years with proper management.

They're a new family. He needed a new truck for work (he's an electrical inspector for a company). They only had one car and they live in the boonies, so it wasn't feesible for him to go on an inspection gig one state over while leaving her at home with no way to travel for her job, 2 tots who have school, dr's appointments, etc. They could afford it at the time, so they took the plunge. I'm not going to blame them for that. In fact he needs that second car still as he's chasing jobs even further away than one state.
As I said prior; you don't understand their circumstance. There are millions of stories like these across the country. People paying the price for the greed of others.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Look, I'm all down with the evil Walmart thing....

But I'm NOT down with the government telling ONE and only ONE business how to pay their employees, when they are already complying with applicable law. That is a huge slippery slope that sets a very dangerous precedent (the ability to make legislation that does not apply to all, but instead, a singled out entity).

Anyone for this law really needs to educate themselves on how our legal system works based on precedents...to see how dangerous this really is.

I would say I agree with you, however Wal-Mart is an exception to the rule. When your corporation ranks as one of the top economies in the WORLD, out ranking 170 other countries, then you put yourself in a position to be governed, especially if you violate every ethical rule in the book.

If the government doesn't step in, then who? Many communities in this nation are owned by Walmart, they have no place to go, and no monetary means of getting there if they did. Who's looking out for those people's common welfare? It sure as hell isn't the company.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by Bearack

If you've lost your job, you reallocate your priorities. You drop the phone service and get something more affordable. You trade in the 40K car and get a payment that won't strip your savings. Take personal responsibility for the situation you're in by conserving your resources and live within your means. Most people, even with a job today, still live well outside of their means. Why do people need 4 large screen TV's in their home?

I don't know anyone with 4 large screen tvs in their home or elsewhere. I will concede that many don't recognize the gravity of unemployment in this economy. Most hold on to those cars believing they'll find work in a few weeks, a month or two, and all will be okay. They keep these things to maintain some semblance of happiness or in some cases sanity. The reality is most will search for work for at least 1 year, though 2 years is more realistic.
Keeping the phones I can understand. Most businesses these days don't even use paper applications. All resumes are accepted digitally. My nephew just went job hunting a month ago. He hit the streets and inquired with roughly 40 different business. Out of those 40, only 2 or 3 still used paper applications.

We live in a digital age and having a cell phone or computer is a necessity to exist in the job market.

Regarding our discussion, I don't think we are to far off in reality however, I'll comment on this one piece.

I agree in today's society a cell phone and internet are nearly crucial. However, you make changes. You can nearly cut your cell phone charges in half, if not by 3/4's by dropping a digital phone plan and going to a basic flip phone service such as Cricket. And retaining your DSL service (minimum is around $19 a month and cancel and cable or satellite service. You can get entertainment online. Many free services that you can find your TV shows on for free versus paying $100 a month for Satellite that you view maybe 8% of the channels they offer.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by Gazrok
Look, I'm all down with the evil Walmart thing....

But I'm NOT down with the government telling ONE and only ONE business how to pay their employees, when they are already complying with applicable law. That is a huge slippery slope that sets a very dangerous precedent (the ability to make legislation that does not apply to all, but instead, a singled out entity).

Anyone for this law really needs to educate themselves on how our legal system works based on precedents...to see how dangerous this really is.

I would say I agree with you, however Wal-Mart is an exception to the rule. When your corporation ranks as one of the top economies in the WORLD, out ranking 170 other countries, then you put yourself in a position to be governed, especially if you violate every ethical rule in the books.

If the government doesn't step in, then who? Many communities in this nation are owned by Walmart, they have no place to go, and no monetary means of getting there if they did. Who's looking out for those people's common welfare? It sure as hell isn't the company.

I need clarification on this?? Where is Walmart breaking ethics rules in this country? How are they worse in regards to companies such as Vitamin Cottage and how they pay or treat their employees?

Originally posted by macman

If Govt would remove it's tentacles from life and business, like free Govt handout and such, maybe the Companies wouldn't be taxed as much, and then maybe, just maybe pay would increase.
Companies are mad because the Govt is coming in, and acting as if they own the place. The Govt is not the parents to the people. The Govt is supposed to provide minimal intrusion.

If the Free Market were allowed to run rampant we'd be making even less, while they made more.
I agree that the Government is suppose to provide minimal intrusion, however, look how employees are being treated with what you consider to be Government dominance. Politicians aren't pushing these corps. It's the other way around. Walmart dishes out 10 of millions of dollars a year in lobbyist payouts on Capital Hill.
This is the first time the Government has stepped in to help the little guy, and I doubt it will stick.

And both are a forced scam.

Maybe, but one will boost morale and the lower taxes, while the other will not.

You keep telling yourself that. You complain about others values being pushed upon you, yet you turn right around and try to force yours on others, all in the false name of "humanity".
Yeah, jealousy is the true term you are looking for. They have, you want, it's not fair.

I don't want their riches. I mean, is there anything more insecure than someone who hordes billions of dollars, while still claiming to be a victim?
I have no desire to be rich. I only want enough to pay my bills and put some food on the table, while having just enough to put away for retirement some day.
I donate about 1/2 of my earnings to various charities, and I'm what most would consider "not very well to do."

Wealth weakens people. It stunts their growth and blinds their perspective. I want no part of that.

What abuse??? Oh, you mean the same system used by GE, Apple and all other corporations??? The same system used by huge contributors to Govt. The same Govt run by the Tyrant 0bama???

Obama doesn't run the government. Corporations and Banks do. Our president is about as powerful as the Queen of England. You spout off about the wrong doings of other companies as if I somehow condone their behavior. Where did I ever say that?

Funny, as I don't see you whining about other companies using the same system to their advantage.

The topic of this thread is Walmart.

Oh, so a One Worlder as well.
Walmart pays people what the market shows to be fair, for the job performed.

History has shown that's not the case. Workers are earning a fraction of what they did for doing the same job 50 years ago, while the corporations are earning more, their company heads earning more.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Look, I'm all down with the evil Walmart thing....

But I'm NOT down with the government telling ONE and only ONE business how to pay their employees, when they are already complying with applicable law. That is a huge slippery slope that sets a very dangerous precedent (the ability to make legislation that does not apply to all, but instead, a singled out entity).

Anyone for this law really needs to educate themselves on how our legal system works based on precedents...to see how dangerous this really is.

If our legal system really worked, I could agree but there are two separate systems. One is a pay to play system and the other is just designed as a system of roadblocks to justice.

In America we have the best legal system money can buy. Walmart will take the DC council to court and win.
Essentially Walmart has become so powerful, they are above the law as are most mega corps.
The Corporate Oligarchy is here and it's not going to change.

The American paradigm was changed forever once corps. achieved "personhood"

en.wikipedia.org...

It's a brave new world....

Originally posted by Bearack

I need clarification on this?? Where is Walmart breaking ethics rules in this country? How are they worse in regards to companies such as Vitamin Cottage and how they pay or treat their employees?

A vast majority of workers are employed by temporary staffing agencies, rarely earn a living wage or have benefits. In the last few years no less than six lawsuits have been filed against Walmart contractors for wage theft.

Workers endure extreme temperatures, inhale dust and chemical residue, and lift thousands of boxes weighing up to 250lbs with no support. Workers never know how long the work day will be- sometimes its two hours, sometimes its 16 hours. Injuries are common, as is discrimination against women and illegal retaliation against workers who speak up for better treatment.

Link


This is but one issue on the matter. There are countless others.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by macman

If Govt would remove it's tentacles from life and business, like free Govt handout and such, maybe the Companies wouldn't be taxed as much, and then maybe, just maybe pay would increase.
Companies are mad because the Govt is coming in, and acting as if they own the place. The Govt is not the parents to the people. The Govt is supposed to provide minimal intrusion.

If the Free Market were allowed to run rampant we'd be making even less, while they made more.
I agree that the Government is suppose to provide minimal intrusion, however, look how employees are being treated with what you consider to be Government dominance. Politicians aren't pushing these corps. It's the other way around. Walmart dishes out 10 of millions of dollars a year in lobbyist payouts on Capital Hill.
This is the first time the Government has stepped in to help the little guy.

Walmart wasn't an invention of the government. It was an entrepreneur that took a risk on with a different business model that was brilliant. Most companies that become Fortune 500 companies were from entrepreneurs that took the risk, put the hours in to make it work and became successful.

And this isn't the first time the government has stepped in. The government has been on corporations dairy air from our governments inception. And yes, companies do pay off politicians through lobbyist. There is no doubt but to say Walmart is not following existing laws is just flat out wrong.

And by the way, EVERYONE has the same ability as Sam Walton or Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey to become a multi billionaire. It takes risk, failure, blood and sweat. Most people chose to live a less stressful life an receive a consistent check. I don't begrudge them either as being an entrepreneur takes allot out of a person and their family.

I was once one. I owned my first business when I was 19. Sold it when I turned 25 as I wanted to be able to spend more time with my wife an new baby daughter (some 15 years ago). The first 2 years were hellish. Could barely keep gas in my 1982 Ford Bronco. My employees were paid every week while in year 1, I received 0. Took loan after loan. Year 2 I still made nearly zero as I was paying back every loan I took out from year 1. Year 3 was night and day.

Clients were established, income was flowing and I finally made a reasonable income. Not staggering by any means. I think in year 3, I was making about 25K while my employees were averaging about 28K. Years 4 through 6 were the glory days. I made well over 100K now but was still averaging about 80 hours a week.

Even those people whom chose to remain with Walmart have opportunities to remain with the company and grow within and make a good living doing it. My friends daughter works at Sam's as a lead Cashier and she earns approximately 25K annually and is only 19.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
If the Free Market were allowed to run rampant we'd be making even less, while they made more.

Oh, so like this happened before the Govt stepped in and made the situation better, right??
Yeah, that is about as true as 0bama being from Kenya.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
I agree that the Government is suppose to provide minimal intrusion, however, look how employees are being treated with what you consider to be Government dominance.

Excuse me??? You just contradicted yourself.
Regardless of the outcome, Govt is supposed to be minimal at the most.
Safety is one thing. A persons pay is as intrusive as it gets.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
Politicians aren't pushing these corps. It's the other way around. Walmart dishes out 10 of millions of dollars a year in lobbyist payouts on Capital Hill.

Oh my gawd. Who rights, creates and enforces the laws??? The buck stops with those elected officials. If they allow Walmart, or GE, or Soros to influence what they do, it is the fault of the elected official.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
This is the first time the Government has stepped in to help the little guy.

You have got to be kidding me.
Raised wage always means a raise in prices to the consumer.
A raise in price leads to a drop in sales.
A drop in sales means cutbacks and layoffs.

Yeah, really good for the "little guy".
Your Progressive colored view of the world screams hipster to me. All I envision is a 30 something, wearing skinny jeans, sitting at the local Starbucks, playing on an Apple product, complaining how the world is so unfair.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Maybe, but one will boost morale and the lower taxes, while the other will not.

Wait, what???? A living wage will lower taxes???? No you are just being willfully ignorant.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
I don't want their riches. I mean, is there anything more insecure than someone who hordes billions of dollars, while still claiming to be a victim?

That is cute and all. But...I still don't see where you get to dictate this onto someone else's life.
And I don't see where the Waltons are claiming to be a victim.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
I have no desire to be rich. I only want enough to pay my bills and put some food on the table, while having just enough to put away for retirement some day.

So, your standards are that. Others are more, or less. Who are you to push yours on everyone else.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

I donate about 1/2 of my earnings to various charities, and I'm what most would consider "not very well to do."

Great.
I give 10% every month. Wish everyone would do the same. But.....I don't care if they do or don't. It is not my place to state this.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
Wealth weakens people. It stunts their growth and blinds their perspective. I want no part of that.

Great. That is super fantastic. Now, stop trying to push that on everyone else.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Obama doesn't run the government. Corporations and Banks do. Our president is about as powerful as the Queen of England. You spout off about the wrong doings of other companies as if I somehow condone their behavior. Where did I ever say that?

What abuse?? You never answered the question.
And 0bama is the leader (That just made me want to vomit saying that). He is in charge.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

The topic of this thread is Walmart.

Great. that is nice.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

History has shown that's not the case. Workers are earning a fraction of what they did for doing the same job 50 years ago, while the corporations are earning more, their company heads earning more.

*sigh* does the cashier at Walmart make relatively the same as the cashier at the grocery store?? Or at Target?
The Market, is and should be the driving factor of how much a person is paid to do a job.

Otherwise, this moronic idea of a living wage will pay the worker making a product selling at $1 the same as the worker making a product that is $1000 dollars.

You clearly have never run a business, nor really understand how a business is run.

reply to post by Garkiniss


That was for a CONTRACTOR site, contracted with Walmart. Not Walmart. Maybe read the article you hold up as evidence.

On Thursday September 13, workers for Walmart's contractor Roadlink Workforce

No wonder you think the way you do.

If you work 40 hours for a company you SHOULD get payed a living wage depending on which state or city you are in.

That's all there is to it.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by Bearack

I need clarification on this?? Where is Walmart breaking ethics rules in this country? How are they worse in regards to companies such as Vitamin Cottage and how they pay or treat their employees?

A vast majority of workers are employed by temporary staffing agencies, rarely earn a living wage or have benefits. In the last few years no less than six lawsuits have been filed against Walmart contractors for wage theft.

Workers endure extreme temperatures, inhale dust and chemical residue, and lift thousands of boxes weighing up to 250lbs with no support. Workers never know how long the work day will be- sometimes its two hours, sometimes its 16 hours. Injuries are common, as is discrimination against women and illegal retaliation against workers who speak up for better treatment.

Link


This is but one issue on the matter. There are countless others.

The link you provided states the worker won a vicotry against Walmart and were giving full pay and returned back to work. Where did the system fail them?

And regards to this plant. Is this common among all distribution centers? There is a massive one here in Colorado I've not heard such enviroments.

However, there are some small companies that do this and much worse. Example here!

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Garkiniss

 

That was for a CONTRACTOR site, contracted with Walmart. Not Walmart. Maybe read the article you hold up as evidence.

On Thursday September 13, workers for Walmart's contractor Roadlink Workforce

No wonder you think the way you do.

As I've said before. Whom ever Wal-Mart aligns itself with reflects their policies. Walmart controls the contractors. Who do you think pays their bills?
You don't think there are other contractors that could do the job ethically?

Originally posted by muse7
If you work 40 hours for a company you SHOULD get payed a living wage depending on which state or city you are in.

That's all there is to it.

Why? So if they work 38 hours its okay not to earn a living wage? Fishing for logic is all.

reply to post by Garkiniss

Oh, so Walmart controls the Company Roadlink Workforce Solutions???
Or, Walmart owns the company??

Originally posted by Bearack

However, there are some small companies that do this and much worse. Example here!

I don't understand why people think, just because I'm trashing Walmart's business practices, that I'm condoning everyone else's. This thread is about Walmart.

reply to post by muse7




That is about the most asinine comment yet.