Wal-Mart in the crosshairs

[mr_genius]

Yes and Yes.

 

I'm debating how big I should make those to emphasize that point.

 

lol

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:38 AM)

Does Walmart pay below minimum wage?

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

V

ok then...so what's the problem again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I have seen, the problem is Wal-mart considering a "full-time" shift to be 28 hours a week, not 40, and their health care packages for their "full-time" employees are too expensive for someone working 28 hours a week. Then Wal-Mart encourages these people to go on welfare if they won't get Wal-Mart's medical package.

[Texsox]

In the SunTimes earlier this week, there was a little blurb in the Business section about WalMart and Target.  It seems that both had plans for a distribution wharehouse in the area, both were going to get tax breaks, and as part of that, they had to submit a formal plan for the payrolls of their respective facilities.  It turns out that the average pay for the people in the Walmart place was going to be just under $30,000, while the average pay for the Target place was UNDER $20,000.  I wonder which place would be worse for workers, and the state?

 

Comparing average salaries would be valid if their organizations were going to be identical. Plus average salaries aren't the whole picture. In an area with high unemployment, 2,000 jobs at $20,000 is probably better than 300 jobs at $30,000. It is all in the mix.

 

The point with average salaries, Walmart may have executives on site, while Target may have them in a separate facility and didn't count them in their totals. But on the surface, I agree with your conclusion, WalMart would be the better choice if you can't get both.

 

You mentioned tax incentives, realize that means your tax dollars are being spent to compete with someone elses tax dollars in getting them to move. Just like the Economic Development agencies down here are competing to get your employers to move here. It's a twisted little game they are playing. McAllen Economic Development would love to have one of your local employers come here and set up shop in Reynosa, Mexico with a support facility on the US side. We want to take your jobs.

[Texsox]

From what I have seen, the problem is Wal-mart considering a "full-time" shift to be 28 hours a week, not 40, and their health care packages for their "full-time" employees are too expensive for someone working 28 hours a week.  Then Wal-Mart encourages these people to go on welfare if they won't get Wal-Mart's medical package.

 

If there is a program that a person qualifies for and someone encourages them to sign up of it, is it the requirements that are wrong, or the person who encourages them? Colleges and Universities have entire depapartments to help students find money for college which then is paid to the University. Are they wrong?

 

There are programs for the working poor, why shouldn't employers publize those programs?

 

Using your example, and I'm not certain this is accurate, but couldn't WalMart call 28 hours part time and offer no benefits? Would that be better? I think giving people the choice is better, don't you?

[Rex Kickass]

If there is a program that a person qualifies for and someone encourages them to sign up of it, is it the requirements that are wrong, or the person who encourages them? Colleges and Universities have entire depapartments to help students find money for college which then is paid to the University. Are they wrong?

 

There are programs for the working poor, why shouldn't employers publize those programs?

 

Using your example, and I'm not certain this is accurate, but couldn't WalMart call 28 hours part time and offer no benefits? Would that be better? I think giving people the choice is better, don't you?

 

I'd love a 28 hour work week.

[BigSqwert]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/business...r=1&oref=slogin

 

On Private Web Site, Wal-Mart Chief Talks Tough

 

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and MICHAEL BARBARO

Published: February 17, 2006

 

In a confidential, internal Web site for Wal-Mart's managers, the company's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., seemed to have a rare, unscripted moment when one manager asked him why "the largest company on the planet cannot offer some type of medical retirement benefits?"

 

Mr. Scott first argues that the cost of such benefits would leave Wal-Mart at a competitive disadvantage but then, clearly annoyed, he suggests that the store manager is disloyal and should consider quitting.

 

The Web site, which Mr. Scott uses to communicate his tough standards to thousands of far-flung managers, gives a rare glimpse into the concerns that are roiling Wal-Mart's retailing empire, from the company's sagging stock price to how it treats its workers. Judging by the managers' questions, Mr. Scott has an internal public relations challenge that in some ways mirrors the challenge he faces from outside critics.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 10:53 AM)

If there is a program that a person qualifies for and someone encourages them to sign up of it, is it the requirements that are wrong, or the person who encourages them? Colleges and Universities have entire depapartments to help students find money for college which then is paid to the University. Are they wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think it's fair to compare that example to an extreme case like Wal-Mart. In certain areas of the country, Wal-Mart comes in and forces the "Mom and Pop" shops to close down by offering much lower prices. Some individuals are forced out of their jobs and feel their only option is to join the Wal-Mart Work force. Wal-Mart then cuts their hours, gives them s***ty pay, and encourages them to go on welfare so the public, not the execs at Wal-Mart, have to pay for their health insurance. So for these extreme cases where Wal-Mart is forcing smaller shops to shut down, and cuts the working hours of the community, and encourages them to go on public welfare, I would most certainly blame the company.

 

Of course I'm getting all this info from an independent film that slammed Wal-Mart, so there's always more to it. From google I found out Wal-Mart has changed its full time shifts from 28 hours to 34.