Kate, which branch do you work for? Those "facts" are right out of the handbook for "community organizers"!
Conservative? Ha!
Posted on 11/19/2013 8:04:27 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
"Please donate food items so associates in need can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner," reads a sign accompanied by several plastic bins.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer first reported on the food drive, which has sparked outrage in the area.
"That Wal-Mart would have the audacity to ask low-wage workers to donate food to other low-wage workers — to me, it is a moral outrage," Norma Mills, a customer at the store, told the Plain Dealer.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Anyway, I had a mess of frozen turkey "TV" dinners growing up. The only thing I didn't like about them was the square carrot cubes. That always sort of grossed me out.
If you think that tax dollars that are redistributed to the poor are a subsidy to Walmart you really are at the wrong site.
____________________________________________________________
So you don’t think this amounts to corporate welfare? Giving large box stores tax breaks other businesses don’t get? (no I don’t like taxes either). And you don’t think the state paying medical benefits to uninsured
WORKING people is to the benefit of the business who won’t (not can’t...but won’t) pay employee benefits?
I’m a conserative in every sense of the word. And I do not believe it is my obligation to bail out businesses...let alone bail out businesses that make a profit.
Kate, which branch do you work for? Those "facts" are right out of the handbook for "community organizers"!
Conservative? Ha!
Before you start busting on the private sector, I suggest you check into how many people who work for the government, including many in the military, also rely on state assistance.
____________________________________________________________
One thing has nothing to do w/ the other.
How little we pay our military is disgraceful. The fact that these folks put their lives on the line and we can’t pay them enough to live on is just wrong.
This country has not done right by the military for decades and it needs to be fixed.
I don’t mind paying taxes that support our military. I do mind paying taxes so the Walton’s and Walmart is more profitable.
Oh give me a break.
It is not WalMart's (or any other retailer or business)fault that they hire low/no skill people and offer entry level jobs that may lead to a career or at least teach some skills to people who have no other.
I don't know about where you come from, but where I come from entry level means just that. Work hard, learn things and move up or move on.
As to your whining about profits, sounds to me as if you're jealous and want the government to step in and determine how much businesses and their shareholders are permitted to make, just like you want the government to mandate how much employees are paid - of course only at those companies you don't like or "think" are abusing the system. How so very "conservative" of you............NOT.
where in the heck did I ever, ever indicate that I wanted to mandate a certain wage? Yeah, no where.
I’m not mandating anything. I’m expressing my opinion, as a tax payer and someone who is in business. I happen to know the retail players very well...and I don’t want to pay for other people’s food and medical benefits because the company they work for won’t provide adequate wages or medical coverage options.
How your takeaway is that I’m mandating something leads me to believe that you just want to argue. So...argue away I’m done replying to people who do not wish to understand what is really happening w/ Walmart.
What wage is "right" for you? Where is there ANY requirement that a business provide medical coverage? The "collectivists' are the ones that demand those be provided by the government. Take it up with them.
You claim to be in business. May be you think you have an obligation to do more than provide opportunity and not to make a "PROFIT". The role of business is to make money. If that requires the hiring of people, then the more you pay to them in wages and benefits, the less is available for PROFIT.
I am now retired and living in the Philippines. I wish WalMart would build some stores here. Always low prices.
Folks; I do believe you all are IBTZ here. The more Kate blathers on - the more I see her liberalness showing up.
If they were not adequate, people would not work there.
Let me explain a few things about REALITY.
Wherever Walmart goes SOME businesses might go out of business, but 3 times as many pop up. When a Walmart goes into a new area, they usually buy vacant property in a vacant area. Within a short period of time NUMEROUS businesses move into the surrounding area in hopes of catching some of Walmarts traffic. Businesses like Subway, Steak And Shake, Chilis, Starbucks, Panera, Dunkin Donuts, Panda Express, GNC, Sport Clips. Once these businesses move in, other businesses who might compete with Walmart move in. Like Staples, American Matress, Best Buy.
I'm speaking from experience from my own area 2 miles away. From where my family lives in Michigan and where friends live in Wisconsin and 2 places in northern Illinois.
What was once vacant farmland, in a few years after Walmart moves in becomes built up with businesses.
Granted, the Waltons make BILLIONS....
BUT the Waltons only own 48% of Walmart stock. 52% is owned by people outside of the Walton family. People like Walmart employees, who can purchase stock through the company, by payroll deductions, with no commission charges. Plus the company does a 15% match, up to $1800 a year. Currently Walmart stock is at $79 A SHARE. That means at usual brokerages, a person would need $7900 just to get started, plus brokerage fees.
Now lets look at the profits of the Waltons. Actually whether the Walton family or the cashier who buys stock, the PROFIT MARGIN is the same. Between 3%-3.5%.
Nothing stellar in the investment world. Where and why the Walton family makes so much is that the family owns HUGE amounts. Because Sam and James Walton INVESTED in their business FIFTY years ago. Their kids now benefit from what Sam and James did back then.
My buddy's wife didn't start out making $20 an hour. She started making a little above minimum wage. But over time she got regular raises, PLUS she proved herself to be a good employee, where she got transferred from one department to another to get things straightened out. She's been offered management numerous times, but refuses because of the commitment level required that she does not want.
But I guess in your little world, EVERYBODY should be making $20 bucks an hour, no matter their skill level, length of time working or work habits. For her, she's proven herself over time to be worth the money to the company. The only problem for her is that she has topped out in pay and no longer gets raises.
I am very aware that tax payers are the ones ponying up for foodstamps. I also understand that there is a larger picture than you or other liberal shills paint or acknowledge. Not every Walmart employee gets food stamps. MANY of those Walmart employees who get foodstamps are part time. Many have kids. Some are in their positions because of choices THEY have made. Their positions doesn't instantly make Walmart responsible to pay them more. Walmart is a business, in business to MAKE money. They have a rate of return of 3-3.5%.
You seem to have a problem with HOW Walmart and every other business does things, by hiring certain people part time to avoid benefits and to pay lower pay.
Well lets do some math.
Lets look at insurance. Lets say basic insurance costs $200 a month. At 12 months, that's $2400 a year per employee. That's $2.4 BILLION. A simple $1 an hour raise for only part time workers would mean $1 BILLION. That would only improve the employees net pay about $64 a month.
$64 is hardly enough to remove someone from foodstamps. The ONLY other way that these people can make more money at Walmart is to work more hours. Hours that aren't there. Whether full time or part time, there are only X amount of hours able to be worked. 1 person working 40 hours a week is the same amount of man hours as 2 people working 20 hours.
In business, often times certain positions don't require fulltime employment.
Here's a point you seem to miss. Lets say Walmart instantly decides to change all their positions to fulltime only. If half of Walmart employees are part time working 20 hours and are instantly fulltime, working 40 hours, THEN HALF of those part time employees will be laid off. 2 people working 20 hours = 1 person working 40 hours. That means 1/4th of Walmarts workforce are not just getting foodstamps, but also unemployment and welfare. You can't expect Walmart or any other business to just suddenly give people more hours to work without increased store traffic.
Just a little math for you. Taking Walmart's part time staff and making them full time, for no reason, would cost about $9 BILLION in payroll alone. Add insurance to that would be another $2.4 BILLION. Just those 2 things would cost Walmart $11.4 BILLION. Meaning current profit returns would be LESS THAN 1%.
Why would any employee invest in the company they work at for less than 1%? Why would ANYONE invest in a company for less than a 1% return? Why would any investor KEEP stock for less than 1% return?
You might not like the outcome facts have, but few liberals do. The problem is Walmart only makes about 3-3.5% profit. The ONLY way they can PAY more money is to MAKE more money.
How do you propose Walmart MAKE more money? Either they raise prices (and keeping sales), or they improve sales (keeping prices the same).
EVERY retailer tries to improve their sales numbers (usually by lowering prices). How do you propose Walmart improves sales volume and keep prices the same?
Unless of course you think Walmart should raise prices. Of course raising prices would negatively affect MORE PEOPLE who shop at Walmart than who work at Walmart. MOST of Walmarts customers are people at or below the median income.
You complain that Walmart doesn't pay its people enough, that some have to be on foodstamps. Funny thing is, Walmart is where the majority of foodstamp recipients shop. Maybe half of Walmart's sales are from foodstamp and welfare recipients.
Life isn't a simple fairytale where someone simply waves a magic wand and changes things. In ALL things in life for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Why does this upset people? When I was making very little money, the Company I worked for had a United Way Drive every year. I always contributed something. It was my choice, not an occasion to whine about my Salary at the time. You would think Walmart was pulling a Godfather, either your canned goods are on that table or your brains will be.
How silly, Evil Walmart is asking the Employees they Pay to help out a Charity. I guess people forgot that it was Walmart that had Trucks full of Supplies in LA and MS right after Katrina. Their Logistics capability is second to none.
Walmart is opening a brand-new store in Washington D.C. This therefore is a store entering an existing market, one that has not been “tainted” by a big store driving down wages or anything.
You claim they offer noncompetitive wages, which would mean they should have trouble convincing people to work, since they should LOSE those employees to the other employers who offer more competitive wages (that is the definition of competitive wage, after all, a wage that allows a company to win the competition for workers).
So, how badly is Walmart losing this competition? Bad enough that they have 23,000 applicants for their 600 positions. They have 40 people to consider for each job they have. Sounds pretty competitive to me.
Some people, like my increasingly ignorant daughter, think Walmart should pay better wages so everybody that works there can afford thanksgiving dinner. Because apparently, when 40 people want 1 job, a company should offer HIGHER wages.
I think liberals are upset because they want those employees to have to depend on Government, and it hurts their cause if Walmart is actually helping to take care of their own employees.
Oddly, the same liberals will argue that the Walmart managers are getting paid evil high salaries on the backs of their poorer employees — even though these donation bins COULD be used by those high-paid employees to help the less-well-paid employees.
And I refuse to shop on thanksgiving, but apparently a lot of people want to shop on thanksgiving, so companies are going to open their doors.
It is why I respect Chic-Fil-A, they have stuck with their “closed on sunday”, even though half the time my family is sitting around and says “hey, let’s go to Chic-Fil-A”, and then we say “oh wait, it’s Sunday”.
If the employees are really upset, they will rise up (not 100 of them out of 2 million). When Walmart has large-scale discontent, they will have to pay more money to make their employees less discontented, because you need employees to at least not be unhappy in order to provide reasonable service, which you need to grow your business.
COSTCO has an entirely different business model. They do stores in high-volume higher wage areas. They charge membership to keep out “unwelcome” elements. And a lot of rich people like that. And they buy fewer items, but in large quantities, giving them a fairly low cost profile, even taking into account the membership fees.
And they have the business you can get from the people who are attracted to that model. Walmart has the business of people who are willing to brave anything to get what they think are cheaper goods.
I’m not a fan of shopping at Walmart — I’m willing to spend a bit more to shop at a cleaner, brighter store. My wife buys groceries at Walmart though, along with a lot of other things.
I have a part-time job as a haunt monster at a theme park, we get $8 an hour plus a hazard premium, and a bump for returning from the previous year. Nobody would live on that wage. So it’s a lot of kids in college (it is great pay for those kids), kids who haven’t had jobs before, and people like me looking for a fun thing to do for a month.
If the company had to pay $15 an hour, they’d employ 30% less of us, and then they’d be in a downward spiral, because the scares wouldn’t be as good, so people would stop coming, so they’d have less money. As it is, if there’s some bad weather, they start telling people not to show up for work sometimes, because you can’t pay more in wages than you take in gate receipts.
You raise a valid point. If the government didn’t provide all that assistance with my tax dollars, the workers probably wouldn’t be so willing to work at Walmart for those wages, and Walmart would probably have to raise their wages and prices.
But that still doesn’t make it Walmart’s problem . If Walmart raises wages and benefits, they will be less competitive, and will have to lay off workers. Those workers will be on full government assistance.
It’s not just WalMart that underpays and relies on tax payers to support their employees. You say if WalMart raises their prices they will not be competitive...yet there are companies that do in fact provide living wages and benefit packages that keep their employees off state/fed assistance programs.
“Data published by the state of Massachusetts reveal that Walmart has 4,327 employees — approximately one-quarter of its workforce — enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program or one of two other publicly subsidized health insurance programs. Insuring these employees and their dependents costs taxpayers $14.6 million a year. Target has an even larger share — more than one-third of its Massachusetts workforce, or 2,610 people — enrolled.”
Source:
http://www.ilsr.org/chains-walmart-foods-free-ride-taxpayers-expense-responsible-small-businesses/
My point is that taxpayers are supporting WalMart’s ability to offer low wages. Yes, there are people who need jobs and will jump at the chance to have a job. BUT...these same folks who are starting out will still require assistance from the state to eat and for their healthcare.
For those who say it will lead to fewer jobs...that not entirely the reality at retail service establishments. If lines are long or shelves are empty due to not enough help...guess what...folks will shop where they can actually buy what they want when they want it.
In some places...there may not be a lot options on where to shop. But it’s also true that some one may see an opportunity and decide to open up shop. The thing about WalMart that I’ve seen, are more and more businesses have figured out how to successfully compete against WalMart AND have enough business to be profitable. (and offer good wages and solid benefits).
Based on my experience... one way to go up against WalMart is to have very good customer service, reasonable prices and excellent in stock conditions. It also doesn’t hurt to have an employee base that cares about doing a good job and a management staff that realizes the importance of playing at a higher level.
What you are saying is that there is a market for a company that charges more, provides better service, and pays more.
And you are saying that some company already exists for that market.
And we know that whatever these other companies are, and we know some of them and they are doing very well, are already competing against Walmart.
We also know that they have not taken over Walmart in any market where they compete. They can compete, but they can not replace.
That tells us that there is a significant market for the lower prices Walmart offers, that has no interest in better customer service or higher prices.
If Walmart became Costco-2, they would lose the market they currently have, and would compete against the market Costco has; and would likely not do well against that market, since CostCo has a high brand loyalty.
Target would be very happy if Walmart would take this approach. Target is basically marketing for a slightly upscale version of the cheap shopper market. They offer less items, in a nicer store. As you note, they don’t pay well; in our area, the turnover in Target and Walmart associates is high.
BTW, the comparisons with Costco show the same thing, a high turnover in Walmart employment vs Costco. Many comparators call this a bad thing.
But it could also indicate that Walmart is providing a useful service — giving people their first jobs. Some people like Walmart enough to stick it out and rise up the ranks, most don’t, and move on to other jobs that pay better in other companies (like CostCo), once they have the experience.
Next time you are in Costco, go up to some of their workers and ask them two things; first, how long they worked there, and second, if they worked somewhere else first. Do the same at a Walmart.
What you will find is that the average Costco employee has worked longer at the store, and also had experience at another store before they were able to get the Costco job. Walmart has a lot of first-timers; they also have a lot of people who worked somewhere else, but not in retail (like the greeters, retired people looking for something fun).
Greeters are a great example of how Walmart provides a more unique employment, one that does NOT pay well, because frankly the job is trivial “Hello, welcome to Walmart” is hardly a task that needs experience). But the people in those jobs don’t need good pay, they are doing it for fun. Or it is their first job ever, and they will get to put it on a resume that they showed up for work every day, and that will help them get a better job later.
No company has any control over, or any responsibility, for what government decides to do with your tax dollars. It is not Walmart’s fault that people have voted for governments that give taxes away to poor people.
But as long as government does that, people will undervalue their employment, because they will have a secondary source of “income”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.