Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is only for their part-time employees, not those working over 30 hours a week. How many part-timers get health-care anywhere else? Especially with national health-care coming on (eventually), why should anyone offer it?
That is only for their part-time employees, not those working over 30 hours a week. How many part-timers get health-care anywhere else? Especially with national health-care coming on (eventually), why should anyone offer it?
I've never worked in a big box store, nor do I know anyone who does, who gets a full 30 hours. It's well known that these companies cap non-managers at 29 hours so they don't have to pay benefits. So no, part-timers don't get benefits.
Except when I applied at Costco a few years back. They did offer part-time benefits and the hours required to earn the bennies.
Different business model Wal-Mart doesn't charge $125 a year to enter their stores. I love how libs think certain businesses are so nice. When the good times stop Costco will shave off labor costs like anyone else.
Wal-Mart does in fact have a join-to-shop branch - Sam's Club. And compared to that, Costco has roughly twice the sales figures per employee. It's almost as if paying more gets better performance. What a concept!
And they should be making a living wage, if you work full time, that should be enough money to keep you off government assistance. Instead, places like Walmart would rather pay their employees less and let the government pick up the slack for them. If Walmart and places like them wish to do business, they should be able to provide an income high enough for their employees to keep them out of poverty.
What do you think about a sliding scale for the minimum wage? Based on gross sales companies pay their employees more for the same work as less successful competitors. After all, they have a duty to keep them in a certain standard of living depending on their success, right?
A person doing the exact same job shouldn't be paid as much if they aren't working at WalMart. Indeed, a person doing less demanding work should be paid more at WalMart than the same person doing more demanding work at a mom and pop.
Make sense?
Why should the minimum wage be set by law for everyone when what is really fair is based on what the employer can absorb. Your pay shouldn't be based on the labor market, or God forbid choice or any competitive measure because competition = capitalism and capitalism is wrong and that's why our nation's CAPITAL should re-distribute wealth not based on ability, job performance, or productivity, but based solely on how much the employer makes.
It's a great plan because it would permanently box the employer in to specific margins. The more the employer makes the more the employee makes.
That is only for their part-time employees, not those working over 30 hours a week. How many part-timers get health-care anywhere else? Especially with national health-care coming on (eventually), why should anyone offer it?
How many full-time employees does Walmart have these days?
Starbucks, Costco, Target, Whole Foods, UPS all offer health-care to part-time workers.
On that last point, I agree. I think health-care should be completely separated from employment. And I think that the exchanges will go some way towards making that happen.
But, until we are 100% there, I think it is awful that the largest U.S. employer sets such an example.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,410,771 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by northnut
Read what exactly? Your post? I did. I posted your entire post in my response. What did I miss?
The reason minimum wage used to be liveable is because they didn't have to have cable/satellite and cell phones. That alone has shot up everyone's bills by at least $150 a month. Not to mention the stupid cost of gasoline and food. Minimum wage will never be live-able until living without cable or cell phones (and their data plans) stop being considered essential by those trying to live off of it.
The point is (although not explicitly made) that things have been tacked on to people's existence that have helped shoot up what we need to exist. These things only increased our monthly expenditures whereas they did not exist in the 70's (when minimum wage was closer to live-able). I chose to use cable bills and cell phones (that didn't exist back then) as an example of how we need more now. Yes, medical and housing and other things have gone up too - but that is understood in the general context of the conversation. Now, is cable or cell phones (and their plans) really needed? Consider how many people have both and are only minimum wage earners.
So you are fine with Walmart not paying their full time employees enough of a living wage so that they are forced to live off government assistance?
There is no shifting of welfare costs here, if the people of Walmart are working employees, then they should be given at the minimum a living wage, or what's the point in working?
Or do you not want the poor working class off government welfare because you would have no one to blame about being on government welfare?
This is a country of laws. It has nothing to do with what we think a utopia would be like. Again, would you rather have these people at home unemployed and on welfare? Do you think it's a good idea to have the working youth wandering the streets on the public dole because of evil WalMart?
To me this is a violation of equality. D.C. isn't saying people deserve a living wage. They are saying people at WalMart deserve a living wage. That's what upsets me. They won't dare do it to everyone and they won't dare do it to the unions. WTF is up with that?
So yeah if working means taking someone off the street and still keeping them on food stamps then do it while they pull themselves up.
And if you support this move, do you also support the idea of a government raising the minimum wage by 50% in one move? Do you not have a problem with that?
I hope WalMart sues to recoup the costs they have incurred to date due to this blatent "bait and switch" after luring them to the district.
So, Walmart shouldn't be held responsible for promising to pay more than $12.00 an hour to being with?
Oh, I absolutely agree that there was a "bait and switch" but it wasn't the City Council that pulled it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
