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.
"We" are paying the salaries for Walmart employees because many of them use welfare benefits. So if you are against Walmart paying their employees more because "shelf-stockers don't need to make $15 per hour," then you are basically agreeing to pay for their EBT cards, Medicaid, and so on. You can't really have it both ways. Either you support a living wage or you support welfare. Since Walmart is not going to cease to exist and since in many areas, it is one of the only employment opportunities available to low-skilled workers (or even skilled workers...), the problem is not going to go away. Walmart hires only adults, not teenagers. It is adults, many who are trying to support families, who work there.
What is the solution? If nothing happens, then nothing happens: The employees will continue to use welfare benefits that the "don't raise minimum wage!" crowd complain about.
A question for Bernie. Have you ever shopped at a Walmart?
Retail and Fast Food have never been careers that one can make a fortune working at. These jobs are not that highly skilled, dangerous or physically demanding and the pay reflects that.
I know 2 guys that own gift shops. They are very Liberal and vote a straight Democrat ticket. I once asked them what they thought of the $15 minimum wage and they were all for it but then I asked why they don't pay their people $15 per hour now and they both said "are you crazy we would go out of business".
$15 per hour sounds like a great idea that will really help people that work retail jobs BUT let me burst the socialist liberal bubble, the extra money has to come from somewhere.
Considering Walmart & "2 guys that own gift shops" is not a suitable comparison, in fact it's ridiculous.
I'm just interested in how so many Progressives are now arguing for a regressive tax structure.
Of course, they do. A regressive tax structure yields more income/wealth equality, and enables enough tax revenue to fund generous government-provided social programs like national health care. Economic fact.
"We" are paying the salaries for Walmart employees because many of them use welfare benefits. So if you are against Walmart paying their employees more because "shelf-stockers don't need to make $15 per hour," then you are basically agreeing to pay for their EBT cards, Medicaid, and so on. You can't really have it both ways. Either you support a living wage or you support welfare. Since Walmart is not going to cease to exist and since in many areas, it is one of the only employment opportunities available to low-skilled workers (or even skilled workers...), the problem is not going to go away. Walmart hires only adults, not teenagers. It is adults, many who are trying to support families, who work there.
What is the solution? If nothing happens, then nothing happens: The employees will continue to use welfare benefits that the "don't raise minimum wage!" crowd complain about.
Here's a newsflash, we're also paying public benefits for the employees of the sainted Mom and Pop Main Street businesses.
Then there is this quote from the founder, Sam Walton...Sam Walton always said this -- he said: "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment". link
Labor organization/representation only works when the majority of workers recognize they have strength in numbers. Capitalism has historically resisted labor organization.
Regards
Gemstone1
I read the article and the manager training document and, yes, they are both pretty much right on. When I first started there I was impressed with the benefits, and Walmart DOES have some really good ones, but the wages have always been low. That was the only change I was actually rooting for. And part time associates CAN have benefits, same as full time, but it takes longer to kick in and 'might not be' as lucrative. PTO hours and bonus checks are smaller because they are based on hours worked but it doesn't take much to become full time, if that's what they want. I always figured the ONLY thing a union 'might' do is get us higher wages but then Walmart raised their minimum and cut hours. Who wins? Not the associates! So why bother?
Orientation for associates DOES include 'instructions' re: unions. You are not even allowed to TALK about it much less try to organize associates. Instant termination!
Maybe we should be thinking more about lowering inflation and the cost of living, instead of adding to it.
In the 1960s, a good starting pay out of college was $8000. Six years later we built a new 4 bedroom house for $34,000. See where I’m going here?
Here's a newsflash, we're also paying public benefits for the employees of the sainted Mom and Pop Main Street businesses.
Correct. But since it's already been established that a $15/hr minimum wage would put a mom and pop business out of business in many cases, it seems silly to start there. Also, a typical mom and pop business has, what, a handful of employees? Focusing on large corporations that make billions of dollars and that still take advantage of the welfare system would make more sense than focusing on Mabel's Kitchen or Jimmy's Hardware.
Low level part-time people are NOT worth the same as highly trained full time people.
I agree with you but in Walmart world seniority and skill don't seem to matter much. When newbies are brought it at the same wage it took so many to get to there was a LOT of anger and angst because it was felt that the long timers should've been given substantial raises as well. Didn't happen and won't happen.
My 8 years weren't worth any more than a new associate.
Correct. But since it's already been established that a $15/hr minimum wage would put a mom and pop business out of business in many cases, it seems silly to start there. Also, a typical mom and pop business has, what, a handful of employees? Focusing on large corporations that make billions of dollars and that still take advantage of the welfare system would make more sense than focusing on Mabel's Kitchen or Jimmy's Hardware.
Again, what's the proposed solution?
The solution is always "one size fits all". Make WalMart/Target, etc. have a higher minimum and you'll hear Mom and Pop Sundries scream because they'll lose employees.
DC just raised the minimum for tipped wait staff to $15/hour through referendum (the DC Mayor and Council are now working to reverse that). The main opponents to the referendum were................tipped wait staff.
Keep in mind that in some areas of the country teachers are paid so little they qualify for EBT.
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.
