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.
And how many of those ground level, quarter above minimum wage worker are being given enough hours to quality for the health insurance? And how many could even afford the employee portion of the payment? I could only imagine how many would opt out to put a little extra money in their paycheck to feed the family, and prey nothing bad happens until something better comes along.
When you say 1/2 of the workers are insured, which would fit the bill... Corporate headquarters or Brenda the grocery bagger?
The majority at most WalGreens stores I am familiar with. When hours had to be cut to make up for less volume, management was careful to not cut those above 31 hours wk average (the minimum) to below the threshhold. I am sure their bonus would be HIGHER had they cut more to below the threshhold.
Wal Mart at last report insures 51% of all employees. They offer some plans that cost the employee less than $10 per week. BTW, Target insures 40%-you might want to ask the unions you adore why there never was a "WakeUpTarget" campaign..oh I know, it did not meet their "agenda". And you wonder why those of us on the other side shake our heads at the suicidal behavior of unions the last 30+ years?
This is partly why I wish that the US had universal healthcare. It would actually take that burden away from employers. Helathcare should not be tied to employment, period.
There will always be those who would argue we can't afford it. That is mostly coming from the folks who could most afford it I would imagine. As a nation, we can't afford not to do something though. It will hurt, but it's going to hurt a lot worse for many individual Americans if something isn't done. Unfortunately, no matter what comes out of the white house or congress, we can rest assure it will not benefit anyone or address any of the underline problem the nations faces. Of course, it will be dripping with pork enough to satisfy Rosie O'Donnell for years to come.
The majority at most WalGreens stores I am familiar with. When hours had to be cut to make up for less volume, management was careful to not cut those above 31 hours wk average (the minimum) to below the threshhold. I am sure their bonus would be HIGHER had they cut more to below the threshhold.
Wal Mart at last report insures 51% of all employees. They offer some plans that cost the employee less than $10 per week. BTW, Target insures 40%-you might want to ask the unions you adore why there never was a "WakeUpTarget" campaign..oh I know, it did not meet their "agenda". And you wonder why those of us on the other side shake our heads at the suicidal behavior of unions the last 30+ years?
Walgreens is pretty top notch as far as chain stores goes. The same can't be said for Walmart however. And I have previously stated union representation simply does not entail higher wages or better benefits. That is determined at the bargaining table. What the union does guarantee however, is a place AT the bargaining table. At least the worker is being met half way. If the worker wants a chance at higher pay or better benefits, they must strive for a higher skillset or more education, the same with any other non union position.
Wal Mart insures 51%, Target 40%. If Wal Mart is not top notch, why is the wrath for Target not even higher?
Because Target has not actively chased out union sentiment out of the stores, along with every other store in town. Yes, those running the show at Walmart do use heavy handed tactics to get their way. Yes, they will sell for a loss if it means starving a mom and pop out of town. They know what they are doing, and have the means to do it.
Benefit costs, especially Health Care, exploded during the same timeframe. If you turn in your insurance and could waive your rights to it during all future enrollment periods, your boss would happily split the cost savings with you.
These kinds of jobs usually don't offer benefits so that has nothing to do with it.
Wal Mart insures 51%, Target 40%. If Wal Mart is not top notch, why is the wrath for Target not even higher?
The reason Walmart is targeted is because it's one of the largest employers in the country, if not the largest. The thinking is that if they can unionize Walmart getting in at other chains will be easier. Half the battle is already won with Walmart. I can assure you that those who care about workers aren't too happy with Target and other similar employers either. But Walmart has more power than most other companies and spend a lot of money to lobby politicians and make sure their employees remain ignorant and powerless.
Unions and other labor organizations don't have unlimited money and people to be able to focus attention everywhere it's needed so they've chosen to focus on the giant for now. If you can beat the giant the dwarfs will be a piece of cake.
LOL! Many are great at chasing away without attention. Target may well be one of them.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to articulate with this suggestion. At any rate, as I've mentioned before, unions have very little leverage over wages, or even benefits in most forms of unskilled work. There is simply no way to raise the floor for someone who bags groceries. Almost all of them could be replaced in a day. With the advent of self scanning stations, these workers days are numbered, and I'm sure they are well aware. There is very little place for a union in such an environment. If anything, a union is simply a parasite, sucking away a bit more of that hard earned, much needed paycheck. Even in many semiskilled occupations, it's questionable how much value a union could have for the worker. Maybe it takes 2 weeks to train a worker. The company would survive.
My argument regarding unions is simply from the perspective of skilled trades. For those of us who have earned our JM cards, or have the skills to survive the private sector, they really don't serve much advantage for us. I can earn more in the private sector that I can working for my former union, following their progressive scale. I know many machinists in the union who are only making around $21, when they could easily fetch $30/hr in the right non union shop. I have left, and I have voted against going union within the companies I've worked for when presented with the vote. Does that mean I hate them? Heck no, I'd be a button button smashing monkey if it weren't for the union, probably working in a $12-$14/hr low skill, go nowhere plant like the one you suggest you work for. But when you need some gears for your machines hobbed, or perhaps some specialty cutting tools designed and manufactured, you'll be glad there are still a few guys around like me, complements of the good ol union
Unions and other labor organizations don't have unlimited money and people to be able to focus attention everywhere it's needed so they've chosen to focus on the giant for now. If you can beat the giant the dwarfs will be a piece of cake.
They have wasted many MILLIONS in the process!
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.
I am sure their bonus would be HIGHER had they cut more to below the threshhold.
