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.
There is no law that requirers employers provide any benefits of any kind to employees.
That said -- many, if not most, employers, in order to compete, do offer some benefits including access to health insurance. But, because of the increase in premiums, employers have had to reduce their contributions to those premiums and the employees have seen their contributions increase.
The employer is being burdened with so many costs related to the employees, that something had to give.
How generous - you prefer to continue to pay for their food stamps and health care and subsidize their rent with your tax dollars.
Nice of you to give the poor corporation a break
So does that make it wal-marts problem that people working there are happy to collect welfare and not demand better benefits, or does that make it the tax payers problem because without "welfare", their employees would be demanding benefits because many would need insurance?
If you think wal-mart is to blame for the governments willingness to insure everyone upon their behalf then your sadly mistaken..
Notwithstanding the fact that I do not own a television set, and if I did, I would not waste my time watching a pseduo news show like 20/20, I can tell you that I have seen the same things that Ms. Ehrlichson has seen - I have, indeed, "been there and done that" and there observations are spot on in every respect.
If people criticize her and her wonderful book, it is because they are closing their eyes to reality in the hopes that it will go away. Her book is one of my favorites and is very, very accurate in its representation of the working life of the lower classes in America.
I hope that the show that you mention serves to encourage many more people to buy her book! You can't buy advertising like that. LOL
20yrsinBranson
I disagree. Unless one's standards are especially low, "Nickled and Dimed" is not a "wonderful book." Like most of Ehrenreich's writing, it contains a very clever idea that peters out in the telling as the author runs out of steam and forfeits her promises.
For example, "Nickled and Dimed" contains Ehrenreich's promise to stick it out as a minimum-wage worker and (a la George Orwell in "Down and Out in Paris and London" published in the late 1930s), actually live the life of the indigent/underemployed long enough to truly walk the walk --- but she merely dabbles long enough to pick up and relate some pithy episodes. It is an exercise in voyeurism by a wealthy and educated womam seeking to vicariously experience the frisson of need while also making a buck. A typical two-fer.
I recently finished Ehrenreich's latest book "Dancing in the Streets" (and recommend it to those interested in an innovative way to look at social history). A clever and fresh look at collective human psychology, even this book is flawed with Ehrenreich's chronic lack of staying power, and seeming inability to maintain her edge and follow through with what is a potentially powerful thesis. She lazily falls back on popular wisdom and urban mythology in her summary, and ends up being wryly amusing rather than inspirational or truly thought-provoking.
"Nickled and Dimed" (much like its sequel, "Bait and Switched"), displays Enrenreich at her most annoying: clever but not wise, slick but not scholarly, poignant but not persuasive.
For the real deal, give me Orwell's social 70-year-old criticism -- or even Michael Harrington's "The Other America" --- any day. They remain much more readable, and to the point, than Ehrenreich will ever be...
The employer is being burdened with so many costs related to the employees, that something had to give.
Maybe they should consider cutting from the top instead of the bottom? Instead the little guy gets nickel and dimed to death in order to cut costs, so that the upper echelon can still enjoy their perks. Really, I'd feel better about paying my higher insurance premiums if the CEO of my company hadn't received compensation totaling over $1,000,000 last year. Somehow that just makes it so much more difficult to believe that the company is all that 'burdened'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
I disagree. Unless one's standards are especially low, "Nickled and Dimed" is not a "wonderful book." Like most of Ehrenreich's writing, it contains a very clever idea that peters out in the telling as the author runs out of steam and forfeits her promises.
For example, "Nickled and Dimed" contains Ehrenreich's promise to stick it out as a minimum-wage worker and (a la George Orwell in "Down and Out in Paris and London" published in the late 1930s), actually live the life of the indigent/underemployed long enough to truly walk the walk --- but she merely dabbles long enough to pick up and relate some pithy episodes. It is an exercise in voyeurism by a wealthy and educated womam seeking to vicariously experience the frisson of need while also making a buck. A typical two-fer.
Maybe they should consider cutting from the top instead of the bottom?
I would guess that they considered cutting from the top but then decided against it. Cutting from the bottom ususally ads to the profitablity much more than any cuts at the top, but dont let the math of doing so get in the way of your false argument.
Thats their perogative with being at the top. Those at the bottom who disagree with the choice should move to the top and change the policies or start their own competitive company and cut from the top, i.e. their own salaries..
I would guess that they considered cutting from the top but then decided against it. Cutting from the bottom ususally ads to the profitablity much more than any cuts at the top, but dont let the math of doing so get in the way of your false argument.
Better to squeeze a little bit from lots of employees than to try to squeeze a lot from a few employees. That's true. I understand the math. I understand the reasoning.
What I don't understand the BS, the sad little memos about how we must all sacrifice during these hard economic times. I guess "all" doesn't encompass the top brass though, just us little peons at the bottom. There would be a lot more credibility to their claims if they joined us in the sacrifice, is all I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Thats their perogative with being at the top. Those at the bottom who disagree with the choice should move to the top and change the policies or start their own competitive company and cut from the top, i.e. their own salaries.
I can't argue with that.
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.
