posted
That's a fine and standard issue, best negotiated through a Union. One of the reasons why we even have this thread is WalMart and Whole Foods have spent tens of millions of dollars busting union drives at their stores.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
zgator, that's a good point, and one that Irami and I will probably have differing opinions on... I'm not much of a liberal.
I think the point is that many other employers, like Costco, do feel that their employees deserve a certain level of wages and benefits, even if they could "get away" with paying them far less. Walmart could easily do the same and still satisfy their customer's desire for low prices, if they chose to make employees a higher priority than, as human2.0 points out, satellite networks.
What really pisses me off, though, is how many of the people working at crap jobs like Walmart DID have decent, secure, well-paying jobs at local factories, who now have nowhere else to turn for a paycheck. They WERE skilled at something, but that skill is no longer employable in the United States, so they're tossed in with the 16-year-olds and high-school dropouts and other "unskilled labor" and suddenly forced to take 2 or even 3 crap jobs at places like Walmart just to provide for their families.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: it doesn't make sense to continue to raise someone's salary (beyond cost of living) when they are no longer providing additional benefit to the company.
Longevity is usually a huge benefit to the company.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, the issue isn't best addressed through Unions. THe issue is best addressed through a change management priorities. like CostCo or In and Out. But a Union is a fine second best.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hehe. I love it how I read this stuff on Hatrack first, and then from whatever major news organization I read through. [/off topic]
Here's an Op-Ed from the Washington Post today about Wal Mart. It seems that the very opposition we're talking about has actually effected change in Wal Mart. I suppose the question now is whether the changes will be good enough. (Better than bad does not necessarily mean good.)
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmm, wow, everyone has some good points. i see good reason from everyone for both sides of this thread. for my personal opinion, i think having a place to get the exact same thing cheaper is a good thing. the problem with paying someone too little is solved simply, that person should quit. if people are unsatisfied with their job, they wont do it well and customer satisfaction will lower. i forget who it was, but someone said that there is a limit as to how much u should pay someone to run a cashier, or stock shelves. i agree with this completely. if i were to finish college this semester and go get a decent career, i dont want to know that someone who dropped out of highschool and working at Walmart will be making more money than me.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:if i were to finish college this semester and go get a decent career, i dont want to know that someone who dropped out of highschool and working at Walmart will be making more money than me.
Of course, that too can be solved simply by quitting college and working at Wal-Mart. Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: i dont want to know that someone who dropped out of highschool and working at Walmart will be making more money than me.
I would like to know that someone who was willing to hold down the best job they could get made enought money to afford a decent place to live and food for their family.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the whole argument about having someone support a family i disagree with. I dont see how Walmart is the best job someone can get who is trying to raise a family. Werent people earlier in the thread saying that one of the bad things about walmart is that they pay employees less than other larger and similar companies. also mentioned was that very few people working for walmart are given benefits. so if u are trying to raise or provide for a family, and u are a cashier at walmart, i think that person should start looking for a different job. I guess what im saying is that i could see this being put into an arguement for almost any company, not specifically walmart. in other people's defense tho, i have been known to be completely nuts/crazy at times when attempting to make a strong conversational point.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize that the people making Walmart's goods live in third world countries and don't actually have the option to quit, right?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I dont see how Walmart is the best job someone can get who is trying to raise a family
Not the best job, but sometimes the only available job, in which case it would be nice if it could provide enough of a living to survive on.
I guess my biggest problem with Wal-Mart is how they use some pretty anti-competitive tactics in dealing with competitors and manufacturers. It's pretty hard to fight a monopoly. And it doesn't help their case that the owners are beyond wealthy and they still can't find the money to pay their employees a little better.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I happen to think that it's more important to spend ones time and energy in raising the family rather than securing the "best" job, and that the two aims coincide less frequently than is popularly stated. I also don't think that it's a shame for a person with a college degree to work at Walmart. (Secretly, I think that if more workers were so educated, WalMart would be Unionized, which makes me wonder if WalMart, in a very indirect manner, is taking advantage of the education gap in America.)
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
krynn, what these people are saying is that because walmart sells shoddy merchandise produced overseas American factories that used to provide people with a place to work that paid a living wage to support a family have shut down. Because those jobs are no longer available, the job market is pretty tight. This causes some people to only be able to find jobs at walmart. So if they quit, there's no where else for them to work.
Going by that argument, shopping at walmart causes more American jobs to be lost, and more people to slide into poverty and low paying part-time jobs with bad benefits.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, to whoever said Target was a poor imitator of Walmart, both companies opened their first store in 1962. (Well, the company that is now Target opened it's first store in 1902, but it's first discount store in 1962. There have been Targets in my neck of the woods far, far longer than there have been Walmarts. Walmart is bigger now and spread faster, but neither can accurately be said to be an imitator of the other.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH - the reason you don't see Walmart now that you're up here is because the City of Chicago is strictly a union town. Wal-Mart is strongly anti-union. As long as Wal-Mart forbids union involvement, Chicago will forbid the existence of a Wal-Mart within its borders. You'll have to hop on the El (or get a ride from someone) and get out to the burbs if you want to shop at one.
I dislike Wal-Mart because every single one I've shopped at is dirty, disorganized, understocked, understaffed, and generally a royal pain in the patella. Certainly not worth what money I would save shopping there. I'll gladly pay the little bit extra and go to Target, which is closer to my home anyway, to actually be able to find what I want. And in my opinion, the clothing and shoes I've bought at Target are of a better quality and hold up longer than those bought at Wal-Mart. Plus Target employees actually pay attention to customers walking around!
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
<--- Another teacher with a college degree and 11 years of experience who apparently makes less than a Costco cashier with 4.5 years of experience.
quote:<--- Another teacher with a college degree and 11 years of experience who apparently makes less than a Costco cashier with 4.5 years of experience.
:-\
Now now, this isn't about how much the Costco employee makes, it's about how much you are underpaid. That you make less than 40,000 dollars is a mark on how much we value education, not a comment on the worth of Costco Employees.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Werent people earlier in the thread saying that one of the bad things about walmart is that they pay employees less than other larger and similar companies. also mentioned was that very few people working for walmart are given benefits. so if u are trying to raise or provide for a family, and u are a cashier at walmart, i think that person should start looking for a different job.
That's a luxury reserved for people who have enough time to research new jobs and conduct interviews, local employers who are hiring, and enough financial cushion to make the commute/relocation feasible. Wal-Mart jobs are rarely synonymous with any of the above.
That Wal-Mart forbids their buyers from accepting anything from a potential vendor, I think certain politicians should take lessons.
That Wal-Mart busts unions, uses external financial clout to underprice local competition, and has a history of practices like winking and nodding at managers who make employees work off the clock and refusing to report workman's comp claims when they might have to foot the bill... Do I smell brimstone?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironically, I find myself agreeing with Irami, who I've oppossed before. Such is politics. Here is a previous link: walmart thread. One important fact I gleaned from the documentary:Walmart can be cheap in the end-caps, but just average price-wise in their other prices along the aisles. The cheap prices in the end-caps creates an illusion of low prices through out the store!! This perception is not true, lots of regular prices are equivilent or higher than other local merchant prices. Watch for this!!
Herends the lecture.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now now, this isn't about how much the Costco employee makes, it's about how much you are underpaid. That you make less than 40,000 dollars is a mark on how much we value education, not a comment on the worth of Costco Employees.
I didn't say otherwise. Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I happen to think that it's more important to spend ones time and energy in raising the family rather than securing the "best" job, and that the two aims coincide less frequently than is popularly stated.
I agree. That is the case with almost any job regardless of education or pay.
quote: I also don't think that it's a shame for a person with a college degree to work at Walmart. (Secretly, I think that if more workers were so educated, WalMart would be Unionized, which makes me wonder if WalMart, in a very indirect manner, is taking advantage of the education gap in America.)
Paranoid much? I think you are giving Walmart too much credit. They are not responsible for the decline in American society. Are they taking advantage of it? Sure, as are many many many other companies nationwide. But they are also offering products at a price most Americans can afford, which is something this country desperately needs as well. Which is worse: the company who laid (layed? some grammar kings can correct me, I'm sure) off my husband knowing we were having a baby the next month, the school districts who pay nothing over the pitiful state minimum (mine does but I am still making peanuts), or Walmart who has some shading business practices but generally offers a wide variety of products in one location at a low price. There are cartainly worse things in the world.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since Wal-Mart came to Canada, our own chains of this type (Zellers, Eaton's, the Hudson's Bay Company) have mostly collapsed because they can't compete with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is so huge that they can simply enter a market, undercut all of their competitors, and wait until the other stores close and they're the only game in town.
I once bought a box of condoms and a box of granola bars from a Wal-Mart, and when I was looking for the Firefly DVDs back when they first came out my search took me to Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart didn't have them, and neither did anyone else until I found them at a Future Shop several weeks later). Since then I haven't set foot in one, and I plan to keep it that way. I shop at domestic retailers wherever possible -- the exception to this rule is video games, because there are no domestic retailers in this town. I have an EB Games (American chain) and a Future Shop (Canadian chain until it was bought out by Best Buy a couple of years ago), and no other options as far as I can tell. I prefer the Future Shop, but shop at both.
Added: There was an interesting article in Harper's a while back that drew an analogy between the franchise and the virus. I found it thought-provoking.
Added 2: I'm quite happy to pay significantly more for my consumer goods if it means supporting domestic stores. There are people who can't afford that, but those who can, should.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Market will, over time, even things out. Sometimes we lose patence and try to fix things quicker,as with a union or legislation. Those interventions usually cause other problems that then irritate until they resolve. What we in the US need to remember is that the Market is world wide, and any attempt to change that is artificial and temporary.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm quite happy to pay significantly more for my consumer goods if it means supporting domestic stores. There are people who can't afford that, but those who can, should.
I am glad this works for you, but I don't think it is appropriate to tell people where to spend their money, especially when it comes to something like supporting domestic stores. What if they consider themselves a citizen of the world? What if they spend less at the grocery store and therefore more on trips to the Canadian frontier, supporting bush pilots and tour guides along the way? What if shopping at Wal-Mart means more candy to give out? That's balancing overpaying at the grocery store against building community among the neighbors.
Maybe it just bothers me because I dislike it when other people have great ideas for how I should spend my budget.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Shopping at Wal-Mart means what it means. If you're okay with that, go ahead and shop there. Lots of people do.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your capitalization of the word "market" disturbs me.
It was done intentionally. "The Market" is an economic term that roughly means the effects of most persons usually doing what is best for themselves in the long run.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
All have been used in this thread. I would say Walmart (my preference) needs to make the correct spelling of their name a little better known.
Edit: Apparently "Wal-Mart" is correct. I actually went and checked at their website, something I've never bothered to do before. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Market will, over time, even things out. Sometimes we lose patence and try to fix things quicker,as with a union or legislation. Those interventions usually cause other problems that then irritate until they resolve. What we in the US need to remember is that the Market is world wide, and any attempt to change that is artificial and temporary.
True. But "the Market" doesn't care how many people suffer "over time". We should.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:True. But "the Market" doesn't care how many people suffer "over time". We should
Sure we should. In fact sometimes things like pure food and drug legislation (which adds credibility to the Market) or environmental laws (which attach the real cost to the environment of goods and services)appear to work well. But, in the long run , international barriers to trade or artificial prices for goods or services do not.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Shopping at Wal-Mart means what it means. If you're okay with that, go ahead and shop there. Lots of people do.
That's just it - it can mean many different things. You do not get to pick your favorite meaning and apply it to everyone.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It only means one thing to Wal-Mart. But if you find my statement so intolerable, I can make the implied "I think" in front of "those who can" explicit.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, twinky. I think this touched on something else that was bugging me. Something was proposed, I said I couldn't because I didn't have the money for it, and the person proposing told me that it wasn't that much and I certainly could. That just bugged me - I could have, but I am choosing to spend it on other things. I don't like the idea that where we shop is the ultimate expression of civic pride.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then you'll love how Cor's principal specifically suggested shopping at Wal-Mart to the faculty when she changed the dress code.
("Don't tell me you can't afford to go out a buy a bunch of new clothes. There are plenty of nice things at Wal-Mart.")
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm quite happy to pay significantly more for my consumer goods if it means supporting domestic stores. There are people who can't afford that, but those who can, should. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am glad this works for you, but I don't think it is appropriate to tell people where to spend their money, especially when it comes to something like supporting domestic stores
I know people have taken offense at this before but I do agree. I won't speak for anyone else but for *me* the "should" indicates a kind of moral imperative. Knowing the conditions WalMart factory workers labor under and still buying their goods would be, in my eyes, saying I approve of those conditions.
(FWIW, I don't speak from a place of privelege. We hovor pretty close to the poverty line.)
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People do it all the time. I have come to the conclusion that people have their own agendas for their discretionary income. I spend mine on travel and haircuts and books. My dad spends it on music and remodeling the house. Other friends spend theirs on expensive food and cooking things. One friend, unfortunately and involuntarily, spends hers on the dentist.
There are many ways to be a good citizen. I find it interesting that in many places, it has come to mean what happens with your wallet as opposed to the other ways to strengthen your community.
For instance, outfitting a Boy Scout troop for camp. Much cheaper when done at Wal-Mart. Considering that's what makes it possible for many people to go to camp, and they could go less often or for less long if they shopped somewhere more expensive, I think it's morally a wash. Which means it's up to the individuals, and it's nice to have choices.
romany: That works only if everything Wal-Mart sold was evil and everything sold everywhere else was made by happy workers with a 401(k) and health insurance. I don't think it is nearly so clean cut.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That just bugged me - I could have, but I am choosing to spend it on other things. I don't like the idea that where we shop is the ultimate expression of civic pride.
Well, when it comes to frivolous expenditures, I'm the poster child in some respects. Heck, in the last couple of weeks I've spent more than CDN$200 on video games. I make charitable donations -- some regularly, others one-time things -- but I could certainly afford to donate more to charity than I do, were I to forgo some of my "hobby" purchases. I'm in a position of relative privilege as a result of my chosen career path, which is something I'm still having a bit of trouble coming to grips with... so something that might be a big sacrifice for someone else, like paying 10% more for a wide variety of products because I don't buy them at Wal-Mart, has a net impact on my life of approximately nil.
Therefore, I view not shopping at Wal-Mart as one of the many small things I can do -- sort of like turning unnecessary lights off, or minimizing my use of my air conditioner -- that have a negligble impact on my life but are, in my view, worthwhile. Another example is that I fly with Canada's national carrier wherever possible (which translates to almost all the time) because I think it's a valuable symbol for my country to have and it deserves my support. And to tie this back to the frivolous purchases thing, I go out of my way to pay more for innovative video games from small to mid-size studios by buying them shortly after they're released even though I don't have a hope of playing them in the next month or two.
Essentially I'm saying that I think people who can afford to do so should support things they think are worthwhile, even if that means going a bit out of their way. I like to support domestic retailers and that means not supporting Wal-Mart. Tack on the fact that I don't like the way they do business, and that's why I don't shop there at all now, even when no other store has what I want.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I'm glad it works for you, and by all means, keep doing that.
It seems like your ultimate goal is not the destruction of Wal-Mart, but promoting your country and working to make life better for everyone.
What I'm saying is that boycotting Wal-Mart is not the only way to do that. Doing so is not a moral act in itself, but a method of achieving a moral end.
I have also (I am not saying that this is why you do it) found more than a little classism in the eschewing of Wal-Mart - like the Slate article where the sophisticated shop at Costco and the laughable schlubs shop at Sam's Warehouse. I don't like it.
I prefer to think myself better than other people for entirely different reasons. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:made by happy workers with a 401(k) and health insurance
Well, happy is up to the indiviual, but yes, I think every one is entitles to health insurance and 401K. Starbucks provides health insurance to all it's workers, no matter how many hours they work. If they can, WallMart can.
(Yeah, I know there are lots of issues with Starbucks. I waffle on them and will go to an independent place first, if I'm in my home area. Then again, they're local to me.)
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think everyone who makes pronouncements of what businesses can and cannot afford should have the experience of owning one for a while and being responsible for the continuance of it. In France, everyone who is employed DOES have a low hourly work week, ample compensation, and a secure retirement. They also have a 10% unemployment rate and stagnant economic growth.
In other words, it's not that simple.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly enough, though, that shorter work week is not correlated with lower employee productivity.
-------
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What I'm saying is that boycotting Wal-Mart is not the only way to do that. Doing so is not a moral act in itself, but a method of achieving a moral end.
Sure. I don't believe I said otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have also (I am not saying that this is why you do it) found more than a little classism in the eschewing of Wal-Mart - like the Slate article where the sophisticated shop at Costco and the laughable schlubs shop at Sam's Warehouse. I don't like it.
Ah. No, I don't dig that at all. On the subject of socioeconomic status, though, I do make a value judgment when someone who is quite well-off raves about saving fifty cents on a five-dollar item at Wal-Mart because they spent an afternoon driving around bargain-hunting.
...and I make that value judgment without even bothering to calculate how much gasoline that wastes, because I've been known to drive around for no reason at times myself.
quote:I prefer to think myself better than other people for entirely different reasons.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I would say Walmart (my preference) needs to make the correct spelling of their name a little better known.
