Author Topic: Anyone following the Walmart Unionization in Canada? (Read 5080 times)

Urchin · « **Reply #135 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:00:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
While I wont pretend that WalMarty is some great paying job I do wonder how those wage statistics work out when only Wal-Marts full time employees are counted. The reason I ask is because when im I'm there the workers are mostly either very old retiree types or young teeneagre kids and naturally neither group will pull in a full salary or likel'y needs it.

So an additinal question is then one of stategy, is anything wrong if WalMarts cost strategy is to seek out employees who are open to lower paying part time jobs?

Walmart doesn't *do* full-time employees. I know at the Sams Club I worked at, there were like 6 FT employees.. all of them were managers.

Anyway... this is kind of a pointless argument, and I gotta go to bed.

Have a good night.

Toad · « **Reply #136 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:01:11 AM »

Quote

With more than one million employees (three times more than General Motors), this far-flung retailer is the country’s largest private employer, and it intends to remake the image of the American workplace in its image—which is not pretty.

Yes, there is the happy-faced "greeter" who welcomes shoppers into every store, and employees (or "associates," as the company grandiosely calls them) gather just before opening each morning for a pep rally, where they are all required to join in the Wal-Mart cheer: "Gimme a ‘W!’" shouts the cheerleader; "W!" the dutiful employees respond. "Gimme an A!’" And so on.

Behind this manufactured cheerfulness, however, is the fact that the average employee makes only $15,000 a year for full-time work. Most are denied even this poverty income, for they’re held to part-time work. While the company brags that 70% of its workers are full-time, at Wal-Mart "full time" is 28 hours a week, meaning they gross less than $11,000 a year.

Health-care benefits? Only if you’ve been there two years; then the plan hits you with such huge premiums that few can afford it—only 38% of Wal-Marters are covered.

Grun, ask yourself why the retirees are working there.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #137 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:01:48 AM »

Nite.

Urchin · « **Reply #138 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:02:36 AM »

No, not yet... that comes next year.

I've gotta pick something

.

My problem is I think all of it is interesting as hell.. every time I learn something new I'm like.. "Damn, that is good stuff!".

Only problem is I have to bust my bellybutton learning the new stuff... I hate the kids that can sleep through class and still breeze through the tests. I have no idea how they do it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #139 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:08:53 AM »

Good read Toad, I wasnt aware of the 28 hour week rule/.

But it confirms my general thoughts and brings us back to the question whether anything wrong that WalMart designed a strategy based on essientaly part time workers.

Urchin · « **Reply #140 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:10:58 AM »

When it comes to things like this... I tend to be be pretty black & white. I argue from emotion and not logic, which is pointless (but diverting).

I see only two viewpoints... first (mine) which is something like "It is wrong to have a society where the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer"... for me Walmart is the the grail of that society.

To the people who hold the opposite view, which is "It is not only right, but natural, for the rich to get richer and to drive the rest of society into poverty".. my only response is... Are you ****ing crazy?

How does one come to even HOLD that kind of viewpoint?

Anyway, I'm so done for the night lol.

Urchin · « **Reply #141 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:12:20 AM »

Lol, Toad... they have that at Sams Club too. It is gay with a capital GAY.

I refused to open because I would *not* participate in that.. and if you didn't you got written up for it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #142 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:15:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
No, not yet... that comes next year.

I've gotta pick something .

My problem is I think all of it is interesting as hell.. every time I learn something new I'm like.. "Damn, that is good stuff!".

Only problem is I have to bust my bellybutton learning the new stuff... I hate the kids that can sleep through class and still breeze through the tests. I have no idea how they do it.

I graduated with a 3.97 GPA all As except two damned A-. %*%$$@@!!!

I basically slept through many classes, as I would often go to bed at 4 or 5 AM on school days - I went to class and just listened. I breezed through the tests often finishing them first and most times getting the top grade in every class. My classmates were amazed. The part most of them never saw was how much time I spent busting my bellybutton studying and the sacrifices I made to do so well and understand our material.

Maybe these guys do the same?

Sounds like you found the right thiong though Urchin, you seem to love your field and you have the right attitude to make it a succsful and rewrding carrer because you love learning new things about it.

Urchin · « **Reply #143 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:17:40 AM »

Lol.. I have to pay attention in class... then go through the book... and for tests I do ALL the problems in the sections..

I'm just not smart, I think that is the biggest problem.

I am persistant though.. that has to count for something lol.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #144 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:19:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
Lol.. I have to pay attention in class... then go through the book... and for tests I do ALL the problems in the sections..

I'm just not smart, I think that is the biggest problem.

I am persistant though.. that has to count for something lol.

I did them twice or three times in math.

Lets just say I was damed commited to college and determined to get good grades after I dropped out of high school.

Urchin · « **Reply #145 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:20:46 AM »

I only do that when I get em wrong... go back and do em again till I get it right.

Kind of amazing how often you'll do all the calculus stuff right, then screw up the algebra. Well, kind of amazing how often *I* do that anyway.

Toad · « **Reply #146 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:22:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But it confirms my general thoughts and brings us back to the question whether anything wrong that WalMart designed a strategy based on essientaly part time workers.

Do you want to subsidize their strategy?

That's what's happening. The nation's largest employer pays so little that most (obviously over 70%) of their employees qualify for government social benefits? (And Nuke calls me socialist!)

Beyond that, do a search for Walmart's employee practices in China. Sweatshop would sum it up fairly well.

Yeah, I'm all for competition. I'm all for low prices like everyone else. However, I think there has to be a "floor", a level we don't drop below. When a company that is #10 on Forbes list, has more in revenues than the entire GDP of Israel and Ireland combined and pays 70%+ of its employees wages that qualify them for social welfare benefits we're way out of balance.

What they've done is design a strategy to get the rest of us to pay social welfare benefits to their employees.

Smart? Sure. Good for the country? I don't think so.

Besides, unlike some, I think the Waltons have enough bucks and I don't need to be played for a sucker and subsidize them.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #147 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:23:47 AM »

Simple manipulation of fractions is the hardest ting in calculus.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #148 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:26:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Do you want to subsidize their strategy?

That's what's happening. The nation's largest employer pays so little that most (obviously over 70%) of their employees qualify for government social benefits? (And Nuke calls me socialist!)

Beyond that, do a search for Walmart's employee practices in China. Sweatshop would sum it up fairly well.

Yeah, I'm all for competition. I'm all for low prices like everyone else. However, I think there has to be a "floor", a level we don't drop below. When a company that is #10 on Forbes list, has more in revenues than the entire GDP of Israel and Ireland combined and pays 70%+ of its employees wages that qualify them for social welfare benefits we're way out of balance.

What they've done is design a strategy to get the rest of us to pay social welfare benefits to their employees.

Smart? Sure. Good for the country? I don't think so.

Besides, unlike some, I think the Waltons have enough bucks and I don't need to be played for a sucker and subsidize them.

How many of those 70% are typical mom/dad types raising families.

The point is if WalMart targets the young and very old as part time labor then maybe those annual wages are acceptable considering their stage of life?

Urchin · « **Reply #149 on:** February 11, 2005, 01:29:42 AM »

Ugh... must..go..to...sleep lol.

Grun.. I won't argue that most of Walmarts employees are very old or very young.. that was true at the store I worked at.

However, they are competing against stores where that isn't necesarily true. What do you think will happen to the employees of those stores when Walmart can undercut their prices and drive them out of business?

Then Walmarts employees aren't going to be the very old or very young anymore.. they'll be the people who used to work for the competitors.