Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
questionmark

‘Living wage’ bill will nix plans for DC

31 posts in this topic

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-

retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members.

Read more

In plain English: Wal-Mart will continue its policy to under-price small retailers at the expense of the tax payer because its employees need food stamps and subsidized health care.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I just posted this link in another thread. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=250927 I thought about starting a thread about it, glad you did.

I think it sucks that Wal Mart can manipulate wages like that. No wonder a lot of their employees are on food stamps.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm at a loss as to why people focus on Walmart, when other department stores, clothing stores, grocery stores, fast food restaurants, individually owned businesses, etc, may pay a few cents more on the hour. The same people, who aren't making a living wage, shop at Walmart, as well as Cosco and other warehouse stores. Why aren't people rallying against JC Penny or Belk who also pay minimum wage and charge premium prices?

Sam Walton is an inspiration, who started from nothing.

Edited by Michelle
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss as to why people focus on Walmart, when other department stores, clothing stores, grocery stores, fast food restaurants, individually owned businesses, etc, may pay a few cents more on the hour. The same people, who aren't making a living wage, shop at Walmart, as well as Cosco and other warehouse stores. Why aren't people rallying against JC Penny or Belk who also pay minimum wage and charge premium prices?

Sam Walton is an inspiration, who started from nothing.

If Wal Mart has to start paying people $11.00 or more an hour, that will be passed on to the consumer, because they will have to raise their prices on the products they sell. A lot of customers who shop at Wal Mart are people who are making it paycheck to paycheck. So this is actually good business sense, because you have to have more money coming in, then going out....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then when I shop at Wal-Mart and I see their employees with smart phones and pictures of their three kids hanging around their necks I could care less about them complaining about having to be on food stamps. I can safely say I make three times as much as most Wal-Mart employees and I have 2 kids because I wanted my kids to be well taken care of. I don't have a cell phone because It's a bill I don't need. choices people that is what it is about if you can't afford something don't buy it. does anyone really think the reason the government is voting on this bill is because they care about the poor or those making minimum wage. guess what if they raise minimum wage those people will still be making minimum wage at least the ones that keep their jobs. It won't increase revenue to the government because the ones that get the raise will be evened out by those that lose their jobs. all it is going to do is put more people on the government take period.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Wal Mart has to start paying people $11.00 or more an hour, that will be passed on to the consumer, because they will have to raise their prices on the products they sell. A lot of customers who shop at Wal Mart are people who are making it paycheck to paycheck. So this is actually good business sense, because you have to have more money coming in, then going out....

It is passed on to the consumer anyway, just through the back door and then it is called taxes. A much less ineffective way to cash in as you also have to pay for the friction losses along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm at a loss as to why people focus on Walmart, when other department stores, clothing stores, grocery stores, fast food restaurants, individually owned businesses, etc, may pay a few cents more on the hour. The same people, who aren't making a living wage, shop at Walmart, as well as Cosco and other warehouse stores. Why aren't people rallying against JC Penny or Belk who also pay minimum wage and charge premium prices?

Sam Walton is an inspiration, who started from nothing.

Because Wal-Mart is viewed by many as a "conservative" company and is headquartered in the South.

Target does pretty much the same thing and they're viewed as a cool, hip retailer.

Edited by Rafterman
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One of the problems with Wally World is they got too many chiefs in each store amongst the indians. They got the Store Manager, Co-Manager, Assistant Mangers <-(almost a dozen of these per store), Department Managers <-(a little over a dozen of these per store), and floor supervisors in some departments, like TLE when they already have a Department Manager and a Assistant Manager over that.

Lol. I mean...that is a serious overkill of employee management for just one store. It's no wonder they can't afford a raise in minimum wages.

I don't understand their business tactics, for years they removed the middleman when it came to buying things directly from the factory, thus saving themselves a ton of money. Yet, when it comes to employee management, they can't seem to do the same thing, remove the middle management. They don't need all those different types of managers in one store, it's ridiculous.

All they need is a Store Manager, Co-Manager, Night Supervisor and maybe a few supervisors in some areas like TLE because of safety concerns. They would save a ton of money and be able to pay their regular employees a little above the minimum wage.

They really need to get their crap together, when it comes to stuff like that and make the money they earn work more efficiently for them.

Edited by Purifier
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Titles are cheap.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then when I shop at Wal-Mart and I see their employees with smart phones and pictures of their three kids hanging around their necks I could care less about them complaining about having to be on food stamps.

You do not speak for all Wal-Mart employees. I see just as many, if not more, who struggle daily just to have enough money to pay the exorbitant rent on cheap run-down apartments, car insurance, utilities and so forth.

With the job market the way it is, I am seeing more and more people being forced to rely on retail jobs from greasy king (Burger King) to Home Depot. The few I spoke to even had degrees but there was no work that was remotely in their field.

Jobs are scarce, prices keep rising yet wages are being kept to a level where it keeps the "rabble" like us at a certain level no matter how frugal we try to live. We can't all be superior successes like you so I guess we all deserve what we get, right?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are paying for it anyway. You just see the price tag and "think" you are getting a good deal. But you are not counting the hidden price.

Wal mart is profiting on your tax dollars because they pay low wages and their workers need food stamps to survive...this is corporate subsidy through the back door.

Say what you will...it's the truth.

It's free market. In my opinion, people can choose to work for Costco that pays around $20.00 an hour on average and consumers could always "choose" to spend a few pennies more and shop somewhere else...as a poster above said...it's choices. If enough people shopped elsewhere, Wally World would be forced to change their philosophy...but the common schmuck will not do that...they gotta save that $0.19 on a loaf of bread.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are paying for it anyway. You just see the price tag and "think" you are getting a good deal. But you are not counting the hidden price.

Wal mart is profiting on your tax dollars because they pay low wages and their workers need food stamps to survive...this is corporate subsidy through the back door.

Say what you will...it's the truth.

It's free market. In my opinion, people can choose to work for Costco that pays around $20.00 an hour on average and consumers could always "choose" to spend a few pennies more and shop somewhere else...as a poster above said...it's choices. If enough people shopped elsewhere, Wally World would be forced to change their philosophy...but the common schmuck will not do that...they gotta save that $0.19 on a loaf of bread.

Personally, I prefer to shop at HEB (they have the own line of organic food, which is usually pretty cheap!) But HEBS don't exist outside of Texas unfortunately..... :(

But for quite a few people, Wal Mart is the cheapest and only place they can shop. They might have to drive quite a distance to get to a Costco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I prefer to shop at HEB (they have the own line of organic food, which is usually pretty cheap!) But HEBS don't exist outside of Texas unfortunately..... :(

But for quite a few people, Wal Mart is the cheapest and only place they can shop. They might have to drive quite a distance to get to a Costco.

I lived in a town that "fought" Wal-Mart for almost a decade and always found it ironic that those who were the most vocal about it were the kinds of folks who wouldn't have been caught dead in a Wal-Mart to begin with.

"Mitzy and I had to bring the Rovah tonight because our big Stop Wal-Mart signs wouldn't fit in the Beemer. Who's up for tapas after the protest?"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Personally, I prefer to shop at HEB (they have the own line of organic food, which is usually pretty cheap!) But HEBS don't exist outside of Texas unfortunately..... :(

But for quite a few people, Wal Mart is the cheapest and only place they can shop. They might have to drive quite a distance to get to a Costco.

The point I was actually trying to make is that it's never as it first appears on the surface.

So many people want to jump on the bandwagon and support the Wal mart destruction of small business as if it's a good thing...never stopping to think that you are actually assisting them even when you don't shop there. If it were not for the Gov aiding them with assistance to their employees...they would be forced to pay higher wages as no one would work for them...or not for very long anyway.

We cry about all the people on Gov assistance and then we support companies that do this. Kroger Supermarkets pay around $20.00 an hour and their food costs are not much higher. Martin's/Giant Food stores also pay much more than Wally World and their food is not much higher either. I actually choose to buy my food at Martin's or a farmers stand (we have a farmer's market here that sells locally grown produce, beef, chicken...etc).

The point of that statement above being that if Krogers, Martin's and Costco can pay a decent wage, hold a market share and still make a profit...so could Wal mart. We just "choose" to let them get away with it by continuing to patronize their sweatshops.

Edited by Jeremiah65
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was actually trying to make is that it's never as it first appears on the surface.

So many people want to jump on the bandwagon and support the Wal mart destruction of small business as if it's a good thing...never stopping to think that you are actually assisting them even when you don't shop there. If it were not for the Gov aiding them with assistance to their employees...they would be forced to pay higher wages as no one would work for them...or not for very long anyway.

We cry about all the people on Gov assistance and then we support companies that do this. Kroger Supermarkets pay around $20.00 an hour and their food costs are not much higher. Martin's/Giant Food stores also pay much more than Wally World and their food is not much higher either. I actually choose to buy my food at Martin's or a farmers stand (we have a farmer's market here that sells locally grown produce, beef, chicken...etc).

The point of that statement above being that if Krogers, Martin's and Costco can pay a decent wage, hold a market share and still make a profit...so could Wal mart. We just "choose" to let them get away with it by continuing to patronize their sweatshops.

Not, that I disagree with any of those points, but in some places, especially rural areas, Wal Mart is the only place they can afford or is the only choice to shop at. Yes, some of us are lucky, because we have alternative places we can shop at, or we grow our own food, raise our own chickens and cows, but other people aren't so fortunate. That's all I was pointing out. But I don't disagree with any of your points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Wal-Mart is viewed by many as a "conservative" company and is headquartered in the South.

Target does pretty much the same thing and they're viewed as a cool, hip retailer.

Not for me. I will not shop at Target either, although they do not do the pretty much the same thing. They let people work full-time so they can get benefits and there is no gender gap in pay or promotions to name a couple of differences. As a corporation they support one too many things I do not agree with. Even though some are conservative and some are liberal so I would not say they are a conservative company. I could care less about that really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in related news:

D.C. Council approves ‘living wage’ bill over Wal-Mart ultimatum

D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some large retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s minimum wage, a day after Wal-Mart warned that the law would jeopardize its plans in the city.

The retail giant had linked the future of at least three planned stores in the District to the proposal. But its ultimatum did not change any legislators’ minds. The 8 to 5 roll call matched the outcome of an earlier vote on the matter, taken before Wal-Mart’s warning.

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Walmart should do is pay them in Wallidollars. Basically, it's an internal scrip that means you can only buy things from Walmart.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Walmart should do is pay them in Wallidollars. Basically, it's an internal scrip that means you can only buy things from Walmart.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of people have never heard of such a thing. It happened a lot in little mining towns where everything was owned by the owners of the mines.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet a lot of people have never heard of such a thing. It happened a lot in little mining towns where everything was owned by the owners of the mines.

I knew what it was! :)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One of the problems with Wally World is they got too many chiefs in each store amongst the indians. They got the Store Manager, Co-Manager, Assistant Mangers <-(almost a dozen of these per store), Department Managers <-(a little over a dozen of these per store), and floor supervisors in some departments, like TLE when they already have a Department Manager and a Assistant Manager over that.

Lol. I mean...that is a serious overkill of employee management for just one store. It's no wonder they can't afford a raise in minimum wages.

I don't understand their business tactics, for years they removed the middleman when it came to buying things directly from the factory, thus saving themselves a ton of money. Yet, when it comes to employee management, they can't seem to do the same thing, remove the middle management. They don't need all those different types of managers in one store, it's ridiculous.

All they need is a Store Manager, Co-Manager, Night Supervisor and maybe a few supervisors in some areas like TLE because of safety concerns. They would save a ton of money and be able to pay their regular employees a little above the minimum wage.

They really need to get their crap together, when it comes to stuff like that and make the money they earn work more efficiently for them.

I disagree. My first job was a grocery store for about 5 years. Though much smaller than Walmart I absolutely see a need for individual oversight in each department. Front end (registers, baggers) management to assign registers and misc duties, coordinate breaks and shift relief, handle problems at the registers, scheduling. There's a lot to do. A couple dozen people worked just the front end in one medium size store. That requires a lot of oversight. The health and beauty departments are an entirely different thing requiring separate knowledge, routines and scheduling. The produce department has many employees that need the typical oversight and coordination not to mention the knowledge that one absorbs from years of working with one product. Trust me, long time produce guys are adamant about their produce know how. Meat, bakery, deli, hot foods, floral, pharmacy, customer service desk (which responsible for all the cash, register and department monies and accounting for it all) and general grocery departments all have very different things to do, knowledge to be had, vendors to deal with, schedules to write and each had a separate manager, rightfully so. And this is all from what I remember about a relatively small place with around 200 employees compared to walmarts and super walmarts that are far larger, employ far more and have many many more and different departments to coordinate.

Your vision is impossible beyond a doubt and not every department manager was eating into wages. They don't all make a whole lot but some did and those were the ones who were with the chain since the early days. People I worked when I was young who might have made management today, decades after the chain started, aren't making bukoo bucks and I doubt much of Walmart middle management is either.

Edited by F3SS
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I disagree. My first job was a grocery store for about 5 years. Though much smaller than Walmart I absolutely see a need for individual oversight in each department. Front end (registers, baggers) management to assign registers and misc duties, coordinate breaks and shift relief, handle problems at the registers, scheduling. There's a lot to do. A couple dozen people worked just the front end in one medium size store. That requires a lot of oversight. The health and beauty departments are an entirely different thing requiring separate knowledge, routines and scheduling. The produce department has many employees that need the typical oversight and coordination not to mention the knowledge that one absorbs from years of working with one product. Trust me, long time produce guys are adamant about their produce know how. Meat, bakery, deli, hot foods, floral, pharmacy, customer service desk (which responsible for all the cash, register and department monies and accounting for it all) and general grocery departments all have very different things to do, knowledge to be had, vendors to deal with, schedules to write and each had a separate manager, rightfully so. And this is all from what I remember about a relatively small place with around 200 employees compared to walmarts and super walmarts that are far larger, employ far more and have many many more and different departments to coordinate.

Okay then, tell you what. I'll give you at least a lead person/supervisor, but not for each dept, they can supervise at least two departments, if not more. For example; electronics and toys, it doesn't take a genius to help run those two departments. Even an employee has knowledge of the products in both of those departments, just as much as a supervisor would. That's of course, after the employee has been there a while; usually between 3 to 6 months. I know this, specifically, Mr. Fess, because I worked for Wal-Mart once upon-a-time, which you probably figured that out at some point during our previous discussions about Wal-Mart. Furthermore, they don't need another manager, especially two managers, one over the other, as I've seen in other departments, over a department supervisor. It's overkill and frankly a waste of company money. That department lead/supervisor can report directly to the Store Manager and that's all the lower management there should be.

Scheduling, payroll and training are handled by a in store Human Resources Specialist, which they do with the help of a computers and computer programs, who also handle most of the employee Health Benefits. You don't see these guys, actually I've only seen one for each store, because they sit in a office all day in the back working on the computer assigning new employees to training computers. They type in the schedules with lunch times with the same times for each employee every week, unless a Assistant Manger tells them to change a employee's schedule otherwise, and employees are responsible for their own break times; at least it was that way when I worked there.

As far as monies handling goes, mostly the Store Manager, who sits in another office, along with the Assistant Managers sometimes, handles most of that along with the visit from the vendors. Specifically Wells Fargo. They do have a floor lead (forgot what they use to call them now) who stands at a podium all day assisting with change and cash register assignments for the checkout lanes. They could just as well have him/her do the same for the customer department, which I think they do now in some stores.

BTW, I started out in Produce. Every employee including the department manager sometimes new more about the produce than the Assistant Manager did, that was probably because the Assistant Manager never worked in produce. There again is another example, where one lead person could supervise the produce department, deli department and the meat department. I say this because I had to work in all three at times, even though I was assigned only to the produce department. Didn't know anything at first about the other two departments, but I learned quickly and managed pretty well. And I know I could've run all three departments, with the help of a few more employees of course; felt like I was sometimes because of the high employee turnover we had at one point.

Wal-mart follows a para-military chain of command, while that's fine to a certain degree, there are too many middlemen they don't need. Waste of money, waste of training expenses because they send "would be" Assistant Managers to a school for several weeks, which Wal-Mart owns and operates. Don't need all that, the money would be better used for paying for other needs and the regular employees more who do most of the work anyway.

Your vision is impossible beyond a doubt and not every department manager was eating into wages.

It's not impossible, Mr. Fess...it can be done, as noted above. My experience as an employee at Wal-Mart and a Manager on another job showed me that I could do scheduling, payroll, assignments and even training when I needed to, with the help of one supervisor under me; which I had at that time with that particular job.

They don't all make a whole lot but some did and those were the ones who were with the chain since the early days. People I worked when I was young who might have made management today, decades after the chain started, aren't making bukoo bucks and I doubt much of Walmart middle management is either.

Even if middle management aren't making bukoos of money today, the expense all adds up with too many managers than what is needed in one store. Again...it's ridiculous and the money they pay for those unneeded middle management, specifically the Assistant Managers, not to mention those type of managers get sale bonuses and extra company stock as well, so there not doing too bad, could go to paying the employees a little more and help them from getting on food stamp assistance.

It just makes good business sense, Mr. Fess. Why waste money like that, money wise it's unefficient.

Edited by Purifier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they could employ 2 people at lower wages, or just 1 person at a slightly higher wage.

If I were that 2nd person, I'd rather have a job.

I haven't followed this story yet, or researched Walmart's financial situation, but it seems to me that being able to force a company to pay more than the legal minimum wage totally defeats the purpose of a legal minimum wage.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constructive destruction of the retail industry is already underway by the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constructive destruction of the retail industry is already underway by the Internet.

Very good point.

As the internet retail market grew into power from cheap shipping and no taxes...it caused a "cleaning of the stables" so to speak. Now that legislation is in the works to put sales tax on internet transactions...I see the "physical store locations" soon making a comeback.

Or maybe not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.