jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (160 posts)

WalMart Asks Workers To Donate Food To Its other Needy Employees

  1. Stacie L profile image87
    Stacie Lposted 3 years ago

    November 18, 2013  | 


    Wal-Mart doesn’t pay its employees enough of a wage so that they can afford to buy quality food for Thanksgiving.  So one store in Cleveland had a novel idea: launch a food drive for its own employees. It’s targeted at the low-wage workers who could afford to donate food to other, even more low-wage workers.
    Just who is getting such good pay at Wally World, that they can donate food to the "needy" employees that they work with? Just pay a decent wage Walmart!




    http://www.alternet.org/wal-mart-holds- … I.newsvine

    1. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There is a simple answer to the rise and rise of the hypermarket chains taking over the world.
      STOP SHOPPING THERE!

      If there are no customers there would be no business.

      Support your local businesses.

      This won't happen though because ever since the inception of the supermarket we have been conned into thinking bigger is better and the lie that we have choice, quality and best price.

      Supermarket chains have smashed small businesses into submission here in the UK with lots of town centres looking like something from doomsday films. Tesco, Sainsbury and recently Waitrose have moved into those town centres with their convenience stores now the way has been cleared.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Funny how that works, isn't it?  Everybody grips about the low pay from WalMart and then runs inside to take advantage of the low pricing that low salaries help make possible.

        Contributing, as they do so, to the success of WalMart and cementing in even deeper the concept that low wages/low pricing is what the public wants.

      2. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do you also lament the demise of buggy whip factories?

        Have you considered that it may be possible that the failed small businesses did not have an operational plan that could stand up to competition?

        Do you not think the availability of multiple versions/brands of a product is more choice than one version/brand?

        The world of people is all about convenience; from running water in the house vs. a trip to the yard hand pump, to one store/trip for multiple items vs. multiple stores/trips to complete a shopping list.

        And, with a little research you will find small business vs. superstore success stories where the small business reacted with a new operational strategy that could compete in a new business environment.

        GA

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The buggy whip factories are alive and well masquerading as out of town superstores and their suppliers.

          There have been many small businesses that have had an alternative operational plan, hence the rise of the coffee shop streets here in our city.

          There is nothing wrong with convenience, driving 5 miles out of town for 12 items is indeed convenient for the big suppliers now they have crushed your local store. Still not sure whether I would buy fruit that have flown more miles than I have though.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image79
            Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Having an operational plan to stand up to a box store competitor? I saw two mom and pop hardware stores go out of business as soon as Home Depot opened their doors on the other end of town. Maybe they should of added millions upon millions of dollars of inventory to their 10,000 square foot store to compete. Good one!

            1. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, since they were not able to compete with the big box's prices and selections, maybe they should have promoted a community ordinance forbidding people from patronizing the big box because obviously the better prices and selections were a subversive plan to trick people.

              Or, maybe they should have changed their business model to a niche' market they could survive in.

              An excellent example in our region is a chain of "Ace" Hardware stores. These are small independently owned franchise stores. Their prices are higher, and their selection less, yet they are thriving.

              The reason? Instead of trying to stock absolutely every possible thing available in the hardware world - to go head-to-head with the big box, they focused on stocking the most frequently and commonly needed items - they gave up trying to compete for the "builder's" market, and focused on capturing the "home handyman" and "I need it fast and convenient" market.

              Their second marketing focus was super helpful, knowledgeable, and friendly customer service people on the store floor - always asking if they can help.

              It has worked. "Ace" hardware stores are expanding right alongside the big box store.

              I am sure you could find similar examples in your area - if you just looked. Instead of parroting a lament of poor business people that live or die by a single rigid business model. Like the buggy whip factories.

              GA

              1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How many specialised coffee shops can you have in one town? And of course if they are too successful the big box stores will just open their own.

                1. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are agreeing with me. And I know that can't be.

                  GA

    2. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know why we have a minimum wage because apparently any business that pays such is evil incarnate.
      There seems to be this misunderstanding that businesses should not be in the business of making a profit. I hope that everyone knows that businesses that do not make a profit begin laying off people, not hiring and eventually going out of business. Not sure how that would help anyone or are all those screaming for higher than minimum wage betting they will not be the ones laid off?
      If you truly take issue with Wal-Mart or McDonald's or any corporation paying the minimum wage then you should be working to change it at the legislative level.
      For some, Wal-Mart could be their 2nd job, they could be a two income family so they very well could be better off than some of their fellow employees and able to donate some food.
      There is no true outrage or there would be no customers at Wal-Mart & McDonalds. Fact is if they gave in and did as everyone would like, they wouldn't have customers because it is about convenience and cost.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Have you never considered how much low wage employers like Walmart and McDonalds cost you as a tax payer? If not I suggest you find out.
        There is no such thing as a free lunch.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It is funny how some of the smaller chains pay higher wages and better benefits whilst the big greedy operators (who have governments in their pockets obviously) cant or wont pay a living wage or give job security to its workforce.
          Not to sure how it works in the US but here in the UK the big low paying companies flourish on the fact that the workforces wages shortfall will be made up by the taxpayer in the form of welfare benefits. (usually by other low and middle income earners)

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            As far as I'm aware, in the USA the taxpayer subsidizes the low paid workers as well.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Some of the time. 

              A person with 4 dependents will absolutely get govt. charity when working a minimum wage job.

              A single person, with zero dependents (who the job is intended for) will not.

        2. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No there is not any such thing as a free lunch. True of health care as well eh? lol

          Yep the taxpayers are subsidizing anyone that has minimum wage (whether Wal-mart or anywhere else) as their primary income. I don't mind that actually. They are out there working. Doing what they can.
          Where is your outrage that the taxpayer pays for alcoholics, drug users (repeatedly I might add, no matter how many times they relapse or go into rehab) completely. They even get disability.
          What I said still holds true. Wal-Mart has how many millions of employees? Multiply that times 8 and then try to imagine where they are going to recoup their losses. Prices. Now the customer base that goes there for the low prices is no more. Now there are people without jobs that the taxpayer is supporting, not subsidizing.
          Your assessment that the bulk of US taxes comes from middle class is eroneous as well. The top 10% earners in America wind up paying 70% of all taxes collected.
          http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-d … come-taxes

          1. Silverspeeder profile image61
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wal-mart profits = $17.5 billion 2012 a 24.7% gross profit margin on sales.

            With close to 2.2 million employees worldwide, Walmart has faced a torrent of lawsuits and issues with regards to its workforce. These issues involve low wages, poor working conditions, inadequate health care, as well as issues involving the company's strong anti-union policies. Critics point to Walmart's high turnover rate as evidence of an unhappy workforce, although other factors may be involved. Approximately 70% of its employees leave within the first year. Despite the turnover rate the company still is able to affect unemployment rates. This was found in a study by Oklahoma State University which states, "Walmart is found to have substantially lowered the relative unemployment rates of blacks in those counties where it is present, but to have had only a limited impact on relative incomes after the influences of other socio-economic variables were taken into account
            [WIKI]

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What is their net profit margin? You know, the one that actually counts lol
              Roughly (and the numbers are actually from 2011) raising the minimum wage for their employees would cost Wal-Mart 3.2 billion per year.
              Further, Wal-Marts full-time work force averages over $12 an hour. We are talking about part-time workers here. Sure I understand there will be some making less and some making more because that is how averages work.
              The point is anyway, that if you want to change it you are looking at legislation. If the majority of America was so outraged, there would be no customers at Wal-mart. Period. That is just a fact.
              Everyone these days just wants to have their cake and eat it too. Give me my prices & convenience of my Wal-mart but let me get online and talk about how evil they are.
              Edit: Found it. Net income for Wal-mart in 2012 was roughly $16 billion. Using current numbers, increasing their hourly wage to $12 an hour for every employee would cost over $4 billion. So you want them to throw out an entire quarter of net earnings.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How much would they actually have without their minimum paid workers?

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How many of them still have any job at all if Wal-mart loses 1/4 its income?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How many potential jobs will be lost if all the re-investment monies are paid out in salaries?  As in 1/4 net income?

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Probably most of them as management goes into a tizzy of cost cutting, trying to please the owners of the chain and give them a reasonable ROI.  Salaries are easier to cut than employees.

                  3. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    They wouldn't lose a penny of their income, in fact they would probably increase it - more money in the economy would be more money to spend at Wal-Mart.

                    You probably mean profit. You do realise that companies are realising record profits at the moment but they are sitting on their capital rather than spending it on the means of production and increasing their capital still further.

                  4. 61
                    CallMikeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There is one thing I see never coming up in this conversation. Wal-Mart can raise the wages without hurting its profits. Simply fix the wage gap between the top and bottom. I hope people understand that part time jobs are no longer just for high school and collage kids. There are more adults over 21 working at Wal-Mart. Just walk around the store and look. Many of the statements made here are obviously blind and stated on theory with no real thought.

              2. Silverspeeder profile image61
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit/2012/Q1

                It seems they have been losing customers to Costco and Macy's.

              3. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Are you saying a $12 billion net earnings is not enough to make share holders happy while giving employees a better wage, not to mention taking the heat off Walmart's bad press and reputation?

                How about $8 billion?

                How about $4 billion?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How much is that per share?  Per average shareholder?

                  Is the ROI over 10% for those shareholders?  Does a reasonable ROI mean they need to cut wages, not increase them?

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    They had an increase of 18% in dividends from %1.59 to $1.88 and repurchased $15 billion shares due to very strong cash flow.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The OSU study - what does that mean?  I'm reading that unemployment goes down, but the income does not change.  Which means that WalMart has taken all those people off the charity rolls even though they have not provided any more money than govt. did.

              Which would mean that WalMart has done a very valuable service to society by getting those people off the entitlement list.

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No country in the world provides free healthcare for all its population, so what is your point?
            I have no mock outrage at supporting those unable to work whether it be through illness (such as drug or alcohol addiction) or by them being stockpiled by capitalists to depress wages.

            I take it that you will never again be outraged by people on welfare to support their income? And of course you are happy with the billions of your money given to the farmers and agri-business.

            My assessment!  I've never claimed such a thing! Though I will ask what percentage of US wealth do the top 10% of earners own.

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Top 10% own 45%. Top 1% own 18% and pay 39% of all taxes collected.
              It is right there in the link provided. You're correct however, that it wasn't your assessment. My apologies. It was silver's post.
              I never expressed outrage at people on welfare to "subsidize" their income. I disagree with those on welfare who have never in their lives held a job, are not seeking one and have no reason they cannot work.  I disagree that alcolism & drug addiction is a disability in the same sense as an illness or blindness. That's just me. First time, sure, I wouldn't argue with that, but over and over and over, no. At some point, you have to take responsibility for your choices and your actions.
              No country in the world? Really? Isn't that what universal health care is exactly? Through value added taxes? I agree that it then becomes more of a two tier system because you can still purchase private insurance policies which push you to the head of the waiting line and afford you higher quality care, however, base health care is free for all is it not? Financed by taxes on those who work, regardless of wages?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You're at variance with most, if not all, the medical profession who do recognise alcoholism and drug addiction as an illness.
                I'm amused by your reasoning that if something is funded by taxation it is free.

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you ever directly respond to the points made or continue to twist things into something that wasn't said?
                  It is free for those who are not contributing isn't it? Paid for off the backs of those who do, regardless of wages? Which is actually what I said.

                  Do all doctors agree it is a disease? um...no, they don't. It is called Substance ABUSE because that is what it is. It is abusing something. All doctors said smoking was safe 30 odd years ago too. Cigarettes were once physician tested approved.
                  Last year coffee was bad for me, this year it's good for me.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, you made no mention of non-contributors. How many actually make no contribution at all to the tax pot? A few babes in arms and that's about it.

                    Substance abuse is considered a mental illness - google it if you don't believe me.

  2. pramodgokhale profile image60
    pramodgokhaleposted 3 years ago

    This is surprising and India government  is laying carpet to Wall mart.There is controversy regarding this issue to allow foreign large retailers in Indian market.
    In US senate Wall mart declared ,they spent $ 30/- Million in India to promote business or lobbying ( actually it is  bribe or kickbacks) to get license to start business in India.
    They could  have saved this amount and spend for employees welfare.
    Capitalists run global economy or great role model of Capitalism cum Monopoly inclusive sins also
    Thank you for your bold statement.
    pramod gokhale

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes they could have saved that amount, giving each current employe the tremendous sum of $15.  And giving up on ever have a store in India or paying an employee in India. 

      Was the the best for those future Indian employees?  To give $15 to each other employee rather than hire them?

      1. pramodgokhale profile image60
        pramodgokhaleposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am in full agreement and as you say what should be the future of Indian employee? These large retailers sell product at lower price to bring down small retailers and later raised the prices.
        i am not against any retailer but this is the strategy of market players, they buy governments and policies and rules are being made for benefits at the cost of customer.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I've only been around a dozen or so WalMarts on a steady basis, but so far not one has brought down small retailers and later raised the prices.  Every one is still the cheapest in the area - no price increases.

          If it was costing the customer large sums, no one would shop at WalMart.  Instead, it's customer base has made it the largest company in the world.

  3. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    sad

  4. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    The CEO of Wal mart, Michael Duke, revived in 2012 total pay of $20.7 million, an increase of 14% over the previous year.

    I wonder if his employees received a similar percentage pay rise?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Haven't the faintest, but neither do I have the faintest if that was necessary to keep top help at the top slot.  Nor do you.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You haven't the faintest idea about an awful lot you pontificate about, have you?

        Do you really imagine that nobody would fill the job if they weren't receiving more pay in an hour than the average worker earns in a year?

        The jobs still got filled and the profits were still made when the US economy was booming and the pay gap was a lot smaller.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Doesn't seem you do either, John. 

          At that level there is even less loyalty than at the bottom: CEO's come and go at the drop of a hat.  Companies either pay a competitive salary or they will not have top talent (and defining that is a definite problem).  I would assume that the largest business in the world wants (and needs) the very top of the talent tree here. 

          So sure, I'd take the job in a heartbeat.  I couldn't do it and would not earn a tiny fraction of my salary, but I'd take it.  Think that's what WalMart wants?

          Of course profits were made when the economy was booming.  Do you think that's when you need the best man at the top?  When it could virtually go empty and still make a profit?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Why was the economy booming and why is it no longer booming?

            "The share of our national income that American corporations are sharing with the people who do the work  ("labor") is at an all-time low.  The rest of our national income, naturally, is going to owners and senior managers ("capital"), who have it better today than they have ever had it before.

            Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/companie … nkMV"

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Simple answer - because ignorant but well meaning politicians tried to share the wealth and guarantee any American a house that wanted one.  There are a jillion other contributing causes that that one is at the very root of the recession.

              Yes, I read your link.  I even agree with most of it, including the unsaid side pointing out that labor is no different; pure greed to get as much as possible while returning as little as possible.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How do you manage to claim that increasing the income of the top 1% is sharing the wealth!

                If labour is just as greedy they are spectacularly unsuccessful at it then aren't they? Wages have dropped since the 1970s and have barely risen over the last 50 years.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Giving houses to people that cannot afford to buy them is a classic case of sharing the wealth.  What else could it be?

                  They are not very successful, with the biggest problem being greed.  Unions shutting business down because they would not provide wage increases into the red is not real smart. 

                  Too easy to simply fire an employee that won't perform, at least in today's economy.  Back in the 80's (as I recall) the shoe was one the other foot with labor able to just about pick and choose whatever they wanted.

                  I'd question whether real wages have dropped since the 70's though - anecdotal only, but the average worker out there is living a much easier life than was possible in the 70's.  Prices, in terms of hours worked to buy X (car, home, whatever) have generally dropped with major exceptions in things that have changed radically.  Homes, for example, have nearly doubled in size in the period, while rising only slightly in price.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The average hourly wages paid to rank and file workers (adjusted to 2008 dollars)
                    1964 $17.54
                    2008 $18.52

                    Compare that with wage increases since 1990 for senior managers which have shot up by an average of 298.2%.

                    House prices are up on average about 25% over the last 25 years having dropped from around double over the last four or five years.

                    Giving houses to people who can not afford them is a classic case of capitalist greed. What else could it be?
                    It would only be a case of sharing the wealth if the people being "given" the houses were actually allowed to keep them.

  5. EncephaloiDead profile image59
    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago

    I'm curious, getting back to the OP, what has actually happened with those bins? Have other employees been putting food in them? What is the outcome? Does anyone know?

    1. Stacie L profile image87
      Stacie Lposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I have spoken to some that work in Walmart, and  found out that some have contributed, but more importantly,why hasn't Wall-mart itself given its employees food contributions or at least a Thanks giving meal if they work on the holiday?

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
        EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the update, I couldn't agree with you more, it would at the very least decent of Walmart to at match those contributions.

 
working