I could hardly believe my eyes when I just saw this news:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2 … day-plans/
Walmart is going to start its Black Friday sales push by opening up at 6:00 pm on Thanksgiving Day! That means that their employees don't even get the day off. Are Americans now so eager to buy things that they can't give it a rest for one whole day?
I dare say that that is a better approach than having people trampled to death in the madness. Maybe they'll be so overstuffed they can hardly waddle and unable to move fast enough to do much harm.
It certainly does wonders to limit the crowds, I'll give you that. I managed a store for a major retailer last year for Black Friday when Walmart started this trend and it completely changed the game. The huge crowd I'd had the year before was replaced by a few people and business was steady throughout Black Friday rather than the early morning madness followed by next to nothing for the afternoon.
Are you ready for this? Kmart just announced that it will open its stores at 6:00 am on Thanksgiving Day and keep them open for a straight 41 hours! Since when did Thanksgiving become a day for retailers to make money?
I sincerely feel sorry for those employees. Knowing how many cuts to staffing they made, they'll find themselves in the same position we used to at my store (18+ hour shifts for management.)
So is it your opinion that no stores should be open Thanksgiving Day?
What about gas stations - should they close too - I am sure their employees would also like to be home that day?
Where would you draw the line?
Oh no, I was just observing that with minimal staffing it will put a heavy burden on the employees, especially if they skimp on temporary seasonal employees or fail to afford enough time to train them like some of the companies I've worked for.
I've been working in retail management for years, and I accept the fact that working holidays is just part of the job in some lines of work.
Good answer JG - but that was a response question for Writer Fox
Far as I could tell it was posted in reply to mine, not his. Clearly I don't understand the layout of this forum.
You may post whenever you want to on this forum.
In response to people posting on the businesses' Facebook pages, it looks like the spin doctors are on overtime right now. It's the American shoppers who will vote with their feet on this topic.
If anyone wants to see how the vote is going, go read the over 2,000 comments on this article about the backlash:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/0 … 20456.html
Just look for the quoted text in the box, (like the one above this sentence), included in the post. It shows you the text being responded to. This happens when you click the "reply" directly under a post.
The "reply" at the bottom right of the page posts a response to the thread topic - not a specific comment
Also, although I don't like to use it - you can choose to view the topics in a "threaded" view - which shows post responses under the post that are responding to - I don't recommend this view because I like to see the thread in chronological order, ie. last post at the end, not buried somewhere under the post it attaches to.
The solution is simple. If you don't want to shop before Black Friday - don't.
Plenty of stores will be open all day on Thanksgiving. I guess because lots of people like shopping more than their friends and family.
Just a sign of the times, we all know that in America the only truly sacrosanct thing is the all mighty dollar.
For too many people, too many times you are right. But I don't think it is true for a majority - I still think family is. But maybe that is only because I don't measure my wealth in dollars.
*but I would still like to be rich in dollars too!
This has been going on for a couple of days.
I refuse to buy anything on Black Friday and I certainly wouldn't buy anything on Thanskgiving day. As Fox pointed out, it's very unfair on the employees. Okay, so sure, Walmart will feed them and pay them extra, but we all know that's extra above all but nothing...
And Kmart is even worse. Sigh.
Before becoming a teacher, I worked in an hourly position. I worked many holidays, including Thanksgiving. Many hourly workers want to work on these days, because it means more pay, often overtime.
If it's being forced upon employees, that's another issue. I do not believe employees should be forced to work on these major holidays. If it's voluntary, I have no problem with the practice of being open on major holidays. It can actually benefit hourly workers.
As a salaried employee I was once told to go into the manufacturing plant where I worked, on Christmas day. Drive 20 miles to an empty plant to "check the pipes hadn't burst" (told this 2 weeks before Xmas) because the boss was out of town that day.
I didn't go...
I have worked in the security industry for 27 years and most of the holidays here in the UK mean nothing in this industry unless you are the boss.
Just a quick calculation but I think I have worked 22 Xmas days or nights and at least 75% of any other public holidays over the 27 years.
It's just another day.
Never worked an Xmas, I think, but have worked nearly all other holidays at one time or another. Part of the job, as you say, although it IS nice when management makes some concessions to family and juggles the scheduling a bit. There are lots of jobs that require someone be on duty 24/7 year around.
I've worked every day except Christmas. I've worked them as an hourly employee, and I've worked many of them as a salaried employee. It was better as an hourly employee, because I could earn overtime. It was always an option when I was an hourly employee; as a salaried employee, there was no choice.
Even as an hourly employee back in the day I used to snatch up holidays for that very reason. I've got little in the way of family and no kids, so holidays are just an excuse for me to cook way more food than I can hope to eat.
I personally always made it optional when I was in management. Major holidays but I very often worked double shifts to pick up the slack so that my employees could spend the holiday with their families.
At the end of the day, you can't blame a business for doing something they know will be economically beneficial for them. Businesses will stop opening stores earlier and earlier for "Black Friday" as soon as people stop lining up to shop at said stores on that day....or on Thanksgiving. Whatever we may feel about shopping on those days, there are gazillions of people who don't have a problem with it. I say, have at it. Don't wanna shop on those days? Stay home. Don't want to work on those days? Don't work in retail.
In other words, it comes down to individual choice. Not very popular in this day and age when everyone knows how everyone else should behave and will make laws to enforce it if possible.
Ain't that the truth? LOL
I like the whole choice thing. I think it's so unpopular in part because making a choice means accepting the consequences that result from it. People don't like that.
God, I really am becoming a libertarian. LOL
You're right there, for sure! The whole blame game has gotten incredible; no one is ever responsible for their bad decisions.
Got drunk and wrecked the car? "They" should have taken my car keys.
Got pregnant? He should have used protection.
Girlfriend got pregnant? She should have used protection.
Got too fat? McD's serves fatty foods.
Smoked your way to lung cancer? "They" should have outlawed cigarettes.
It's always someone else at fault.
Perhaps the dispute is where the line is drawn between 'nanny government' and legitimate government regulatory function.
For example the roads are public property, are we not affected if people choose the drive without safety belts? Does not that action increase the risk of serious injury or death in an accident? Is not that cost passed on to all of us in the form of higher insurance rates?
As I say, your freedom ends where my nose begins. Where you have over 300 million people, no man nor woman can be an island.
Don't get me wrong, the examples you cite are clear examples of nanny government and is not desirable.
A popular reasoning for seat belts; that someone in an accident will be held in the drivers seat and ready to take back control when offered by the careening care rolling down the embankment.
It's just one I don't swallow. Seat belt usage is legislated into being because it saves the lives of the people in that careening car, not the one behind them. Because it's for the drivers own good, in other words, and that means the driver is too stupid to make the decision himself.
Should society decide to care for the injured person that was too stupid to wear a belt that is another choice, but a choice that does NOT dictate my own to use or not use a belt.
Legitimate govt. functions are those that maintain the country (military, infrastructure, national parks, etc.) and those that protect one member from another (police, drunk driving laws, food contamination laws, etc.). It specifically does NOT include the so called "victimless" crimes, where the victim is also the criminal. Such as wearing of seat belts, size of your soft drink, fatty meats consumed, or what you choose to adorn your body with. Or, just for this thread, whether you can open your business on a day when lots of people don't want you to.
Can we agree that there is any correlation between seat belt use and occurrence of serious injury or death in accidents? That what I have been hearing over several years, are you saying that all of this information was specious at its core? My question must be whether insurance rates are tied to these accidents and their severity and whether wearing a seat belt or no affects these rates? Are you saying that there is no relationship? If so, then I follow your point, but if not then I indirectly have to pay for someone's choice even if it is negligent.
There are a lot of the GOP libertarian types that think that we all should have bio-chem labs in our homes and check the edibility of our food without the big hand of government regulation.
Are you willing to support prostitution, a victimless crime?
Sure, right down the line. Belts save lives, and insurance costs are tied directly to use of them.
Is there then no other way to set it up than to require everyone to use them by force of law?
If your car won't start without buckled belts you get a discounted premium. Easy to do - the hardware is already there and all that's needed is a little programming change.
If the installed gizmo from Progressive (watch the ad with Flow hiding in the shadows) says belts are always on, get a discount.
If the belt was not fastened in an accident, no medical payments.
Why is it always force someone else to do what you think is best? Always take away freedoms to choose? The bottom line is that you choose to pay, not that you have to. You choose an insurance company that is playing nanny. You choose collision/medical coverage. And as a nation, we choose to force others to do what we think is best for them.
I hear you, but in every state I have ever lived in insurance was a requirement for operating a motor vehicle on public roads. Because of irresponsible people, the heavy hand of government is involved. The roads are public not private. If your choice is not to wear the belts, my rates go up. I can't opt out of the requirement to have an insurance policy in force. The insurance companies are not going to cut anyone any slack. As long as I don't have to pay for anyone's choice wear or not to wear fine, but that is not the case. People in an accident are ultimately going to be treated at the time of dire need regardless of their ability to pay. So, if the victim does not have the means to pay, who bears that cost? The medical facility and ultimately the taxpayer.
I guess my bottom line is: nanny government is telling people what to do in circumstances where the risk of doing or not doing is all on them. The motor vehicle situation is different because of mandatory insurance and costs that we are required to incur, with my desire to keep them to a minimum. I cannot accommodate caprice in this circumstance, because I ultimately pay the price.
Sorry, the seat belt requirement can only affect the portion of your policy that is medical payments. Seat belts do not cause accidents, they cannot stop them. They can only limit medical payments.
And that portion of your policy is not mandated by law; only the part that protects others should you cause an accident. Should you choose to include extra costs in your payment, making up for non-wearers, you are welcome to do so. Or find an insurance company that will accommodate both.
Who pays the medical costs of an accident? You say society, as if it is necessary, but it isn't. It is a choice, made by society, to do so and that choice does NOT mandate anything from a driver. It does NOT give society the right to take away the freedom to drive without a belt; it can only be an excuse, not a reason, for doing so.
Because again, the same arguments hold; there are other ways of handling the extra costs of not wearing a belt; other ways to put it square where it belongs, on the stupid people to don't wear them. That society chooses not to avail itself of these options does not excuse the taking of individual choice.
The nanny state strikes again with the complaint that "I don't want to pay your costs, but I think I have to, so you can't have those costs". It doesn't work for anyone but the socialist that believes they have an innate right to dictate to others.
I remember now, that term was liability insurance, the minimum that is designed to protect the other vehicle and driver in an accident.
If I am following your reasoning correctly, does not the minimum required liability insurance include costs for collision damage and injuries to the other party in the premium?
Are you saying that medical payments to the other driver in case of an accident is not covered by a liability policy that I am required by law to purchase?
Isn't the grevious nature of injuries to the other party a factor here regarding safety belts?
I guess you can have those costs as long as you pay for them in total
That's it - liability insurance. Had a brain fart and couldn't come up with the term.
Yes, as long is it is all damage to the other car/driver. AND the accident was caused by you - are you suggesting that someone must wear a belt because you will run into them, injure them, and you want your costs to be low? Doesn't seem quite rational to me...
Here are some more things that are being mandated, for your best interest:
San Francisco has implemented a ban on Happy Meal toys.
Over the past couple of years, there have been quite a few instances all over the country where lemonade stands, run by children, have been shut down by police, because the children had not acquired the proper permits.
In many U.S. states, is it now illegal to collect any rain that falls on to your own property.
In California,"food confiscation teams" visit the homes of people that have been discovered to have purchased raw milk.
In Louisiana, one church was ordered to stop passing out water because it did not have the proper permit.
At some public schools all over the United States, the lunches that little children bring from home are now inspected to make sure that they meet USDA guidelines.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch … -gone-wild
Now, I'm sure there is room for debate about each of these, but the point is clear; the government is too intrusive.
This is at the heart of so many problems. Personal responsibility is becoming less and less common.
by junko3 years ago
I remember when I was growing up in a community where there were small community supermarkets and appliance stores all around the town. There were Drug stores and hardware stores, bakeries, and fish markets in walking...
by WorldCup~20106 years ago
We are talking about Wal-Mart at school right now and there are two sides to this story. The bad side is how Wal-Mart is moving all of their manufacturing jobs over seas which ends up having a negative effect here in...
by r2moo26 years ago
I was just doing a little study on Walmart, as I was updating my Boyfriend Gift Ideas blog, and found out that many companies went bankrupt because of Walmart.As I am in a country, Singapore, which does not seem to have...
by A Thousand Words3 years ago
There's no one to step on/take advantage of anymore?Capitalism is defined as:- free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by...
by Stacie L4 years ago
By ABBY ELLIN and ALAN FARNHAMOctober 10, 2012The latest news in the Walmart labor protests -- which have included walkouts and marches in Dallas, San Diego, Chicago and Los Angeles -- is the threat of a strike on Black...
by Sophia Angelique4 years ago
Robert Reich is a past secretary of labor. He writes awesome books - although I do disagree with some of his stuff. He is an economist, and yes, he truly gets it! Anyway, to quote from the article below:"That means...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.