jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (40 posts)

What Has Happened to America?

  1. Writer Fox profile image57
    Writer Foxposted 4 years ago

    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?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. JG11Bravo profile image88
        JG11Bravoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Writer Fox profile image57
          Writer Foxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. JG11Bravo profile image88
            JG11Bravoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.)

            1. Writer Fox profile image57
              Writer Foxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I hope the employees strike! Several consumer groups are calling for a boycott.

          2. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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?

            GA

            1. JG11Bravo profile image88
              JG11Bravoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Good answer JG - but that was a response question for Writer Fox

                GA

                1. JG11Bravo profile image88
                  JG11Bravoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Far as I could tell it was posted in reply to mine, not his.  Clearly I don't understand the layout of this forum.

                  1. Writer Fox profile image57
                    Writer Foxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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

                  2. GA Anderson profile image83
                    GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    GA

          3. HowardBThiname profile image82
            HowardBThinameposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            The solution is simple. If you don't want to shop before Black Friday - don't.

    2. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Plenty of stores will be open all day on Thanksgiving.  I guess because lots of people like shopping more than their friends and family.

    3. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Just a sign of the times, we all know that in America the only truly sacrosanct thing is the all mighty dollar.

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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! smile

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          +1

  2. jenniferrpovey profile image93
    jenniferrpoveyposted 4 years ago

    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.

  3. profile image73
    Education Answerposted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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...

      1. Silverspeeder profile image59
        Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image73
            Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

    2. JG11Bravo profile image88
      JG11Bravoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  4. profile image0
    Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      +1 

      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.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

          2. profile image73
            Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            +1

            This is at the heart of so many problems.  Personal responsibility is becoming less and less common.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Less common?  It's nearly evaporated from our culture!

              Motown is right - taking responsibility means taking the consequences as your own - something few people today are willing to do.

 
working