ray

You are confused. It's Walmart's job to save expenses and comply with the law. That's what they are doing, horse meat and some other stuff excepted. If they are breaking the law (and I admit they have on occassion) then they should be prosecuted

No, you are confused. Or you've fallen into the Fate/Tom routine of arguing what you think you read, rather than what was actually written.
I've never said WalMart broke laws. I said the law was stupid. With Disability the law forces some Doctors to stretch the truth so that some of their patients can continue to receive Medicare.
With Wal Mart it allows the corporation to game the system to avoid the high cost of providing benefits to full time employees.
All of this is the result of making health insurance a requirement of employers.

Consider that if there were a Universal health care system there would be no advantage to Walmart keeping so many people as part time workers. As full time workers, with greater income, they might not need to use Food Stamps to stave off hunger... (And if the WashPo story is right, might not be suffering the decline in quality that comes from exploiting employees.)
At the same time, the presence of Universal Health Care would remove one motivation for people to seek disability....
(Plus, Universal health care is proven to be less expensive and more cost effective than the current US system (ACA or not) in every jurisdiction a version of it exists..._

tom

But they are not breaking the law and if someone agrees to work for a crappy wage, then that's their problem not mine

Are you a tax payer Tom?
Food stamps are paid for by your taxes, and because WalMart operates the way you do part of your taxes are going to Food stamps.
That makes it your problem.

bbauska

Freeman2, I would have to say that if the consumer is making the choice

And who makes the choice about things like labour laws, minimum wage, unionization or universal health care...

Bbaauska you are confusing the commercial decisions made by Wal Mart under the current set of laws with the consumers decisions when they shop.
The latter has nothing to do with the former.
If Wal Mart operated under a different set of labour laws - as they do in many foreign jurisdictions they could still pursue their other policies. And they might still have an advantage over other retailers and succeed. They don't do as well in Canada where they can't exploit their labour force quite as much so maybe not....

The point is, bbauska, not that Wal Mart has broken any laws.... The point is that they continue to operate under laws that allow them to exploit workers who then rely upon your tax dollars to stave off starvation.
As a tax payer this should fry you. Apparently the small percentage of people who may be scamming disability does fry you. (They are doing so legally until proven otherwise by the way). But the largest employer in the US, Wal-Mart , is succeeding because labour laws are kept in place that forces American tax payers to subsidize Walmart's employment practices.
Its bloody socialism it is...

Ricky:

No, you are confused. ...I've never said WalMart broke laws. I said the law was stupid. ... With Wal Mart it allows the corporation to game the system to avoid the high cost of providing benefits to full time employees.

Fair enough. You are right; you never said that Walmart broke laws. I think we agree on the legalities that it is the government's job to design good laws, and the company's job to comply with those laws while maximizing its long term value. Where we differ is that you believe that Walmart's practices are exploitive and immoral whereas I believe that net net they have been a huge improvement to people's lives.

Here's a little bit on why I have concluded Wal Mart is indeed exploiting workers. Both American and foreign. Where;s the evidence of a net net benefit?

http://www.laborrights.org/creating-a-s ... news/11587

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-wa ... hi-workers
http://www.workplacefairness.org/report ... l-mart.php

http://www.businessinsider.com/workers- ... ion-2013-2


ray

Where we differ is that you believe that Walmart's practices are exploitive and immoral whereas I believe that net net they have been a huge improvement to people's lives

You think all those American Wal Mart workers on food stamps, without benefits would agree with you or not?
Should the government continue with laws where a company like Wal Mart can minimize its labour costs on the backs of tax payers? Are those good laws?

The central point is that a company like WalMart will compete at the lowest level it is allowed to compete. By setting the minimum bar higher, governments would be improving the lot of the working poor. But they wouldn't change the competitive balance one iota.
Walmart would still be at the lowest level, and companies that value employees more, like Ikea and Trader Joes, would pay and offer more than Wal Mart.
The competitive spectrum won't have changed.... But people might get off food stamps.
And if universal health care replaced the insanity of employer provided health benefits both employers and employees would be grateful and the cost of health care decrease. All positive. ... (Insurance companies excepted.)

I'm confident that Walmart employees would be worse off if Walmart didn't exist.

I'm also confident that the trillions of voluntary transactions between Walmart and its customers and employees are smarter than your opinion (and mine).

We agree that US Health care policy has many problems. But that's a different conversation ...

Ricky:

You think all those American Wal Mart workers on food stamps, without benefits would agree with you or not?

I think that the majority would agree with me.

ray

I think that the majority would agree with me

70% of Wal Mart employees quit before their first year anniversary.
Still think they are a cheery bunch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart

I'm surprised it's not higher, doesn't mean you are correct.
Most employees there use the job as a temporary job to hold them over until they get a better job, the 70% makes sense and I like the fact that these people don't "chose" to go on disability instead of work at Walmart as you seem to indicate is a valid "option".

GMTom wrote:I'm surprised it's not higher, doesn't mean you are correct.
Most employees there use the job as a temporary job to hold them over until they get a better job, the 70% makes sense and I like the fact that these people don't "chose" to go on disability instead of work at Walmart as you seem to indicate is a valid "option".

Let's see . . .

"Hey kid, what do you want to be when you grow up?"

"A Wal-Mart greeter. I know the benefits and pay aren't that great, but I really like the smiley faces around the store announcing 'price drops'."

I had a really terrible job right out of high school. It paid a bit above the minimum wage, had terrible working conditions, but . . . it was union and had medical benefits.

The sad part: there were people who had been there 10.15. 20 and more years.

Why? Because they were either the second income in their home or they cared about nothing but getting high or drunk. Those jobs were no worse than Wal-Mart and that was a long time ago. Some people lack initiative. Some people lack intelligence. Neither one of those is Wal-Mart's fault.

I am glad they have that choice! Perhaps they ALL went on disability? (just kidding)

bbauska tom and Fate
You do understand the reason I posted the 70% (and I had a source Tom).
was to counter Ray's baseless assertion that the Wal Mart workers on food stamps were happy.
If they don't stick around its obvious they aren't.

That doesn't change the fact that the revolving door at Wal mart is kept revolving by workers who collect food stamps or welfare benefits in order to survive... And that's your tax dollars at work, helping the Walton family profit.
Which makes every one of your comments irrelevant to the discussion.

You're right, RickyP. We should get rid of the food stamp program as well.

rickyp wrote:ray

I think that the majority would agree with me

70% of Wal Mart employees quit before their first year anniversary.
Still think they are a cheery bunch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart

I never said that they were happy or cheery. It's so funny that a few posts ago you accused me of not reading what you actually wrote. Now you are doing the same.

I said that they were better off because Walmart was there since they made a voluntary choice to work there.

So, 70% made a voluntary choice to leave. That's fine. They had a better option. Presumably the other 30% did not have a better option, so it's a good thing that Walmart is there.

wow, employees who hate their job's, how unusual a situation!?
bad bad Walmart