A couple of pages back Ricky:

The basic failing is that the US has decided to provide health insurance through employers.... Obama has incrementally improved the delivery of health insurance but it doesn't over come this basic failing.

Prior to Obamacare, health insurance through employers was based on tradition, tax benefits, and the laws of a few states. Obama has solidified this practice by heavily penalizing employers who do not cover employees who work more than 30 hours per week. This basically cements the notion that employers are directly responsible for employee health insurance. Of course, it creates massive incentive for companies such as Walmart to retain part time employees. Unintended consequences, indeed.

Just spoke to an associate at Walmart. She has been an associate since 2005, makes $12.43/hour, works 32 hours a week (at HER choice to run son to neighboring town for medical treatment), and has health insurance.

She loves it there, and has no desire to leave.

Must be a horrid place to work. Damnable sweatshops....

Bauska, come on; clearly this lady is confused and doesn't realize how much the capitalists are oppressing her.

a "kid" (he was a kid then, he's 52 now) I went to grammar school with works at my local Walmart. I believe he's a librarian but he works part time at Walmart for at least 3 years now. He likes it fine, it's part time only so he can help gain some extra cash, low stress, few demands, no benefits ...he doesn't care. But wait, we can't allow people to decide for themselves where they can work, and part time????

bbauska

She loves it there, and has no desire to leave.

Bully for her.
Perhaps you could ask her why the turnover in the first year is 70%. Or how many people she knows at work who have to enroll in beenfits programs from the government?
Perhaps you could ask yourself why the positive experience of one person you've met is sufficient to contradict the enormous amount of information that you were linked to about the labour practices there?
Is she perhaps exceptional or one of a minority?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

She loves it there, and has no desire to leave.

Bully for her.
Perhaps you could ask her why the turnover in the first year is 70%.

So, you will accept her answer? #nochanceinhades

There are many reasons we could speculate about, but let me ask YOU a question: ever work an entry-level, low-paying job? If so, did you see a lot of turnover in the time you were there? Why did YOU leave?


If you have not worked a job like that, I have.

IF there is a high turnover rate, how many are fired? Does that count in the 70%?

Btw, I found that 70% figure in a pbs article that appears to be woefully out of date. Much of its info comes from 2000.

I will. Stand by.

She says she does not have 70% turnover. Maybe 20% a year. Her opinion about why most of the people leaving in the first year is because the are SH!%%^ workers (her term). It is better for her to not have to work with them. She has a good management structure and likes the people she works with. Some leave because they get married or go to school.

Her negative is the "Rah-Rah" cheering sessions in the early morning that are mandatory.

There are a couple of people who are single mothers who are on food stamps, but not many. (maybe that is because we have a min. wage of $9.10 - Brad)

To answer your last question:
Perhaps the data you have produced is biased
Perhaps the small town store has nicer people in it
Perhaps many of the associates are more responsible
Perhaps it is too small of sample
Perhaps it is the truth, and your is the altered reality...

So Walmart has trouble keeping it's employees, because of this they must raise their wages? Hot damn, with that thinking it would appear I am line for a raise!? It is Walmarts strategy to pay low and in doing so attract bad employees, attract temporary employees, attract those who plan on leaving as soon as possible. It is their problem to have to worry about constant rertraining. This is their plan and they must deal with the consequences, to suggest they be required to pay more because they have a high turnover??????

Another person just interviewed at Walmart. She was offered $11.43/hour and benefits after 1 year.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Wal ... y-E715.htm


Here's a survey .... your friend is way above average.

oh boy, the friend is above average so they should be penalized for being extraordinary. everyone should be paid equal, everyone should make a decent wage, thank you Carl Marx.


...and yes I know what you mean, it's a joke, relax.
But in an honest reply, we are to ignore those examples that do not fit your opinion? that certainly is what it seems.

rickyp wrote:http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Stores-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm


Here's a survey .... your friend is way above average.

Here's what I want to know: do you all imagine that these people working at Walmart would be rolling in cash if Walmart shut its doors?

Furthermore, do you imagine Walmart would stay in business if it paid what you would like it to pay?

It's not funny, it's sick. On the Left the premise is: corporations don't need to make a profit; they have a responsibility to make sure their workers are happy and well-paid--if they happen to make a profit, it's probably because wages are too low.

It's Karl with a "K" Marx.

rickyp wrote:http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Stores-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm


Here's a survey .... your friend is way above average.

All of the averages are at least $1.20 above the minimum wage.