Walmart employee Thanksgiving donations at Canton store cause controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter seekerz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Businesses are not required to pay the employee’s dependents a salary as well as the employee. It doesn’t work that way and never will. That burden is on the employee and that’s the way it should be. A business that hires someone at $10/hour pays that person $10/hour, not $10/hour for that employee as well as $10/hour for each of his/her dependents.
So all business assume that employees live on their own? Sounds like the Twilight Zone to me.
 
-]/-]
Exactly. Remember the shortages and long lines in the former USSR?

I think it’s time each of us help those in need ourselves.
Workers used to comment “they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work”
 
Businesses are not required to pay the employee’s dependents a salary as well as the employee. It doesn’t work that way and never will. That burden is on the employee and that’s the way it should be. A business that hires someone at $10/hour pays that person $10/hour, not $10/hour for that employee as well as $10/hour for each of his/her dependents.
And a business has a moral obligation to provide that employee the means of caring for his dependents. Thus speak our Popes. No obligation exists on a business when there’s no monetary possibility for them to do so. But if you expect me to believe all of these multi-billion or multi-million dollar companies are somehow strapped for cash, I’ll call claptrap to that.
 
They also seem to ignore statement regarding the common good. Pope Leo XIII insisted that a living wage is necessary to the common good.
Pope Leo XIII never defined what a living wage is. In addition to that, a company is NOT required to compromise the product it delivers by paying employees more than they can. Again, if people don’t like what they’re being paid at Walmart, McDonalds, Arby’s, whatever, they can look elsewhere for a ‘better’ paying job doing the same job — just like everyone else.
 
No successful business can afford to pay their employees according to the numbers of people they support. Businesses pay according to skill level, education, job category, and experience. “Number of dependents” is not one of the criteria. That shouldn’t be a burden on the employer.
👍 What’s next? Want a raise, have another baby?
There are no such things as “after school jobs” anymore. You’re not seeing the reality of a market in which grown adults are working these jobs because that’s ALL THEY CAN GET. The market has changed.
This is not true at all. Most of the high school kids I know have jobs either after school or on week ends. My son just turned 16 and has lots of places that will now employ him. The teens virtually ALL work in the summer and over breaks. Same with the kids in college. Raising the minimum wage to $18 an hour would make it very hard for an employer to hire a teen or for a college to offer work study positions.

However, your second point was mine earlier in this thread. Minimum wage jobs should not be filled (or accepted) by skilled workers or those with experience. They are entry level, unskilled jobs and should be filled with entry level, unskilled workers. If there are not other jobs available, its a problem with the economy, not the employer. The job and the worth of the job do not change just because there are more people unemployed.
 
Edit: Someone has to stack the shelves in the supermarket. We cannot all have high paying law jobs or spend years in pre-med to go and be a doctor. Unskilled work will always of necessity exist. Are we to deny them a just wage because they are unskilled? No. Simply because one doesn’t have the proper means to obtain a skilled job does not mean they should not receive a just wage to support themselves and their dependents.
Yes, unskilled work will always exist, but they will always be the least paying jobs because they require the least resources provided by the employee.
 
Pope Leo XIII never defined what a living wage is. In addition to that, a company is NOT required to compromise the product it delivers by paying employees more than they can. Again, if people don’t like what they’re being paid at Walmart, McDonalds, Arby’s, whatever, they can look elsewhere for a ‘better’ paying job doing the same job — just like everyone else.
But Pope Pius XI certainly did,
In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family.
And Pope Leo XIII spoke about government protection for wage-earners and I believe that certainly extends to enshrining in law the necessity of paying a living wage if possible.
 
And a business has a moral obligation to provide that employee the means of caring for his dependents. Thus speak our Popes. No obligation exists on a business when there’s no monetary possibility for them to do so. But if you expect me to believe all of these multi-billion or multi-million dollar companies are somehow strapped for cash, I’ll call claptrap to that.
A business has a moral obligation to pay for services provided by the employee, at an agreed upon rate. An employee agrees to the wage when he/she takes the position. Each job has a pay-tier, based on skills, education, knowledge, and experience. A person gets hired into a job, at a specific pay-tier. Walmart would not be as successful as it is if it paid their cashiers as much as Microsoft paid its programmers, or as much as a hospital paid its nurses, or a contracting company paid its contractors. In fact, they would lose their competitive edge and tank. A business does NOT have the ‘moral obligation’ to pay their employees based on how many dependents they have or don’t have.
 
You go work a 14-hour shift as a fry-cook during the weekend rush and tell me that the job doesn’t require skill, knowledge or education.
A 14-hour shift done by a chef, an accountant, a nurse, a nursing assistant, a contractor, a teacher, a lab technician, a computer programmer, a doctor, a fireman, requires more skill, knowledge and education than the fry-cook - and their pay reflects that higher level.
 
A business has a moral obligation to pay for services provided by the employee, at an agreed upon rate. An employee agrees to the wage when he/she takes the position. Each job has a pay-tier, based on skills, education, knowledge, and experience. A person gets hired into a job, at a specific pay-tier. Walmart would not be as successful as it is if it paid their cashiers as much as Microsoft paid its programmers, or as much as a hospital paid its nurses, or a contracting company paid its contractors. In fact, they would lose their competitive edge and tank. A business does NOT have the ‘moral obligation’ to pay their employees based on how many dependents they have or don’t have.
I am not saying that everyone should have the same wage. I am saying that it is entirely dependent upon ones own situation. The minimum must meet a person’s basic living necessities. Of course nurses, lawyers, technicians, etc., can and should receive a greater pay.

A business cannot and must not exist for its own sole benefit. It exists in the public sphere and thus it takes on public responsibilities. Not only in providing society with its produce but also with contributing to the common good of society in which the just and living wage is a part. And all sectors of society have moral obligations to that society and to the common good. From myself to you to businesses and schools and to the government. We all have moral obligations to our society.
 
But Pope Pius XI certainly did,

And Pope Leo XIII spoke about government protection for wage-earners and I believe that certainly extends to enshrining in law the necessity of paying a living wage if possible.
No, he didn’t. What Pope Pius XI did NOT imply to give a person a raise every time they had a child or got pregnant. Where does the responsibility of the employee to practice responsible parenthood" (also by a Pope) come in to play? Companies will never pay people according to the amount (or need) of their dependents. No companies do that now, even the diocese, and none will do that in the future. Do you think the Vatican pays its employees according to the number of dependents an employee has? I think not.
 
The poverty rate in the US is 15% Costco doesn’t pay its employees 5 times more than Wal-mart. Wal-Mart is a boon to small business who flock to locate near them and supply them The truth is Wall Matt is attacked onlyb because they are not unionized.
WOW, you just don’t care about the truth. Actual poverty rate in the USA is 16%. Several states fair worse.
  1. Oklahoma 17.2% (84 walmart stores)
  2. South Carolina 18.8% ( 63 walmart stores)
  3. Louisiana 20.4% ( 81 walmart stores)
  4. Tennessee 18.3% ( 104 walmart stores)
  5. Alabama 19% ( 90 walmart stores)
  6. Kentucky 19.1% ( 82 walmart stores)
  7. Arkansas 19.5% ( 80 walmart stores)
  8. Mississippi 22.6% ( 64 walmart stores)
  9. California The wealthiest state 16.6% ( 167 walmart stores)
  10. Texas 17.9% (329 walmart stores)
A few other interesting facts about Texas.
26% Children below poverty rate
16% Seniors below poverty rate
19% Woman below poverty rate
24% uninsured
7.8% unemployment.

Not looking too good for the Lone Star State.

I believe your assessment was wrong about Walmart helping small business. Walmart helps the Walton family (50% share holders) at whatever cost to the rest of us.

ATB
 
A 14-hour shift done by a chef, an accountant, a nurse, a nursing assistant, a contractor, a teacher, a lab technician, a computer programmer, a doctor, a fireman, requires more skill, knowledge and education than the fry-cook - and their pay reflects that higher level.
Gotcha. People who can’t learn as easily or couldn’t get access to schooling don’t deserve medicine, food and other necessities.

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/...-somehow-capitalism-sounds-amazing-7b5395.jpg
 
I am not saying that everyone should have the same wage. I am saying that it is entirely dependent upon ones own situation. The minimum must meet a person’s basic living necessities. Of course nurses, lawyers, technicians, etc., can and should receive a greater pay.
Yes, that’s what some of us have been trying to say. The jobs requiring a higher level of skill will always pay more. The ones requiring less will pay less. If a job such as cashier at walmart gets paid $15, all the other jobs requiring more skill will go UP in pay. In addition, the products and services offered by the business will go UP. But the employee at the lesser skilled job will always be at the bottom of the pay-totem pole. You may not like it, but you just said it above.

Employers do not pay their employees “according to their situation” but according to their education, skill set, job requirements and experience. Two people hired for the same job at the same time, all other variables related to the job being the same, will get paid the same — regardless of what either employee has going on in his/her life. Their way of life and their ability to support it is not the responsibility of the employer to the extent of being unfair to other employees, or to the extent of compromising it’s product and services.
 
But Pope Pius XI certainly did,

And Pope Leo XIII spoke about government protection for wage-earners and I believe that certainly extends to enshrining in law the necessity of paying a living wage if possible.
Both Popes would probably be shocked at what amenities people are demanding in terms of a “living wage”. In both of their eras, homes did not have electricity, let alone phones and internet; meals were home-cooked with meat a rare “splurge”; transportation was often by foot, even for the middle class; and young families often lived with the parents of one of the spouses. The working class often spent 60 or more hours per week at their jobs and then came home to work the family garden.

Now, there’s an expectation that a company is immoral if it doesn’t pay enough for a family to pay rent or mortgage payments for a separate domicile; have phone, TV and internet; buy all of their food and pay someone to watch their children. All of this without working a second job or even putting in overtime because the company “owes” its workers leisure time too, don’t you know.

And don’t lecture me about not knowing what it means to be poor (I know it wasn’t you personally, Jon Paul). I had plenty of years of stretching out my food stamps, selling my blood and sharing a house with a bunch of people in order to afford a place to live. When I started working, it was a draw job. I rode my bike to work. Did I expect my employer to meet my bills? No, I got a second job until the draw caught up. And I lived on ramen and mac and cheese.
 
Cable or satellite? A PC or a Mac? One car or two?

The fact is that what we consider “poverty” in the country is embarrassing. $18 and hour, with even just a little OT and some paid benefits is over $40,000. If that really the line under which a person is considered poor?
It does look that way. The median income is $51,017. I’m not sure how people raise more than a child or two on this pay. But if the are making only $10.00/hr. It’s all they can do to eat, and live in doors.

ATB
 
What does it matter, if you’re providing a service that practically everyone in society utilizes?
It does matter, and is reflected in pay-rates for particular jobs. For example, it takes a few weeks to train (and not much cost) a nursing assistant, and that reflects in their pay. It takes a year to train an LPN, a little bit of money to finish the education, and that refects in their pay. It takes 2 years at the lowest level, to train an RN, and significantly more money, and that reflects in their pay. All three positions serve patients, but each in a different capacity. Each has a different set of skills required to perform the job, and each has an increased level of education required. Every job is paid according to productivity, and reflects the level of education/skill. Further, a doctor pays quite a bit more in time and money to be trained, and that also is reflected in the cost of their services. It sure does matter how long it takes (as well as how much it costs) to train/educate in order to be competent at a particular job and yes, that’s reflected in their pay.
 
Yes, that’s what some of us have been trying to say. The jobs requiring a higher level of skill will always pay more. The ones requiring less will pay less. If a job such as cashier at walmart gets paid $15, all the other jobs requiring more skill will go UP in pay. In addition, the products and services offered by the business will go UP. But the employee at the lesser skilled job will always be at the bottom of the pay-totem pole. You may not like it, but you just said it above.
And lets not forget that Walmart is not the only company that hires minimum wage workers. If the minimum wage was to go to $18/hour, that would mean that grocery store shelvers, child care workers, the receptionist at the apartment office, and the kid who does dishes at the school cafeteria would all also get $18 or more per hour. What do you think that will do to grocery costs, child care costs, rent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top