Walmart employee Thanksgiving donations at Canton store cause controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter seekerz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“The capacity to work is a natural good of man, which is destined and therefore also empowered by nature, or by the Author of nature, to provide the worker with his necessary sustenance.” - Fr Heinrich Pesch.

Labour does not exist for profit, it exists for man to provide for his basic necessities and for his dependents. A man can make a profit, but when profit becomes his primary intention, then he has disordered view of economics and man’s natural capacity to labour.

If we rightly speak out against disordered sexuality, why does this not also extend to disordered economics and economic practise?
 
Lochias said:
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.
Click to expand...
Done it! For ten years.The skill can be learned relatively quickly,the knowledge you learn along the way. No education needed otherwise.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Walmart is not being crushed, but it is a reasonable speculation that its best days are behind them. Over the past ten years, an investment in the market as a whole did better than an investment in Walmart. It is pretty easy to see why that is the case. Walmart is run by people who are working for a paycheck, not by people who have an emotional stake in it beyond their salary and benefits. They have also picked most of the low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure Walmart’s worker are no different (except perhaps in skills) from workers anywhere. Bear in mind that there are a wide variety of job descriptions at Walmart.

Best days behind or ahead, Walmart is still a successful corporation. I know struggling small business owners in my area that would die of shame than ask their employees to donate food to their needy colleagues!
 
Jon_Paul said:
And it’s still ridiculous to compare the wage they should receive to that which you should receive. You are the parent, they are your dependents.
Click to expand...
So stores should hire teenagers and not their parents?
 
Jon_Paul said:
“The capacity to work is a natural good of man, which is destined and therefore also empowered by nature, or by the Author of nature, to provide the worker with his necessary sustenance.” - Fr Heinrich Pesch.

Labour does not exist for profit, it exists for man to provide for his basic necessities and for his dependents. A man can make a profit, but when profit becomes his primary intention, then he has disordered view of economics and man’s natural capacity to labour.

If we rightly speak out against disordered sexuality, why does this not also extend to disordered economics and economic practise?
Click to expand...
You do realize, do you not, that people, including laborers, live on their “profit”? It costs me to work. I have to have the right clothes. I have to have reliable transportation. I have to have fuel for my car. I might have to have the right tools, and so on. And the government taxes me to spend on whatever it wants to spend money on.

What’s left is my “profit” after those things, and that’s what I, and everybody else, lives on.
 
estesbob said:
So if we disagree with your opinion on what a" fair" wage is we don’t care about the poor? It is interesting that so many believe they can abdicate their personal responsibility to help the poor by insisting Walmart do it for them
Click to expand...
Lochias said:
That is my opinion, yes.
Click to expand...
You are saying that people, like me, who volunteer to cook and serve meals in a shelter for homeless mothers and their children don’t care about the poor? My sister, who volunteers at a crisis nursery center for families in crisis doesn’t care about the poor?
It’s interesting that you believe that anyone said this at all. Nobody here will ever know how much I, for example, have helped to the point of grievous suffering. And nobody will care, either.
Click to expand...
I am sorry about your family situation and will pray for you.

However, raising the minimum wage will not help your families problems. A more fair social services program would help families like you.
 
estesbob said:
In 2013 alone the Wal mart foundation have over a BILLION dollars to charity
Click to expand...
Taking money they could use to pay their employees and giving it to their pet causes. Sounds like greed to me. You and I have to pay tax money to provide social services for Walmart employees while the Waltons’ net worth increases. They can dress up their greed however they want, but when their own stores take up collections for their own employees, that says something. I can give all my money to Planned Parenthood and other similar worthy charities that offer free or reduced cancer screenings for poor women, but if I don’t feed my kids, I’m still a deadbeat mom.
 
Jon_Paul said:
And it’s still ridiculous to compare the wage they should receive to that which you should receive. You are the parent, they are your dependents.
Click to expand...
So the grocery store where my kids worked as teens, should pay adults more than children for the same work? My kids had to join the union in order to work there.
 
PeopleB4Things said:
Taking money they could use to pay their employees and giving it to their pet causes. Sounds like greed to me. You and I have to pay tax money to provide social services for Walmart employees while the Waltons’ net worth increases. They can dress up their greed however they want, but when their own stores take up collections for their own employees, that says something. I can give all my money to Planned Parenthood and other similar worthy charities that offer free or reduced cancer screenings for poor women, but if I don’t feed my kids, I’m still a deadbeat mom.
Click to expand...
We live in a free market society, the best method of allocating limited resources. It may not be perfect, bit it has worked better than communism and socialism.

Walmart is in the business of making money. There is nothing wrong with that. I work to make money same as Walmart.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I forgot about the marital status issue, although one can wonder whether one could base a salary on the number of kids independent of marital status. That would be a legal research quagmire though, so we can leave it at a wonder.
Click to expand...
No, you can’t. This is indirectly a marital status issue. It’s the same reason it’s illegal to ask a prospective employee if they have kids or plan to have them in the near future.

There are a precious few compensation elements that you can tie to family size but they are all indirect compensation. Here are a few:
  1. medical insurance premiums. Many employers subsidize not only the premium for the employee but also family plans. This means they give more to the employee who has family members.
  2. some leaves, such as maternity/paternity leave are only for parents. When this is a paid leave, it means more compensation to those with children than those without.
  3. discounts or memberships - higher value for employees with more family members
  4. scholarships - many companies offer scholarships to children of employees.
These are all indirect and don’t show up on the pay stub.

Direct compensation, salary or hourly pay, must be paid based on job related criteria. Differences can be based on performance, tenure, education, prior experience and market but not on personal characteristics of the employee.

And think about what a nightmare it would be. A company would be forced to pay a marginal employee who is married with 3 kids more than the high performer doing the same job but who is single with no dependents.
 
qui_est_ce said:
So the grocery store where my kids worked as teens, should pay adults more than children for the same work? My kids had to join the union in order to work there.
Click to expand...
That was the idea behind the training wage. The training wage was set at 85% of the federal minimum wage. That provision of the wage and hour laws expired. The purpose was to encourage employers to hire more workers, including teens who did not have prior work experience.
stinkcat_14 said:
So stores should hire teenagers and not their parents?
Click to expand...
Ideally, yes, for entry level jobs. In a robust economy, minimum wage jobs would be filled by teens, part time workers and those with no education or skills. Parents (those with more experience) would seek out higher paid positions.

In a depressed economy, these two groups are competing for the same jobs. The EEOC does not allow employers to pass over those that might be “over qualified” since it is seen as a form of age discrimination.
 
Corki said:
That was the idea behind the training wage. The training wage was set at 85% of the federal minimum wage. That provision of the wage and hour laws expired. The purpose was to encourage employers to hire more workers, including teens who did not have prior work experience.

Ideally, yes, for entry level jobs. In a robust economy, minimum wage jobs would be filled by teens, part time workers and those with no education or skills. Parents (those with more experience) would seek out higher paid positions.

In a depressed economy, these two groups are competing for the same jobs. The EEOC does not allow employers to pass over those that might be “over qualified” since it is seen as a form of age discrimination.
Click to expand...
That is very interesting. Thank you for that.

I would submit that raising wages in a depressed economy would have the effect of further depressing the economy. As one poster has stated:
Mickey Finn:
…If an employer cannot pay this and must go out of business. We understand, and wish him well in the future.
Click to expand...
 
Rence said:
And to me $18 is ridiculous for a job that doesn’t require some sort of skill, knowledge or education. And anyway, it really doesn’t matter if they get $15, $18 or $25. Being that they are on the bottom of the pay totem pole, it will just drive up the salaries of higher level jobs in all fields, and will drive up the cost of goods and services - but they will STILL be at the bottom of the pay totem pole.
Click to expand...
I am in complete agreement. You will basically drive up inflation because everyone along the line will want a raise - i.e. Nurses will quit their stressful jobs and stock shelves, so hospitals will have to raise pay, for example.

Also people complain that the CEO should be compensated less and the money should be given to the employees. What people realize is that the CEO made $20.7million (who knows how much of that was stock) in 2012, but Wal-Mart employees 2.2 million people. What’s that, like $10/person/year that can be given back?
 
mikekle said:
As I mentioned earlier, I am a corporate rep for a large gas station/convenience store chain, the low level cashiers are hired in at $7.25 and I dont know how often they get raises, or if they even get raises. I was hired as a rep so I did not start out at the lowest level, I make a little bit more than $15. hr(but not much more), overall, I am content and happy with my job/income, sure I would like more money, but I get by OK with the money I earn now.

The cashiers have alot of responsibilities, they are required to work very hard, constantly be doing something, if they cant find anything to do, they are expected to pick up a broom and sweep, but my job is different, and really as long as I meet the deadlines imposed on me and get all my duties done correctly, my boss does not care what I do.

Furthermore, if the low level cashiers were suddenly given raises to $10. hour or other living wage type increase, I would not feel I have the right to suddenly ask for more money, nor would I ask. I know plenty of them that deserve it, many are young single mothers, and many are working 2 jobs just to make enough to live on. I dont think this is right, they contribute to the company each day (probably more so than I do) and deserve to be paid more than what the state says the lowest possible wage the company can pay them.

I personally think its wrong for these large companies to hire everyone in at the same pay rate, no matter what their skills, that company is basically saying every single person we hire is the same. Every person is different, some are harder workers than others, some like to stand around, some do more than required, I dont see how a company can justify paying every single person the same exact amount, I would think their pay would be determined on the interview and what kind of the person is, what their references have said about them, past employer references speak volumes about what a person is like, yet most large companies dont even contact references for low level new hires…???

These large companies have huge profit margins, so an increase in minimum wages should not effect retail prices, it may cut into the profits, but these are the people helping to bring in those consistent profit margins, so they really should be anxious to pay these people more, without them, they would not have those huge profits.

I may not have the right answer, but something definitely needs to change, no one can live ANYWHERE making $7.25 hour and no one should expect them to. If they hire someone at this rate, they should expect to receive that level of work ultimately.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what you say. But one of the issues is that much of this work is not skilled labor - meaning that person X can leave/get fired/etc. and I can find 10 people to fill the job rather easy.
 
PeopleB4Things said:
Taking money they could use to pay their employees and giving it to their pet causes. Sounds like greed to me. You and I have to pay tax money to provide social services for Walmart employees while the Waltons’ net worth increases. They can dress up their greed however they want, but when their own stores take up collections for their own employees, that says something. I can give all my money to Planned Parenthood and other similar worthy charities that offer free or reduced cancer screenings for poor women, but if I don’t feed my kids, I’m still a deadbeat mom.
Click to expand...
Again, I showed the calculus if the CEO giving up his salary and giving it up to the workers. The average worker worker will see literally pennies every year if the CEO/Board/Senior management gave back a large chunk of their salary…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top