Wal-Mart Asks Workers To Donate Food To Its Needy Employees

Haymarket, I appreciate the many good points you have made on this thread. Thanks for posting!

Lursa - Hi there too!! Just wanted to say re your posts - it's easy to say people don't have to work minimum wage jobs - but when the recession hit, even people with degrees were taking minimum wage jobs because nothing else was available.

However, I do agree that educating our young people (or re-educating older people!) is vital ; while all kids should be encouraged to go to college if possible, not all kids want to do that, and so we need strong vo-tech programs right alongside strong college-bound courses. And kids should probably take courses from both sides of the curriculum. (My step-kids ended up not going to a 4 yr college; but we told them that while in high school, even if they weren't sure about college, they should act as though they were going and take all the right courses; you can always decide later not to go if it's not right for you. Unfortunately, vo-tech has been so reduced in so many schools, they weren't able to really take any classes along those lines, and I do think the older one would have really enjoyed being a carpenter if she had been exposed to classes in it... sadly, can't get her to go into apprenticeship training in a trade now that she's out of school)

And yes, while WalMart is the obvious example to use about stores coming in, demanding things from local cities/counties, driving down wages and closing locally owned stores - no, they aren't the only one out there with rapacious business practices. They are just the biggest bullies out there, so it's convenient to use them as the example.

DA60 said:

I see nothing wrong with what WalMart is doing.

They advertise jobs at a legal wage.

People voluntarily apply (and some are accepted) for those jobs.

Realizing that many of their employees do not make enough money to have a Christmas dinner, they start a food drive.

There is nothing remotely illegal or immoral with anything there.

No one put a gun to their employees heads to work there for those wages, the decision was completely their own...as is there decision to continue to work there.


WalMart does not owe anyone a living. They are under zero obligation to make sure their wages cover all their employees expenses.

Their job is to legally make as much money for the shareholders/owners as possible. That is all they ethically need to worry about. And that is all they should worry about. Free enterprise best works when legal greed is allowed to flourish.

And if people do not like the way they do that, then they can stop shopping there. If enough stop shopping their, Walmart goes out of business.

But considering Walmart is gigantic and growing, obviously huge numbers do not object to their business model.


And btw - I could care less what people call Christmas.

Click to expand...

That may be so but I would also point out that the people do not owe businesses such as that tax breaks out the yahoo too. And like you I do not care if people call Christmas "presents day". :shrug:

paddymcdougall said:

And yes, while WalMart is the obvious example to use about stores coming in, demanding things from local cities/counties, driving down wages and closing locally owned stores - no, they aren't the only one out there with rapacious business practices. They are just the biggest bullies out there, so it's convenient to use them as the example.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct that other big corporations flex their muscles also. I suspect that WM does so more than most simply because of their size. The A&E cable channel had a great multi part special a few years ago and part of it was tracking a middle aged couple who tried to get their product into WM. They used to see the item ( apologize because I do not remember what it was) at flea markets, craft fairs and places like that and got connected with WM. Long story short is that they spent two years and their entire savings trying to make one modification after another at the request of the company only to be told in the end that WM would make an initial order at a predetermined price and they simply could not produce it for that and make any money.

So instead of having a little cottage industry making them some vacation money each year - they were seduced and abandoned and ended up with nothing and losing their savings. It was really sad to watch.

edit

I think this is it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dl0Pwcy3nM

If anybody watches it, please let me know or I will keep on looking to find the right one.

Bob N said:

That may be so but I would also point out that the people do not owe businesses such as that tax breaks out the yahoo too. And like you I do not care if people call Christmas "presents day". :shrug:

Click to expand...

For the record, I am TOTALLY against bailing out corporations or 'too big to fail' or corporatism or ANY government aid to ANY corporation.

I am also against corporate tax or taxes on any business (no matter how big or small) as I think it just makes it that much harder for businesses to succeed.

Lursa said:

That ride doesnt suck for everyone. Even us regular folks that arent rich.

How come?


(PS. I'm a Democrat and mostly liberal)

Click to expand...

Well I'm exaggerating, its more like an 80/20 split. You also may be an illness away from ruin.

The point is the majority of America is getting the shaft by those that take 90% of the pie.

Verax said:

Well I'm exaggerating, its more like an 80/20 split. You also may be an illness away from ruin.

The point is the majority of America is getting the shaft by those that take 90% of the pie.

Click to expand...

The "pie" is not finite, so your OWS rhetoric fails.

j-mac said:

The "pie" is not finite, so your OWS rhetoric fails.

Click to expand...

Mostly it is, so your Wall Street Journal propaganda fails.

EDIT: So I'm curious j-mac...

If say you work for a corporation and the profit is split 95% to the CEO / high paid executives / shareholders and the other 5% goes to the other workers, how is this not a pie?

DA60 said:

1. WalMart does not owe anyone a living. They are under zero obligation to make sure their wages cover all their employees expenses.....

2. Their job is to legally make as much money for the shareholders/owners as possible. That is all they ethically need to worry about.

3. And if people do not like the way they do that, then they can stop shopping there. If enough stop shopping their, Walmart goes out of business...

Click to expand...

1. Employers have a moral obligation to pay full-time workers enough to live on. They don't have to pay enough to support six kids, but at least one kid.

2. That is true and the reason why the legal framework for corporations should be eliminated. It enables sociopathic organizations. In the past the greed of business owners was tempered by their need to maintain a decent reputation in the community. Now no one is held responsible for the decisions made by corporations, legally or ethically.

3. The local businesses paying their employees livable wages tend to get wiped out when Walmart comes to town. Eventually the customers lose their access to competing businesses.

Hard Truth said:

1. Employers have a moral obligation to pay full-time workers enough to live on. They don't have to pay enough to support six kids, but at least one kid.

2. That is true and the reason why the legal framework for corporations should be eliminated. It enables sociopathic organizations. In the past the greed of business owners was tempered by their need to maintain a decent reputation in the community. Now no one is held responsible for the decisions made by corporations, legally or ethically.

3. The local businesses paying their employees livable wages tend to get wiped out when Walmart comes to town. Eventually the customers lose their access to competing businesses.

Click to expand...

Its kind of funny the right complains about welfare, food stamps, etc. But then when it comes to rich corps underpaying their employees that put people in such a position they're fine with it and just come up with more excuses.

Verax said:

Mostly it is, so your Wall Street Journal propaganda fails.

EDIT: So I'm curious j-mac...

If say you work for a corporation and the profit is split 95% to the CEO / high paid executives / shareholders and the other 5% goes to the other workers, how is this not a pie?

Click to expand...

1. Your hypothesis is wrong.

2. You are not forced to work there.

3. Once you agree to work for a certain wage, you don't then "own" the job.

4. New wealth is created every day. So, no, it isn't static.

j-mac said:

1. Your hypothesis is wrong.

2. You are not forced to work there.

3. Once you agree to work for a certain wage, you don't then "own" the job.

4. New wealth is created every day. So, no, it isn't static.

Click to expand...

1. That's not a point its an assertion.

2. So I'm free to work at another job that is the same situation? Seriously you must be joking if you think everyone can just find a better job next door.

3. Agree to work? You mean if I want to pay my bills I better take this job or else sleep in my car? That is the reality most people face, especially in hard economic times.

4. New wealth is created yes, but by who? Its not something the average person does. The average person finds a job and they work there, end of story. Asking everyone to be entrepeneurs is not a realistic solution for common folk.

Hard Truth said:

1. Employers have a moral obligation to pay full-time workers enough to live on. They don't have to pay enough to support six kids, but at least one kid.

Click to expand...

Really? And where is this world recognized, book of morals that says that?

2. That is true and the reason why the legal framework for corporations should be eliminated. It enables sociopathic organizations. In the past the greed of business owners was tempered by their need to maintain a decent reputation in the community. Now no one is held responsible for the decisions made by corporations, legally or ethically.

3. The local businesses paying their employees livable wages tend to get wiped out when Walmart comes to town. Eventually the customers lose their access to competing businesses.

Click to expand...

And why does Walmart wipe out these smaller businesses? Because they sell the same products for MUCH less. No one in town is forced to go to Walmart. I am sure many Walmart customers don't want to see the local Ma and Pa stores die. But they want to save their hard earned money. So they go to the stores that offer them the most goods for the least money.

And why do you think these local businesses have to charge more for their goods? One of the reasons is (according to you) they pay higher wages to their employees. Higher wages means higher prices.

I will say it again, Walmart has gotten huge and is still growing...so obviously huge numbers of people are fine with their business model. If they were not, Walmart would not have thrived.

You don't like it, don't shop at Walmart.

Verax said:

1. That's not a point its an assertion.

2. So I'm free to work at another job that is the same situation? Seriously you must be joking if you think everyone can just find a better job next door.

3. Agree to work? You mean if I want to pay my bills I better take this job or else sleep in my car? That is the reality most people face, especially in hard economic times.

4. New wealth is created yes, but by who? Its not something the average person does. The average person finds a job and they work there, end of story. Asking everyone to be entrepeneurs is not a realistic solution for common folk.

Click to expand...

1. Either way, your assertion then is wrong.

2. Yes, you are free to accept a job at whomever is hiring, and you want to work for.

3. Your bills or living situation is not any company's problem.

4. I didn't say that everyone should be an entrepreneur. But, you answer your own selfish angst here. As you state not everyone is cut out to run a business so why should they get paid like they are?

Verax said:

Its kind of funny the right complains about welfare, food stamps, etc. But then when it comes to rich corps underpaying their employees that put people in such a position they're fine with it and just come up with more excuses.

Click to expand...

For the record, I am not against food stamps (I was against the recent cut in food stamps) and I support the government helping those that cannot help themselves.

And where is your unbiased, factual proof that Walmart is underpaying it's employees? By what internationally recognized legal code or world-renowned moral book is Walmart's pay structure in violation of?

Also, I am not right wing, left wing, con or lib or anything....I am me.

DA60 said:

And why does Walmart wipe out these smaller businesses? Because they sell the same products for MUCH less. No one in town is forced to go to Walmart. I am sure many Walmart customers don't want to see the local Ma and Pa stores die. But they want to save their hard earned money. So they go to the stores that offer them the most goods for the least money.
.

Click to expand...

Pls. read Haymarket's earlier post about the mom & pop shop that tried to place products at WalMart. WM is constantly pushing its suppliers to provide them products for less cost; if they don't, they drop the supplier. So WM leans on suppliers who then have to cut THEIR labor costs and/or lean on THEIR suppliers. Pretty vicious, the way they get to the lower costs. They end up lowering the bar everywhere, instead of raising everyone's boats.

Re corporations having no obligations except to their shareholders - someone posted this link earlier - about when corporations were initially set up in this country
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

Click to expand...

Being a corporation is not a "right" that exists out there. It's something granted by states, and states can set the rules that corporations need to follow. Unfortunately, corporations have managed to get the rules rigged in their favor.

j-mac said:

1. Either way, your assertion then is wrong.

2. Yes, you are free to accept a job at whomever is hiring, and you want to work for.

3. Your bills or living situation is not any company's problem.

4. I didn't say that everyone should be an entrepreneur. But, you answer your own selfish angst here. As you state not everyone is cut out to run a business so why should they get paid like they are?

Click to expand...

The problem is people do not have enough money to properly care for themselves and their family. Your "answer" to this is that it is THEIR problem so they can go **** themself.

Thanks for the input big guy, you're quite the help.

DA60 said:

For the record, I am not against food stamps (I was against the recent cut in food stamps) and I support the government helping those that cannot help themselves.

And where is your unbiased, factual proof that Walmart is underpaying it's employees? By what internationally recognized legal code or world-renowned moral book is Walmart's pay structure in violation of?

Also, I am not right wing, left wing, con or lib or anything....I am me.

Click to expand...

Well its certainly not just Walmart, pay for the bottom 80% of workers is pretty dismal overall. No there is no violation, there is no rule, law, or otherwise that states they have to do anything. The point is there is a problem in that the middle class is increasingly getting weaker and less able to care for themselves financially.

paddymcdougall said:

Pls. read Haymarket's earlier post about the mom & pop shop that tried to place products at WalMart. WM is constantly pushing its suppliers to provide them products for less cost; if they don't, they drop the supplier. So WM leans on suppliers who then have to cut THEIR labor costs and/or lean on THEIR suppliers. Pretty vicious, the way they get to the lower costs. They end up lowering the bar everywhere, instead of raising everyone's boats.

Re corporations having no obligations except to their shareholders - someone posted this link earlier - about when corporations were initially set up in this country
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States



Being a corporation is not a "right" that exists out there. It's something granted by states, and states can set the rules that corporations need to follow. Unfortunately, corporations have managed to get the rules rigged in their favor.

Click to expand...

1) So Walmart forces their suppliers to become more efficient? Good...more efficient stores offer superior products for less money. Which leaves consumers with more money to buy other things.

2) And where is this internationally recognized book of morals that states that a company must pay it's employees enough to live on?

Is there such a book? Yes or no, please?


And finally, anyone that does not like Walmart is free to not shop there.

Verax said:

Well its certainly not just Walmart, pay for the bottom 80% of workers is pretty dismal overall. No there is no violation, there is no rule, law, or otherwise that states they have to do anything. The point is there is a problem in that the middle class is increasingly getting weaker and less able to care for themselves financially.

Click to expand...

I agree there is a problem.

Then why does the middle class keep supporting massive bailouts to gigantic corporations? Why did the middle class generally seem to agree with the Fed bailing out lousy banks with over a trillion dollars? Why do the masses support a Fed that clearly exists to prop up it's Wall Street banking buddies? Why do the masses keep electing POTUS's that support cronyism?

I think the middle class is being eroded because America is losing it's edge due to MASSIVE government interventions in corporations that pay these politicians (directly and indirectly) to do just that.

I say force corporations to live and die without ANY government assistance.

Stop having the government intervene in the economy. They have been intervening for over a decade...and what has it accomplished? It has made things worse. The rich are getting MUCH richer, the poor are getting more numerous, the middle class are getting poorer and the national debt is skyrocketing. It's not working.

The government should help those who cannot (as opposed to will not) help themselves. Help the poor, the sick and the elderly.

But stay out of the economy...leave that to the people.

If they do that, lousy companies will die, healthy ones will thrive and America can grow again...and the middle class will grow along with them...IMO.

Stop trusting the government/Fed America and start trusting in yourselves.

Kreton said:

Anyone who walks into a Wal-Mart, knowing what they are, is so self centered and greedy I doubt they are even remotely willing to help someone else unless there is a tax break in it for them.

Click to expand...

Consumerism is NOT sustainable
Boycott Black Friday!

Its not just about "wal-mart" that is just the tip of the iceberg
Really the problem is CONSUMERISM!

DA60 said:

I agree there is a problem.

Then why does the middle class keep supporting massive bailouts to gigantic corporations? Why did the middle class generally seem to agree with the Fed bailing out lousy banks with over a trillion dollars? Why do the masses support a Fed that clearly exists to prop up it's Wall Street banking buddies? Why do the masses keep electing POTUS's that support cronyism?

I think the middle class is being eroded because America is losing it's edge due to MASSIVE government interventions in corporations that pay these politicians (directly and indirectly) to do just that.

I say force corporations to live and die without ANY government assistance.

Stop having the government intervene in the economy. They have been intervening for over a decade...and what has it accomplished? It has made things worse. The rich are getting MUCH richer, the poor are getting more numerous, the middle class are getting poorer and the national debt is skyrocketing. It's not working.

The government should help those who cannot (as opposed to will not) help themselves. Help the poor, the sick and the elderly.

But stay out of the economy...leave that to the people.

If they do that, lousy companies will die, healthy ones will thrive and America can grow again...and the middle class will grow along with them...IMO.

Stop trusting the government/Fed America and start trusting in yourselves.

Click to expand...

In theory that is definitely the system I would prefer. My only objection would be that rather than completely taking government out of the economy we should focus on better government only intervening when truly necessary, but ideally it would the closest possible to a real "free market". Its kind of a catch 22 where we need good government to fix bad private industry and good private industry needs bad government to get off its back.

Of course all this is undermined if you have bad people rigging the system whether it is government or private industry, pick your poison.

Verax said:

In theory that is definitely the system I would prefer. My only objection would be that rather than completely taking government out of the economy we should focus on better government only intervening when truly necessary, but ideally it would the closest possible to a real "free market". Its kind of a catch 22 where we need good government to fix bad private industry and good private industry needs bad government to get off its back.

Of course all this is undermined if you have bad people rigging the system whether it is government or private industry, pick your poison.

Click to expand...

I see your point.

Personally, I used to believe government is basically good. I no longer believe that. I think the way it is set up encourages corruption.

I don't like cold, heartless corporations either.

But at least they can be forced - through economic boycott - to do (more or less) the right thing.

But once politicians are elected, they do whatever they want until election time...then they promise the Moon.

And I think no matter who is elected, they will be probably at least as corrupt as the last politician.

I don't think politicians make politics dirty. I think the system turns politicians dirty.

I think Obama was probably a relatively honorable fellow ten years ago (and GWB to perhaps a lesser extent 20 years ago).

I think now he has compromised his ideals so much that he is a shadow of his former self. Telling lies and playing games to get what he wants...convincing himself with that old line...'the ends justify the means'.

I simply have near ZERO trust or respect for ANYTHING that comes out of Washington...from either party.

Bob N said:

Well it appears that a Cleveland, Ohio Walmart is holding a food drive so that it's employees can have a nice Holiday meal. The sign in the store, accompanied by several plastic bins, reads: "Please donate food items so associates in need can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner."

Really? Thank goodness those people are employed so those associates don't have to get on food stamps. :roll:

What cracks me up with some people that see nothing wrong with what Walmart is doing would probably go berserk if you wished them "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." :roll:

Click to expand...

$5 they sell of some of the food

DA60 said:

I agree there is a problem.

Then why does the middle class keep supporting massive bailouts to gigantic corporations? Why did the middle class generally seem to agree with the Fed bailing out lousy banks with over a trillion dollars? Why do the masses support a Fed that clearly exists to prop up it's Wall Street banking buddies? Why do the masses keep electing POTUS's that support cronyism?

I think the middle class is being eroded because America is losing it's edge due to MASSIVE government interventions in corporations that pay these politicians (directly and indirectly) to do just that.

I say force corporations to live and die without ANY government assistance.

Stop having the government intervene in the economy. They have been intervening for over a decade...and what has it accomplished? It has made things worse. The rich are getting MUCH richer, the poor are getting more numerous, the middle class are getting poorer and the national debt is skyrocketing. It's not working.

The government should help those who cannot (as opposed to will not) help themselves. Help the poor, the sick and the elderly.

But stay out of the economy...leave that to the people.

If they do that, lousy companies will die, healthy ones will thrive and America can grow again...and the middle class will grow along with them...IMO.

Stop trusting the government/Fed America and start trusting in yourselves.

Click to expand...

It seems to me the elections are only choices between puppets. These puppets tell you what the polls say that most folks want to hear. Who would spend 1000X (or more) what a job pays simply to apply for it? That takes honest folks out of the running, leaving only those beholden to their campaign finance puppeteers to choose from. Much like a professional wrestling match, the outcome was planned by others and you just get to pay to watch the show.

DA60 said:

And why do you think these local businesses have to charge more for their goods? One of the reasons is (according to you) they pay higher wages to their employees. Higher wages means higher prices.

I will say it again, Walmart has gotten huge and is still growing...so obviously huge numbers of people are fine with their business model. If they were not, Walmart would not have thrived.

You don't like it, don't shop at Walmart.

Click to expand...

Are those people aware that taxpayers subsidize the wages of underpaid Walmarts employees by providing them with foodstamps? Are they aware that Walmarts is likely to destroy their local businesses and the decent paying jobs that they support? Are they aware that Walmarts encourages their suppliers to pay even lower than the usual low wages paid to their employees in third world countries? It is not informed consent unless they are aware of these facts.