• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wal-Mart opposes $6 billion Visa-MasterCard fee settlement

Walmart tends to pay about $10 an hour give or take.
Provides benefits like insurance, 401k, etc.
But then, I think that's pretty generous considering the level of work isn't all that high.

Oh really?

Other critics have noted that in 2001, the average wage for a Walmart Sales Clerk was $8.23 per hour, or $13,861 a year, while the federal poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. Walmart founder Sam Walton once said, "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."

The activist group Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) said "in 2006 Walmart reports that full time hourly associates received, on average, $10.11 an hour." It further calculated that working 34 hours per week an employee earns $17,874 per year and claimed that is about twenty percent less than the average retail worker.

Furthermore the insurance and 401K are generally given to full time employees which management is given bonuses for keeping employees under the full time mark so that they do not qualify.

Here is some more info for you

A 2002 survey by the state of Georgia's subsidized healthcare system, PeachCare, found that Walmart was the largest private employer of parents of children enrolled in its program; one quarter of the employees of Georgia Walmarts qualified to enroll their children in the federal subsidized healthcare system Medicaid.[48] A 2004 study at the University of California, Berkeley charges that Walmart's low wages and benefits are insufficient, and although decreasing the burden on the social safety net to some extent, California taxpayers still pay $86 million a year to Walmart employees

and a bit more

Walmart has also faced accusations involving poor working conditions of its employees. For example, a 2005 class action lawsuit in Missouri asserted approximately 160,000 to 200,000 people who were forced to work off-the-clock, were denied overtime pay, or were not allowed to take rest and lunch breaks.[51] In 2000, Walmart paid $50 million to settle a class-action suit that asserted that 69,000 current and former Walmart employees in Colorado had been forced to work off-the-clock.[51] The company has also faced similar lawsuits in other states, including Pennsylvania,[52] Oregon, and [53] Minnesota.[54] Class-action suits were also filed in 1995 on behalf of full-time Walmart pharmacists whose base salaries and working hours were reduced as sales declined, resulting in the pharmacists being treated like hourly employees.

Walmart has been accused of allowing undocumented immigrants to work in its stores. In one case, federal investigators say Walmart executives knew that contractors were using undocumented immigrants as they had been helping the federal government with an investigation for the previous three years

As of October 2005, Walmart's health insurance covered 44% or approximately 572,000 of its 1.6 million U.S. workers.[67] In comparison, Walmart rival and wholesaler Costco insures approximately 96% of its eligible workers, although Costco has been criticized by investors for its high labor costs

Walmart spends an average of $3,500 per employee for health care, 27% less than the retail-industry average of $4,800.[68] When asked why so many Walmart workers choose to enroll in state health care plans instead of Walmart's own plan, Walmart CEO Lee Scott acknowledged that some states' benefits may be more generous than Walmart's own plan: "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums

Read all this and plenty more

Criticism of Walmart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and that is just a quick wikipedia search. I can supply more from other sources.

But you go ahead and run your mouth about how it is easier for me to believe what i do because it requires no research. You have absolutely no basis for that claim because you have no clue what I have researched now or any other time.
 
Nearly three-quarters of a million women work as "sales associates" in Wal-Mart stores. On average these women earn $6.10 per hour, or $12,688 per year if they are permitted to work full-time. This wage puts many of their families below the poverty level — half even qualify for federal assistance under the food stamp program.

Women who make pants in El Salvador earn 15 cents for each pair; Wal-Mart sells these pants for $16.95 in its U.S. stores. Also, contractors in El Salvador force workers to take pregnancy tests.

The Maine Department of Labor ordered Wal-Mart to pay the largest fine in state history for violating child labor laws. The Department of Labor discovered 1,436 child labor law infractions at twenty Wal-Mart chains.

Lawsuits pertaining to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations have been filed in Missouri, Arizona, California, and Arkansas.

In the video Behind the Labels: Garment Workers in U.S. Saipan, Wal-Mart is featured as one of the retailers which contract with "sweatshops" in Saipan for the manufacturing of garments sold in their stores.
 
I already read all that in preparation for your response.

What company increases payroll on purpose, when the workload does not merit it?
In fact, every single employer I've ever worked for tries to reign in hours, to those most necessary for the functions of the business.
Otherwise a company will bleed money.
The criticism is dumb as hell.

Again we're back to, "why would a business purposefully over pay employees who have low/no skills?"
 
Nearly three-quarters of a million women work as "sales associates" in Wal-Mart stores. On average these women earn $6.10 per hour, or $12,688 per year if they are permitted to work full-time. This wage puts many of their families below the poverty level — half even qualify for federal assistance under the food stamp program.

Women who make pants in El Salvador earn 15 cents for each pair; Wal-Mart sells these pants for $16.95 in its U.S. stores. Also, contractors in El Salvador force workers to take pregnancy tests.

The Maine Department of Labor ordered Wal-Mart to pay the largest fine in state history for violating child labor laws. The Department of Labor discovered 1,436 child labor law infractions at twenty Wal-Mart chains.

Lawsuits pertaining to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations have been filed in Missouri, Arizona, California, and Arkansas.

In the video Behind the Labels: Garment Workers in U.S. Saipan, Wal-Mart is featured as one of the retailers which contract with "sweatshops" in Saipan for the manufacturing of garments sold in their stores.

Some of the rules in ADA are arbitrary and meticulous.
Example: Height of a mirror or sink being an offense to sue for.

I don't have a problem with third world people working either.
It's better they have some job, than no job, having to nose through garbage dumps looking for food.

You also have to prove that absent Walmart, these people on government assistance, would have higher paying jobs.
 
Is the issue WalMart, or is it price fixing by the credit card companies?

WalMart is a retailer. You can love it, hate it, shop there, or not.

You can pay in cash, ATM card, check, or use a credit card. The credit card is far and away the most convenient and safest way, if you know what you're doing.

The issue is, that 2% they've colluded to charge the retailers gets passed on to the customers, all of the customers, not just the credit card customers.

and, of course, not just Walmart customers.

How is this fair? If I use a check, or pay in cash, I'm still paying that 2%. OK, so it isn't much, but 2% of everything every retailer who accepts credit cards sells is the same as a national sales tax of 2%.

And we all pay it, one way or another.

It would seem to me that the usurious rates that the credit cards charge for those foolish enough to carry a balance would be enough for them to be profitable without gouging the retailers with a sales tax that goes to a private, for profit enterprise.
 
I already read all that in preparation for your response.

What company increases payroll on purpose, when the workload does not merit it?
In fact, every single employer I've ever worked for tries to reign in hours, to those most necessary for the functions of the business.
Otherwise a company will bleed money.
The criticism is dumb as hell.

Again we're back to, "why would a business purposefully over pay employees who have low/no skills?"

Considering Wal-Mart pays less and offers fewer benefits and continually breaks the law and faces more lawsuits and fines than any other company I can find record of the answer to the questions above is "EVERYONE ELSE".

Let me ask you this. Which do you think is more beneficial to our economy work

A. Tax payers
B. welfare recipients

When you come up with that answer,

answer me this

Which one of the above does Wal Mart generate?

Furthermore

How did you come to the conclusion that someone who works at Wal Mart has low or no skills? With Wal Mart shutting down business who attempt to pay reasonable wages left and right some people are forced by the collapsing labor market to work under wal mart's conditions.

In addition

When you have a person who busts there ass full time at wal mart and does everything they can to get more hours and advance themselves any way possible why do you feel like they should not be given a living wage and rather they should be forced to rely on government to survive? Wouldnt you agree that the government should have less control over people?

While you are answering questions

Why would you support a company that consistently violates US labor and discrimination laws?
 
You also have to prove that absent Walmart, these people on government assistance, would have higher paying jobs.

So rather than making any actual attempt to refute any of the piles of information i supplied or even comment on it, or any attempt at a decent fact based rebuttal to anything or information of your own, you have nothing better than to ignore everything and instead focus on something that wasnt presented?

The proof is very simple if you wanted to see it. Prior to Wal Mart changing the way businesses treated employees (or at least having a large part of it) People working in retail and manufacturing made a living wage and could support themselves. In order to compete with Wal Mart or attempt to, many companies are forced into the same practices which lowers the wages of everyone else. Furhtermore as I have already proven, Wal Mart pays less than the industry average by a lot.
 
Last edited:
Some of the rules in ADA are arbitrary and meticulous.
Example: Height of a mirror or sink being an offense to sue for.

Oh was Wal Mart fined for mirror height? And even if it was with all their exploitation of the lower and middle classes around the world and using these tactics to destroy our economy for their own personal gain is it really too much to ask that they follow the law?
 
I don't have a problem with third world people working either.
It's better they have some job, than no job, having to nose through garbage dumps looking for food.

You dont have a problem with large corporations and governments exploiting the poor for their own personal gains as long as you get to save a little bit of money huh?
 
Keep ignoring the facts about walmart because you dont want to believe it. I know you are a reasonably intelligent person and if you wanted to view the information objectively and honestly you would. Instead like most people in this country you are blinded by your own selfishness and greed and would rather see yourself save a little bit of money than to see the american economy, world economy or people as a whole improve. I look forward to your next reply and hopefully that one will amount to more than an expansion of UH UH
 
Considering Wal-Mart pays less and offers fewer benefits and continually breaks the law and faces more lawsuits and fines than any other company I can find record of the answer to the questions above is "EVERYONE ELSE".

Let me ask you this. Which do you think is more beneficial to our economy work

A. Tax payers
B. welfare recipients

When you come up with that answer,

answer me this

Which one of the above does Wal Mart generate?

Walmart doesn't "generate" people.
People control their own lives.

Walmart only offers a job to people who choose to take it.
The qualifications for being a Walmart employee are basic, 8th grade level.
Read, do basic addition and subtraction.

Furthermore

How did you come to the conclusion that someone who works at Wal Mart has low or no skills? With Wal Mart shutting down business who attempt to pay reasonable wages left and right some people are forced by the collapsing labor market to work under wal mart's conditions.

Because working at Walmart requires no special abilities of skills.
I used to work for a Walmart like business many moons ago.....when I was a teenager.

Prove that absent Walmart, these people who be making higher wages...

In addition

When you have a person who busts there ass full time at wal mart and does everything they can to get more hours and advance themselves any way possible why do you feel like they should not be given a living wage and rather they should be forced to rely on government to survive? Wouldnt you agree that the government should have less control over people?

While you are answering questions

Because a "living wage" is arbitrary.
It's based on individual needs, wants, family size, localized cost of living, localized rate of inflation and many other factors.

I can support my needs on $10 an hour, which is about average for what Walmart pays.
There for it is a living wage, for me.

Why would you support a company that consistently violates US labor and discrimination laws?

Just because something is illegal or someone is accused of doing something illegal, doesn't mean they're wrong.
 
So rather than making any actual attempt to refute any of the piles of information i supplied or even comment on it, or any attempt at a decent fact based rebuttal to anything or information of your own, you have nothing better than to ignore everything and instead focus on something that wasnt presented?

The proof is very simple if you wanted to see it. Prior to Wal Mart changing the way businesses treated employees (or at least having a large part of it) People working in retail and manufacturing made a living wage and could support themselves. In order to compete with Wal Mart or attempt to, many companies are forced into the same practices which lowers the wages of everyone else. Furhtermore as I have already proven, Wal Mart pays less than the industry average by a lot.

Prove it.
You haven't.
 
You dont have a problem with large corporations and governments exploiting the poor for their own personal gains as long as you get to save a little bit of money huh?

I don't have a problem with people in other countries, having the opportunity to work and better their lives.
The alternative is much worse.

The person seeking to remove your means of earning an income, is not your friend.
Do you really think these people would thank you, for lobbying to have their jobs eliminated?
 
Keep ignoring the facts about walmart because you dont want to believe it. I know you are a reasonably intelligent person and if you wanted to view the information objectively and honestly you would. Instead like most people in this country you are blinded by your own selfishness and greed and would rather see yourself save a little bit of money than to see the american economy, world economy or people as a whole improve. I look forward to your next reply and hopefully that one will amount to more than an expansion of UH UH

I know Walmart has done some bad things, who is completely innocent in this world?

Besides all that though, the criticism against how much they pay is meaningless, it assumes that absent Walmart, these people would have higher incomes, which is grossly lacking in proof.

How is paying more for household items, for no practical reason, make the world economy better?
 
I hate Walmart. Sam Walton builds a dream based on a Norman Rockwell vision of small town American and it turns out he has really built the Frankenstien monster which comes back to destroy the dream.

Screw WM.

You hate average Americans and the poor.
 
I know Walmart has done some bad things, who is completely innocent in this world?

Besides all that though, the criticism against how much they pay is meaningless, it assumes that absent Walmart, these people would have higher incomes, which is grossly lacking in proof.

Pay for work is meaningless?

How is paying more for household items, for no practical reason, make the world economy better?

Supporting businesses who promote fair paying jobs, obtain their products from manufacturing facilities that treat employees fairly would greatly help the economy. Is that really so difficult to realize. Ok. Maybe you need it explained more simply.

Company A keeps their employees on welfare and paying 0 taxes.
Company B pays their employees a living wage and their employees are self sufficient.

If the majority of consumers shop at Company B. And very few shop with Company A. Which company is likely to employ more people? Also which company is more likely to change their business model to attract more customers?

Manufacturing firm A pays their employees 0.15 a day (which no matter what you say is not doing them any favors).
Manufacturing firm B pays their employees a fair wage but the products they produce have to reflect that in pricing.

If consumers were buying goods from company B and very few were buying from Company A which is likely to stay in business?

You may think there is no practical reason behind buying products that were manufactured under fair working conditions or products that were made here in American but there are. The way the world is going because of consumer spending habits you may have a fair job but every year fewer and fewer americans do. Your kids, or grandkids ect are going to continue going into a work environment that is going to abuse them. Every generation is more and more likely to live in poverty. And i know what you are going to say. You are going to educate your kids and help them do better than that. But more and more college grads are working for stores like wal mart. More and more people cannot find work outside of these laborless jobs taht you think only kids and unskilled people work at.

Consumers shape the economy. The jobs of tomorrow and our economy are completely dependent on the choices being made today in stores. Send our money to the chinese and big box stores. Explain to me how exactly that helps anything.
 
NO i have. You either didnt read the information or failed to understand or process. Neither of which is my fault.

You have yet to show that, sans Walmart people would be earning higher wages.

Pay for work is meaningless?

No, you've created an arbitrary standard of what is fair and what is not.


Supporting businesses who promote fair paying jobs, obtain their products from manufacturing facilities that treat employees fairly would greatly help the economy. Is that really so difficult to realize. Ok. Maybe you need it explained more simply.

Company A keeps their employees on welfare and paying 0 taxes.
Company B pays their employees a living wage and their employees are self sufficient.

If the majority of consumers shop at Company B. And very few shop with Company A. Which company is likely to employ more people? Also which company is more likely to change their business model to attract more customers?

Manufacturing firm A pays their employees 0.15 a day (which no matter what you say is not doing them any favors).
Manufacturing firm B pays their employees a fair wage but the products they produce have to reflect that in pricing.

If consumers were buying goods from company B and very few were buying from Company A which is likely to stay in business?

"Fair pay" is arbitrary.
What is fair to someone else, is not fair to you.

Someone in a third world nation earning some income, is better than them earning no income.
You just assume, that absent Walmart, they would be earning higher incomes, when the only thing these people have going for them is, their low cost of living and their need for lower wages than other nations.

You're not helping anyone by setting an arbitrary wage standard which causes these people to become unemployed.

You may think there is no practical reason behind buying products that were manufactured under fair working conditions or products that were made here in American but there are. The way the world is going because of consumer spending habits you may have a fair job but every year fewer and fewer americans do. Your kids, or grandkids ect are going to continue going into a work environment that is going to abuse them. Every generation is more and more likely to live in poverty. And i know what you are going to say. You are going to educate your kids and help them do better than that. But more and more college grads are working for stores like wal mart. More and more people cannot find work outside of these laborless jobs taht you think only kids and unskilled people work at.

Consumers shape the economy. The jobs of tomorrow and our economy are completely dependent on the choices being made today in stores. Send our money to the chinese and big box stores. Explain to me how exactly that helps anything.

I don't live in a nationalistic, ethnocentric bubble, where only Americans are deserving of my dollars.
Sorry, your post is littered with discriminatory and arbitrary standards.

It allows Chinese people to earn money and provide for their family.

Big box stores tend to be publicly traded, which also means that their shares are held by average Americans in pension funds, 401ks, etc.
Their profits are distributed to these people, so that they can retire with some type of income.
 
no walmart and their shoppers hate the average american and the poor.

Their shoppers? I'd venture to guess that "their shoppers" are very often the poor. Good grief.
 
Besides all that though, the criticism against how much they pay is meaningless, it assumes that absent Walmart, these people would have higher incomes, which is grossly lacking in proof.

Like those greeter jobs. Their always filled by an 80 year old woman or somebody whose crippled. They sit there and say "Welcome to Wal-Mart," and put stickers on return items. I'm skeptical that such a person could find a better job, unless they have some sort of skill that can still be harnessed.
 
Back
Top Bottom