• 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 Asks Workers To Donate Food To Its Needy Employees

So instead of getting cash that you can spend on food you prefer, you get a random mix of food that you may or may not like. Our local food bank was collecting the other day; the list they handed out at the grocery store was pasta sauce, noodles, rice, cereal, peanut butter, dried beans...can't remember what else. I'm sure hungry people are grateful for anything they can get, but with cash they can pick what they like.

And given WalMart associates' low pay, that bonus isn't going to have much in taxes taken out of it. Let's see... $100 that's maybe $80 after taxes vs random canned food...I'd take the money.

As far as getting a tax deduction -seriously? do you track how much you spend when you put a couple cans in the donation bag and deduct it later? I don't. And yes, I bought stuff for the food bank based on their list (think I went with two kinds of pasta sauce - organic; two kinds of pasta - both organic, one gluten free; and a huge jar of peanut butter - Skippy - smooth, which is "MY" favorite PB but for all I know the person who eats it prefers chunky Peter Pan....) and No, I don't have a separate receipt to use for taxes.

Seriously? you deduct a couple cans of food?

Yes, and you should too. I also deduct donations to Goodwill, United Way, and other charities. That's the point of itemized deductions. You should also save all of your receipts in which sales tax is charged, as it can exceed the standard deduction as well.
 
The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc

I don't have cable and have to watch pundits once the shows are on-line. I'm just now getting around to last night's when I heard the BEST one sentence about this topic to date... It's in the 3rd video at the RMS. A former Walmart employee, current anti-Walmart activist is being interviewed by RM.

Vanessa Ferreira says, "What do they want these associates to donate with, their food stamps?"

Gee - using a "former Walmart employee and current anti-Walmart activist" as an unbiased source. Wounder why she's a former employee? Couldn't have anything to do with her attitude, I'm sure.
 
Don't get us wrong, we don't have anything against food drives or charities if it goes to the needy. Whoever set this up obviously cared for the welfare of those employees. Maybe it was concerned co-workers or maybe management frustrated by company policies. The point is that it revealed a truth about the company and our times that is difficult to ignore, that the new normal is that the needy may be fully employed and still be needy.

And you have proof, somehow, that the needy employees are "fully employed and still needy"? Couldn't be someone working 10 hours a week, could it? Couldn't be someone who just lost a spouse in a car accident or through illness and money is tight? Couldn't be someone who's just had twins and is now on maternity leave and doesn't have as much disposable income any more?

You know, there is all kinds of need out there. For me, personally, I could give a rat's ass how or why a charitable drive was set up - I just say, thank God people care enough to think of it and God bless those who participate. The ones who stand on the sidelines and gripe about it or use it to drive some agenda are lower than a rat's ass, in my book.
 
to say nothing of the jobs they provide to undereducated unskilled workers in those communities, right?
What good does it do them if society still pays for their food stamps? :shrug:
 
I'm not really seeing what the issue is here. If someone have 15 kids and is trying to support them while working at Walmart, is that really Walmart fault? It's not really walmart's place as an employer to address the various issues of every employee and it's not like the skills needed to work at walmart are the most demanding.

So if you have a point you are trying to make about the general wage they employ, you could likely find better ways to do that
I don't know too many families that have 15 kids anyhow. :2razz:
 
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:

Frankly, this is a breath of fresh air. The company is finally being honest about its labor practices :)
 
Not all that work for Walmart's low wages are poor. A quick look at the federal poverty level will confirm that. For many of these workers that low wage Walmart job is a second or even third income in their household. For those few low wage Walmart workers that have large families and little or no other income this is likely a welcome helping hand as they can then afford to feed their extended family and guests too. Why is private charity seen as bad by those constantly demanding that ever more charity be given by the gov't?

Private charity is indeed much better than govt. charity.

That's why we hate corporations (i. e. Wal-Mart) that insist on getting govt. handouts (i. e. subsidies) instead of working to earn business (or charity) from those willing to pay Wal-Mart.
 
So, assuming you're correct,
Hey, it's not about me being correct that is what a Wal-mart spokesman (Kory Lundburg) told Bloomburg News: that the vast majority of associates are full time, (1.3 million.) and if that is so that is a sizable chunk of people.

1. You can blame the full time employee settling for $25,000 in yearly income because they didn't complete their education or didn't take seriously their education and now they have no skills or skills that are unattractive and of low value to the people who hire.
Why can't I? Seeing that the Right says the answer to getting people off of government assistance (and give Wal-Mart subsidies.) is to give them tax breaks, and seeing that they have been getting them now for quite a long time, why do we still have gainfully employed people needing assistance to live? :roll:
 
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:




At some of the places where I have worked from time to time we took up collections to help fellow employees with various things. I'm sure that this goes on all over the USA.

That being said, I'm sure that Walmart could raise its employee's pay and still make a profit.

This isn't a struggling corporation.
 
Gee - using a "former Walmart employee and current anti-Walmart activist" as an unbiased source. Wounder why she's a former employee? Couldn't have anything to do with her attitude, I'm sure.
As usual you attack the source and avoid the content. It's a simply question, regardless of your position.
 
Private charity is indeed much better than govt. charity.

That's why we hate corporations (i. e. Wal-Mart) that insist on getting govt. handouts (i. e. subsidies) instead of working to earn business (or charity) from those willing to pay Wal-Mart.

What subsidies does WalMart get?

Not the workers. They all have different situations, pay grades and family sizes. But WalMart itself (unlike Oil companies) gets what?
 
As usual you attack the source and avoid the content. It's a simply question, regardless of your position.

In this case, of course the source is relevant to the comments you're relying upon - it makes everything she says suspect.
 
They pay for the work done, not for the lifestyle of the employee.

Well you'd think a corporation is in some sort of partnership with their employees and not want them to suffer. I mean they at least pretend that it's some sort of partnership when they call their employees associates/team members or whatever other corporate doublespeak they prefer to use.

Also, I'd need to see the math on your claim about buy back stock and raising wages. Walmart has 1.6 billion shares held by outside parties with a total street value of $126 billion dollars. How much of that do you want them to buy back, exactly, and with what money?

Last year they repurchased 15 billion in outstanding stock which then became treasury stock. They do that to increase the value of outstanding shares. That 15 billion comes from profits. Workers are squeezed to benefit shareholders.
 
Yep. Does that mean that SNAP, and various ther social spending, is really "corporate welfare"?

Sure...wouldn't you agree anything that makes it possible for WalMart to pay their employees wages they could never live on benefits WalMart? How long do you think their employees would take getting paid those wages if they couldn't feed their family/pay rent/clothe themselves etc etc?
 
If true, if true, couldn't we at least get all folks to recognize that this was a horrible PR move?
 
That's basically what it comes down to. Wal-mart is the best at what they do, and what they do is often hated by liberals. They supply low-wage, low-skill jobs to the masses. They do create a net increase in jobs, but often not as much as believed because mom-and-pop stores will often close down due to pricing that they cannot compete with.

Actually for the most part I admire Wal-Mart. They take keeping cost low seriously. Their corporate office is an old WalMart warehouse. Their inventory and supply chain system is innovative and has set the standard. There's a lot of things they do very well and deserve to be successful and yes put less efficient companies out of business.

What I don't get is how people think that Wal-mart "owe" their people something. They provide a legal, mutually agreed upon wage for services rendered. Since when is that not enough?
It's not like it's a new idea that someone should pay a wage for someone to live on. Adam Smith criticized shop owners that didn't pay workers a wage that allowed them to sustain themselves. What's new is this idea that applauds squeezing workers as much as possible in order to increase gains for the owners.
 
At some of the places where I have worked from time to time we took up collections to help fellow employees with various things. I'm sure that this goes on all over the USA.

That being said, I'm sure that Walmart could raise its employee's pay and still make a profit.

This isn't a struggling corporation.
Agreed! :thumbs:
 
Yea I dont give my money to companies who exploit the poor for extreme profits. I'm not ashamed of that. I support business who better their communities, better the lives of people.

Well ok then. what do you look like? Next time I'm shopping at walmart and I recognize you, I'll wave and say hi to you. And while I'm at it, I'll thank you for shopping there which enables people to better their communities and better the lives of people.
 
And you have proof, somehow, that the needy employees are "fully employed and still needy"? Couldn't be someone working 10 hours a week, could it? Couldn't be someone who just lost a spouse in a car accident or through illness and money is tight? Couldn't be someone who's just had twins and is now on maternity leave and doesn't have as much disposable income any more?

You know, there is all kinds of need out there. For me, personally, I could give a rat's ass how or why a charitable drive was set up - I just say, thank God people care enough to think of it and God bless those who participate. The ones who stand on the sidelines and gripe about it or use it to drive some agenda are lower than a rat's ass, in my book.

Oh, how charitable to ignore the underlying problems. You don't get to claim moral superiority for supporting charity and simultaneously supporting a system that causes charity to be needed.
 
Actually for the most part I admire Wal-Mart. They take keeping cost low seriously. Their corporate office is an old WalMart warehouse. Their inventory and supply chain system is innovative and has set the standard. There's a lot of things they do very well and deserve to be successful and yes put less efficient companies out of business.

They do have an operations standard that seems to work well, but they do offer lower prices (even lower than market) because of subsidies. It'd be nice if corporate subsidies for Wal-mart just ended. They still have enough goodwill built up that a product price increase to compete with everyone else would still not hurt business. But ah well.

It's not like it's a new idea that someone should pay a wage for someone to live on. Adam Smith criticized shop owners that didn't pay workers a wage that allowed them to sustain themselves. What's new is this idea that applauds squeezing workers as much as possible in order to increase gains for the owners.

The problem there is that these jobs are not designed to be self-sustaining. I honestly have no sympathy for people who live on minimum wage when everything possible is offered to them to prevent it, but refused because it took effort.
 
Oh, how charitable to ignore the underlying problems. You don't get to claim moral superiority for supporting charity and simultaneously supporting a system that causes charity to be needed.

Charity is needed because people are born - period. They're different and have different circumstances. Charity is not needed because Walmart employs people at a certain wage. Walmart is not the underlying cause of need. That's just asinine.

And again, I could give a rat's ass about people who want to criticize any attempt to afford people the opportunity to give. If that makes you feel inferior somehow - that's on you, not me - I certainly don't feel superior, morally or otherwise, because I don't judge why or under what circumstances people choose to give - I just thank God they do.
 
Sure...wouldn't you agree anything that makes it possible for WalMart to pay their employees wages they could never live on benefits WalMart? How long do you think their employees would take getting paid those wages if they couldn't feed their family/pay rent/clothe themselves etc etc?

Even in our low cost of living area where median household incomes are lower than the national average people at WalMart start at $8.45, not minimum wage. The speculation and assumptions about WalMart are often wrong. Again, if you really want to know, ask the people who work there. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, not everybody who works at WalMart is a destitute single mother. As a business owner I know a lot of other business owners including independent contractors. The nature of a lot of these small businesses and self employers is that income is variable. While WalMart is not a high paying job, it is a consistent paycheck. Several of my construction buddies have wives who work at WalMart for that anchor check because they are the single biggest low skilled employer in the area. It's a concept often lost on those who criticize such jobs. Not every job needs to be high skilled and high pay.

One of my first jobs was in a bicycle shop. It was not just for the pay (which was not much) but for the benefits such as a hefty employee discount. I saved a lot of money on my first race bike. A good friend of mine works at WalMart for several of these reasons. First, her husband is a small business owner, he does house painting and light remodeling. Her 10% employee discount saves him money on supplies (she runs the paint department) plus gets a 10% discount on groceries. She is very active in our church too, you can bet she is using that 20% holiday discount from her job to donate to our church's food pantry, and she loads it up. Another friend there does it to make some money (his girlfriend makes considerably more than he does) without making enough to bump him out of state funded college. They are waiting to get married until after he graduates as an engineer for the same reason. There are instances where making less can be a benefit, at least for a while. Before I started my business I made too much for my wife to get state education funds, so we waited until I started the business. Due to our reduced income she was eligible for both the Hope Scholarship (state) and a Pell Grant (federal) and ended up getting her degree as a medical lab tech paying nothing out of pocket. Pretty much the same thing this guy is doing. Had we not done it that way we would not have been able to afford to pay for her schooling even of what I was making.
 
Back
Top Bottom