Maryland Attacks Wal-Mart

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
PSlave wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
I’ll cut costs by not giving employees health insurance and have the taxpayers pick up the tab. And if I ever become mega-rich like the Waltons I’ll donate less than 1% of my wealth to charitable causes.

I say, “Good luck to you, sir!” There is absolutely nothing wrong with what you are (tongue-in-cheek) proposing. Your prospective employees will have a choice: work for you, or don’t.

Remember everyone, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to a good job with good benefits.

I’m talking about morals and ethics, something that seems to be lost on you.

Remember everyone, the love of money is the root of all evil.[/quote]

Hey Bro,

Unfortunately, it is NOT the job of the government, on any level, to legislate corporate “morality” by forcing a private firm to offer certain benefits to its employees.

This type of legislation is anticompetative, anti-free-market, and just plain government intrusion into private enterprise. The competative forces will drive what benefits employers will pay or not.

In any case, the legislation is stupid because the companys affected will adjust workers total compensation packages to shift the extra cost back to the employees anyway. In addition, companys such as Wal-Mart will probably hire fewer workers in Maryland (and any other state that is thinking of adopting this type of legislation) and/or close stores or (most probably) seek to build their future stores elsewhere.

In the long-run, therefore, these Socialist pieces of legislation will have a detrimental affect upon the group that the government is trying to help. This does not make a lot of sense unless you are wanting to take it a step further which would be government control of the means of production, i.e. a “Soviet” style economic system which we know is a failure on many many fronts.

Viva Capitalism!

82

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Apparently prospective employees don’t think Wal-Mart is so horrible…

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/1991-Thousands-Apply-for-Jobs-at-New-Wal-Mart.html

A year and a half after some Chicago alderman stopped Wal-Mart from opening a store on the city’s South Side, 25,000 people applied for 325 job openings in the company’s new store, located just one block west of the city’s boundary in south suburban Evergreen Park, the Chicago Sun-Times reported ( http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html ).

Apparently, all but 500 of the job applicants for the new store live in Chicago.

…[/quote]

South Chicago is a terribly impoverished area, high unemployment, low job skill levels, low education levels - therefore - huge potential labor market, which explains the 25000 applicants.

83

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
…

Maryland is doing the right thing and the state will benefit if Wal-Mart closes all their stores in that state.

Let me excerpt a point from an article I posted on the other thread on this same topic:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011606A

EXCEPRT:

Although the motivation of the liberals was to raise the well-being of Wal-Mart workers, it is far from clear that this will be the consequence. Low-skilled workers cannot receive more in compensation than the value of their labor. If Wal-Mart is forced to increase the share of compensation that comes in the form of health benefits, then it will have to decrease take-home pay. If it cannot decrease take-home pay, then it will have to reduce its reliance on low-skilled labor or cut back on operations altogether.[/quote]

If this is true, why does Costco pay so much more, and offer better benefits packages? Couldn’t the heirs of Sam Walton, who are something like 5 of the 13 richest people in the country, make a little less profit?

84

[quote]dermo wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
…

Maryland is doing the right thing and the state will benefit if Wal-Mart closes all their stores in that state.

Let me excerpt a point from an article I posted on the other thread on this same topic:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011606A

EXCEPRT:

Although the motivation of the liberals was to raise the well-being of Wal-Mart workers, it is far from clear that this will be the consequence. Low-skilled workers cannot receive more in compensation than the value of their labor. If Wal-Mart is forced to increase the share of compensation that comes in the form of health benefits, then it will have to decrease take-home pay. If it cannot decrease take-home pay, then it will have to reduce its reliance on low-skilled labor or cut back on operations altogether.

If this is true, why does Costco pay so much more, and offer better benefits packages? Couldn’t the heirs of Sam Walton, who are something like 5 of the 13 richest people in the country, make a little less profit?[/quote]

But who is to dictate this? The government?

85

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
dermo wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
…

Maryland is doing the right thing and the state will benefit if Wal-Mart closes all their stores in that state.

Let me excerpt a point from an article I posted on the other thread on this same topic:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011606A

EXCEPRT:

Although the motivation of the liberals was to raise the well-being of Wal-Mart workers, it is far from clear that this will be the consequence. Low-skilled workers cannot receive more in compensation than the value of their labor. If Wal-Mart is forced to increase the share of compensation that comes in the form of health benefits, then it will have to decrease take-home pay.
If this is true, why does Costco pay so much more, and offer better benefits packages? Couldn’t the heirs of Sam Walton, who are something like 5 of the 13 richest people in the country, make a little less profit?

But who is to dictate this? The government?[/quote]

No, I was not jumping in on that debate. I was addressing:
“low-skilled workers cannot receive more in compensation than the value of their labor.”
I know that Costco pays similar workers more than Walmart, and gives them better benefits.
and
“If it cannot decrease take-home pay, then it will have to reduce its reliance on low-skilled labor or cut back on operations altogether.”
Why is this a fact? Couldn’t they just eat the additional cost - wouldn’t they still be very profitable?

86

[quote]dermo wrote:
Couldn’t they just eat the additional cost - wouldn’t they still be very profitable?
[/quote]

I have a bunch of Wal-Mart stock from when I used to work for them in the early 90s setting up stores. I don’t want them to just be profitable, I want them to be obscenely profitable.

87

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think Walmart employees probably should unionize if it is as bad as they say.

I think the state of MD has no right to force the issue.

I expect Pennsylvania, Virginia and Delaware will be getting more shoppers.

[/quote]

Perhaps you should research what WalMart has done when unionization has been attempted. They are perhaps the most anti-union employer in the country.

The state of Maryland has every right to determine the laws governing the businesses operating within its borders. It seems that the new law simply enforces an established minimum standard already exceeded by other employers. The fact that WalMart is the only business whose expenditures will be affected is a sad commentary on how little regard they have for the wellbeing of their employees.

I do not spend money at WalMart, and I discourage others from doing so. I do not support businesses that place profit ahead of ethics or their responsibilities as members of the communities in which they operate.

88

[quote]JasonE wrote:
The fact that WalMart is the only business whose expenditures will be affected is a sad commentary on how little regard they have for the wellbeing of their employees.
[/quote]

The reason Wal-Mart is the only company affected is because the law was specifically written to affect them only. They are the only employer with the minimum number of employees needed to trigger the requirements.

89

[quote]JasonE wrote:
I do not support businesses that place profit ahead of ethics or their responsibilities as members of the communities in which they operate.
[/quote]

But is profit not the SOLE purpose for Mal-mart even existing? They don’t open up stores to be responsible members of the community.

90

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
If I was Wal-Mart I would give them the finger, close the doors, and move out of state. Hey Irish, do you really think it is a good idea for government to tell a business how to operate?

Oh yea that’s right, you’re a socialist. This probably does seem like a good idea to you.[/quote]

Exactly, say fuck it and go Ellis Wyatt on their asses. Close up shop and burn the fucking buildings down. It’s not enough that the unions have destroyed the steel and auto industries in this country, now they’re going after their own bread and butter? How stupid is that?

91

[quote]spartanpower wrote:

Exactly, say fuck it and go Ellis Wyatt on their asses. Close up shop and burn the fucking buildings down. It’s not enough that the unions have destroyed the steel and auto industries in this country, now they’re going after their own bread and butter? How stupid is that?[/quote]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Maryland woke up tomorrow 17,000 unemployed individuals heavier. See how long it takes to reabsorb .5% of your labor force and get back to “full employment”, especially the .5% that is “terribly impoverished with low job skill levels and low education levels”.

92

[quote]lucasa wrote:
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Maryland woke up tomorrow 17,000 unemployed individuals heavier. See how long it takes to reabsorb .5% of your labor force and get back to “full employment”, especially the .5% that is “terribly impoverished with low job skill levels and low education levels”.[/quote]

I’m sure they’d just increase taxes to support the unemployed. This is Maryland, after all.

93

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The part-time is a strategy that Wal-Mart uses in order to avoid paying overtime.

Wal-Mart makes gargantuan profits but instead of paying for health care they let the state do it. This is also by design. More profits for Wal-Mart, and a low,low standard of living for the workers.[/quote]

I know Wal Mart was in trouble with some issues dealing with overtime, which they were deservedly penalized for. So I assume this is not what you are talking about

If you are talking about hiring workers to work part time so that they don’t have to pay them overtime, I don’t really see your point. If you work for 28 hours in a week, you will be paid for 28 hours a week. Maybe I am not understanding your arguement.

Also, as I said again and again, Wal Mart is not the only company that pays unskilled labor a low wage, a wage, might I add that the employee agreed to work for. If Wal-Mart started paying their workers more by adding benefits, thus, spending more on each worker, they would not have as many workers. Who exactly do you think would be picking up the medical bills of the people who were laid off in that sitaution?

94

[quote]dermo wrote:
If this is true, why does Costco pay so much more, and offer better benefits packages? Couldn’t the heirs of Sam Walton, who are something like 5 of the 13 richest people in the country, make a little less profit?[/quote]

How can we tell a company to make less profit? A corportation’s goal is to make profit. This would be like telling Kobe Bryant that he is too good to play in the NBA and cap him at 20 points a game.

Let me ask you, how much profit to yo think that the Waltons should allow themselvees to make?

95

[quote]redfreddy wrote:
dermo wrote:
If this is true, why does Costco pay so much more, and offer better benefits packages? Couldn’t the heirs of Sam Walton, who are something like 5 of the 13 richest people in the country, make a little less profit?

How can we tell a company to make less profit? A corportation’s goal is to make profit. This would be like telling Kobe Bryant that he is too good to play in the NBA and cap him at 20 points a game.

Let me ask you, how much profit to yo think that the Waltons should allow themselvees to make?[/quote]

I was addressing this specific quote:
"
If it cannot decrease take-home pay, then it will have to reduce its reliance on low-skilled labor or cut back on operations altogether."

I am not for or against the state regulation. My point is that the Waltons make a tremendous profit. If these regulations are enforced, why would they have to cut back their operations? They could continue on the same scale, and still make a large profit (just less than they otherwise would have). I am not sure why it is stated as a certainty that they would have to scale back their operations.

96

This is an outstanding thread. Got to say that Wal-Mart or any other business has the right to set terms. If ya don’t like it, go work some where else. Pretty simple, until you consider the extent that a business should or can do more than please the stockholders.

Isn’t it in the best interest of the company to take care of their employees in a socially responsible manner and also make a profit ? I’m a big Wal-mart stockholder and I’m still not real pleased at how they seem to scrimp on health benefits.

I can’t come to terms with paying executives super-sized salaries/perks/bonuses while the average worker is barely getting by. Why can’t they squeeze the health care plan companies like they do their suppliers and use their enormous leverage (buying power) to get a better health care plan for the lower level employees? I just think that there has got to be more to business than the quest for maximal profitability at the expense of the employee.

97

I think in the end, Wal-Mart may fire a lot of their part-time employees and keep more full-time(even if that means paying some overtime) until they are under the 17,000 employee limit. It would be funny to watch the Maryland legislature run back to amend the law.

98

[quote]doogie wrote:
I think in the end, Wal-Mart may fire a lot of their part-time employees and keep more full-time(even if that means paying some overtime) until they are under the 17,000 employee limit. It would be funny to watch the Maryland legislature run back to amend the law.[/quote]

Why 17000?

99

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
doogie wrote:
I think in the end, Wal-Mart may fire a lot of their part-time employees and keep more full-time(even if that means paying some overtime) until they are under the 17,000 employee limit. It would be funny to watch the Maryland legislature run back to amend the law.

Why 17000?[/quote]

Because I’m a dumbass and should have typed 10,000.

100

[quote]doogie wrote:
Because I’m a dumbass and should have typed 10,000.[/quote]

OK, sorry, haven’t slept in about twenty five hours, the brain is a little slow right now.