Walmart is Wonderful

[Darth Wong]

Which studies? I'd be interested in seeing them.

You know I looked into it, and some people are disputing the studies, so I’m not going to dig up the original text. However I must say that it is hard to see how it could not be true that Wal-Mart destroys jobs and standards of living for workers. How else could they be cheap if not by consolidating workforce compared to many smaller stores, and it’s a well known fact they don’t have good wages or benefits in general.

Indeed, it's not just Wal-Mart. The entire concept of the consolidated budget superstore is inherently bound to "hollow out" the local economy. It sounds great for the consumer to say that fewer people are involved in the process between manufacture and retail because it lowers his prices. But that also means there are fewer jobs in the industry, and it's rather dishonest of the author to cheer on the low prices without any recognition of what sacrifices are made in order to achieve them.

[ArmorPierce]

His employer always insisted and reminded him to take his break when he was supposed to? Interesting. I worked at receiving in wal mart unloading the trucks. There were times that they'd make us work 6 hours straight through break and lunch in order to make sure that the trucks were unloaded.

[Darth Wong]

His employer always insisted and reminded him to take his break when he was supposed to? Interesting. I worked at receiving in wal mart unloading the trucks. There were times that they'd make us work 6 hours straight through break and lunch in order to make sure that the trucks were unloaded.

I've heard many, many horror stories about Wal-Mart. He seems to be arguing that if his particular manager was OK, then all of them must be OK, and all of the horror stories must be false (even though his own story rests entirely on his personal word, where some of these other stories were corroborated by numerous people and even ended up involving the authorities).

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/national/18WALM.html

[General Zod]

His employer always insisted and reminded him to take his break when he was supposed to? Interesting. I worked at receiving in wal mart unloading the trucks. There were times that they'd make us work 6 hours straight through break and lunch in order to make sure that the trucks were unloaded.

Were you a contract employee or a regular? Because they're required by law to give you a lunch if you're working more than so many hours per day. Otherwise it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[KrauserKrauser]

Also, did you just have to work 6 hours and then got to take your break and lunch or were you forced to forgo them altogether.

The first I can easily justify as simply part of the job on special occasions, the latter gets into more of the illegal territory Zod mentioned.

[Starglider]

It sounds great for the consumer to say that fewer people are involved in the process between manufacture and retail because it lowers his prices. But that also means there are fewer jobs in the industry, and it's rather dishonest of the author to cheer on the low prices without any recognition of what sacrifices are made in order to achieve them.

That's true for any increase in productivity, whether in manufacturing or retail. In principle, if the drop in prices does not increase demand enough to keep people employed, they will be reemployed providing other goods or services. The problem with WalMart is not the increase in productivity, it's the use of distant/global rather than local suppliers. Even that isn't a problem with WalMart as such, it's simply revealing the underlying problem that a lot of US manufacturing isn't competitive. Trade tariffs penalising China's lack of human rights and environmental regulations are really the only practical way to mitigate (not fix) that.

[Darth Wong]

It sounds great for the consumer to say that fewer people are involved in the process between manufacture and retail because it lowers his prices. But that also means there are fewer jobs in the industry, and it's rather dishonest of the author to cheer on the low prices without any recognition of what sacrifices are made in order to achieve them.

That's true for any increase in productivity, whether in manufacturing or retail. In principle, if the drop in prices does not increase demand enough to keep people employed, they will be reemployed providing other goods or services. The problem with WalMart is not the increase in productivity, it's the use of distant/global rather than local suppliers. Even that isn't a problem with WalMart as such, it's simply revealing the underlying problem that a lot of US manufacturing isn't competitive. Trade tariffs penalising China's lack of human rights and environmental regulations are really the only practical way to mitigate (not fix) that.

Yes, I'd agree that's the biggest problem (although there's also the problem of under-compensated workers in their own organization). That also explains why we don't see the mitigating factor of increasing demand which you referred to: the money that goes into Wal-Mart is effectively leaving the local system entirely, and going to another country. So it won't get recycled into more local demand, and it won't keep people employed.

[Themightytom]

Didn't someone do just that, writing a book called Nickel and Dimed? My mother read it, recommended it to me, but I haven't yet gotten my hands on it. Basically, this woman did a similar experiment and found out that being lower-class and forced to take these jobs to make ends meet is simply untenable.

Yeah, its a pretty good book, a much more reliable piece of reporting. The fact of the matter is is that people do survive on low paying retail jobs; its just that those who are trying to scrape by are hardly glorifying it.

I do a budgeting exercise with my clients to determine how much they actually "need" to make ends meet, and no one EVER makes it with fast food, or even in most cases retail if they have dependents. The local resultts are a little skewed because we are in the live free or die state, where property taxes and therefore rent are disproportionately represented in cost of living. Anyway the typical result is that clientts can support themselves if they work Full time vs part time, because most retailers offer benefits and a higher salary if you are full time. it may not be Wal mart particualrly tht is appealing but retail, but Wal mart is a little bit ostrasized from other retail, because of negative PR and ffrankly because they stomp out competition.

Target, barnes and Nobles Borders, mens Warehouse Kohls, they all get along butt Wal mart from the other companies as viewed as the poor cousin, while Walmart employees view THEMSELVES as cream of the crop.

Going back to my brother, when he worked at Wal mart, it was everything, it was awesome, then he got a (cough) higher paying job at Target, and TARGET is everything that has ever been good in life.

I guess this article is old because he says he makes "about $7" an hour. Federal minimum wage has been 6.55 since july 24 according to the Federal minimum wage notice I have on my desk and it is being raised to to 7.25 this July. How much "less" could people be making at target and at fast food restauraunts?

The Wal Mart in the city I grew up in stopped offering stock options to its employees four eyars ago (My mom and my brother worked there, he works at Target, and she got rid of the second job once we were all in college, she HATED working at Wal mart.), and anyway, thats $2 down the crapper with tthe economy in shambles. if anything doesn't that represent more of an asett management strategy? You're "recovering" money your paying to your employees.

I suspect that the bright and shiny appearence, designed to be welcoming to customers has a sort of manic effect on the employees that are working there all day. They also have the whole psychological musak running in the background managing ttheir moods. It was an interesting observation taht each department is king off itts own hill.

Personally I boycot Wal mart because I don't like large companies that CRUSH small ones because then the large company can tell towns what to do. The Walmart in the town next to the city I live in NOW almost managed to absorb a retirement home because of "Eminent domain" meaning if the Wal mart expanded that city benefitted. The fact that 120 elderly people would be suddenly homeless was seen as a temporary inconvvenience.

I support the underdogs financially whenever I can, but I have to say my wallet hurts for it. Whatever else it does Wal mart DOES offer lower prices. on the other hand i don't BUY some things that are unneccesary because the price is now a deterrant. Two thirds of the DVDs I have are from when iw as in colelge and iw as addicted to the Walmart 12.44 DVD bins. Suddenly netflix isn't such a bad idea.

[General Zod]

I do a budgeting exercise with my clients to determine how much they actually "need" to make ends meet, and no one EVER makes it with fast food, or even in most cases retail if they have dependents. The local resultts are a little skewed because we are in the live free or die state, where property taxes and therefore rent are disproportionately represented in cost of living. Anyway the typical result is that clientts can support themselves if they work Full time vs part time, because most retailers offer benefits and a higher salary if you are full time. it may not be Wal mart particualrly tht is appealing but retail, but Wal mart is a little bit ostrasized from other retail, because of negative PR and ffrankly because they stomp out competition.

It's easy to say that they can support themselves if they worked full-time, but how many of them could reasonably expect to get one of these retail jobs full-time? Back when I worked in retail they wouldn't even considering offering you an FT position unless you'd been with the company for years; and even then it was no guarantee.

[Themightytom]

It's easy to say that they can support themselves if they worked full-time, but how many of them could reasonably expect to get one of these retail jobs full-time? Back when I worked in retail they wouldn't even considering offering you an FT position unless you'd been with the company for years; and even then it was no guarantee.

Yeah you are right, I was describing a goal setting exercise but at the end of the exercise i clarify that we set the goal based on the ideal but there are steps that have toe accepted along the way.

[Darth Wong]

When you think about it, this guy's article is very similar to the kind of experience that a moron might have if he goes to an Amway meeting and is too stupid to read between the lines. Everyone there is getting fleeced by Amway, yet they're all smiling about it as if it's the greatest thing ever. Why? Because they feel they must, or because they're too stupid to realize what's happening to them.

I've known people who were happy working low-wage jobs. But there was always some extenuating circumstance, like a parent who was still providing free room and board, or a husband or wife who's making most of the money.

[Zwinmar]

One of the problems with low education jobs is that employees and potential employees do not know the laws governing them, such as the break period requirement. What's more is that the employers are not telling them either. Sure there is vague attempts to place a federally mandated posted listing those laws, but most employers never specifically show them to the employees, hide them in out of the way places, and think that they do not have to follow federal laws. They follow state laws instead, never mind that federal law supercede state laws.

That is my experience from working at a McDonald's in Kansas during one summer, though the general experience is not limited to it. I had a job for less than a week in upstate New York that thought OSHA did not apply to them.

[Kanastrous]

Also, did you just have to work 6 hours and then got to take your break and lunch or were you forced to forgo them altogether.

The first I can easily justify as simply part of the job on special occasions, the latter gets into more of the illegal territory Zod mentioned.

There's one reason Wal-Mart would hate unionized labor. You don't push a union work schedule too far around without getting into penalties.

[KrauserKrauser]

Well that all depends on the contract. Different contracts have different requirements for when breaks have to be taken and if you were going to point out things that WalMart wouldn't like if the workers unionized this would be well down on the list.

[Kanastrous]

That's true. I'm being parochial and thinking in terms of my own organization.

[ArmorPierce]

His employer always insisted and reminded him to take his break when he was supposed to? Interesting. I worked at receiving in wal mart unloading the trucks. There were times that they'd make us work 6 hours straight through break and lunch in order to make sure that the trucks were unloaded.

Were you a contract employee or a regular? Because they're required by law to give you a lunch if you're working more than so many hours per day. Otherwise it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Regular. They ended up giving us our lunch but they wouldn't do so until the end of the day if need be in order to make sure the trucks are unloaded in time (without regard as to whether there were more trucks or less). I only worked there for a couple weeks before finding a better job so I don't know what would be the results would be if we were unable to unload the trucks. I do remember the supervisor constantly chastising everyone for not working fast enough and threatening our jobs saying that there are plenty of others willing to do the job if we didn't need it. They were not happy unless you were literally running and doing it at a pace that made it so that you had boxes falling on your head.

The first I can easily justify as simply part of the job on special occasions, the latter gets into more of the illegal territory Zod mentioned.

Special occasions seemed to happen relatively often at Wal-Mart then it seems. I never had my lunch taken away completely, they didn't give us our first 15 minute break (or failed to mention that we can go on it) but I would take it on my own anyway. I imagine someone that was more afraid of losing their job might not.

[ArmorPierce]

Ghetto edit

This said, it seemed that the supervisor directly over my head was the one that was being a dick and trying to push it. When I had started the job, I told them that I would be able to start immediately but would not be able to work on day x and y. They agreed to this and I started work. The supervisor then informed me that they were wrong and that I had to work. In response, I called the guy that I was hired by and asked about it and he said that the original schedule was correct and that the supervisor was wrong.

[LMSx]

Didn't someone do just that, writing a book called Nickel and Dimed? My mother read it, recommended it to me, but I haven't yet gotten my hands on it. Basically, this woman did a similar experiment and found out that being lower-class and forced to take these jobs to make ends meet is simply untenable.

That's by Barbara Ehrenreich, and according to Charles Platt's guest post on BoingBoing that's what first sparked it:

The picture above is of me, finishing my shift at the world’s largest retailer. How did I move from being a senior writer at Wired magazine to an entry-level position in a company that is reviled by almost all living journalists?

It started when I read Nickel and Dimed, in which Atlantic contributor Barbara Ehrenreich denounces the exploitation of minimum-wage workers in America. Somehow her book didn’t ring true to me, and I wondered to what extent a preconceived agenda might have biased her reporting. Hence my application for a job at the nearest Wal-Mart.

On a scale of 1-10, how oblivious is that?

[General Zod]

Regular. They ended up giving us our lunch but they wouldn't do so until the end of the day if need be in order to make sure the trucks are unloaded in time (without regard as to whether there were more trucks or less). I only worked there for a couple weeks before finding a better job so I don't know what would be the results would be if we were unable to unload the trucks. I do remember the supervisor constantly chastising everyone for not working fast enough and threatening our jobs saying that there are plenty of others willing to do the job if we didn't need it. They were not happy unless you were literally running and doing it at a pace that made it so that you had boxes falling on your head.

I don't think it counts as a lunch if they give it to you at the end of the day. . .but I'll admit I'm not really familiar with labor laws where you're at.

[Stargate Nerd]

I don't think it counts as a lunch if they give it to you at the end of the day. . .but I'll admit I'm not really familiar with labor laws where you're at.

It would be downright hilarious if it wasn't so enraging. "Oh hey ArmorPierce your shift is over, you can go on and have lunch now."

Similar to ArmorPierce I used to work in Shipping & Receiving only at a warehouse for JC Penney. While the pay wasn't the greatest ($8/h) all breaks and lunches were taken at the exact time. My initial supervisor and the warehouse manager were great as well. And the shopping discount was pretty generous too at around 25%. The half hour for lunch was unpaid though so we stayed from 6AM to 2:30PM. I guess I got lucky.

[thejester]

I work casual jobs like that and you're essentially at the mercy of your manager. I've worked two jobs where the AWAs guarantee you breaks on top of the existing laws - but they also essentially give the manager the power to fire you when they feel like it, so if you demand your break you can be given the arse later on for whatever reason they choose. Most of the people working those jobs are students, and thus usually have a fall back position in the form of our parents. But for the handful of people relying on that sort of job for their livelihood, you don't really have the option of pursuing legal action for unfair dismissal, and it's just not worth it for people in my position anyway. So even if it's technically against the law, management has you by the balls.

[Terralthra]

In California, at least, they're required to give you the lunch break by the fifth hour of work, or they have to pay you for the lunchbreak...even if they give it to you.

[Broomstick]

All the other exceptions and what not being mentioned here - in the US it is Federal law that you MUST have at least a half hour break after working no more than five hours. Working six to get the trucks unloaded? That's against the law. Yeah, really. Some jobs don't fall under this but every job described in this thread does. The five-hour-then-break rule is probably the most widely violated labor law in the country.

[Keevan_Colton]

All the other exceptions and what not being mentioned here - in the US it is Federal law that you MUST have at least a half hour break after working no more than five hours. Working six to get the trucks unloaded? That's against the law. Yeah, really. Some jobs don't fall under this but every job described in this thread does. The five-hour-then-break rule is probably the most widely violated labor law in the country.

There are similar laws over here, and again they're amongst the most flouted laws going. I actually got fired from one job for explaining working time regulations and statutory rights to the Polish agency staff they were bringing in. Walmart is hardly alone and most of retail and food services are in similar la-la land regarding conforming to the law.

[Surlethe]

That's true for any increase in productivity, whether in manufacturing or retail. In principle, if the drop in prices does not increase demand enough to keep people employed, they will be reemployed providing other goods or services. The problem with WalMart is not the increase in productivity, it's the use of distant/global rather than local suppliers. Even that isn't a problem with WalMart as such, it's simply revealing the underlying problem that a lot of US manufacturing isn't competitive. Trade tariffs penalising China's lack of human rights and environmental regulations are really the only practical way to mitigate (not fix) that.

Yes, I'd agree that's the biggest problem (although there's also the problem of under-compensated workers in their own organization). That also explains why we don't see the mitigating factor of increasing demand which you referred to: the money that goes into Wal-Mart is effectively leaving the local system entirely, and going to another country. So it won't get recycled into more local demand, and it won't keep people employed.

To be fair, the money is ultimately going to workers in that other country, so it's not like nobody benefits, and in the long run the effect that Starglider cites is going to occur in the US anyway. However, IMHO the problem is that in the meanwhile people are going to suffer - if this is a genuine increase in productivity, rather than simply an exploitation of the living standard differential between the US and the Third World, there's got to be a way to take advantage of the potential inherent in the freed-up workers in the US instead of letting them rot waiting for the free market to catch up with them.