Everyone remember the Walmart argument ?

04/10/2004 03:27:55 PM · #51

Another article, a bit more recent, from this year, with relevance closer to home regarding Walmart Child labor law violations. The article's source is the NY Times.

04/10/2004 03:44:24 PM · #52

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Another article, a bit more recent, from this year, with relevance closer to home regarding Walmart Child labor law violations. The article's source is the NY Times.

Not to minimize the severity of the problem, but I don't think that Wal-Mart is the only company that is guilty of labor-law violations. The article you link to indicates that the investigation was undertaken by Wal-Mart itself without prodding by any outside agency. The article shows that in a one-week period, roughly 5.4% of employees worked in violation of the labor-laws. So for a small business, say the restaurant that my daughter worked at, that would be equivalent to just slightly more than 1 employee out of twenty. Now, I KNOW that my daughter worked in violation of labor laws on more than one occasion ( she was 15 at the time ). So why doesn't the government investigate that restaurant? Simple - the offense is extremely widespread, but the government doesn't want to appear like bullies coming after the Mom-and-Pop stores, and it does SEEM to be a bigger problem when the company is making billions of dollars. Percentage-wise, there's not much difference.

Ron

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/10/2004 05:47:17 PM · #53

That's a good question, Ron...I don't doubt that there are child labor law violations at smaller stores. I would imagine that US officials are going after the "bigger fish" because it would effect many more workers and set a standard and show that they meant business...and hopefully the smaller stores would start to toe-the-line as well. I guess it's about resources and how best they can be utilized.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Another article, a bit more recent, from this year, with relevance closer to home regarding Walmart Child labor law violations. The article's source is the NY Times.

Not to minimize the severity of the problem, but I don't think that Wal-Mart is the only company that is guilty of labor-law violations. The article you link to indicates that the investigation was undertaken by Wal-Mart itself without prodding by any outside agency. The article shows that in a one-week period, roughly 5.4% of employees worked in violation of the labor-laws. So for a small business, say the restaurant that my daughter worked at, that would be equivalent to just slightly more than 1 employee out of twenty. Now, I KNOW that my daughter worked in violation of labor laws on more than one occasion ( she was 15 at the time ). So why doesn't the government investigate that restaurant? Simple - the offense is extremely widespread, but the government doesn't want to appear like bullies coming after the Mom-and-Pop stores, and it does SEEM to be a bigger problem when the company is making billions of dollars. Percentage-wise, there's not much difference.

Ron

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

04/10/2004 06:29:47 PM · #54

Originally posted by RonB:

This raises a good issue.

Why is that some mom and pop stores get to have their young kids work for them, without pay even? I know several business here that do this. Isn't this pretty much the same thing?

Prof_Fate

04/11/2004 11:00:30 AM · #55

I have worked for mostly mom and pop type stores. ONe that grew from 250k a year in sales to 12 million. I saw / experienced how mom and pop outfits 'shave laws' and ethics and such.

Return an item to walmart, no problem.
return to mom and pop..(usually) get a hassle, store credit only, or even a re-stock fee up to 30%, or no returns at all.
mom and pop- no advancement possibilities, 50 hours work weeks, no raises /vacation/benefits in most cases.
Lots of law breaking - under the table paying, not claiming all the sales 'on the books' (to avoid taxes), etc.
With under 50 employees, many many many laws we take forgranted just do not apply, so while they may not be technically breaking hte law, walmart et al cannot do the same to their employees -legally.

And remember, wlamart was started by one guy named sam. This is America, and if you got a better idea, you are free to follow your dream and crush him.

Sears, Montgomery Ward, Kmart in the retail sector have all fallen off their top perch.
GM is no longer $1
Since 1900, US Steel has been the biggest producer of steel. ISG will take that title within a month or so.

Walmart will not last forever - just remember, be careful of what you wish for - you might just get it!

chris

04/11/2004 11:27:05 AM · #56

It's hard to get statistics at just how many small businesses in the US require their children to work long hard hours at their family run stores, but I would imagine that the number is very small, infinitesimal even, compared to the number of big businesses that require this of children working in their large chain outlets. It's also hard to say exactly what violations are being broken for children who work in these stores as there are no records. Even if these children are working for no pay, it's hard to say that they get no benefits. I wonder how many of these family-run businesses (how many are left in the US anyway?) are even making a profit and how many of these families live in or near the poverty line. These small stores themselves may be in jeopardy of being run out of business by the large ones.

So children working in their family run businesses are a non-issue for me since I would say it would depend on how it was done, and it's hard to get stats for that. Of course, if there were child abuse at these small family-run businesses I would be totally for prosecution of those violators.

On the other hand, a company such as Wal-Mart, with 3,500 retail outlets, and thousands of workers across the country, effects a much larger proportion of the child labor force under their employment. The above-cited internal audit by Wal-Mart was done on only 1/3rd of their stores. "If the same rate of violations were found throughout the Walmart system, that would translate into tens of thousands of child-labor violations each week at Wal-Mart's 3,500 stores and more than one million violations of company and state regulations on meals and breaks." (article on Wal-Mart)

My bringing up this article about child labor violations was just one example of workerâ��s labor law violations and poor working conditions that exist in all sectors of the economy, in the US and other countries. I have recently worked in a Wal-Mart type of business chain and I can tell you that this issue of being required to work through breaks, not taking lunches and forced overtime, whether for children, or adults, was rampant in this company. But this is not just a problem in this type of businessâ�¦itâ��s a wide spread problem in many businesses, agencies, and all kinds of establishments and is a result of downsizing for the purpose of maximizing profit, as well as, little or no union protection. I think it unethical to be making millions at the expense of their employees.

Message edited by author 2004-04-11 15:28:08.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/11/2004 12:03:20 PM · #57

"In all cities, the better classes â�� the business men â�� are the sources of corruption, but they are so rarely pursued and caught that we do not fully realize whence the trouble comes."

{Bribery is} "no ordinary felony, but treason," because "the effect of it is literally to change the form of our government from one that is representative of the people to an oligarchy, representative of the special interests."

-- Lincoln Steffens, The Shame of the Cities (1904)

There is a fuller review in today's N.Y. Times online edition.

04/11/2004 12:41:17 PM · #58

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So - do you think that it is ethical for a Mom & Pop store to be making thousands or even hundreds at the expense of their employees? Or does it become unethical only when it hits the millions?

Ron

OneSweetSin

Nikon D3000

04/11/2004 02:33:21 PM · #59

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It's hard to get statistics at just how many small businesses in the US require their children to work long hard hours at their family run stores, but I would imagine that the number is very small, infinitesimal even, compared to the number of big businesses that require this of children working in their large chain outlets. It's also hard to say exactly what violations are being broken for children who work in these stores as there are no records. Even if these children are working for no pay, it's hard to say that they get no benefits. I wonder how many of these family-run businesses (how many are left in the US anyway?) are even making a profit and how many of these families live in or near the poverty line. These small stores themselves may be in jeopardy of being run out of business by the large ones.

So children working in their family run businesses are a non-issue for me since I would say it would depend on how it was done, and it's hard to get stats for that. Of course, if there were child abuse at these small family-run businesses I would be totally for prosecution of those violators.

On the other hand, a company such as Wal-Mart...

...I think it unethical to be making millions at the expense of their employees.

So - do you think that it is ethical for a Mom & Pop store to be making thousands or even hundreds at the expense of their employees? Or does it become unethical only when it hits the millions?

Ron

While you are all going on about the Mom & Pop stores anyone ever think about the American Farmer? Farm kids work on the farm at a very young age and no one ever says a thing now do they? Sorry for saying that about the famers, but it is very true.

Child labor really isn't the real WalMart issue. It's what they do to the local economy by causing other stores to close down, by not putting employees on full time and only giving them part time thus avoiding paying them benefits, and various other issues that keep people from wanting WalMart to come into smaller cities.

As I stated before we have a WalMart here and I do shop some there not as much as I used to though...but I also know that a smaller city about 30 miles from is trying to find a new anchor for a plaza and WalMart has checked into it but many of the county commissioners there don't want a WalMart fearing that it will put smaller businesses out of business.

04/11/2004 03:11:36 PM · #60

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

A typical, family Farm is the epitome of the Mom & Pop operation. I have worked a Dairy Farm in Vermont, and know what you are talking about. And agriculture is exempted from most child-labor laws - that's why no one does anything about it. Cows, by the way, do not observe Daylight Savings Time. When April rolls around, the dairy farmer just has to get up an hour earlier, because the cows do not like to wait that extra hour to be milked.

But the real issue is this: you say "...and various other issues that keep people from wanting WalMart to come into smaller cities.". To that I reply, if people REALLY don't want WalMart to come into their small city, then they don't need to fight its COMING - all they have to do is NOT WORK THERE and NOT SHOP THERE once it is built. Trust me, if no-one is willing to work there, and no one is willing to shop there, it will close up in short order and leave an empty building in its wake. NO store can stay in business if it doesn't have employees or customers.
So, it's obvious to me that more people WANT it to come, than do NOT want it to come. As my wife used to say "Their feet show you what they really want". Sad to say, but oh so true.

Ron

04/11/2004 09:43:53 PM · #61

No, Ron, I don't think it's ethical at all for any business to be making money off of the backs of children who are abused. I am saying it's hard to prove, and not cost effective for gov't agencies to go after such few and small violators (and I did say in my post that I would be for prosecution of those small businesses who do violate child labor laws). I also said that companies like Wal-Mart, who employee many thousands of children, and who have a history of violating child labor laws are probably negatively effecting the lives of many more children than the small mom&pop stores do. But concentrating on the mom&pop businesses still does not exonerate the bigger chains of their misdeeds.

Originally posted by RonB:

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/11/2004 10:36:00 PM · #62

Ron, don't you see any difference between children working with their family to help their family-owned business survive, and children working to make Sam Walton another billion bucks?

04/11/2004 10:45:23 PM · #63

Families run farms are growing extinct and being replaced by large agribusinesses. Again, I doubt that the number of children, or adults, working on family run farms who are abused is very large, especially compared with those working in agribusiness or other industries. I originally posted about child labor law violations with Wal-Mart as an example of whatâ��s going on but this is but one problem among many that exist for the labor force and communities when capital and markets are dominated by the enormously powerful oligopolies/monopolies that exist today. As OneSweetSin pointed out, there are many repercussions to a community and labor force when one of these monoliths move in, as well as, the leverage these companies hold with regard to purchasing of raw materials and labor markets overseas. In addition, these companies have enormous influence in the political arena and have influenced policy and legislation on the local, state and federal levels with enormous campaign contributions. Politicians have no choice but to take this money and forever be beholden to their corporate sponsors. The real issues are the destruction of local economies and environments by such large conglomerates that dominate all aspects of business. The current administration, as well as, recent previous administrations, has been successful at legislating deregulation. What we need is increased regulation. Why does the current administration decry big government, but yet does not condemn BIG BIG business??? Market forces alone cannot assure the even distribution of goods across all sectors of society.

Message edited by author 2004-04-12 02:59:14.

04/12/2004 04:06:07 AM · #64

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Ron, don't you see any difference between children working with their family to help their family-owned business survive, and children working to make Sam Walton another billion bucks?

Yes, I do see a difference. A big difference. It's called "sweat equity". Eventually, if the farm survives, the children will own 100% of it. That is probably why agricultural work is exempt from most child-labor laws. As I have said, I worked a dairy farm in Vermont, and saw for myself what it takes to run one. The farm I helped out on had 7 kids ( 6 of them girls, btw ) plus mom & dad plus one hired hand milking 50+ cows, and they grew most of their own fodder. It was a 7-day a week operation. And when they say "make hay while the sun shines" they aren't kidding. When it's time to bale, you don't put it off for a day ( rain might ruin the mowed hay ) and you work until the job is done. When the youngest gets tall enough, they get to drive the tractor that hauls the hay wagon, while everyone else throws bales. Yes, that's child labor. But then, I've never seen any farm kid abused in that regard. They know that that's what it takes to support the family.

Ron

04/12/2004 04:25:07 AM · #65

Olyuzi, When you talk of government increasing regulation, you create a huge problem - what gets regulated, and to what degree. Suppose the government decided to regulate the nursing profession? The regulations might say that every nurse had to be re-certified every year ( and pay a hefty fee, of course ), that they had to be fingerprinted, that their pay scale would be determined by the government, that they could only move from one hospital to another with permission from the government, and that, because some hospital in Cutbank, Montana had a nursing shortage, the next nursing graduate had to go there for a period of not less than 2 years. ( FWIW, that's the way the Military operates ).

Would you still be in favor of increased government regulation?

Ron

04/12/2004 07:20:25 AM · #66

I would certainly not be for that kind of regulation, Ron, but I am for regulation of giant industries that control vital resources and effect millions of people. The gov't already imposes regulations on the nursing profession. Nurses, can't just practice willy-nilly, but as individuals, like corporations, they have the right to work wherever they want to. You could also say that nursing salaries are regulated to some extent, as with such an extreme shortage of bedside nurses nationwide, why haven't nursing salaries increased proportionally to the supply and demand forces that should exist in this market driven economy?

If you, or a loved one, god-forbid, are in the hospital for illness or injury, but you find that the level of care you are receiving, from nursing staff, medical staff, or ancilliary personel is substandard because of poor staffing, would you not want some form of gov't imposed regulations on the hospital industry to meet higher standards. California has already done that and hopefully other states will follow suit. But in the meantime, patients are dying needlessly because hospital workers do not have the time to attend to all necessary tasks...I'm talking about simple things like turning and positioning bedridden patients to prevent decubitus ulcers. Also, the number of medical and nursing errors is astonishingly high and very scary.

At this time, the Bush administration is trying to change regulations so that as many as 8 million workers across the country would be denied overtime pay. This would include nurses and police officers. Not only would these workers be denied the OT pay that they have earned, but would permit their employers to mandate them to work overtime thus allowing employers to not have to hire more help and train new people because they would already have a workforce whom they can force to cover shifts. In my opinion, this would be very dangerous for all communities.

The same could be said for other industries, such as water and energy utilities. Would you want a company selling you water at rediculously high prices, or telling you that you cannot collect rain water for your own private use? It's coming to that. Living in a democracy does not guarantee that anyone, or any industry can do as they want. There has to be regulation in order for civilization to flourish and be secure for ALL the people.

Btw, I'm also NOT for privatization of all gov't run programs and services.

Originally posted by RonB:

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/12/2004 08:20:58 AM · #67

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Ron, don't you see any difference between children working with their family to help their family-owned business survive, and children working to make Sam Walton another billion bucks?

Yes, I do see a difference. A big difference. It's called "sweat equity"...
Ron

Thanks Ron, I think we're on the same page here. It seemed as though you were arguing that we should overlook child-labor abuses by big businesses like Wal-Mart because kids still work for family businesses, whereas I saw them as different situations. It must have been someone else's comment.

04/12/2004 08:41:02 AM · #68

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

At this time, the Bush administration is trying to change regulations so that as many as 8 million workers across the country would be denied overtime pay. This would include nurses and police officers. Not only would these workers be denied the OT pay that they have earned, but would permit their employers to mandate them to work overtime thus allowing employers to not have to hire more help and train new people because they would already have a workforce whom they can force to cover shifts. In my opinion, this would be very dangerous for all communities.

The current FLSA ( Fair Labor Standards Act ) dates from the 1930's. Currently, anyone making more than $8,060 per year who has any supervisory duties can be classified as exempt from overtime, while permitting someone making $70,000 or $80,000 a year with NO supervisory duties to be non-exempt ( meaning that they are entitled to overtime ). The Bush proposal would increase the lower limit so that overtime pay would be mandatory for anyone making less than $22,100 per year, and change the rules used to determine which employees are exempt from overtime. The increase in the minimum limit will put 1.2 million additional low-wage workers into the guaranteed overtime category. Union workers will likely not be impacted because nothing PREVENTS payment of overtime to employees who have no guarantee ( and the unions will negotiate to insure that they continue to receive overtime ).

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The same could be said for other industries, such as water and energy utilities. Would you want a company selling you water at rediculously high prices, or telling you that you cannot collect rain water for your own private use? It's coming to that. Living in a democracy does not guarantee that anyone, or any industry can do as they want. There has to be regulation in order for civilization to flourish and be secure for ALL the people.

But that's exactly what's happening now. The water company, the telephone company, and the power companies ARE regulated - including the prices that they can charge. They are given a monopoly status by the state and the state determines the pricing structure. The lobbyists for the utilities are constantly wineing and dining the legislators so that they can petition for rate increases - and get them. In a competitive environment, the prices would be lower.

I agree that there has to be SOME regulation, but limited to health & safety, as I said.

Ron

(edited to correct typos)

Message edited by author 2004-04-12 12:43:03.

04/12/2004 03:50:51 PM · #69

Nurses are not an industry, they are professional individuals who individually have minimal impact on the system as a whole. I'm talking about regulating an entire industry that effect thousands or millions of people and the environment and natural resources. I don't understand what the big deal with deciding what industries and how they get regulated is...can't that be decided by our congress people with input from the general public and those industries effected by such regulation? Can you be a bit more specific and give me examples of the kinds of industries that you DON'T think should be regulated (by the criteria you mentioned below). Imo, so many industries do have an effect on our safety and well being that most would fall under your criteria to be regulated.

Here's what I understand about the regulations that the Bush admin would like to institute regarding overtime pay:
1) Anyone making more than about $22,000 would be exempt from receiving overtime pay,
2) Anyone with any kind of supervisory duty or managerial duties making under $22,000 would be exempt,
3) Anyone making more than $65,000 would be exempt from ot pay,
4) Employers would most likely assign overtime to those workers who are
exempt since they don't have to pay them and then those workers
making under $22,000 would not be really increasing their salary as
much as they would like.
5) Employers would thus be paying out much less in ot pay since ot pay based on salaries, or hourly rates of pay, for those making under $22,000 would be much less! I think that unions, already weakened greatly would not have much bargaining power to guarantee ot pay to their members.

PS Sorry for not responding point by point with bold type as you do...I have to figure that one out as every time I try that it doesn't seem to work.

Originally posted by RonB:

And therein lies the rub, Olyuzi. You want SOME industries to be regulated in SOME ways. But just WHO is to decide WHICH industries, and in WHAT ways? NO ONE would want more regulation that would affect THEM in a negative way, but EVERYONE would be willing to have additional regulations that would affect someone ELSE.

I support regulations that are needed to insure the health and safety of our people ( and labor law encompasses both ). I don't support regulations that dictate or limit access, distribution, or pricing except for access to finite resources ( i.e. broadcast frequencies, river water, etc. ).

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
At this time, the Bush administration is trying to change regulations so that as many as 8 million workers across the country would be denied overtime pay. This would include nurses and police officers. Not only would these workers be denied the OT pay that they have earned, but would permit their employers to mandate them to work overtime thus allowing employers to not have to hire more help and train new people because they would already have a workforce whom they can force to cover shifts. In my opinion, this would be very dangerous for all communities.

The current FLSA ( Fair Labor Standards Act ) dates from the 1930's. Currently, anyone making more than $8,060 per year who has any supervisory duties can be classified as exempt from overtime, while permitting someone making $70,000 or $80,000 a year with NO supervisory duties to be non-exempt ( meaning that they are entitled to overtime ). The Bush proposal would increase the lower limit so that overtime pay would be mandatory for anyone making less than $22,100 per year, and change the rules used to determine which employees are exempt from overtime. The increase in the minimum limit will put 1.2 million additional low-wage workers into the guaranteed overtime category. Union workers will likely not be impacted because nothing PREVENTS payment of overtime to employees who have no guarantee ( and the unions will negotiate to insure that they continue to receive overtime ).
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The same could be said for other industries, such as water and energy utilities. Would you want a company selling you water at rediculously high prices, or telling you that you cannot collect rain water for your own private use? It's coming to that. Living in a democracy does not guarantee that anyone, or any industry can do as they want. There has to be regulation in order for civilization to flourish and be secure for ALL the people.

But that's exactly what's happening now. The water company, the telephone company, and the power companies ARE regulated - including the prices that they can charge. They are given a monopoly status by the state and the state determines the pricing structure. The lobbyists for the utilities are constantly wineing and dining the legislators so that they can petition for rate increases - and get them. In a competitive environment, the prices would be lower.

I agree that there has to be SOME regulation, but limited to health & safety, as I said.

Ron

(edited to correct typos)

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/13/2004 04:21:26 AM · #70

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

But many think that the congress is too beholding to the special interest groups to be fair and objective. Many already think that they cave in on regulating industries today. For example, the lumber industry, power plants ( clean air act ), water production, coal mining, and on and on.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Can you be a bit more specific and give me examples of the kinds of industries that you DON'T think should be regulated (by the criteria you mentioned below). Imo, so many industries do have an effect on our safety and well being that most would fall under your criteria to be regulated.

Do not misinterpret what I say. I DO feel that regulations for ANY industry or business or individual profession are valid so long as they pertain to health and safety ( that includes nursing, barbers, cosmeticians, etc. ). But examples of where I believe deregulation is needed are:

1) Interstate commerce. Just as an example - folks in many states cannot buy wine from a vineyard in California to be delivered to their home. Instead they must buy it locally at a "regulated" retail outlet ( and, obviously, at a higher price ). As another example - trucks must pay tax on the diesel fuel that they USE ( not BUY ) passing through many states. That is to say, even if the driver does not BUY a drop of fuel in the state, he must pay tax on the fuel he USES in passing through the state, just as though he DID buy it in that state.

2) International commerce. The strongest union in the world is the International Longshoremen's Association. They control every item that is imported or exported. Until their new contract, they refused to permit automation of the manifest processing in the loading/unloading of cargo. Under their new contract, "By 2008, a union member will receive an annual pension of $1,800 multiplied by the number of years worked -- a 30-year veteran, for example, would get $54,000 per year in retirement. Salaries would increase 12 percent by the end of the six-year contract, giving the average longshoreman around $90,000 in annual pay." ref HERE Guess who pays for all of that in the end.

3) Fuel industry - minimum pricing laws exist in many states.

4) Water, Electricity, etc.

That's just a few of examples

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Here's what I understand about the regulations that the Bush admin would like to institute regarding overtime pay:
1) Anyone making more than about $22,000 would be exempt from receiving overtime pay,
2) Anyone with any kind of supervisory duty or managerial duties making under $22,000 would be exempt,
3) Anyone making more than $65,000 would be exempt from ot pay,
4) Employers would most likely assign overtime to those workers who are
exempt since they don't have to pay them and then those workers
making under $22,000 would not be really increasing their salary as
much as they would like.
5) Employers would thus be paying out much less in ot pay since ot pay based on salaries, or hourly rates of pay, for those making under $22,000 would be much less! I think that unions, already weakened greatly would not have much bargaining power to guarantee ot pay to their members.

PS Sorry for not responding point by point with bold type as you do...I have to figure that one out as every time I try that it doesn't seem to work.

1) Not true. Only those making more than $65,000 would be automatically exempt from overtime pay. All others would have their status determined by the characteristics of their job content.
2) Not true. NO ONE making under $22,000 could be classified as exempt, regardless of their job content.
3) True.
4) In non-union situations ( that is, those businesses that operate without contracts ), I can see your point - that could possibly happen - assuming that both the exempt and non-exempt employees perform similar duties ( apart from those duties that make the exempt employees exempt in the first place ).
5) For shops in which most employees make less than $22,000, that wouldn't happen - since everyone who worked overtime would automatically have to be given a raise to $22,000 and additional ( supervisory ) duties before no OT would be required.

Do not underestimate the power of the unions - they still control the majority of our economy. ( See point number 2 about the longshoremen above )

The font in your posts can be changed by surrounding the text with mark up. Use {b} but with brackets instead of braces to make the text bold, {i} but with brackets to make it italic.

Ron

sonnyh

Canon EOS-7D

04/13/2004 06:40:25 AM · #71

WalMart is not the only problem. The real problem is us the general population. We want to make the most money and spend the least even when it comes down to hurting ourselves.
WalMart opened a store in a small community in the middle of Pennsylvania. They put all the downtown stores out of business because they could not compete with the Waltons. When the middle of the town actually became a ghost town, WalMart decided that they weren't making enough profit there so they closed. Now the town is totally messed up with almost everyone being out of work, no money, no stores etc.
Companies/individuals are not just happy making some profit. They want to make huge profit year after year and they do anything to get to that goal. That is why people are losing their jobs to downsizing and finding it very hard to get other jobs because in the downsizing those jobs are taken off the market. The worker bees that are left do twice as much work, hardly make any more money but the company and the CEO's are raking in the dough.
I work in the Health Care sector of the world and HMO's have done a number on doctors and hospitals. Why - because in the late 1970's people decided that they would rather pay $5.00 for an office visit for "well care." No one ever bothered to figure out what would happen when they were sick and needed operations or chemo-therapy and the like.
They thought it was outrageous that a doctor could make $500,000 a year but it was fine to pay athletes hordes of money because they were entertaining.
We the people have done these things to ourselves and we can change it by ourselves if we wanted, but mostly we are a lazy bunch of people who never think of the ramifications of our actions.
I do not shop at WalMart and I try to give my money to the smaller stores in my area. I try to make the best decisions that I can although sometimes that is not possible, but I think about where I am spending my dollars.
I drive 7 miles and pass up two convenience stores to go to the third one because I do not approve of the practices of Cumbarland Farms. I don't want to give them a cent of my money.
I do what I can when I can even if it is a little more inconvenient.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/13/2004 06:53:32 AM · #72

Originally posted by sonnyh:

WalMart is not the only problem. The real problem is us the general population. We want to make the most money and spend the least even when it comes down to hurting ourselves...
...They thought it was outrageous that a doctor could make $500,000 a year but it was fine to pay athletes hordes of money because they were entertaining.
We the people have done these things to ourselves and we can change it by ourselves if we wanted, but mostly we are a lazy bunch of people who never think of the ramifications of our actions.
I do not shop at WalMart and I try to give my money to the smaller stores in my area. I try to make the best decisions that I can although sometimes that is not possible, but I think about where I am spending my dollars.
I drive 7 miles and pass up two convenience stores to go to the third one because I do not approve of the practices of Cumbarland Farms. I don't want to give them a cent of my money.
I do what I can when I can even if it is a little more inconvenient.

Well said, Sonny. Thanks for a cogent post. And well done, too. We really demonstrate what we believe by how and where we spend our money. I'm with you in trying to support the small businesses around me rather than the huge nationally owned firms whenever possible.

Ron

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/13/2004 10:29:18 AM · #73

Poor Walmart. They get bashed because they succeed. Walmart started as a Mom and Pop store. They gave their customers what they wanted and they have grown to the nations top employer.
If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the people that chose to work there and chose to shop there. They made Walmart what it is.

As for overtime pay... The FLSA is a minimum and not the ultimate guideline. If your company choses to pay you overtime, they still can. They just don't have to anymore. And don't say that it won't happen because it does. I am exempt and my company choses to pay me for overtime when I chose to work it.
Don't think that this means that what people get paid time and a half for today, they will be working for free in the future. If they don't get paid overtime, they don't work it.
Also, if you are FLSA exepmt your employer can not force you to make up hours, or can not dock your pay for leaving early (for any reason).

There are advantages either way, and I honestly think the changes are good. Do people that make over $65,000/year really need overtime? Do people making less then $22,000 need overtime?