District residents why are you so against Walmart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Walmart, more than any other chain I know of, has a sound reputation for treating their employees like absolute shit, and that is why I have chosen to avoid the store. Until recently. Their sheet selection is truly excellent, so I succumed. I still feel a bit bad about it.

My dad needed more income in retirement, so took a greeter job. He loved the job, the company, the $10/hr to greet his neighbors and friends - no stress either. He worked there 4 years until my mom's health required more of his attention. He speaks fondly of the people he worked with, many of whom are still there. It cannot be that bad!

I'm sure there was no stress - he took the job to provide supplemental income for his retirement. The guy trying to provide for himself, or his family, on the substandard wages Wal-Mart pays woudl probably have a different take on the situation. To claim, based on your father's idylic experience, that "it cannot be that bad" is just absurd.

That's what Whole Foods pays their cashiers. Would you protest them, too?

[Anonymous]

Oh no, not whole foods. Why that is the organic crowd. Well, I am sure many will continue to patronize WF, for they can never part with their organic carrots. If WF only pays $10.00 an hour and the people who work there cannot afford to shop at WF, so be it. However, Walmart is terrible and their $10.00 per hour is worth less than WF $10.00 per hour. It's the principle of the matter. Never mind that the workers at Walmart can afford to purchase the products where they work. Oh well, let's all continue to boycott Walmart and keep these unemployed people unemployed. We as taxpayers can continue to provide them with subsidized housing, food stamps, WIC, etc. As we continue to deny them meaningful employment, we will contine to erode their self worth. It's the principle. Right.

[Anonymous]

Lots of WM supporters have left their fact-checkers behind today.

Fact: Cashiers at WF have a starting rate of nearly $11, and receive a raise after 6 mos. (provided they perform up to snuff). Plus, WF offers health insurance to full-timers (32+ hrs/week), although the insurance does require a deductible of over $1,000 for coverage to kick in, so the insurance plan isn't great.

Fact: Wal-mart recently, after MUCH negotiation, agreed to pay the princely sum of .... $8.75/hr ! .... to folks working at its first Chicago store on the South Side. That's barely above federal minimum wage, and, at an annual income of approximately $20,000, would be extremely difficult to live on as a single person, and would likely qualify a family of four for public assistance. Wal-mart's health insurance premiums are modest, that's true, but their deductible is over $4,000 a year. Basically, that's catastrophic coverage, not health insurance.

I am a fan of neither WF nor Wal-mart -- the one is too self-righteous, and the other too slimy -- but the debate of the pros and cons of a Wal-mart in D.C. cannot be conducted in a fact-free zone.

[Anonymous]

You are comparing the DC WF salary to the South Side Chicago Wal Mart. That's a twisted use of numbers.

[Anonymous]

Also, Wal Mart offers very low cost health insurance, and over 95% of employees are on a health plan (half theirs, half their spouses')

[Anonymous]

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Whole-Foods-Hourly-Pay-E422.htm

More like $10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Whole-Foods-Hourly-Pay-E422.htm

More like $10.

Actually, not -- even according to the "open source" wage Wikipedia you cite, it's more like $11, $10.94 to be specific. And in response to the PP - no, this is not a DC rate. But even if it was, doesn't the fact that WM is only willing to pay $ 0.50 above minimum wage a little troubling to any thesis that these jobs are real "meaningful employment"? As for the prior PP (most likely a paid-off WM shill) -- please confirm or deny whether WM's "insurance coverage" is as described previously: that is, a plan with a $4K deductible that essentially only kicks in if you have a very, very big problem.

[Anonymous]

If you take issue with WM paying at or near minimum wage, then your issue is less with WM and more with federal wage guidelines. You should be petitioning Congress to raise the minimum wage if you think that companies that adhere to the standards are morally bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

Contrary to conservative and many liberal beliefs, most people who receive government assistance want to work. The minimum wage is the minimum wage. Is it a living wage, absolutely not. It is what it is, however for someone without any prospects of any employment it may be a blessing. When WalMart opens its doors, not if, there will be a long line of people seeking employment. Would you deny them that right or dignity to work. Or, would you rather continue to pay them to do nothing. And for what it is worth, DC minimum wage requirements are greater than the feds. I know it is not much, but it is something for so many who want dignity in employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to conservative and many liberal beliefs, most people who receive government assistance want to work. The minimum wage is the minimum wage. Is it a living wage, absolutely not. It is what it is, however for someone without any prospects of any employment it may be a blessing. When WalMart opens its doors, not if, there will be a long line of people seeking employment. Would you deny them that right or dignity to work. Or, would you rather continue to pay them to do nothing. And for what it is worth, DC minimum wage requirements are greater than the feds. I know it is not much, but it is something for so many who want dignity in employment.

How is it "dignified" to work full-time but still be unable to feed your family or put a roof over your head? You must have a different definition than I do of "dignity in employment." That there will be a long line of job-seekers is not an indicator that WM employment is "diginified," but rather it reflects the extremely desperate economic circumstances of many people who are desperate to work -- people who WM exploits and uses to depress wages everywhere. BTW, it is not either/or -- WM workers DO work for wages AND still qualify for government assistance because the wages can't sustain them.

[Anonymous]

I would rather have people be unemployed than let them work at WalMart for $10/hr. I on the other hand live in Upper NW and and never worry about feeding my family, I'm richer and more educated so I know what is best for you. Typical liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you take issue with WM paying at or near minimum wage, then your issue is less with WM and more with federal wage guidelines. You should be petitioning Congress to raise the minimum wage if you think that companies that adhere to the standards are morally bankrupt.

Actually, my issue is with people who use bait and switch as a debate tactic -- protest mightily that WM jobs are "meaningful" jobs that pay decent wages and then, when it is revealed that WM actually pays close to the minimum allowed by law, claim that the low wages are the fault of the government. Let me just ask: do you think one working adult, let alone one with a child, or a family, could live reasonably in Washington, D.C. on under $20,000 a year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you take issue with WM paying at or near minimum wage, then your issue is less with WM and more with federal wage guidelines. You should be petitioning Congress to raise the minimum wage if you think that companies that adhere to the standards are morally bankrupt.

Actually, my issue is with people who use bait and switch as a debate tactic -- protest mightily that WM jobs are "meaningful" jobs that pay decent wages and then, when it is revealed that WM actually pays close to the minimum allowed by law, claim that the low wages are the fault of the government. Let me just ask: do you think one working adult, let alone one with a child, or a family, could live reasonably in Washington, D.C. on under $20,000 a year?

Ok so then don't work at Walmart. This isn't forced labor. The fact is that these people have no real skills and if they werent working at Walmart they would be standing on the corner looking for a handout, or doing illegal activities. Don't blame Walmart for these people's life mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would rather have people be unemployed than let them work at WalMart for $10/hr. I on the other hand live in Upper NW and and never worry about feeding my family, I'm richer and more educated so I know what is best for you. Typical liberal.

Those are not the only two choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you take issue with WM paying at or near minimum wage, then your issue is less with WM and more with federal wage guidelines. You should be petitioning Congress to raise the minimum wage if you think that companies that adhere to the standards are morally bankrupt.

Actually, my issue is with people who use bait and switch as a debate tactic -- protest mightily that WM jobs are "meaningful" jobs that pay decent wages and then, when it is revealed that WM actually pays close to the minimum allowed by law, claim that the low wages are the fault of the government. Let me just ask: do you think one working adult, let alone one with a child, or a family, could live reasonably in Washington, D.C. on under $20,000 a year?

Ok so then don't work at Walmart. This isn't forced labor. The fact is that these people have no real skills and if they werent working at Walmart they would be standing on the corner looking for a handout, or doing illegal activities. Don't blame Walmart for these people's life mistakes.

I am glad to know that all good things in life are the result of merit and all bad are the result of laziness and people's "life mistakes" .... You are a truly compassionate person.