Bonam Posted June 20, 2011 Report Posted June 20, 2011 Walmart probably paid just as much for their high priced lawyers as they paid all their employees for a year. Exaggerate much? Quote
Wilber Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 I'm confused. Does this mean, the more people you discriminate against, the less it is discrimination and eventually you reach a point where it is not discrimination at all? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bloodyminded Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) If they offer minimum wage, why do they pay substantially more than the minimum wage? They don't. They make slightly over minimum wage. The piece from which you offered this tidbit says that the average Walmart employee makes $11.75 an hour; this may well be true, in the way that Bill Gates and myself have a very high average income indeed. The numbers are skewed. Think about it, for a second; you really suppsoe that most, or mnay, Walmart employees are being paid $4.40 over minimum wage???? Okey dokey, then. Edited June 21, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Bob Posted July 2, 2011 Report Posted July 2, 2011 Good for the American Supreme Court, this entire class action lawsuit was a blatant attempt to steal money from the world's largest retailer based on false allegations. Just a bunch of greedy lawyers conspiring to steal money, and finding plenty of similarly greedy current and/or former Wal-Mart employees to go along with them in their false allegations of gender discrimination with the hopes of making a fast buck. Who could believe, that a modern corporation like Wal-Mart, in this day and age with widespread infection of political correctness and leftism, would engage in some systemic discrimination against women? It was so absurd, but it shows how much traction absurdity can gain in our societies. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Oleg Bach Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 Good for the American Supreme Court, this entire class action lawsuit was a blatant attempt to steal money from the world's largest retailer based on false allegations. Just a bunch of greedy lawyers conspiring to steal money, and finding plenty of similarly greedy current and/or former Wal-Mart employees to go along with them in their false allegations of gender discrimination with the hopes of making a fast buck. Who could believe, that a modern corporation like Wal-Mart, in this day and age with widespread infection of political correctness and leftism, would engage in some systemic discrimination against women? It was so absurd, but it shows how much traction absurdity can gain in our societies. Walmart is overly corporate and overly polically correct in so far as their internal policy. I asked one of their employees because she had an accent where she was from...she struck back in anger ...that it did not matter....I simply wanted to have an informative and interesting conversation - also the fact that they call their workers accociates as if they are share holders in the corporation and equals to high management is truely absurd...and dishonest ...They are just minimum wage workers who are brain washed into thinking they run with the big dogs ....all they are to high management are dogs. Quote
bloodyminded Posted July 6, 2011 Report Posted July 6, 2011 Once again, all 9 justices rejected the lawsuit. On legal grounds. Of course; but it wasn't rejected on grounds that the claims weren't real, or weren't legitimate in and of themselves. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Oleg Bach Posted July 6, 2011 Report Posted July 6, 2011 Of course; but it wasn't rejected on grounds that the claims weren't real, or weren't legitimate in and of themselves. Don't you just hate legalists - Never forget a lawyer telling me regarding a ruling - "it is immoral but it is legal" _ I as a novice with a child like mentality would certainly and firmly believe if something is bad it should be illegal - and if it's good - is should be legal....am I a simpleton or something? Quote
dre Posted July 6, 2011 Report Posted July 6, 2011 Of COURSE Walmart got what they wanted. Employers that large can literally dictate terms. Ever since I read about walmart successfully lobbying the government to be notified in ADVANCE, of "suprise inspections" by the dept. of labor, not much will ever suprise me again. Walmart is definately one of the worst for labor offenses in the west... but where it REALLY shines, is in the offshore factories it sponsors. 24 hour shifts, forced pregnancy tests, brutally unsafe conditions etc. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Oleg Bach Posted July 7, 2011 Report Posted July 7, 2011 Of COURSE Walmart got what they wanted. Employers that large can literally dictate terms. Ever since I read about walmart successfully lobbying the government to be notified in ADVANCE, of "suprise inspections" by the dept. of labor, not much will ever suprise me again. Walmart is definately one of the worst for labor offenses in the west... but where it REALLY shines, is in the offshore factories it sponsors. 24 hour shifts, forced pregnancy tests, brutally unsafe conditions etc. Walmart is the height of corporate cruelty - they are liars and con artists - They call their lowly workers "associates" as if they owned the company - which they do not. Walmart hires the most stupid and pialble people they can find. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 7, 2011 Report Posted July 7, 2011 Had a few conversations with an old farmer that sold his land to Walmart. He was a total idoit who suddenly fancied himself as a painter - a talentless slob and eccentric idiot. Even after collecting the money from Walmart for his land - he continued to drive about in a rusty old car and wore rags...From the founder of Walmart to this lowly hick - there are similarities...Walmart has the mentality that of a small town greedy hardware store owner. They are not a sophisitcated or intelligent orgainization. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted July 7, 2011 Report Posted July 7, 2011 They don't. They make slightly over minimum wage. The piece from which you offered this tidbit says that the average Walmart employee makes $11.75 an hour; this may well be true, in the way that Bill Gates and myself have a very high average income indeed. The numbers are skewed. Think about it, for a second; you really suppsoe that most, or mnay, Walmart employees are being paid $4.40 over minimum wage???? Okey dokey, then. Where are you getting your information from? You say the numbers are skewed, and I'd like to know what you're basing that on. You also imply that the average is based on the lowest paid to the highest paid positions within the company, but the article doesn't say the "average Walmart employee," it says the average Walmart associate. Check out the job description of Wlamart associate - it doesn't include the "Bill Gates" positions within the company. Quote
dre Posted July 8, 2011 Report Posted July 8, 2011 Where are you getting your information from? You say the numbers are skewed, and I'd like to know what you're basing that on. You also imply that the average is based on the lowest paid to the highest paid positions within the company, but the article doesn't say the "average Walmart employee," it says the average Walmart associate. Check out the job description of Wlamart associate - it doesn't include the "Bill Gates" positions within the company. It wouldnt suprise me if youre right. In North America from what I can tell the biggest complaint about Walmart isnt wages, its how fast and loose they play with employment regulations and policies. Child labor violations, gender bias, and that kind of stuff. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bloodyminded Posted July 11, 2011 Report Posted July 11, 2011 Where are you getting your information from? You say the numbers are skewed, and I'd like to know what you're basing that on. I'm basing it on two things: one, I worked at Walmart, and almsot every associate was getting paid somewhere between minimum wage (since they don't raise wages when min. wage goes up) and two dollars over minimum wage. That's it. Ok...that's onhe store--albeit a store within a corproation famous for its centralized control. Second...are you really going to assert that enough associates to make up an "average" are getitng more than four dolalrs above minium wage? Okey dokey then. You also imply that the average is based on the lowest paid to the highest paid positions within the company, but the article doesn't say the "average Walmart employee," it says the average Walmart associate. Check out the job description of Wlamart associate - it doesn't include the "Bill Gates" positions within the company. That makes the assertion even more grandiose and absurd. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bloodyminded Posted July 11, 2011 Report Posted July 11, 2011 It wouldnt suprise me if youre right. In North America from what I can tell the biggest complaint about Walmart isnt wages, its how fast and loose they play with employment regulations and policies. Child labor violations, gender bias, and that kind of stuff. No, wages are not the major issue...they're quite normal in terms of wages. But the idea that the "avergae associate" is making four dolalrs and change above minimum wage is absolutely hilarious. Anyone who believes it is numb. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Guest American Woman Posted July 11, 2011 Report Posted July 11, 2011 I'm basing it on two things: one, I worked at Walmart, and almsot every associate was getting paid somewhere between minimum wage (since they don't raise wages when min. wage goes up) and two dollars over minimum wage. That's it. Ok...that's onhe store--albeit a store within a corproation famous for its centralized control. Wow. That's some "proof." One store out of ... how many?? Second...are you really going to assert that enough associates to make up an "average" are getitng more than four dolalrs above minium wage? Okey dokey then. Nah. I think I'll believe you, who used to work at the one store, over the corporation - which of course has to stand by such statements. That makes the assertion even more grandiose and absurd. Your feelings about the claim doesn't make it any more or less true. Quote
bloodyminded Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Wow. That's some "proof." One store out of ... how many?? Wow. Taking Big Business PR as gospel truth. That's some "proof." I mean, the PR industry's educational requirements and lucrative remuneration are predicated on principled folks telling us the unvarnished truth. Are you suggesting that this one store is an anomaly...and that the others all pay more? Aside from a rare market situation, in which the company has to attract labour by upping its wages, they simply do not pay four dollars and change over minimum wage. Walmart pays about a dollar over minimum wage for starting associates. It can vary, even up to a hundred percent more over minimum wage--two dollars! At any rate, I was too easy on the Walmart sycophants, because we're not talking about four dollars over min. wage....if the numbers are accurate, there'd have to be a large number of stores--very large indeed--which pays at least six dollars per hour over minimum wage. In order to make the "average" work out. If this is your contention, I must say your wide-eyed faith is touching. Nah. I think I'll believe you, who used to work at the one store, over the corporation - which of course has to stand by such statements. Ah, yes. Like they have to "stand by their statments" that they don't buy products from anyone who has abusive labour practices. By definition, you believe this too. It's solid fact, because They Say So. Of course you'll "believe the corporation" over me. Corporations are famous for their honesty and forthrightness. Also, did you know that Mcdonald's "is deeply concerned about health issues surrounding diet, and so is dedicated to providing nutritious food to our millions of customers"? It's a fact. Indisputable. They said it, after all, and "have to stand by their statements." Did you know that WalMart Corporation committed to "audits," or visits of foreign supplier-factories, performed "unannounced" visits a whopping 26% of the time in 2009? That means that in a mere 76% of its "audits" did it tell them beforehand they were showing up, no doubt realizing that places with close to zero labour standards can be trusted not to do things differently on that particular day. This, we are told, is Walmart's "commitment to social responsibility and ethical sourcing." (In fact, their corp[orate website says that these are their primary commitments...not profit. I wonder if they've informed their shareholders of this interesting fact? ) I mean, ensuring that the suppliers know they are in for a visit from the bigwigs is an excellent way to ensure proper standards and behaviour. Company PR says so. So it's true. Edited July 12, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Of course; but it wasn't rejected on grounds that the claims weren't real, or weren't legitimate in and of themselves. I didn't say that they were. But the process was flawed and needs to be remedied. All 9 justices agreed. The liberal ones, and the conservatives ones. That's pretty significant. Quote
bloodyminded Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 I didn't say that they were. But the process was flawed and needs to be remedied. All 9 justices agreed. The liberal ones, and the conservatives ones. That's pretty significant. Their agreement doesn't make them right. Though, to be fair, they may well be. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Guest American Woman Posted July 14, 2011 Report Posted July 14, 2011 At any rate, I was too easy on the Walmart sycophants, because we're not talking about four dollars over min. wage....if the numbers are accurate, there'd have to be a large number of stores--very large indeed--which pays at least six dollars per hour over minimum wage. In order to make the "average" work out. Depends on whose minimum wage you're comparing it to. Quote
bloodyminded Posted July 14, 2011 Report Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Depends on whose minimum wage you're comparing it to. Actually, I have to concede that point. In North America alone, minimum wage varies quite a bit, from southern Florida to Northern BC and points in between. I could research it in depth, figure out some sort of "average" to figure out what we're talking about with the more generalized "average" under discussion.... ...but somehow I don't think I'm going to. My first grandson is due any day now, so I have more personal concerns. Edited July 14, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Oleg Bach Posted July 14, 2011 Report Posted July 14, 2011 So the judges states that Walmart is to big to sue - or too big to fail? Walmart is not worth sueing - It's a waste of time - just don't go there. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted July 14, 2011 Report Posted July 14, 2011 Actually, I have to concede that point. In North America alone, minimum wage varies quite a bit, from southern Florida to Northern BC and points in between. I could research it in depth, figure out some sort of "average" to figure out what we're talking about with the more generalized "average" under discussion.... ...but somehow I don't think I'm going to. My first grandson is due any day now, so I have more personal concerns. You're the one who brought it up...... I was just pointing out how inaccurate it is to make the kind of judgement you were making. Quote
bloodyminded Posted July 14, 2011 Report Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) You're the one who brought it up...... I was just pointing out how inaccurate it is to make the kind of judgement you were making. And whatever you do, don't let a friendly concession get in the way of your sanctimony. Edited July 14, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Guest American Woman Posted July 14, 2011 Report Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) And whatever you do, don't let a friendly concession get in the way of your sanctimony. You're the one who felt the need to add I could research it in depth, figure out some sort of "average" to figure out what we're talking about with the more generalized "average" under discussion.... ...but somehow I don't think I'm going to. Just wanted to let you know that it wasn't my intention that you do so ... that my point was made without it. Simple as that. But don't let that stop you from slipping in an insult. Edited July 14, 2011 by American Woman Quote
bloodyminded Posted July 14, 2011 Report Posted July 14, 2011 You're the one who felt the need to add I could research it in depth, figure out some sort of "average" to figure out what we're talking about with the more generalized "average" under discussion.... ...but somehow I don't think I'm going to. And you misread that as somehow pointed at you, I see. Well, it wasn't. It was a conversational remark about my own laziness, directly following (and related to) my concession that "minimum wage" discussions contain more than meet the eye. Just wanted to let you know that it wasn't my intention that you do so I know it wasn't. Such a thing was never suggested. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.