Wal-Mart memo: Unhealthy need not apply

[Hey Bubu]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/26/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

NEW YORK (Reuters) - An internal memo sent to the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. board proposes numerous ways to hold down health care and benefits costs with less harm to the retailer's reputation, including hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from seeking jobs, the New York Times said Wednesday.

[shonuf]

yeah more part time workers, gotta love that wal-mart taking care of it's employee policy's.

what a great company.

but i bet lee scott has great medical right.

[ChunkyAcidReflux]

eh its nothing that any large company hasnt been doing for years. Altho Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the world that has not allowed its employees to unionize. They even closed a brand new Super Center store taking a 100% loss on their investment jsut because the employees at that store started putting together a union. So Wal-Mart just fired everyone and closed the store to intemidate the other emplyees from trying to do the same.

[molecule]

all in an effort to get us great deals on chinese crap.

[ChunkyAcidReflux]

Originally Posted by molecule

all in an effort to get us great deals on chinese crap.

If Wal-Mart was forced to pay their employess better wages and provide them with insurance like all of the other large companies then they would have to charge more for theirr products....kinda like all the other large retailers.

Without the dirt cheap prices then all Wal-Mart has is a big trashy box store full of smelly poor folk and blue shmocks. There would be no reason to shop there instead of the alternatives and they would be in real trouble. Money is at the root of the problem and Wal-Mart is a cheapass company.

Untill people refuse to work in their stores without better wages and benefeits its not going to change and they will continue to step on the backs of the poor to make more profits. If the federal government can do it why cant the corperations do it as well.

[shonuf]

If Wal-Mart was forced to pay their employess better wages and provide them with insurance like all of the other large companies then they would have to charge more for theirr products....kinda like all the other large retailers.





of course, cause we know it wouldn't be the christian(which most people SAY they are) thing to do if you asked the companys top guys to only make a little bit of money(say 30 times what the ave. worker makes, instead of the 1,000 times what the ave. worker makes)

i get so sick of hearing how if companys had to pay real wages shit would go up, yet everybody thinks it's ok for ceo's to make 100 million (like the recent ceo of kmart)

i can understand the logic of wanting a corp. ceo to have 10 houses and 20 cars , while single mothers get to work part time with no benifits.

yeah i can see how that helps out everyone as americans.

[molecule]

he who has never shopped at Walmart cast the first stone........

[shonuf]

right, sadly they have alot of areas on lockdown, in some areas wal-mart has driven away most other stores, leaving them to suck more money out of the local economy.

[matt]

Originally Posted by ChunkyAcidReflux

If Wal-Mart was forced to pay their employess better wages and provide them with insurance like all of the other large companies then they would have to charge more for theirr products....kinda like all the other large retailers.

Without the dirt cheap prices then all Wal-Mart has is a big trashy box store full of smelly poor folk and blue shmocks. There would be no reason to shop there instead of the alternatives and they would be in real trouble. Money is at the root of the problem and Wal-Mart is a cheapass company.

Untill people refuse to work in their stores without better wages and benefeits its not going to change and they will continue to step on the backs of the poor to make more profits. If the federal government can do it why cant the corperations do it as well.

this is only one small piece of the puzzle behind walmarts cheap prices though. the major would be the sheer volume in which they purchase. they can squeeze a mfr/distributor with their volume. they have the market by the balls...

with that said, they should reward their workers by offering better (and comparable) healthcare.

they are an interesting case study to say the least.

[Bill Spillz]

Don't get me wrong, Wal-mart is bad for America in the long run. However, these reports I have seen this morning seem to focus on the negatives of Walmart's intentions, while ignoring some positive ones.

For example, a Wall Street Journal out yesterday claims they are going to congress trying to raise the minimum wage. (I would post the link but you need a subscription)

The Wages of Wal-Mart
October 26, 2005; Page A18
Hoping to make nice with detractors, Wal-Mart Chief Executive Lee Scott has called on Congress to increase the $5.15 minimum wage. Senator Ted Kennedy, whose latest bid to raise the national minimum was spurned last week, had this reaction: "When even the head of Wal-Mart, one of the most anti-worker companies in the world, says that a minimum wage of $5.15 is out of date, we know it's long past time for an increase." That's probably not the response Wal-Mart was looking for.

As part of a wider effort to burnish its image, Wal-Mart also has announced a slew of environmental goals, including plans to invest some $500 million in new technologies to reduce greenhouse gases. Perhaps Mr. Scott will fare better with labor unions and environmentalists than he did with the Massachusetts Senator who does their bidding, but we're not holding our breath. For many of Wal-Mart's foes, the problem isn't the retailer's behavior so much as its existence.

It's understandable after years of pounding from unions, trial lawyers, anti-sprawl activists and the media that Wal-Mart would go on a PR offensive. What's troubling, and more than a little curious, is Mr. Scott's desire to make price controls for labor a part of his public atonement for the company's success. Given that anti-Wal-Mart types mostly fire populist blanks, why is Mr. Scott so eager to provide competitors with real ammunition?

The answer may be that calling for an increase in the minimum wage amounts to Wal-Mart calling for a hike in the labor costs of its smaller rivals, not to mention any potential start-ups. Wal-Mart already pays its workers an average hourly wage of close to $10 and so Mr. Scott is essentially asking Congress to strengthen its competitive advantage.

The CEO said his goal is to "help working families," but minimum wage laws have the opposite effect. By putting a floor under wages, regardless of skills or competition, they can force businesses to cut payrolls or even shut down. Hence, they reduce employment in general, and especially among the low-skilled and inexperienced.

It's a shame that a company that offers a wonderfully wide selection of quality goods at low prices, and provides 1.3 million people in the U.S. with jobs, could have image problems. But Wal-Mart isn't going to solve them by trying to win over the liberal special interests. As Senator Kennedy illustrates, that's a fool's errand. The company can, however, alienate friends and exacerbate matters by beckoning the government to give it a competitive edge over smaller retailers.

If Mr. Scott feels the market is doing an inadequate job of determining worker compensation, he can always increase the wages of the Wal-Mart workforce, rather than lobbying to increase the labor costs of everyone else.

[shonuf]

If Mr. Scott feels the market is doing an inadequate job of determining worker compensation, he can always increase the wages of the Wal-Mart workforce, rather than lobbying to increase the labor costs of everyone else.



you mean a pay cut for mr. scott?


only make 400,000 a year?

come on how is he suposed to get by on that?

[Bill Spillz]

Originally Posted by shonuf

If Mr. Scott feels the market is doing an inadequate job of determining worker compensation, he can always increase the wages of the Wal-Mart workforce, rather than lobbying to increase the labor costs of everyone else.



you mean a pay cut for mr. scott?


only make 400,000 a year?

come on how is he suposed to get by on that?

yea, I agree with you.

But at the same time, I feel that a rise in minimum wage should be a top priority - it is for me anyway. I am glad Wal-Mart is lobbying for a wage rise across the board; but the way they are going about it is scandelous. They want to make themselves look good but not sacrifice anything.

The situation is so shitty - I applaud and shake my head at Wal-mart at the same time

[PolluxRockStar]

walmart is dope

I just came from there


I love walmart

[stellar faze]

Originally Posted by PolluxRockStar

walmart is dope

I just came from there


I love walmart

I bet you do. I know you are one of those kids that goes to walmart just to steal glowsticks and meet people. correct me if im wrong

[PETA]

Originally Posted by shonuf

yeah more part time workers, gotta love that wal-mart taking care of it's employee policy's.

what a great company.

but i bet lee scott has great medical right.

here's an alternative Wal-Mart has.....


they offer NO insurance to emplyees - prefer that route?