4 ms·

> Walmart is still training employees on how to file for public assistance. Out of curiosity what is wrong with this? It seems akin to e.g. my employer providi

by ummonk 7y ago

> Walmart is still training employees on how to file for public assistance. Out of curiosity what is wrong with this? It seems akin to e.g. my employer providing Deloitte tax consultation as a benefit.

bashinator 7y ago
Does your employer provide Deloitte tax consultation because otherwise your wage is insufficient to pay for basic food and housing?
- kube-system 7y ago
  Do any companies set wages based on a benchmark of purchasing power? I don't know about you, but I've never been asked about my family size or my housing situation when I've applied for a job. It's the legislature's responsibility to set reasonable wage standards. A hiring manager's job is to simply fill a job position.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    Ah the old 'Not my problem' argument. A couple issues with this -- companies actively campaign against legislature which increases wages, so it's not that they are just ignoring the welfare of their workers they actively push against it. And why is it not the hiring manager's job to ensure the welfare of their workers? What makes that axiomatic to you? That seems like a social construct that we've (maybe) generally settled on, but nothing says that's necessarily the way it has to be.
    - kube-system 7y ago
      The nature of relationship between a business and an employee is such that it is not reasonable to expect that a business would even have the information necessary to take on that responsibility. Furthermore, many of those information gaps are intentional, to prevent discrimination. If you were interviewing me, how would you determine my appropriate wage?
      - Pfhreak 7y ago
        You don't need demographic information to take care of your workers. Everyone needs health care -- cover it. Even if not everyone needs parental leave -- cover it. Vacation policies and sick time -- cover them. Base your wages on the value of the labor, and try to maximize what you pay workers rather than paying the minimum pass the threshold they will accept. Limit the wages of your company's highest paid workers relative to your lowest paid workers.
        kube-system 7y ago
        > Everyone needs health care -- cover it. That is wildly vague. How much coverage is sufficient for your employees? > Base your wages on the value of the labor, and try to maximize what you pay workers rather than paying the minimum pass the threshold they will accept. That sounds good, but it’s not very quantitative. How do you specifically propose that someone calculate “value of labor” independently of the wages accepted by your workforce? Also, how would you ensure I can afford the above-mentioned food and housing? While vacation is nice, food and housing are certainly more immediate needs.
        kelnos 7y ago
        The fact that Walmart trains their employees on how to get public benefits is an implicit admission that they know they aren't paying them enough. Maybe defining "enough" is hard, but they're not even trying, and are instead explicitly pushing the burden onto taxpayers. That's reprehensible; I personally do not care to subsidize their workforce just because they want higher margins. Even just raising wages and watching how much attendance at these "welfare training sessions" declines would be an improvement.
        kube-system 7y ago
        While I definitely think wages should be higher, I don't think your assessment of the situation is accurate. Walmart didn't invent welfare. Walmart lobbies for higher wages, and pays higher than many comparable jobs. Them doing their employees a favor isn't a bad thing, they could just as easily pay low wages and not bother trying to help their employees with public assistance. Small businesses are the reason the minimum wage is still 7.25, not Walmart.
    - ummonk 7y ago
      > companies actively campaign against legislature which increases wages, so it's not that they are just ignoring the welfare of their workers they actively push against it. That's not true in the case we're discussing though. Walmart often campaigns for increases to the minimum wage, because they know it will hurt their competition.
      - Pfhreak 7y ago
        Walmart has (recently, as far as I'm aware) began lobbying for it because they know they can absorb labor costs more readily, sure. But the largest business lobbying group in the US advocates against raising the minimum wage, pushing back against workplace safety, and other work welfare initiatives: https://www.uschamber.com/labor https://www.uschamber.com/labor
salawat 7y ago
The problem is that while you can make the argument that they are doing their employees a 'service'; anyone who has paid attention to how businesses run understands they wouldn't have even bothered doing this if it weren't being used as a means to get a leg up on the competition. I.e, they are relying on government benefits intended to be a safety net to pay their employees for them instead of actually paying competitively in wages and benefits. It's scummy, but makes the balance sheets look great.
- ummonk 7y ago
  Yes, every employer provides their employees perks as a means to get a leg up on the competition. That's precisely one of the main point of perks (the other point being to remove sources of stress from employees' lives so they are more productive). I don't see what's scummy about this.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    The scummy part is that they're effectively subsidizing their payroll with taxpayer money, and they are doing this very intentionally and know exactly what they're doing.
michaelt 7y ago
Imagine my business is feeding wood into chipping machines, and I train every employee in how to apply a tourniquet if they chop their own hand off. For an employer with a great safety record, that would be slightly unusual, but safety training covers the unlikely all the time. Nothing wrong with that! On the other hand if three of the hundred guys I employ have lost a hand, the same training takes on a completely different tone: It would evince an acceptance the same accidents will happen again, and an unwillingness to improve safety.
- ummonk 7y ago
  Presumably, prospective Walmart employees are well aware that they aren't well off people, and that getting public assistance would be of substantial benefit to them. I don't think they'd find it an issue in the same way that they would for example an employer where a bunch of people lose their hands in accidents.
wdb 7y ago
I think a employer should just pay fair wage and not suggest the employee to ask for benefits from the government to have enough income to cover bills.
- ummonk 7y ago
  What's a fair wage for low skilled labor in an industry where small businesses almost universally pay minimum wage?
  - wdb 7y ago
    Let's start with something like this:https://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage https://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage
triceratops 7y ago
Taxpayers are effectively subsidizing Walmart's employee costs. As a taxpayer, I'm not very happy about that.
kelnos 7y ago
They do it as a direct response to the fact that they know they don't pay their workers a living wage. I suppose it's nice of them to help their workers get access to public benefits, but in general they're just a terrible societal citizen for not paying their workers enough to live off of.

by ummonk 7y ago

bashinator 7y ago

Does your employer provide Deloitte tax consultation because otherwise your wage is insufficient to pay for basic food and housing?

kube-system 7y ago
Do any companies set wages based on a benchmark of purchasing power? I don't know about you, but I've never been asked about my family size or my housing situation when I've applied for a job. It's the legislature's responsibility to set reasonable wage standards. A hiring manager's job is to simply fill a job position.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Ah the old 'Not my problem' argument. A couple issues with this -- companies actively campaign against legislature which increases wages, so it's not that they are just ignoring the welfare of their workers they actively push against it. And why is it not the hiring manager's job to ensure the welfare of their workers? What makes that axiomatic to you? That seems like a social construct that we've (maybe) generally settled on, but nothing says that's necessarily the way it has to be.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    The nature of relationship between a business and an employee is such that it is not reasonable to expect that a business would even have the information necessary to take on that responsibility. Furthermore, many of those information gaps are intentional, to prevent discrimination. If you were interviewing me, how would you determine my appropriate wage?
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      You don't need demographic information to take care of your workers. Everyone needs health care -- cover it. Even if not everyone needs parental leave -- cover it. Vacation policies and sick time -- cover them. Base your wages on the value of the labor, and try to maximize what you pay workers rather than paying the minimum pass the threshold they will accept. Limit the wages of your company's highest paid workers relative to your lowest paid workers.
      - kube-system 7y ago
        > Everyone needs health care -- cover it. That is wildly vague. How much coverage is sufficient for your employees? > Base your wages on the value of the labor, and try to maximize what you pay workers rather than paying the minimum pass the threshold they will accept. That sounds good, but it’s not very quantitative. How do you specifically propose that someone calculate “value of labor” independently of the wages accepted by your workforce? Also, how would you ensure I can afford the above-mentioned food and housing? While vacation is nice, food and housing are certainly more immediate needs.
        kelnos 7y ago
        The fact that Walmart trains their employees on how to get public benefits is an implicit admission that they know they aren't paying them enough. Maybe defining "enough" is hard, but they're not even trying, and are instead explicitly pushing the burden onto taxpayers. That's reprehensible; I personally do not care to subsidize their workforce just because they want higher margins. Even just raising wages and watching how much attendance at these "welfare training sessions" declines would be an improvement.
        kube-system 7y ago
        While I definitely think wages should be higher, I don't think your assessment of the situation is accurate. Walmart didn't invent welfare. Walmart lobbies for higher wages, and pays higher than many comparable jobs. Them doing their employees a favor isn't a bad thing, they could just as easily pay low wages and not bother trying to help their employees with public assistance. Small businesses are the reason the minimum wage is still 7.25, not Walmart.
  - ummonk 7y ago
    > companies actively campaign against legislature which increases wages, so it's not that they are just ignoring the welfare of their workers they actively push against it. That's not true in the case we're discussing though. Walmart often campaigns for increases to the minimum wage, because they know it will hurt their competition.
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      Walmart has (recently, as far as I'm aware) began lobbying for it because they know they can absorb labor costs more readily, sure. But the largest business lobbying group in the US advocates against raising the minimum wage, pushing back against workplace safety, and other work welfare initiatives: https://www.uschamber.com/labor https://www.uschamber.com/labor

salawat 7y ago

The problem is that while you can make the argument that they are doing their employees a 'service'; anyone who has paid attention to how businesses run understands they wouldn't have even bothered doing this if it weren't being used as a means to get a leg up on the competition. I.e, they are relying on government benefits intended to be a safety net to pay their employees for them instead of actually paying competitively in wages and benefits. It's scummy, but makes the balance sheets look great.

ummonk 7y ago
Yes, every employer provides their employees perks as a means to get a leg up on the competition. That's precisely one of the main point of perks (the other point being to remove sources of stress from employees' lives so they are more productive). I don't see what's scummy about this.
- kelnos 7y ago
  The scummy part is that they're effectively subsidizing their payroll with taxpayer money, and they are doing this very intentionally and know exactly what they're doing.

michaelt 7y ago

Imagine my business is feeding wood into chipping machines, and I train every employee in how to apply a tourniquet if they chop their own hand off. For an employer with a great safety record, that would be slightly unusual, but safety training covers the unlikely all the time. Nothing wrong with that! On the other hand if three of the hundred guys I employ have lost a hand, the same training takes on a completely different tone: It would evince an acceptance the same accidents will happen again, and an unwillingness to improve safety.

ummonk 7y ago
Presumably, prospective Walmart employees are well aware that they aren't well off people, and that getting public assistance would be of substantial benefit to them. I don't think they'd find it an issue in the same way that they would for example an employer where a bunch of people lose their hands in accidents.

wdb 7y ago

I think a employer should just pay fair wage and not suggest the employee to ask for benefits from the government to have enough income to cover bills.

ummonk 7y ago
What's a fair wage for low skilled labor in an industry where small businesses almost universally pay minimum wage?
- wdb 7y ago
  Let's start with something like this:https://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage https://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage

triceratops 7y ago

Taxpayers are effectively subsidizing Walmart's employee costs. As a taxpayer, I'm not very happy about that.

kelnos 7y ago

They do it as a direct response to the fact that they know they don't pay their workers a living wage. I suppose it's nice of them to help their workers get access to public benefits, but in general they're just a terrible societal citizen for not paying their workers enough to live off of.