Disgust? But it's a good thing isn't it?
Yes, disgust. Walmart employs approximately 1.3 million workers in the US through it 4500 stores. Thought they do not release actual figures in regard to the percentage of full-time workers, a recent report found that just that one, 300-empolyee Wisconsin Supercenter store costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost taxpayers up to $1,744,590 per year.” Now multiply that by 50 stores per states.
Since 2009 Walmart refuses to disclose the number of associates covered by their healthcare plan. At that time is was 52% with the company paying about 66% of the cost. But recently Walmart stopped offering health insurance to part-time employees (working less than 24 hours per week). Factoring in the numbers above, I am guessing that less than 52% of their employees are now covered.
Yes, disgust when you consider, "In state after state, the largest group of Medicaid recipients is Walmart employees. I'm sure that the same thing is true of food stamp recipients. Each Walmart "associate" costs the taxpayers an average of more than $1,000 in public assistance." Or so says Alan Grayson's in his HuffPo column My Thanksgiving: A Turkey Sandwich at Walmart from 2102. For once, a politician got it right according to a list from Good Jobs First.
Yes, disgust that the Walton family refuses to pay their 1.3 million US workers a living wage. There is a common misconception that if minimum wage were to be increased the cost of said increase will be passed on to consumers. I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is that this does not have to happen, Walmart does not need to follow the mindset of its founder Sam Walton, "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."
Instead of treating their employees like lowly peons and cogs in a wheel, maybe they should leave their draconian obsession with cost containment, including aggressive control of employee benefits and wages, in the past where it belongs. As Thom Hartmann opines in his recent Op for AlterNet:
A job that pays a living wage isn’t just good for the workers who get to take home a livable paycheck, it’s good for other business owners and the economy as a whole. Businesses need people with a reasonable income to buy their goods. When workers are paid so little that they can barely afford to eat, they can’t spend additional money and as a result, the entire economy suffers. This is economics 101.Yes disgust. When the real reason for such a bold announcement is meant to distract from their renewed "Buy American" campaign which was deemed an utter failure the first go round. Some have been so bold as to label it a sham
[,,,]
The point here is that it is possible for companies to pay their workers a living wage, make money, and give their customers an excellent product, all at the same time. The idea that we have to choose between paying workers well and having successful businesses is just false. That choice only exists when the owners insist on squeezing billions out of their workers.
Yes disgust. When one considers their human rights abuses,,, but I think you see my point. Walmart and other businesses that that espouse this draconian obsession with a cost containment "business" model should be shunned. Making such a bold claim as above only exposes their true agenda.. They are not offering anything of value to their workers and the only value is to the company in the form of PR. If Walmart wants to do some good they would get their employees off the dole by paying a decent livable wage, offering the option of insurance to all their employees whether full or part-time, and truly buy American.
Walmart Will Begin Offering Same-Sex Domestic Partnership Benefits In 2014 | ThinkProgress
No comments:
Post a Comment