CA intends to fine Wal-Mart for every employee that requires state assistance.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... s-for-you/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/)
QuoteAccording to Bill Dombrowski, chief executive of the Association, "It's one of the worst job-killer bills I've seen in my 20 years in Sacramento, and that says a lot. "
Because nothing says "job" like having one and
still getting paid below minimum wage
and being forced to get state welfare in order to simply survive. Yeah. Forcing companies to actually pay their people enough to survive is a terrible job killer.
Another reason why a minimum wage is a good idea.
I'm pleasantly surprised California is bold enough to take this kind of action. Here in New Jersey, our Democrats are so spineless they didn't even pass gay marriage during a willing Governor's lame duck session.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteAccording to Bill Dombrowski, chief executive of the Association, "It's one of the worst job-killer bills I've seen in my 20 years in Sacramento, and that says a lot. "
In other words, this bill is not good for Walmart's bottom line, not good at all. Says Dombrowski, "After many years in merchandising, corporate owners have discovered the only way to make a lot of profit, I mean an really egregious profit, is by turning out second rate merchandise and poor customer service, while keeping employees below the poverty level. We cannot be responsible for our employee's misfortune in life. That's not our job. Instead, we capitalize on the unfortunate, and turn it to a corporate advantage.
"The alternative would require us to provide a much more essential service that would motivate customers to shop at our stores because we provided something of necessary value, not just the usual second rate crap that often breaks under normal use. Sure, we considered charging exorbitant prices as a business strategy, but we are not the oil companies. We don't have that kind of monopoly. We survive by doing as little as possible and charging as much as we can without paying our employees a decent wage. It's what helps us reach our corporate goals. We would prefer not to pay anyone at all, and are working with the rest of corporate America to create a lobby in Congress to reinstitute slavery, or at a minimum, bringing back child labor. But we have found paying decent wages, improving service, and overall quality, are very poor ways to improve our company's profits."
That's the american dream!
Pay your employees peanuts and then let welfare pick up the slack :)
I don't think that the state of CA is going far enough with this. They are going to have to make it extremely painful for companies that abuse the system (and the american people) like this.
I think that a company should be fined 10x the dollar amount of welfare that employees qualify for. You know what would miraculously happen over night? Companies would start paying employees a living wage. Why should Bills General store pay taxes that end up boosting Walmarts bottom line? I I am going to go out on a limb and say that there is no good reason for it, especially since Walmart came to town and is driving him out of business.
Walmart is a Borg-cube trying to assimilate everything in its path. They have the morals of gangsters and the ethics of Mitt Romney. I say fine-the-fuck-out-of-them.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteAccording to Bill Dombrowski, chief executive of the Association, "It's one of the worst job-killer bills I've seen in my 20 years in Sacramento, and that says a lot. "
Because nothing says "job" like having one and still getting paid below minimum wage and being forced to get state welfare in order to simply survive. Yeah. Forcing companies to actually pay their people enough to survive is a terrible job killer.
Below minimum wage? To my knowledge only restaurant workers receive below minimum wage because of the expectation that their income will be augmented by tips.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Below minimum wage? To my knowledge only restaurant workers receive below minimum wage because of the expectation that their income will be augmented by tips.
Either they figured out a way to pay people below minimum wage, or your minimum wage is a joke. The basic idea behind "minimum wage" is that it's the kind of pay that allows you to exist without support from the state, even if barely.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Below minimum wage? To my knowledge only restaurant workers receive below minimum wage because of the expectation that their income will be augmented by tips.
Either they figured out a way to pay people below minimum wage, or your minimum wage is a joke. The basic idea behind "minimum wage" is that it's the kind of pay that allows you to exist without support from the state, even if barely.
Our minimum wage is a joke, but nonetheless, it exists. Below the standard of living or not, $7.25/hr is the lowest amount you can be paid unless you're in a tip-receiving line of work.
Ok, it's a joke then. I'm not sure which is worse; a company finding a way to pay their people less than what they need to earn a living, or them not even needing to look because it's the law :(
Companies like Walmart generally only hire people for 20 hours/week, because that means that you're not a full-time employee, so you're not entitled to benefits. That's $7.500/year, enough to starve on. Even if they hire you for 2 jobs (a common practice and not illegal), that's still only $15.000/year - that's only above the poverty level if you're a household of one. If you have one child (or are married to a non-working spouse), you're $500 below the poverty line, you work full time and you get no benefits. And the poverty line isn't the line at which you can live without government assistance, it's the line at which you can just barely survive with government assistance.
Quote from: "Colanth"Companies like Walmart generally only hire people for 20 hours/week, because that means that you're not a full-time employee, so you're not entitled to benefits. That's $7.500/year, enough to starve on. Even if they hire you for 2 jobs (a common practice and not illegal), that's still only $15.000/year - that's only above the poverty level if you're a household of one. If you have one child (or are married to a non-working spouse), you're $500 below the poverty line, you work full time and you get no benefits. And the poverty line isn't the line at which you can live without government assistance, it's the line at which you can just barely survive with government assistance.
What continues to astonish me is Republican voters who
continue to vote against their own economic self-interest every chance they get. Can't they see that the carnivores they keep supporting have nothing but contempt for their own supporters and see them as marks and dupes too stupid to see the truth because they watch FOX "news" and worry more about their fucking guns than minimum wage or workers rights.
Wal-Mart is a shitty employer, and I'd never work for them.
Quote from: "Validus"What continues to astonish me is Republican voters who continue to vote against their own economic self-interest every chance they get. Can't they see that the carnivores they keep supporting have nothing but contempt for their own supporters and see them as marks and dupes too stupid to see the truth because they watch FOX "news" and worry more about their fucking guns than minimum wage or workers rights.
No, all they can see is that this candidate is a God-fearing fundamentalist Christian who, if elected, will save them from the homosexual agenda (which will make their marriage worthless by forcing the government to allow homosexual marriage). Or whatever fear has been drummed into their empty heads.
Most sheep don't have the intelligence to keep a thought in their heads when someone is yelling a different thought at them. That's why one of the requirements for voting, when the nation was founded, was land ownership. Most people didn't own any land, they were tenants. (The reason that Australia became Britain's prison colony soon after the American Revolution is that Britain could no longer send its prisoners here.) To own land one had to have at least a modicum of ability to think. Today being born here and having not died for 21 years is all it takes. I have trees that, but for species, are qualified to decide how our nation should be run. And many voters aren't much more intelligent than those trees.