NationStates Jolt Archive

just heard this story about the success the city of chicago had in banning wal-mart on the radio and thought it was quite funny:Thousands apply for jobs at new Wal-Mart

Eighteen months after the Chicago City Council torpedoed a South Side Wal-Mart, 24,500 Chicagoans applied for 325 jobs at a Wal-Mart opening Friday in south suburban Evergreen Park, one block outside the city limits.

The new Wal-Mart at 2500 W. 95th is one block west of Western Avenue, the city boundary.

Of 25,000 job applicants, all but 500 listed Chicago addresses, said John Bisio, regional manager of public affairs for Wal-Mart.

"In our typical hiring process, you're pretty successful if you have 3,000 applicants," he said. "They were really crowing about 11,000 in Oakland, Calif., last year. So to get 25,000-plus applications and counting, I think is astonishing."

Assistant manager Rachael Fierro, who was still interviewing prospects Wednesday, said "we saw a little bit of everything -- people who hadn't worked for a long time, people who saw an opportunity to do something with themselves. That's the information I got from applicants."

The 141,000-square-foot store has 36 departments, a "tire and lube express," vision center, Subway restaurant, pharmacy, garden center and drugstore. It will sell some groceries but no fresh produce or meats and no liquor. It is expected to generate $1 million in sales and property tax in the first year -- a windfall in a village that collects about $3 million a year in sales taxes, said Evergreen Park Mayor James J. Sexton. Evergreen Plaza, with 100 stores, generates about $2 million.

Anticipating the usual protests over wages, benefits and anti-union practices, the Evergreen Park store was union-built. A protest over minority set-asides was defused in one day. Wal-Mart also came bearing gifts -- Tuesday night, the corporation donated $35,000 to the village library, local hospital, churches and other village institutions, Sexton said...

[Emphasis added][source (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html)]

25,000 people WANT to work at Wal-mart! Ladies and Gentlemen, It's over. The race is done. The toilet is swirling. The Human Race is officially on it's downward slide into the Pit of Despair.

Ah, well. At least the ride will be entertaining. :)

The way Wal-Mart runs through employees, it'll be about six months before all 25,000 will have had a job there.

Wal-Mart's got to know they're taking a chance by getting into Chicago--the unions are still strong, relatively speaking, and Wal-mart will have a tough time beating them back.

The way Wal-Mart runs through employees, it'll be about six months before all 25,000 will have had a job there.

Wal-Mart's got to know they're taking a chance by getting into Chicago--the unions are still strong, relatively speaking, and Wal-mart will have a tough time beating them back.
or worse, the Unions might side with walmart... makeing an entity so powerful, even the President will shake in his booties.

just heard this story about the success the city of chicago had in banning wal-mart on the radio and thought it was quite funny:[source (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html)]


I didn't know Chicago had tried to ban it. That's right near where I grew up. There's a Sam's Club next door that's been there for years.

or worse, the Unions might side with walmart... makeing an entity so powerful, even the President will shake in his booties.
Not a chance--there is no possible way to overestimate the hatred Wal-Mart feels for unions. That's one of the many reasons I refuse to shop there.

People want to work for Wal-Mart? They'd better not try and unionize, because Wal-Mart will just shut the store down.

People want to work for Wal-Mart? They'd better not try and unionize, because Wal-Mart will just shut the store down.
I hope the workers try to unionize immediately--make Wal-Mart choose between closing a brand new store or recognizing a union. That would be beautiful.

I hope the workers try to unionize immediately--make Wal-Mart choose between closing a brand new store or recognizing a union. That would be beautiful.

They'd probably close the store. Hell, it's even possible that Wal-Mart would shut down all of its establishments in Maryland for the new health-care law they passed, so one store isn't too big a loss.

Actually,

I live in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec. Our local Wal-Mart is the only one in North America where a "general" (all full-time employees, not only a sector) union exists.

They're waiting for their convention to be signed in the next weeks. Another Wal-Mart closed last year here when they tried to form an union*. But we're hopeful this one will pass.

Otherwise, well, we'll give 'em hell.

They'd probably close the store. Hell, it's even possible that Wal-Mart would shut down all of its establishments in Maryland for the new health-care law they passed, so one store isn't too big a loss.
Wal-Mart is in a tough spot in a way--their stock stays high, not because of profit, but because of growth, so they always need to expand. But the only places left in the US to expand are in areas where the unions still have some clout, and where workers know that the stories Wal-Mart and other anti-union companies are largely bullshit. They want those markets, but don't want the unions, so they're stuck

And I don't feel a bit sorry for them.

And I really don't think they'll pull out of Maryland completely--they might reduce their workforce to get below the 10,000 employee threshold so as not to be hit by the law, but in the end, that's a losing proposition, since it makes them smaller, not larger.

So they voted it out of the city, but they want to work there? I guess they wanted to contribute their time and money there without getting any tax revenue.

So they voted it out of the city, but they want to work there? I guess they wanted to contribute their time and money there without getting any tax revenue.

You're going under the assumption that there are more living people voting in Chicago than dead. It is the domain of King Daley after all.

I hope the workers try to unionize immediately--make Wal-Mart choose between closing a brand new store or recognizing a union. That would be beautiful.

Quebec did that, they closed the store, THEN bitch about "they took away our jobs"

As for Chicago, yeah, you could've collected a lot of taxes from Wal Mart. Idiots.

The way Wal-Mart runs through employees, it'll be about six months before all 25,000 will have had a job there.

Wal-Mart's got to know they're taking a chance by getting into Chicago--the unions are still strong, relatively speaking, and Wal-mart will have a tough time beating them back.


Heh, its not the unions WalMart has to deal with, its the erm...legitmate businessmen who come with the unions in a town like Chicago. Its going to be even worse in a little burb like Evergreen Park. Beyond that, I can't wait to see what kind of punitive taxes Evergreen Park and Cook County throw at them...

So they voted it out of the city, but they want to work there? I guess they wanted to contribute their time and money there without getting any tax revenue.


Like the will of the people and the will of the city council has ever had anything to do with eachother. Not with King Dick and his pals from Bridgeport with broken noses still around.

http://www.freewebs.com/zelinko/dela~495.gif
Reminded me of this... Especially with Walmart's hiring practices

Poor Daley. How can he bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago without allowing in a world-class organization like Wal-Mart? :p

http://www.freewebs.com/zelinko/dela~495.gif
Reminded me of this... Especially with Walmart's hiring practices
What the fuck is that?

Canada City']Quebec did that, they closed the store, THEN bitch about "they took away our jobs"

As for Chicago, yeah, you could've collected a lot of taxes from Wal Mart. Idiots.
You don't collect any more in taxes from Wal-mart than you do from the local businesses Wal-Mart runs into bankruptcy. In fact, most studies that examine the issue show that tax revenues go down as a result of Wal-Mart entering an area. It's a trade-off at best, a net loss for a community at worst.

What the fuck is that?
Its a comic strip of the popular webcomic Dela the Hooda by Style Wager and Greg Older. [Kinda obvious cause it says the title of the comic strip and who made it right in plain sight!]

Poor Daley. How can he bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago without allowing in a world-class organization like Wal-Mart? :p


Gah! Our traffic is bad enough, we don't need the olympics. No, really, please, take the games somewhere else. There is nowhere to build new facilities (at least, nowhere you'd want tourists), we don't need the eminent domain issues, and we have a real problem with C.H.U.D.s coming up from the sewers and eating tourists. Focus on the C.H.U.D.s! I'm telling you, it's going to be an international incedent when some shotputter from Bulgaria gets dragged into the sewers...

Canada City']Quebec did that, they closed the store, THEN bitch about "they took away our jobs"

As for Chicago, yeah, you could've collected a lot of taxes from Wal Mart. Idiots.


Wouldnt matter.

No matter how much you tax them, you cant tax them enough to cover the drain they cause on other budgets.
For instance, in 2004, there were over 12,300 Wal-Mart employees, on social assistance, and other government, low income programs....in Florida alone.

Wal Mart costs the government over 1.5 billion dollars every year, from thier employees, who cannot support themselves on thier wal-mart salaries, and must apply for aid.

In fact, instead of paying its employees a living wage, WM encourages its workers to apply for W.I.C, SSI, and other programs...and even has these forms in the employee break rooms.
Keep in mind Wal-Mart is the #1 company in the world.

You ever see all the security cameras in Wal-Mart?

Those are not there for the safety of its customers.

They are there to keep track of unionization.
This is not a joke...WM admits it.

Statiscally, WM drives up crime rates in neighborhoods as well.
In many counties, robbery, sexual assault, and even assualt with weapons are increased by 80%, in WM parking lots.

Ah, unions, fighting for things like healthcare and 401K accounts that aren't the responsibility of the employer.

Wouldnt matter.

No matter how much you tax them, you cant tax them enough to cover the drain they cause on other budgets.
For instance, in 2004, there were over 12,300 Wal-Mart employees, on social assistance, and other government, low income programs....in Florida alone.

Wal Mart costs the government over 1.5 billion dollars every year, from thier employees, who cannot support themselves on thier wal-mart salaries, and must apply for aid.

In fact, instead of paying its employees a living wage, WM encourages its workers to apply for W.I.C, SSI, and other programs...and even has these forms in the employee break rooms.
Keep in mind Wal-Mart is the #1 company in the world.

You ever see all the security cameras in Wal-Mart?

Those are not there for the safety of its customers.

They are there to keep track of unionization.
This is not a joke...WM admits it.

Statiscally, WM drives up crime rates in neighborhoods as well.
In many counties, robbery, sexual assault, and even assualt with weapons are increased by 80%, in WM parking lots.

Babe, its firstly not the job of the employer to pay for health care costs; secondly, there is nothing stopping florida from raising the minimum wage, and thirdly one could argue that employment with an income boost from social security is better than solely living off a social security cheque from week to week.

Babe, its firstly not the job of the employer to pay for health care costs; secondly, there is nothing stopping florida from raising the minimum wage, and thirdly one could argue that employment with an income boost from social security is better than solely living off a social security cheque from week to week.


I really dont know why you call everyone "Babe".
Its lame.


Anyways, regardless of how much the winimum wage is, Wal-Mart would refuse to pay its employees a living wage.
To Wal-Mart, a full time employee, is one that works 28 hours a week.

Wal-Mart also does not pay overtime.
In fact, several class-action suits are filed against them for cheating thier employees out of overtinme wages.

Should I mention the refusals to promote Blacks, women, and especially gays?

Also, Wal-Mart DOES offer health-care to its employees.
However, its so exspensive, few employees can actually afford it.

Wal Mart costs the government over 1.5 billion dollars every year, from thier employees, who cannot support themselves on thier wal-mart salaries, and must apply for aid.


And you think if they are unemployed that it would be cheaper to support all those people?


Statiscally, WM drives up crime rates in neighborhoods as well.
In many counties, robbery, sexual assault, and even assualt with weapons are increased by 80%, in WM parking lots.


You're blaming Wal Mart for sexual assault?

I'm starting to seriously believe that socialism is a mental disease each day.


Anyways, regardless of how much the winimum wage is, Wal-Mart would refuse to pay its employees a living wage.
To Wal-Mart, a full time employee, is one that works 28 hours a week


They dont' have to pay a living wage. They don't have to give someone 40 hours a week.

Walmart is a do nothing uneducated job. It is a free market out there and if the employees of Wal Mart can seriously believe they can do better, they would've found another job right now.

I've worked in department stores and bottom of the barrel jobs. There is a damn good reason why they are called 'minimum wage' jobs. It's because ANY idiot can perform it.

Are you telling me I should get a nice bedroom apartment, a brand new car, and raise 4 kids by punching the cash register all day or moving boxes?


Wal-Mart also does not pay overtime.


Toys R Us does not pay overtime either. ARE THEY EVIL?


They are there to keep track of unionization.
This is not a joke...WM admits it.


I don't agree with Unions at all. We don't live at a time where if you get your arm cut off at work, you get fired. Also, you have a choices now and if find the job too dangerous or find the managers to be complete dicks, you can GO somewhere else. Walmart is a private business and can run how they want it as long as they are not breaking the law. Unions do not need to be accepted at all places.

The problem is many people expect the government to hand them everything and if they stick to some crappy job, they expect the world to hand them over in a silver platter.

It doesn't work that way. If you truly have marketable skills that people want, you can easily get a better job then walmart. Problem is, most people don't even try or refuse to, despite the options available to them.

And what about areas where unemployment is so high that the only jobs people CAN get are minimum wagers like those at walmart?

I've known people who will work 2 jobs consecutively to try and bring in a LIVING wage.


At the end of the day, equivalent jobs in other countries provide salaries sufficient enough to survive on working a 40 hour week. Not to go galavanting through the countryside in a drop top or drinking champagne, but enough to pay the rent and by groceries certainly.

Why should it be any different in the US?

I really dont know why you call everyone "Babe".
Its lame.


Anyways, regardless of how much the winimum wage is, Wal-Mart would refuse to pay its employees a living wage.
To Wal-Mart, a full time employee, is one that works 28 hours a week.

Wal-Mart also does not pay overtime.

Neither does my work, nor is it required in the employment legislation in New Zealand - I worked 50 hours per week, and no overtime.

You think it is a unique case to the US, specfically Walmart?

In fact, several class-action suits are filed against them for cheating thier employees out of overtinme wages.

Should I mention the refusals to promote Blacks, women, and especially gays?

Also, Wal-Mart DOES offer health-care to its employees.
However, its so exspensive, few employees can actually afford it.

But why provide it? why not have a, god forbid, a public healthcare system like any other first world country?

Canada City']I've worked in department stores and bottom of the barrel jobs. There is a damn good reason why they are called 'minimum wage' jobs. It's because ANY idiot can perform it.

Its not even that, the fact that that these complainers can't logically sit down and ask themselves WHY their wage is that low.

I'm sitting on around $11.20 per hour (US$7.60) at the current job I'm at, btw, cost of living vs. pay, its not too bad; anyway, compared to others who have been there longer, I am paid $1.70 MORE than them because of my experience and skills that I bring to the job.

If these complainers are Walmart, why don't they make a case as to why they should get paid more? when I wanted a pay rise from my first boss, she would tell us to write down what we bring to the job that no one else could.

Are you telling me I should get a nice bedroom apartment, a brand new car, and raise 4 kids by punching the cash register all day or moving boxes?

I think the bigger question, why the fuck have 4 kids if you can't even make enough money to be considered poor?

And what about areas where unemployment is so high that the only jobs people CAN get are minimum wagers like those at walmart?

I've known people who will work 2 jobs consecutively to try and bring in a LIVING wage.


At the end of the day, equivalent jobs in other countries provide salaries sufficient enough to survive on working a 40 hour week. Not to go galavanting through the countryside in a drop top or drinking champagne, but enough to pay the rent and by groceries certainly.

Why should it be any different in the US?


Because we have a system built on merit. I've got news for you, Walmart isn't a career, it isn't a job you can retire on, and it shouldn't be. Walmart is a part-time job, like flipping burgers, it is unskilled retail work that literally ANYONE could do. Why does Walmart pay such a low wage? Because the work people do to earn that wage is just short of useless.

If you don't have a highschool diploma, if you don't have a GED, if you don't have any skills or vocational training, your options are going to be pretty limited. They are limited not because of some inherantly unfair system, but because of personal sloth. You can get a highschool diploma for free, all you have to do is show up, you can get a GED for next to nothing (and what it does cost you can get waived if you're poor or get student loans if you aren't), the same goes for attending a vocational school or community college. Hell, I know people who have earned doctorates using nothing but student loans and hard work.

Welcome to the real world, if you sit on your ass and watch Jerry Springer for the first 30 years of your life you're going to earn five bucks and hour because not only are you next to worthless as an employee, but there are a thousand other lazy sacks waiting in line behind you to do the same menial labor.

It is also worth paying attention to what Walmart is. Its cheap crap: two dollar flip flops, generic soda for a quarter a can, sweatshop made clothes for half of what anyone else charges. The profit margin is small, the company exists because it sells things at the absolute lowest price. More importantly, it exists because people shop there. It isn't a charity, its a discount store

If these complainers are Walmart, why don't they make a case as to why they should get paid more? when I wanted a pay rise from my first boss, she would tell us to write down what we bring to the job that no one else could.

Thats the bigger problem. You don't get a job at Walmart if you can bring anything to the table other than two hands and a second grade understanding of the english language. Walmart is the bottom, if you had any special skills you'd be working somewhere else.

Neither does my work, nor is it required in the employment legislation in New Zealand - I worked 50 hours per week, and no overtime.

You think it is a unique case to the US, specfically Walmart?

Let me guess..youre a salaried employee?
You dont get overtime, becuase your salary is paid per year, not by the hour.
So your comparison is probably irrelavant.

However, keep in mind what I said about the mulitiple class action suits?

They dont pay overtime...but they do often require employees to work overtime.

One former employee says its common practice, to inform an employee , at the end of thier shifts, that they cannot get overtime, yet, insist that a workload must be done before that person is allowed to go home.

In other words..."we refuse to pay you for it...but this stuff here will have to finished before you leave....even though it was someone elses responsibility."

Thats illegal over here,probably over there, too.



But why provide it? why not have a, god forbid, a public healthcare system like any other first world country?

That, I cannot answer, it boggles my mind as well.
If Canada can do it..so can we, however, thus far...nada.
Untill then, its the responsibility of the business world to provide health care to its employees.

If any coporation in the world could afford it, it would be Wal-Mart.

Not a chance--there is no possible way to overestimate the hatred Wal-Mart feels for unions. That's one of the many reasons I refuse to shop there.
Strange. That's one of the ( less important ) reasons I choose to shop there. :D

Strange. That's one of the ( less important ) reasons I choose to shop there. :D

The only things I ever buy from WalMart are ammo and clay, and even then only because I know that the specific items I'm buying are being sold at or below cost. Hell, why not abuse their marketing scheme.

Honestly, though, knowing how WalMart makes it's promotion choices, how can you buy their goods with a clean conscience? I mean, I can understand being hostile to unions (in fact, one of the reasons I shop at Trader Joe's is because of their anti-union policies) but why would you shop at a store that engages in open discrimination against women? It isn't really a liberal/conservative issue, it is an issue of morality. Just as I wouldn't welcome a racist or a child molester at my table, I cannot spend my money at an establishment that discriminates against half of the population (unless the money I spend constitutes a loss for the company).

Let me guess..youre a salaried employee?
You dont get overtime, becuase your salary is paid per year, not by the hour.
So your comparison is probably irrelavant.

However, keep in mind what I said about the mulitiple class action suits?

They dont pay overtime...but they do often require employees to work overtime.

One former employee says its common practice, to inform an employee , at the end of thier shifts, that they cannot get overtime, yet, insist that a workload must be done before that person is allowed to go home.

In other words..."we refuse to pay you for it...but this stuff here will have to finished before you leave....even though it was someone elses responsibility."

Thats illegal over here,probably over there, too.

No, if you look back further, I am paid $11.20 per hour, my average work week is 50 hours, and it climbs from there. I choose to do those hours, so why should the employer be punished because I choose to work 50 hours per week with them?

That, I cannot answer, it boggles my mind as well.
If Canada can do it..so can we, however, thus far...nada.
Untill then, its the responsibility of the business world to provide health care to its employees.

If any coporation in the world could afford it, it would be Wal-Mart.

True, but at the same time, if I were an employer and had to pay for employee health care, I can assure you, I wouldn't hire ANYONE who could possibly increase the premiums, thus leaving alot of people not suitable for employment.

No, if you look back further, I am paid $11.20 per hour, my average work week is 50 hours, and it climbs from there. I choose to do those hours, so why should the employer be punished because I choose to work 50 hours per week with them?

What?

Punished how?



True, but at the same time, if I were an employer and had to pay for employee health care, I can assure you, I wouldn't hire ANYONE who could possibly increase the premiums, thus leaving alot of people not suitable for employment.

Ahh, but see thats discrimination.
You cant refuse to hire people who are fully capable of working, becuase they may have a pre-existing medical condition.

The best you can do, is not give them tasks that require heavy lifting.
But, since in retail stores like Wal-Mart, much of the work is heavy lifting, many of these workers will likely develop back problems, and carpal tunnel from repetitive motions.

Despite the low qualifications for a job at Wal-Mart, and the low pay, that doesnt mean the jobs arent difficult, or hard work.
Stocking shelves, moving pallets of merchandise is hard work, and since they do not pay a living wage, it makes it all the more sinister, that what little health insurance they do offer, they do so at unreasonable prices.

What?

Punished how?

By expecting to pay an employee over time, simply on the basis that the individual worked more than 40 hours per week! if individuals want overtime, it should be negotiated when they enter into an individual workplace agreement.

I am on and individual workplace agreement at my current place of employment, and I can assure you, I have no desire for overtime given the good relationship I have with my employer.

Ahh, but see thats discrimination.
You cant refuse to hire people who are fully capable of working, becuase they may have a pre-existing medical condition.

The best you can do, is not give them tasks that require heavy lifting.
But, since in retail stores like Wal-Mart, much of the work is heavy lifting, many of these workers will likely develop back problems, and carpal tunnel from repetitive motions.

Despite the low qualifications for a job at Wal-Mart, and the low pay, that doesnt mean the jobs arent difficult, or hard work.
Stocking shelves, moving pallets of merchandise is hard work, and since they do not pay a living wage, it makes it all the more sinister, that what little health insurance they do offer, they do so at unreasonable prices.

How so? if I didn't have to pay for the healthcare, I would be more than happy to hire anyone who was willing to muck in and give the best they could - but since in the US I would get anal raped in the insurance premium department, I have to think about the bottom line.

The bottom line tells me, that as much as I would love to be a nice guy and offer someone disadvantaged a job, I would then end up being screwed by the insurance company in terms of the costs.

As for insurance companies, the reason why the costs are going up is simple - the risk is increasing and more people are pulling on the collective pool of money which all stake holders have.

When you have 60% of your population obese and coupled with an aging population - those risks go up dramatically, and thus, the premiums have to reflect that add risk of future cost to the insurance company.

The way Wal-Mart runs through employees, it'll be about six months before all 25,000 will have had a job there.

my old-as-hell grandmother has been working there forever. 25 years, and some change.

...she got a cup.

By expecting to pay an employee over time, simply on the basis that the individual worked more than 40 hours per week! if individuals want overtime, it should be negotiated when they enter into an individual workplace agreement.

Not in the states.
Here, by law, an employee must be compensated at the rate of 1.5, any hours past forty, if paid by the hour.

I am on and individual workplace agreement at my current place of employment, and I can assure you, I have no desire for overtime given the good relationship I have with my employer.

Hmm..sounds to me like youre getting the raw end of the deal.
If you make 11.00 an hour, for 50 hours, thats 168 dollars a week (before tax) you would be getting paid for, if you worked in the States.





How so? if I didn't have to pay for the healthcare, I would be more than happy to hire anyone who was willing to muck in and give the best they could - but since in the US I would get anal raped in the insurance premium department, I have to think about the bottom line.

Keep in mind that we are talking about the largest corporation, in the world.
They can soooo afford it.


The bottom line tells me, that as much as I would love to be a nice guy and offer someone disadvantaged a job, I would then end up being screwed by the insurance company in terms of the costs.

Hmm...I wouldnt go into business for yourself, if I were you.
You dont sound like you would be very good at it.
Not only do most employers get a tax break for every "handicapped" employee, in some cases, the Government even pays thier wage.

As for insurance companies, the reason why the costs are going up is simple - the risk is increasing and more people are pulling on the collective pool of money which all stake holders have.

When you have 60% of your population obese and coupled with an aging population - those risks go up dramatically, and thus, the premiums have to reflect that add risk of future cost to the insurance company.

Do you think these companies are hurting?
Do you think these guys go home and have ramen noodles for dinner, cuz they cant afford real food?

No, these insurance companies are still profiting billions every year.
As are the comanies liek Wal-Wart, who use them.