Walmart's New Health Care Policy Shif...
OldWhitey

Paris, TX

#141 Dec 6, 2012
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
thanks for at least acknowledging where my heart is. that does mean alot.
yet, interesting that other multimillion dollar corporations manage to do these things for their employes, without them being in a position to rely on public assistance.
i worked my way through college working various hourly jobs....it's not easy, it can be done, it's exhausting. and when i first got out of college i worked a second job to pay for my student loans. that second job was hourly at various locations. i do understand their perspective, both as an employee that's been in their situation and having managed some hourly employees.
so let's look at your scenario a bit further......if WM did just raise the hourly wages of it's hourly employees, what would be the impact? keep in mind, i'm also talking about various emplyee benefits as well....like insurance, etc.....if WM did change - then those same employees wouldn't have to apply for food stamps, public housing, they'd have insurance (or at least have it available to them in some form) and they'd be paying more in federal income taxes. they'd be less of a drain on OUR taxes because there wouldn't be the need. they'd be paying more in to the IRS.
i just can't in good conscience drop my money in WM's coffers knowing that they manipulate not only employee's hours to keep them beneath the threshold of hours to prevent them from being full time employees but also help them and encourage them to apply for public assistance. this indicates that WM is fully aware, fully conscious of the ramifications of their actions on not only the individual's life but also on our tax monies.
if we want fewer "freeloaders" taking from the system, then we have to expect that the employers should take up the slack.
Walmart can do better and should by its employees. Raising the hours or the wage would cut down some on benefits. However, part of the problem is the increased hours. For example, an employee working part-time 30hrs wk @$10 hrly with three children ($15,600 a year) would get $5751 in EIC and pay no federal income tax. Give this same employee a $5 raise and move to full-time.$31,200 a year. They drop to $2700 EIC so lose $3000 of income.
Paid no income tax before, now owes $483. Pay an additional $1193 in FICA.
Qualifed for Medicaid on both children originally, now loses Medicaid, but qualifies for CHIPS. Now has to pay a monthly premium, copays, deductible, and out of pocket medical expenses. Qualified for up to $668 monthly food stamps before, loses this. Not sure what amount was lost, but income qualified before raise did not afterwards. Qualified for housing assistance before, not afterwards.

You can see that the person is virtually at the same level as before but now has to work 10 hours more per week. The same applies to unemployment benefits. I hear people say all the time, "Why go to work for the same money? I'm going to wait until my benefits run out to go back to work".

There has to be a moral center and work ethic to encourage working over welfare. Again, everyone can use help and a safety net. I do not begrudge that. We need to make it more attractive to actually work rather than be on public assistance.
Sunrise

Hurst, TX

#142 Dec 6, 2012
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
thanks for at least acknowledging where my heart is. that does mean alot.
yet, interesting that other multimillion dollar corporations manage to do these things for their employes, without them being in a position to rely on public assistance.
i worked my way through college working various hourly jobs....it's not easy, it can be done, it's exhausting. and when i first got out of college i worked a second job to pay for my student loans. that second job was hourly at various locations. i do understand their perspective, both as an employee that's been in their situation and having managed some hourly employees.
so let's look at your scenario a bit further......if WM did just raise the hourly wages of it's hourly employees, what would be the impact? keep in mind, i'm also talking about various emplyee benefits as well....like insurance, etc.....if WM did change - then those same employees wouldn't have to apply for food stamps, public housing, they'd have insurance (or at least have it available to them in some form) and they'd be paying more in federal income taxes. they'd be less of a drain on OUR taxes because there wouldn't be the need. they'd be paying more in to the IRS.
i just can't in good conscience drop my money in WM's coffers knowing that they manipulate not only employee's hours to keep them beneath the threshold of hours to prevent them from being full time employees but also help them and encourage them to apply for public assistance. this indicates that WM is fully aware, fully conscious of the ramifications of their actions on not only the individual's life but also on our tax monies.
if we want fewer "freeloaders" taking from the system, then we have to expect that the employers should take up the slack.
I suspect that would not make any difference. Most would still be eligible for government benefits.
LOL

Paris, TX

#143 Dec 6, 2012
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
it's documented that they help their employees to apply. tacit acceptance and expectations.
what would happen if those programs weren't there for WM to encourage the use of? who would suffer the consequences? the employee and their family.
Aha! So you admit that it's not Walmart who's profiting from the government, for if it is, wouldn't Walmart be the one to suffer if the programs weren't there?

I wonder why you're so bent out of shape over Walmart and the tenuous allegation that they are profiting from the government, but you haven't said a word about GM and its employees.
LOL

Paris, TX

#144 Dec 6, 2012
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
i've never said how much they should be paid. i've said that i shop at stores that have benefits for it's hourly employees (many of the stores on that list even offer part time employees benefits) and i have no problems with the pricing in those stores. big difference.
it is WM's responsibility to at the very least get these people off the public assistance and offload that tax load onto their bottom line. however they want to do is up to them - either increase the hours of the employees so that they're full time or increase their pay or whatever. it's not up to me as a person who doesn't even shop there.
if other proficatble corporations manage to do the right thing by their employees, why can't one the size of WM do it as well?
We know you haven't said how much they should be paid -- isn't that the point? You claim Walmart doesn't pay enough, but you won't say what enough is. Where is your cut-off on what stores you'll shop at? If the employees make $9 an hour?$10? If they pay 100% of the employee insurance? If they have an HMO? If the employee has to pay 50% of his insurance? If they offer vacation pay? If 50% of their employees are full-time? 75? Where is the cut-off for you?

You make a lot of claims and allegations, yet you won't answer the questions that must be answered to address the issue.

You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth. You do have one thing right, though -- what Walmart and its employees agree to as far as employment is none of your business -- whether you shop there are not.
LOL

Paris, TX

#145 Dec 6, 2012
BBHC wrote:
<quoted text>
Wal Mart benefits because they sell what government assistance provides: groceries, prescriptions, healthcare (Wal Marts that have clinics). Where do you think a Wal Mart employee is likely to shop?
The reimbursement from the government is a straight cash payment to Wal Mart. If Wal Mart paid that money instead as wages the employee would turn around and spend in-store, Wal Mart would've had to pay taxes.
What straight cash payment to Walmart? I thought we were talking about employees getting the money. If Walmart paid money as wages, and the employee spendt the money in the store, Walmart paid taxes on it. If the employee got public assistance and spent the money in the store, Walmart still paid taxes on it.

So what are you trying to say?
LOL

Paris, TX

#146 Dec 6, 2012
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
different story due to volume of employees.
So are you looking down your nose at employees of mom and pop stores? Are you saying they aren't worth as much as Walmart employees? If a cashier at Walmart deserves health insurance and a big salary, why doesn't a cashier at a mom and pop deserve the same?
LOL

Paris, TX

#147 Dec 6, 2012
heartandmind wrote:
so i have to ask again :
if all those other profitable corporations from that list, and many more in america that have hourly employees, can manage to make a profit & offer both enough in wages and benefits for a person to live on that income in almost any given area of the country, why does WM get a pass? if you guys think WM employees are a lazy freeloading bunch, then why do you shop there and support WM hiring them? why do you guys think that someone's that working at WM is lazy and freeloading in the first place?
I guess you'll have to show us that post that said Walmart employees are lazy and freeloading. Personally, I don't care what the other places pay or what Walmart pays. That's between the company and the employee. If the employee doesn't like the conditions, he's free to look elsewhere.
BBHC

Spring, TX

#148 Dec 6, 2012
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
What straight cash payment to Walmart? I thought we were talking about employees getting the money.
Not when they are on assistance. Wal Mart is reimbursed by the government. Up until that point, the benefits are just points on a card, it doesn't turn into cash until the merchant is reimbursed.
BBHC

Spring, TX

#149 Dec 6, 2012
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder why you're so bent out of shape over Walmart and the tenuous allegation that they are profiting from the government, but you haven't said a word about GM and its employees.
1. GM isn't the largest employer in America.

2. GM's model isn't taught as an example of success in business schools and thus is sought for replication across other industries.

3. GM's employees aren't conspicuous on state government rankings of companies with employees on taxpayer funded assistance.
OldWhitey

Paris, TX

#150 Dec 7, 2012
BBHC wrote:
<quoted text>
1. GM isn't the largest employer in America.
2. GM's model isn't taught as an example of success in business schools and thus is sought for replication across other industries.
3. GM's employees aren't conspicuous on state government rankings of companies with employees on taxpayer funded assistance.
The list breaks down by state. School districts are on the list as well. Walmart cannot pay enough wages or increase hours enough at their current profit margin of $15 billion. Employees that draw benefits are better off with the lower wages + government benefits than they are with higher wages and more hours. This is not as true in Texas as in other states. Pennsylvania Sec of Public Welfare recently showed where a single mom is better off making $29K with government benefits that net her over $57K. This same mom earns $59,327yet nets only $57,045
in pay and benefits. This type of gross government handouts has built a culture similar to Europe. You are better off working less and let the government take care of you. Safety nets yes. Say no to the rest.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#152 Dec 7, 2012
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
We know you haven't said how much they should be paid -- isn't that the point? You claim Walmart doesn't pay enough, but you won't say what enough is. Where is your cut-off on what stores you'll shop at? If the employees make $9 an hour?$10? If they pay 100% of the employee insurance? If they have an HMO? If the employee has to pay 50% of his insurance? If they offer vacation pay? If 50% of their employees are full-time? 75? Where is the cut-off for you?
You make a lot of claims and allegations, yet you won't answer the questions that must be answered to address the issue.
You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth. You do have one thing right, though -- what Walmart and its employees agree to as far as employment is none of your business -- whether you shop there are not.
rate of pay is secondary to manipulating hours to keep an employee below the threshold of a fulltime employee. rate of pay is also behind that of offering some form of benefits package for their employees so that these same employees are a bit more protected. rate of pay is also negotiable between an employer and an employee to a certain degree.
the issue isn't their rate of pay. the issue is the use of public assistance that is paid for by our tax dollars.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#153 Dec 7, 2012
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you'll have to show us that post that said Walmart employees are lazy and freeloading. Personally, I don't care what the other places pay or what Walmart pays. That's between the company and the employee. If the employee doesn't like the conditions, he's free to look elsewhere.
and the point is they can only seek work elsewhere IF there's other places that are hiring in the area. otherwise, the employee is locked in and stuck.

look at the advertisements for jobs in paris. are there really that many along those lines? the options are severely limited.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#154 Dec 7, 2012
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
Aha! So you admit that it's not Walmart who's profiting from the government, for if it is, wouldn't Walmart be the one to suffer if the programs weren't there?
I wonder why you're so bent out of shape over Walmart and the tenuous allegation that they are profiting from the government, but you haven't said a word about GM and its employees.
and the thread is about walmart, not GM.
OldWhitey

Paris, TX

#155 Dec 7, 2012
OldWhitey wrote:
<quoted text>The list breaks down by state. School districts are on the list as well. Walmart cannot pay enough wages or increase hours enough at their current profit margin of $15 billion. Employees that draw benefits are better off with the lower wages + government benefits than they are with higher wages and more hours. This is not as true in Texas as in other states. Pennsylvania Sec of Public Welfare recently showed where a single mom is better off making $29K with government benefits that net her over $57K. This same mom earns $59,327yet nets only $57,045
in pay and benefits. This type of gross government handouts has built a culture similar to Europe. You are better off working less and let the government take care of you. Safety nets yes. Say no to the rest.
Posted in the information incorrectly. The mom nets $59,327 on an annual income of $29,000. Her gross income is $69,000 and she nets $57,045. Wow, there is actually no reason for this person to want to promote up. She would have to work more hours (probably on salary) and actually bring home less money.
OldWhitey

Paris, TX

#156 Dec 7, 2012
OldWhitey wrote:
<quoted text>Posted in the information incorrectly. The mom nets $59,327 on an annual income of $29,000. Her gross income is $69,000 and she nets $57,045. Wow, there is actually no reason for this person to want to promote up. She would have to work more hours (probably on salary) and actually bring home less money.
Dang my eyes are playing tricks. she nets $57,327. Here is the actual link to the article.

http://times247.com/articles/welfare-benefits...
OldWhitey

Paris, TX

#157 Dec 7, 2012
OldWhitey wrote:
<quoted text>Posted in the information incorrectly. The mom nets $59,327 on an annual income of $29,000. Her gross income is $69,000 and she nets $57,045. Wow, there is actually no reason for this person to want to promote up. She would have to work more hours (probably on salary) and actually bring home less money.
I don't know why the link to article will not post. My eyes and my typing are bad this morning.
She nets $57,327 not $59,327 making $29,000. Article can be googled. it is listed under times247 dot com
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#158 Dec 7, 2012
i see a link.

sometimes topix freaks out and won't let you put up links to articles. gets frustrating when you're trying to make a point or substantiate a point.

i appreciate the effort on your part, ow.
OldWhitey

Paris, TX

#159 Dec 7, 2012
heartandmind wrote:
i see a link.
sometimes topix freaks out and won't let you put up links to articles. gets frustrating when you're trying to make a point or substantiate a point.
i appreciate the effort on your part, ow.
No problem. I see it posted now. Sometimes links will post and show on my side, but not let anyone else see it. I find this out when I use my phone to check.
Its good to listen to both sides of an issue. Walmart hasn't been a perfect employer by any means. However, I believe this type of issue stems from a society that rewards people more for doing less. We could raise the actual wages in this country to a point that no one would qualify for government benefits. My suspicion is that government would then raise the "safety net" ceiling so more would qualify. Also the cost of goods and services would skyrocket. This would cause the raises to all but disappear. JMO
Sunrise

Hurst, TX

#160 Dec 7, 2012
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
and the thread is about walmart, not GM.
Looking back over posts on this thread, I see that you refuse to make comparisons between Walmart, GM, mom and pop stores, and teachers or to look at employee responsibility or to look at the faults of those businesses which leads me to believe that you have an axe to grind with Walmart.
LOL

Paris, TX

#161 Dec 7, 2012
BBHC wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when they are on assistance. Wal Mart is reimbursed by the government. Up until that point, the benefits are just points on a card, it doesn't turn into cash until the merchant is reimbursed.
I'm not understanding this -- Walmart gets a check from the government to supplement employee pay? What program funds that? Why don't other companies take advantage of the program?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paris Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
David Skeen 48 min Da Truth 9
anybody remember jennifer gray? (Dec '10) 1 hr Just a suggestion 103
Parking Lot across from Chilangos 1 hr Grisham 43
Play Chain Reaction (Oct '09) 1 hr Super_Chick_ 6,984
Republican failure!! 3 hr Grisham 49
Violation of Board Rule with Texas Medical Board 12 hr Grisham 11
Oklahoma wins steel company!!! 22 hr Answer 23

Paris Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Paris Mortgages