Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>true, but there is no concern about OT pay coming into play due to consecutive hours worked - or total hours worked - if breaks are not taken. As a salaried employee you know our jobs are to get the job done - basically regardless of how long it takes..<<< That does not make it right. Big business has been taking advantage of salaried workers for years. It came about because people wanted to have some security when it came to their weekly pay. They were willing to give up a few hours of their lives for stability. When in many cases the hourly workers are doing better financially then the salaried workers, that is when the concept of "title" comes in. We won't pay you for your extra time and dedication so we'll make you director of something. Oh, there is evil everywhere if one is willing to look for it.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Who's LaBuda? You should know better than that, DVCDad. >>> Sorry! My Bad.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<And your use of a name with the connotation of a southern rube is just a tad elitist, don't you think?>>> No, I was born, raised, and live in the Deep South. I don't take offense to this post at all. But here is why... I know a guy named Cletus, not Cletis, but I think it counts...and guess where he works? I'll let the University Academics finish my true to life punch line here. Signed, Southern Redneck
Originally Posted By DVC_dad ^ ^ ^ Oh wait I get it. Shame on me! I have too much PRIDE to lower my personal standards and shop at a sub-par Walmart with filthy restrooms, when I can get products that cost more, and are of better quality, AND not enter in fear of my life after dark at Target. Oh no! I'm an ELITIST!!! I am a Target Elitist!!! Whatever shall I do? Lets face it. Walmart sells for less, they control the companies that supply them, they move on to build bigger stores leaving an empty nasty building to rot, they build new stores on both sides of Target so that you have to drive past a Walmart to get to Target, and shopping with 6 kids, I have to hit the restroom at least once on a 45 minutes trip, so unclean restrooms are unacceptable. They employ skeleton crew employees and if you need help with something you have to hunt for someone, except in the electronics section...interesting reason for that...I will not insult the employees of Walmart, I think they are generally good people who want a job. I'm not an elitist, but I will pay 50 cents more for a taoster at a store with clean restrooms, plenty of floor employees, and for whatever reason...where I feel safe. I'm not saying you are wrong if you shop at Walmart. I am only saying that I am not wrong by choosing to shop elsewhere. And I have the right to say that I think that Michael Eisner would NEVER EVER allow Disney to associate itself with Walmart in any way shape or form, and that the VAST majority of Walmart emloyees can't even afford to bring their kids to Disney for even a weekend. There is something very wrong being exposed in that last statement there. Think about it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I will grant you that Target stores are typically far more attractive than Wal-Mart stores, but don't go thinking they treat their employees any better than Wal-Mart because they don't. <<NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - With a red bull's eye as its logo, it may be surprising that Wal-Mart's main rival isn't an easy Target for naysayers. Somehow, Target, the Minneapolis-based retailer, has managed to fly under the radar of labor unions and community activists even though it shares some of the same attributes that irk opponents of its much larger rival. Wal-Mart (Research) is a non-union company, for one thing. But so is Target (Research). Community activists call Wal-Mart's big-box, over 100,000 square feet "Supercenter" formats, an "eye sore." Well, Target, the No. 2 discounter after Wal-Mart, has its own fleet of "Super Targets." Wal-Mart's expanding into more urban neighborhoods. So is Target. Finally, Wal-Mart's critics lambaste the retailer's pay and health benefits policies, alleging that the retailer doesn't adequately pay or provide medical coverage for its non-managerial employees. Oddly, these same critics confess that they can't prove Target's wage and benefits are significantly better. And Wal-Mart maintains that its wage and benefits are comparable to Target. "We think that Target and Wal-Mart are both guilty of wage suppression," said Bernie Hess, the union organizer with the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 789 chapter in St. Paul, Minn. Hess has been spearheading efforts to unionize a Target store in the West St. Paul area. Union members have been distributing leaflets to residents and local business that claim Target shortchanges employees. The St. Paul union office estimates that Target's hourly employees typically make around $6.75 to $7.25 and that less than half the company's workers are covered by its health insurance plan.>> Source: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/20/news/fortune500/target_walmart/index.htm" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/2 0/news/fortune500/target_walmart/index.htm</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy On a national level, pay and benefits for Target employees are lower than those of Wal-Mart employees. The UFCW will never admit that publicly via their spokesmen because they are using an us vs. them approach to energize their union's membership. It's easier to do that with just one villain rather than characterizing the entire industry in the same light.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Find me a lawsuit where Target wasusing illegal aliens... and then severely underpaying them because they knew they had no recourse WalMart has had more than one of those already settled....
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040826/news_1n26target1.html" target="_blank">http://www.signonsandiego.com/ uniontrib/20040826/news_1n26target1.html</a> Visit the link above. The exact same circumstances as the high profile Wal-Mart case. The only difference -- the government went after the contractor instead of Target. I wonder how much money in political contributions Target paid to have the investigators look somewhere else to cast the blame?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 now you know better than that, a company does not have control over it's contractors and who they employ - that duplicity would lead to major HR issues...unless they knew the contractors were breaking the law.. hence the WalMart case: "Officials said at the time of the raids the investigation involved wiretaps that revealed Wal-Mart executives were aware that the subcontractors used illegal workers. Once the raid began, Wal-Mart told its executives to preserve documents. Federal agents didn't wait and moved into part of the company's Bentonville headquarters, taking boxes from the office of a mid-level executive. " slight difference ? <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/18/national/main681593.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2005/03/18/national/main681593.shtml</a> As for paying people -- WalMart is the 2nd largest contributor to politcal campaigns behind GM-- so I think there is no shortage of money going out so people look the other way from them.. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2004-02-02-walmart_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/money/ industries/retail/2004-02-02-walmart_x.htm</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << As for paying people -- WalMart is the 2nd largest contributor to politcal campaigns behind GM-- so I think there is no shortage of money going out so people look the other way from them.. >> That didn't used to be the case. The politicians took notice 15 years ago that Wal-Mart wasn't contributing much to politcal campaigns and lobbyists. As they usually do in these cases, the politicians initiated the standard extortion tactics through manipulation of federal investigative processes. It's pretty standard practice in Washington to scrutinize the political outlays of Fortune 500 companies and punish those that aren't contributing accordingly. Sam Walton wouldn't agree with wasting company money on political and lobbying expenses, but it's pretty much a cost of business these days.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Not to defend WalMart or Target, but my daughter was manager (salaried) for a national shoe store. Corporate wouldn't give her enough payroll to have a decent staff, so she was working 7 days a week, and 60-80 hours every week. No wonder she got pregnant, it was her only way out.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I have a theory... In a couple decades, maybe sooner, this country will come very close to having only 2 classes of people. Think about this. The two classes will be: Teir 1: Thos who have jobs that cannot be offshored, but are skilled in some fashion... Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Senior Executives Teir 2: Those who go to work to do jobs that ANYONE can do with no education whatsoever. You know the jobs. This will come about because of US. You and me, because we don't care what it takes to get us the lowest price possible for a toaster. We cannot say "no" to the mega-merchant discount stores and buy something made in America. Watch and see, it's already happening. The
Originally Posted By MPierce ^^^That is so very true! Glad to see you, and your wife are safe Trippy. I hope all of your friends made it home OK yesterday. What a tragedy there for the Twin Cities.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 DVC Dad, I did my final for my Phd in Management in 1994 on this exact topic - add in the fact that the 2nd tier of people will have no: benefits / pensions / insurance and will basically work their entire life.. there will be no retirement. Most of these workers will be kept to less than 40 hour weeks ( in some cases < 25 hours ) to ensure whatever protectionary laws still left on the books will not cover them. Of course these will be for the jobs that cannot be offshored - and although I failed to see the extreme extent that has gone to ( I focused on China at the time because this was the era of IT movement to China) -however and impact of low cost countries like Brazil and India and Malaysia. At that time it was mainly IT and call centers - and the main movement of the call centers had gone to Canada and Ireland The last bastion of 'real jobs' outside of professions was the public sector...a kind of wild card as the feds will not outsource any jobs ( at least today ) - I thought my thesis may have been overly dramatic at the time, today it looks tame
Originally Posted By TP2000 So if this golf tourny had been sponsored by Target, would that be okay? Does Target get a free pass for selling really cheap toasters because they only have 1,100 stores in North America and aren't quite as big as Wal-Mart? What about Sears? Or JCPenney? Or KMart? Or Smart&Final? Or Frys? Is this controversy over any store that employs more than 15 people or has more than three locations to do its business of selling toasters? Or is this purely a Wal-Mart thing just because it's easiest to pick on Wal-Mart for selling cheap toasters? Just wonderin' if we are only talking about Wal-Mart, or any other private enterprise in America that is selling cheap toasters.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 unless you are not reading - this is not about the sales price, never has been, it is about their law breaking HR practices as well as predatory nature.
Originally Posted By TP2000 So just Wal-Mart, right? We aren't going to worry about the kid slaving away on the loading dock of Target without health insurance?
