[Zipperfish]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Zip, I do know what you are saying. I come from public housing, as in poor background.

But hey, Wal-Mart, it's not a mystery how they make money. I left that minimum wage upbringing.

It is allowed to move on and up you know.

I'm not against a guy making a buck. But there's a lot of problems with this one. One is that Walmart is continuously in trouble for poor working conditions. Second is that the reason that they were taking out policies was because there's a tax benefit on life insurance in the US. The tax benefit was to encourage people to buy life insurance, not so huge corporations could get a tax break.

So it was clearly in Walmart's interest to have their employees die early. It is wrong to create that kind of an incentive for a company. After all, like you said--Walmart just wants to make money, so why create a system where they make money if their employees die young?

[BeaverFever]

faulty logic, proc.

thats like declaring Big Macs must be the most nutritious meal in the world because they are the #1 food purchase.

Truth is that one of the foundations of capitalism is that there will always be more people needing jobs than there will be jobs.

Walmarts size has nothing to do with choice, it has to do with scarity of jobs.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

My favourite Wal-mart story...

Assistant manager works his balls off for the company. He's working, like, 75-90 hours a week--no O/T though, because he's management. Had to moved his family six times over ten years. Works like 40 hours in three days because they're understaffed. Exhausted he helps a customer carry a big TV to her car. Whammo! The big one hits and he dies right there in the parking lot.

Too bad the missus didn't have life insurance. But that's OK--turns out Wal-mart took out a $300,000 life insurance on him. But they kept it all; the wife and kids didn't get a dime.

They took a policy out on him, worked him to death and then collected the policy.

You almost have to admire that kind of ruthlessness.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/P64954.asp

Well it's not the first time I heard this story, but last time I heard he was just one of the workers, and not a manager. I also think it was you who posted the same story, except now with that added change, though I'll have to find it Last time I asked this, and I'll ask it again, who forced him to work 40 hours in three days?

post1560722?hilit=%20Walmart#p1560722

I'm sure we can start the same debate again, but I'd rather just finish what we started on there if we want to start the "Walmart kills its employees" debate.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Well it's not the first time I heard this story, but last time I heard he was just one of the workers, and not a manager. I also think it was you who posted the same story, except now with that added change, though I'll have to find it Last time I asked this, and I'll ask it again, who forced him to work 40 hours in three days?

post1560722?hilit=%20Walmart#p1560722

I'm sure we can start the same debate again, but I'd rather just finish what we started on there if we want to start the "Walmart kills its employees" debate.

I thought we did finish it. For evidence I provided examples of Walmart mistreating its employees. There's a discussion at this wiki page Criticsm of Walmart

Estate of Michael Rice versus Walmart

$1:

As both an assistant manager and manager, Mr. Rice worked long hours routinely expected of the salaried employees. However, Mr. Rice would work as much as 75 hours per week and it would not be unusual for him to work between that and 90 hours per week during holidays. Witness testimony confirmed the fact that the claimant was always at work before 7:00 am and often before 5 am, and would work until after 10 pm.

and

$1:

The evidence supports a finding of a substantial contribution in a form of an incident involving unusual exertion and therefore legal causation of injury to employment.

Incidentally, it was 48 hours in three days he worked, not 40 as I stated above.

You're correct, he could have quit anytime. Apparently he "loved his job." Still, I don't see how I'm supposed to applaud a company that behaves this way. And while I appreciate that companies are in it to make money, I disagree with government incentives (tax breaks) that make it profitable for companies if their employees die young. That creates a perverse incentive for the company--particularly one as bottom-line driven as Walmart.

Still, I imagine our differences are primarily ideological, as opposed to the facts of the case here. I see this as another brick in the wall in the growing gap between the rich and the poor in North America. Death bonds, bank bailouts, dead peasants insurance, white collar corruption, privatization of public resources to monopolies--all that stuff. I'm pretty sure most conservatives here don't see it that way!

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I thought we did finish it. For evidence I provided examples of Walmart mistreating its employees. There's a discussion at this wiki page Criticsm of Walmart

Never denied Walmart has mistreated its employees. But isn't it overzealous managers who abuse the little guys at the cashiers and in the stock room, and with those even higher ups not doing anything to stop it? This assistant manager working himself to death doesn't fit the mold of employers abusing employees, and without knowing how Walmart hiring and firing policy, isn't it usually the store manager the one who hires and fires personnel?

$1:

Incidentally, it was 48 hours in three days he worked, not 40 as I stated above.

Interesting, but it shows the guy's poor judgment of his health over anything else.

$1:

You're correct, he could have quit anytime.

Oh no, it's even better. Since he's a manager and assistant manager (aka, there's nobody gunning for his job, being both) he could of just went home and gone to bed without any real fear of getting fired. Because of his love of his job, or whatever other circumstances of that guy's life was (who knows, maybe he just liked the swivel chair in his office, I have no idea) he stayed at work for seemingly long hours, without bothering to employ an assistant manager to work in his place.

$1:

Apparently he "loved his job." Still, I don't see how I'm supposed to applaud a company that behaves this way.

But what did the company do, in this specific case, that killed the manager/assistant manager? If the regional office in the area did not hire an assistant manager to assist the guy who died for purely financial reasons, then yes, they might be liable. If the manager didn't hire an assistant manager, he made the mistake. At worst, Walmart needs to watch its managers more (like those who abused their employees). Right now, even with the summary you provided doesn't give enough information, at least I think, that provides a link between Walmart and the man's death, outside of the fact he was a manager of one of their stores. Maybe they're just concealing the evidence because it's a legal case. I dunno.

$1:

And while I appreciate that companies are in it to make money, I disagree with government incentives (tax breaks) that make it profitable for companies if their employees die young. That creates a perverse incentive for the company--particularly one as bottom-line driven as Walmart.

Sure, so take it up with the government, instead of the corporations that use the system as is. Also, as I stated, the incentive that is in existence just doesn't seem realistic. If an employer compromises safety standards or abuses its employees, it'll be sued and lose any monetary gain it might receive, and then some, and no insurance company would cover said situation, because they're still in it to make money, no?

$1:

Still, I imagine our differences are primarily ideological, as opposed to the facts of the case here. I see this as another brick in the wall in the growing gap between the rich and the poor in North America. Death bonds, bank bailouts, dead peasants insurance, white collar corruption, privatization of public resources to monopolies--all that stuff. I'm pretty sure most conservatives here don't see it that way!

And I see this as a company not being legislated to keep a store open, if they don't want it open. As in, the facts of this legal case.

[EyeBrock]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

I'm not talking about anything.

I got a question - Do you hate everyone not enrolled in the military? Did you rant agaisnt your teachers, cashiers, hockey players, doctors, reporters, and anyone else unfortunate enough to hear you bitch?

No, just immature plonkers who sit in their basement and wrap themselves in a flag that they have no knowledge of.

[Curtman]

Proculation Proculation:

If it was sooo bad, Wal-Mart would not be the #1 employer in the world.

If it was sooo bad, China would not be the #1 exporter in the world.

I hope that seems silly now.

[EyeBrock]

Ah but quality products are only made in the free world. That oppression seems to come with poor quality control, despite the commissars death threats.

[OldChum]

Curtman Curtman:

Proculation Proculation:

If it was sooo bad, Wal-Mart would not be the #1 employer in the world.

If it was sooo bad, China would not be the #1 exporter in the world.

I hope that seems silly now.

And Walmart led the charge there to get it made cheaper at the expense of American jobs look at that Rubbermaid plant in the US . They built it to keep up with the Walmart Orders and Walmart wanted some product for less then cost to make, could not get it went to China and the plant closed or drastically scaled down operations

[ASLplease]

Please dont get me wrong. I support the supreme court decision, a company should not be forced to stay open.

However, I still feel like Walmart acted cowardly. The area has many large stores that are unionized, closing down the walmart indicates that they did not want to compete on a level playing field.

Why is that? Are they not confident of their 'fairness' and 'benevolence'?

[EyeBrock]

Again, oldchum, these are market forces. Businesses are not social services. People will always look for the best deal and the average person will not pay more because a product is locally made.
Personally I see most Chinese made items as crap. I'm sure I have stuff with Chinese components in but my car, camera gear, lap top are all made in places other than China.
Not because I'm averse to Chinese products, they just don't seem to make quality items. I would never consider buying a Chinese lens or tripod.

[Public_Domain]

[EyeBrock]

Nice sig, sums you up rather well. Concise too.

[Public_Domain]

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Never denied Walmart has mistreated its employees.

So then why do you take such an issue whne theya re called on it then? Is it because you think they should be able to mistreat them?

$1:

But isn't it overzealous managers who abuse the little guys at the cashiers and in the stock room, and with those even higher ups not doing anything to stop it? This assistant manager working himself to death doesn't fit the mold of employers abusing employees, and without knowing how Walmart hiring and firing policy, isn't it usually the store manager the one who hires and fires personnel?

I wouldn't classify an assistant manager at WalMart as a higher up. Actually, since they're the first-tier of salaried workers, they often get the brunt of it.

$1:

Sure, so take it up with the government, instead of the corporations that use the system as is. Also, as I stated, the incentive that is in existence just doesn't seem realistic. If an employer compromises safety standards or abuses its employees, it'll be sued and lose any monetary gain it might receive, and then some, and no insurance company would cover said situation, because they're still in it to make money, no?

Well, this is in the US, so I doubt I'd get much traction taking it up with them. I don't shop at Walmart anyways. If such a government policy existed here, I'd fight it. Getting sued does not mean that you lose any monetary gains you might have won. For instance, many companies will happily pay lawsuits and fines for pollution as a cost of doing business, because it is still profitable for them to pollute.