I’ve read several articles like this oneabout Walmart collecting food donations for employees recently.
I don’t shop at Walmart because of their history of poor treatment of their employees.
When I read this, it struck me partly as business as usual for Walmart.
But aside from that, I don’t recall ever seeing a charitable donation solicited for the benefit of employees.
Sure, donate canned goods for the needy this Thanksgiving. But for the employees?
When a company as hugely successful as Walmart refuses to pay employees enough to eat, how is that different in principle from slavery?
The level of greed and selfishness expressed by the upper income class in this country today just renders me almost speechless. Sometimes all I can do is just sputter incoherently.
Does anyone else think there is something wrong with this?
First, you ignored the phrase “in principle”. The principle is enjoying the benefits of the labors of others while offering little in the way of compensation.
Second, in my view, this is much different than “passing the hat for Bob”.
So in summary, you don’t find anything wrong with this?
Seriously. Can Walmart sell your children away from you? Then yeah, there’s a pretty goddamn big difference between their shitty treatment of their employees and slavery.
The most important word in this sentence, however, is “a.” Walmart in this case is paying employees so little that many of them are on food stamps. Rather than finding a way to pay them more, they’re asking fellow employees to find money in their own meager wages to help out those who are worst-hit by Walmart’s terrible wages.
That’s a far cry from employees passing the hat to help someone else out under exigent circumstances.
I would have a problem with it if they were soliciting customers. “Passing the hat” among coworkers doesn’t seem so bad, the fact that there shouldn’t be “needy” working people notwithstanding.
You seem to dismiss the entire point–the people working at Walmart shouldn’t be among the needy. And their “passing the hat” behavior extends beyond just the topic of the linked article. It’s estimated the average Walmart employee costs $2,100 in tax subsidies for things like food stamps and health care, as mentioned here. This from a company with average annual profits in the $15 Billion range, and it has an upward trend over the last several years. Let me spell that out for you: Fifteen Billion Dollars Profit.
We’re so used to having big numbers thrown around these days that we’ve lost a sense of scale. Why does a company with this huge level of profit have to skimp on employee wages and benefits, other than pure greed and callousness?
I’m on record as detesting Walmart and all that it stands for.
But I will play Devil’s Advocate. I don’t believe the following, but I still want to hear the argument against it:
Every workplace has employees that are down on their luck. Maybe they have more children than their salaries are capable of supporting in a typical middle-class fashion. Maybe they’ve been dealt a series of unfortunate events, like sudden deaths in the family, natural disasters, or unexpected hospital bills. We’re all familiar with people whose paychecks would be fine under regular circumstances, but for whatever reason, they aren’t living under regular circumstances. No one demands that these folks get paid more just because they may have made poor choices in life. Their need alone doesn’t justify a higher wage, especially since their needs aren’t at all typical.
If the “Associates in Need” are NOT the typical Walmart worker, and they represent the same proportion of “down on their luck” employees you’d find in any other workplace, then there’s no cause for outrage. Sure, Walmart could pay these folks a couple of more bucks an hour, and the number of these needy associates would decline some. But there’s always gonna be that set of people who make poor choices and live beyond their means. Or that unfortunate man or woman who has to take care of two demented elderly parents, a severely mentally handicapped son and his even more handicapped girlfriend, and a whole litter of feral kittens. As long as these people are relatively small in number, then a collective food pantry is not a tragedy.
I think that was already addressed upthread, monstro. This isn’t “pass the hat for Jim”, this is very decidedly plural. This isn’t “an employee just had surgery and has some unexpected medical bills,” this is for people who can’t afford a Thanksgiving dinner. It’s a matter of scope and scale.
I acknowledge that some people are very poor at handling their personal finances and would find themselves in financial difficulty regardless of how much money they make.
There is also no argument against helping someone in genuine need.
The argument is against a company whose business practices produce this very need. I don’t know how many people are targeted by this charitable collection. It may be just a few. I don’t have the numbers.
I didn’t use so many words, but I’m pretty sure what I bolded says the same thing? Was I too succinct?
Maybe the people who set up the collection thought it would be less embarrassing for the people who need it, than to take up specific collections for specific people. I’m still not saying I agree with the fact the situation exists in the first place. It’s why I haven’t set foot in a Walmart since 1992.
I get this. I still wish we had real numbers to chew on.
I mean, if 50% of the employees are signing up for donations, that says a whole lot about the unlivability of their wage. It still says something if even 20% of them sign up. But if it’s 3%? I don’t know what they would communicate. I’d be curious to know which figure is the closest to reality.
I would be curious, as well, but I think I can draw some pretty decent conclusions from the large bins they’re collecting the donations in, as well as the fact that they’re asking for food. They’re not asking for donation for a funeral, or a medical need, or even a new roof. They’re asking for food. Food is something anyone working should be able to afford, sorry. Even if it’s only 3% who need food, that’s 3% too many.
No, you weren’t too succint. I think my reply was too subtle. We are in general agreement.
I was just pointing out where you said: " the fact that there shouldn’t be “needy” working people notwithstanding" seems to dismiss my original concern that there specifically shouldn’t be needy people working at Walmart, because working at Walmart should take care of that particular need (having food to eat at Thanksgiving).
If there are 250 employees in a store, 3% would be about 8 people. These may be 8 people who only work 20 hours a week by choice (perhaps because they’re in school), who perhaps have abnormally large families to support, who may have heavy credit card debt or other major expenses, or maybe they’ve decided to skimp on their food budget so that they can live in a safe but expensive neighborhood. Maybe they normally do well on a frugal diet, but they don’t have enough money to buy a turkey for Thanksgiving since this is an “extra”.
I’m not intending to sound heartless or like I’m defending Walmart (because I’m not!) It’s just that while I can see the sadness in not being able to afford Thanksgiving dinner, I don’t think this alone tells us whether or not a worker is being underpaid. A person like this is certainly broke, but we all know broke people who shouldn’t be.
But I DO take your point about the size and number of the bins. It sure doesn’t seem like they’re expecting a low level of need, and it really is nervy of them to hit up low-paid staff to donate more out of their own pockets than the company’s executives are willing to do.
Yes, we’re agreeing. I was perhaps succinct, but clumsy, constructing that sentence. …notwithstanding the fact there shouldn’t be any “needy” people among those who are working.
“Working poor” shouldn’t be a phrase that exists. It makes no sense, especially in the U.S., and even more especially within an enormous corporation. I support those that profit share as much as possible, though I admit I don’t actively research that many.
There are 4,135 Wal-Mart stores in the United States. The linked articles in this thread point to a food collection drive at one of those stores.
If this issue is getting such traction in social media I would expect photos of food collection bins at other WalMart stores to start popping up. If there are any.
So far this sounds a lot more like “pass the hat for Bob” to me.