Walmart hiring policy change.....

[Laize]

I'm pretty sure Walmart doesn't want to hire part-time/temporary only, otherwise they would've done it pre-Obamacare, right?
But their hand was "forced" because of changes in healthcare law.

Oh, and about the veteran thing, you do realize that's just a marketing gimmick right?

Whether or not it's a marketing gimmick is immaterial to the fact that they provide our veterans and retired military personnel with gainful employment and benefits.

[Deleted]

you're saying it wasn't walmart that changed their hiring policy, but it was obama?
wow.

Changes in law have predictable consequences in business. So yes, to a significant extent Obamacare is to blame for this.

[Rocko9]

Whether or not it's a marketing gimmick is immaterial to the fact that they provide our veterans and retired military personnel with gainful employment and benefits.

So go work at Target instead? No one forces you to work at Wal-Fart

[Deleted]

Whether or not it's a marketing gimmick is immaterial to the fact that they provide our veterans and retired military personnel with gainful employment and benefits.

Sure. But in reality Walmart isn't the one providing the value, it's the general public. If the general public didn't care about the veterans, neither would Walmart.

That said, modern veterans don't really sacrifice as much as those decades ago, and I don't really get the "nothing but the best treatment" veterans are apparently entitled to. I mean, if you expect lots of special treatment surely it no longer is a sacrifice, but rather a calculated trade-off?

I personally don't have even close to the same respect for those Finnish soldiers who serve in Afghanistan as those who are still alive from WWII. But I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

[Grym]

I will attack businesses because it is their choice to do so. They're refusing to aid in social equality and make America a better place. Hell, the American government is far, far too soft on big businesses.

Last time I check when people set up a business they do that to maximise profit not to aid the social equality and make US a better place. Sure there are some people that think like that, but if you expect everyone to think like that then you need your head checked.

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 04:39 PM ----------

Perhaps we were expecting that corporations wouldn't act like TODDLERS? Make no mistake, this is not a change Walmart needed to make so they could stay in business, it was a change they made because they could.

If your whole business objective is "stay in business", then you are using a very unique model that non of the big companies are using.

The correct model to use is: "if a cost can be cut, cut it"

That is not acting like toddlers, that is called earning money, maximising profit, pleasing the shareholders hence a bigger bonus.

[Tokru]

I honestly think retired military (especially veterans) deserve jobs over any civvie. That includes myself. These people cut us a blank check for everything about them up to and including their lives. They deserve nothing but the best treatment available when they come home.

Starship troopers is a film you should watch.

[Laize]

So go work at Target instead? No one forces you to work at Wal-Fart

I'm self-employed... I don't need to work at Wal-mart... and I'm supporting their hiring decisions provided every prospective employee is informed of the situation.

What have I said, exactly, that you're arguing against?

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 04:54 PM ----------

Sure. But in reality Walmart isn't the one providing the value, it's the general public. If the general public didn't care about the veterans, neither would Walmart.

Again, the end result is all that matters; and I approve.

That said, modern veterans don't really sacrifice as much as those decades ago, and I don't really get the "nothing but the best treatment" veterans are apparently entitled to. I mean, if you expect lots of special treatment surely it no longer is a sacrifice, but rather a calculated trade-off?

And AGAIN, the reasons behind what someone does are rarely relevant to what they actually do. MANY people join the military for the benefits granted them. That doesn't mean they don't still risk life and limb to serve our country.

I personally don't have even close to the same respect for those Finnish soldiers who serve in Afghanistan as those who are still alive from WWII. But I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

I view American military hegemony as a necessary evil. The United States holding the lion's share of world power is far more beneficial to the free world than if some other super power (Such as the Soviet Union or, potentially, China if we step back). The United States isn't a benevolent hegemon by any stretch of the imagination... but we're far better than anything the world has experienced in the past (The Khans, Alexander the Great, the Ottomans, Spain, the British Empire... the list goes on.).

To that end, while I rarely agree with the actions taken by our executive office or the military brass, I highly value what our soldiers do and the risks they've taken on to ensure our interests are secure.

[Rocko9]

Wal-Mart is a private company, if people don't like who they give incentive to for hiring or who they decide to buy from and sell to, I would recommend not working there or buying from them. Don't see why this has to made into a big stink.

I'm self-employed... I don't need to work at Wal-mart... and I'm supporting their hiring decisions provided every prospective employee is informed of the situation.

What have I said, exactly, that you're arguing against?

Yeah, I miss-read it. Saw it as you didn't like Wal-Mart, just read it fast and didn't read the page before ><

[Kraenen]

Changes in law have predictable consequences in business. So yes, to a significant extent Obamacare is to blame for this.

so you really think obama changed business rather than business itself?

[Laize]

Yeah, I miss-read it. Saw it as you didn't like Wal-Mart, just read it fast and didn't read the page before ><

I don't like Walmart. In my early 20s I worked for them and felt they treated me like shit. That's why I quit and don't shop there.

That doesn't mean I think they should be forced to change.

[Deleted]

Why is the American workforce putting up with this? Because of freedom? The freedom of big corporations to fuck the little man in the name of the holy god of kapitalism and profit?

If this happened over here, massive strikes would follow. And not just by walmart employees, people working in the same branch would strike aswell because of solidarity and socialism, because you know: together we are strong.

[Deleted]

I view American military hegemony as a necessary evil. The United States holding the lion's share of world power is far more beneficial to the free world than if some other super power (Such as the Soviet Union or, potentially, China if we step back). The United States isn't a benevolent hegemon by any stretch of the imagination... but we're far better than anything the world has experienced in the past (The Khans, Alexander the Great, the Ottomans, Spain, the British Empire... the list goes on.).

To that end, while I rarely agree with the actions taken by our executive office or the military brass, I highly value what our soldiers do and the risks they've taken on to ensure our interests are secure.

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I don't hold the average soldier responsible for US foreign policy lol. It's just that serving today "isn't as bad" as it was 60 years ago.

I certainly don't think that a person's military service should have any influence on their employment opportunity, apart from the skills you've learned in the military. I do think the government is partly responsible for making sure soldiers can return to normal society once their deployment is over.

[Laize]

Why is the American workforce putting up with this? Because of freedom? The freedom of big corporations to fuck the little man in the name of the holy god of kapitalism and profit?

Yes... freedom. The freedom to do what you want as long as all-involved are informed of the ups and downs of an agreement. It's only when people are left in the dark as to their potential situations that things become unconscionable.

If this happened over here, massive strikes would follow. And not just by walmart employees, people working in the same branch would strike aswell because of solidarity and socialism, because you know: together we are strong.

Isn't that why the cost of living and taxes are so high in Europe? The American people don't approve of high taxes unless it's on someone else (Because everything is okay as long as it's happening to someone else). Nor do we approve of forcing people to behave a certain way.

As said before, everything is acceptable as long as all involved are properly informed.

[Deleted]

so you really think obama changed business rather than business itself?

Obama (and the Congress) changed the business environment, Walmart reacted in a predictable way to protect its shareholders.

If you drop a big rock in the middle of an ant trail, whose fault is it that the ant trail now goes around the rock? Your's or the ants'?

[Laize]

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I don't hold the average soldier responsible for US foreign policy lol. It's just that serving today "isn't as bad" as it was 60 years ago.

This is true, to be sure. That doesn't mean there aren't still risks. We still have soldiers coming home traumatized, disfigured or in caskets. They definitely deserve a leg up from the American people.

I certainly don't think that a person's military service should have any influence on their employment opportunity, apart from the skills you've learned in the military. I do think the government is partly responsible for making sure soldiers can return to normal society once their deployment is over.

I don't think there should be laws supporting their employability... but I do think private individuals and institutions should offer veterans preferential status over non-veteran individuals. It should be a social obligation (akin to feeling obligated to help family and friends when they're down on their luck) rather than a legal (compulsory) one.

If someone specifically doesn't want to hire veterans (or any class of people... black, women, foreigners, etc) I think they should have the ability to do so. I would find that institution or person perfectly abhorrant and would avoid business with them but that doesn't mean I would force change on them.

[Deleted]

I don't think there should be laws supporting their employability... but I do think private individuals and institutions should offer veterans preferential status over non-veteran individuals. It should be a social obligation (akin to feeling obligated to help family and friends when they're down on their luck) rather than a legal (compulsory) one.

Well, you feel one way, I feel another. I guess that's the beauty of social sanctions instead of government force.

[Laize]

Well, you feel one way, I feel another. I guess that's the beauty of social sanctions instead of government force.

Quite.

I think social sanctions are a more effective form of getting things done anyway. Let's be serious. How successful have laws against drugs been at curbing drug use? Compare that to how widespread drug use is in communities (middle and upper class) that shun drugs and those who use them.

And that's just one example.

[Spectral]

God this company makes me sick

It makes a lot more sense to be angry at a government that puts policies in place that encourage companies to take immoral policies; in doing so, the government creates a moral hazard. That's quite plainly bad policy. Being mad at companies for taking actions that increase their profits is the equivalent of being angry at wolves for eating sheep.

[slime]

This does bother me, I was always a fan of Walmart - because you know good deals... but I just didn't understand at what cost they came. Also people that make millions for a year or two, don't pay taxes over those years - then go broke and cut a deal with the IRS to pay like 5% of what they owed in taxes over those years they made millions.

[This name sucks]

It makes a lot more sense to be angry at a government that puts policies in place that encourage companies to take immoral policies; in doing so, the government creates a moral hazard. That's quite plainly bad policy. Being mad at companies for taking actions that increase their profits is the equivalent of being angry at wolves for eating sheep.

Doing shit like this constantly is extremely bad PR. Which (I hope at least) might end up causing them to lose more money than they make. Pissing off the world is a good way not to get customers.