Wal-Mart’s newest big lie: Another misleading ad campaign from a job-killing behemoth

[RhettVoe 282]

By paying their employees a nickel above minimum wage, the employees often qualify for some sort of state benefits, thus shifting the cost of their health insurance to the tax payers of that state, while WalMart keeps the cash.

Their new slogan should be: "At Walmart, we keep the profits and pass the prices on to you!"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So how many people do you employee ?

Probably fewer than that corner grocery store you spoke of the other day.

By paying their employees a nickel above minimum wage, the employees often qualify for some sort of state benefits, thus shifting the cost of their health insurance to the tax payers of that state, while WalMart keeps the cash.

Their new slogan should be: "At Walmart, we keep the profits and pass the prices on to you!"

Corporate welfare is awesome, isn't it?

[Karee 4,191]

By paying their employees a nickel above minimum wage, the employees often qualify for some sort of state benefits, thus shifting the cost of their health insurance to the tax payers of that state, while WalMart keeps the cash.

Their new slogan should be: "At Walmart, we keep the profits and pass the prices on to you!"

I'm still wondering what law they are breaking by doing that? They're a business. Their purpose is to turn a profit. Don't like it? Don't work or shop there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They aren't breaking the law but again is a question of business ethics. Once again, capitalism is not 'by any means necessary'.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I'm still wondering what law they are breaking by doing that? They're a business. Their purpose is to turn a profit. Don't like it? Don't work or shop there.

What? Do you think the law is perfect and there will never be any need to change it?

You don't see anything wrong in this scenario? It's basically a legal loophole to be a tax cheat.

[Karee 4,191]

What? Do you think the law is perfect and there will never be any need to change it?

You don't see anything wrong in this scenario? It's basically a legal loophole to be a tax cheat.

What do you mean "What?" I was speaking English after all. Have a problem with legal loopholes? Take up with the folks that make the law. As far as I can tell Walmart is not breaking any laws.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Karee

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Yeah, people do want to take it up with the people that make the laws. I thought this thread was discussing what was wrong with it. Still laughing at the "legal=good, illegal=bad" argument you threw out.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As far as I can tell Walmart is not breaking any laws.

Yes and no. Because Walmart is so big and has deep pockets, they are usually a litigant in dozens if not hundreds of labor actions every year. So, Walmart in its own way is helping to shape the law, as the go to litigant for so many "clarifications" of what the law actually means, as the cases work their way through the various administrative boards, and of course, the state and federal courts.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Probably fewer than that corner grocery store you spoke of the other day.

It's clear that will never be spoken of again. That family-owned local grocery store that employs over 1000 people will only live on in our dreams.

[Karee 4,191]

Yeah, people do want to take it up with the people that make the laws. I thought this thread was discussing what was wrong with it. Still laughing at the "legal=good, illegal=bad" argument you threw out.

Wow! You're reading comprehension sucks. "legal=good, illegal=bad" Not sure where I said that. My point... again... since you didn't get it the first 2 times, is that Walmart is operating within the law. It would seem to me the way to change how they operate is to either:

a. Hit them in the wallet by not shopping there

b. Get the laws changed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's clear that will never be spoken of again. That family-owned local grocery store that employs over 1000 people will only live on in our dreams.

I don't know. We have some rather large family owned chains that have stores only locally, and a few others owned by consortiums of local families, so perhaps one or two are approaching that number of employees. So, I guess that depends whether local means within a neighborhood, county, or metropolitan area.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Once again the issue is clearly business ethics. What is legal isn't always ethical.

[Karee 4,191]

Yes and no. Because Walmart is so big and has deep pockets, they are usually a litigant in dozens if not hundreds of labor actions every year. So, Walmart in its own way is helping to shape the law, as the go to litigant for so many "clarifications" of what the law actually means, as the cases work their way through the various administrative boards, and of course, the state and federal courts.

So then the penalties for breaking whatever laws they may be breaking need be increased. Again, either the govt. isn't enforcing the laws that are there, or the laws aren't strong enough. Not really Walmart's fault.

As I've stated about 50 times, I'm no fan of Walmart, but for folks here to pi$$ and moan about a company that appears to operating within the law is misplaced outrage IMO. Take it up with the people writing the laws, or stop shopping there.

That said, I think changing the laws may have some unintended consequences. Hard to say.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I don't know. We have some rather large family owned chains that have stores only locally, and a few others owned by consortiums of local families, so perhaps one or two are approaching that number of employees. So, I guess that depends whether local means within a neighborhood, county, or metropolitan area.

I don't know of a family owned store that could possibly employ 1000 people.

I don't even think a Walmart would have 1000 employees. That's a LOT of people.

We're not talking about employees being spread out over a few locations either. Lostinblue told us of ONE store near him, family owned, that employed that many people. It's silly.

[Karee 4,191]

Once again the issue is clearly business ethics. What is legal isn't always ethical.

No doubt.