WalMart Employees aren't properly compensated?

2»

Comments

  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart- ... d=11067470


    By Ed Smith's math, the CEO of Walmart earns more in
    an hour than his employees will earn in a year.

    Smith, an alderman in Chicago, presented posters at a
    city council meeting showing that Walmart CEO
    Michael Duke's $35 million salary, when converted to
    an hourly wage, worked out to $16,826.92. By
    comparison, at a Walmart store planned for the Windy
    City's Pullman neighborhood, new employees to be
    paid $8.75 an hour would gross $13,650 a year.

    Smith's numbers could be a bit off. Equilar, an
    executive compensation research firm, calculates that
    Duke earned just south of $20 million in 2009 and
    $28 million in 2008, not counting millions of dollars
    in potential performance awards. But the alderman
    argued that there's still a "sad" contrast between
    Duke's compensation and the wages of his
    employees.

    "How can you go to bed at night and sleep knowing
    you make this kind of money and the people working f
    or you can hardly buy a package of beans and rice?"
    he asked in an interview with ABCNews.com.

    Walmart, meanwhile, said that its wages across the
    country are competitive in local markets and that on
    average, hourly employee pay -- which includes more
    experienced workers but not managers -- ranges
    from $10 to more than $12.

    The retail giant made no apologies for Duke's salary.

    "I don't think Mike Duke needs, as the CEO of a
    Fortune 1 company, needs me to defend his
    compensation package," said Walmart director of
    community affairs Steven Restivo, referring to
    Walmart's status as the largest company on the planet.

    The debate over Walmart wages has been a thorny
    local issue in Chicago, where city aldermen on
    Wednesday reluctantly approved plans for a new
    Walmart store. It also speaks to continued concerns
    nationwide over the pay gap between top executives
    and their rank-and-file employees.

    A study last fall by the Institute for Policy Studies, a
    liberal Washington D.C. research group, found that
    CEOs in the country's S&P 500 companies make, on

    average, 319 times more than the average American
    worker.

    IPS associate fellow Sam Pizzigati said that in the
    1970s, that ratio was 30 to 1.

    "We've seen, over the past three decades, a tenfold-
    plus increase in the gap between top executives and
    average American workers," Pizzigati said. "That
    Chicago alderman is putting his finger on a very real
    problem in American economic life."


    Why the Pay Gap Has Grown


    Pizzigati said the reasons for the yawning gap are
    two-fold. Declining top-bracket tax rates over the last
    half-century, he said, took away a strong disincentive
    for company boards to keep a lid on CEO pay.

    The top marginal tax rate, he said, dropped from 91
    percent in the 1960s to 28 percent in 1980s. It
    stands at 35 percent today.

    "If you look at historical record, executive pay really
    started exploding in early 1980s," he said. "That's
    when the top rate started precipitously falling."

    On the worker side, Pizzigati said, wages have been
    advertisement
    Walmart CEO Pay: More in an Hour Than Workers Get All Year?

    hurt by the declining power of U.S. organized labor.
    When it represented more than one-third of the
    American workforce, unions could influence wages --
    and force them higher -- throughout the labor
    market. With just seven percent of Americans
    represented by unions today, Pizzigati said, that's no
    longer the case.

    Paul Hodgson, a senior research associate at the
    executive compensation watchdog group The
    Corporate Library, attributed the gap to another
    factor: the use of stock awards in CEO pay.
    Notwithstanding the recent financial crisis, stocks
    have seen tremendous gains since the 1980s and
    that, he said, has been reflected in CEO
    compensation.

    As a result, he said, "CEO pay has been growing
    exponentially while everyone else's wages have been
    growing arithmetically."

    Companies that shell out blockbuster salaries and
    benefits maintain that high compensation is
    necessary to attract the best talent to top positions.

    In Chicago, in recent years the compensation issue
    has centered largely on so-called big box stores like
    Walmart. In 2006, the city's mayor vetoed a resolution
    by the city council to raise minimum hourly pay by
    giant retailers in the city to $10 plus $3 worth of
    benefits.


    Chicago Labor Leaders Wanted
    Higher Pay at Walmart


    This week's approval of the new Walmart store came
    despite demands by labor organizers that Walmart, a
    non-union company, should pay at least $11 an hour
    to new employees. Walmart countered that the $8.75 i
    t plans to pay -- which is 50 cents above Chicago's
    minimum wage -- is more than the starting hourly
    wages of unionized grocery store workers in the area.

    An organizer for Local 881 United Food and
    Commercial Workers declined to comment on wages
    for union members, citing ongoing contract
    negotiations, but said that, overall, members receive
    better health insurance and retirement benefits than
    Walmart employees. (In its defense, Walmart said its
    health insurance plans offer "a wide range of options"
    and trumpeted its 401k and profit sharing plans.)

    Smith said he ultimately decided to join his fellow
    aldermen in unanimously voting to allow the Pullman
    store because of the jobs the store is expected to
    create and its addition to the city's tax base.


    He, too, would have liked to see the retailer pay at
    least $11 an hour to new employees, but added that
    he's glad Walmart's $8.75 starting pay is above
    minimum wage.

    "As Kenny Rogers says, 'You gotta know when to hold
    them and know when to fold 'em,'" Smith said. "So
    that's what we did."

    advertisement
  • MoonTurtleMoonTurtle Posts: 752
    I've never been to wal-mart, costco, ran out of bj's, did buy lots of pillows in target a few years back and stll have guilt when I use them, ran out of ikea.


    wal mart has not gotten a single dollar from me in 11 years.

    i am proud to say that.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    know1 wrote:
    I like Wal-Mart. I shop there often. I buy electronics, clothes, groceries, sporting goods and lawn and garden stuff. It's convenient, cheap and they will AlWAYS take something back if you have a receipt.

    I also don't understand only buying goods made in America. I think there are a lot of countries and people around the world who likely NEED money worse than America does. I think people are people....who cares where they are located?



    Ever hear the saying, "be careful what you buy, the next job you save might be your own"?
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    unsung wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    I like Wal-Mart. I shop there often. I buy electronics, clothes, groceries, sporting goods and lawn and garden stuff. It's convenient, cheap and they will AlWAYS take something back if you have a receipt.

    I also don't understand only buying goods made in America. I think there are a lot of countries and people around the world who likely NEED money worse than America does. I think people are people....who cares where they are located?



    Ever hear the saying, "be careful what you buy, the next job you save might be your own"?
    i have heard that, but i don't see how that applies, especially in this day and age because we do not actually manufacture much of anything in this country anymore. the manufacturing base has been exported to where labor is actually cheeper than it is here.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    unsung wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    I like Wal-Mart. I shop there often. I buy electronics, clothes, groceries, sporting goods and lawn and garden stuff. It's convenient, cheap and they will AlWAYS take something back if you have a receipt.

    I also don't understand only buying goods made in America. I think there are a lot of countries and people around the world who likely NEED money worse than America does. I think people are people....who cares where they are located?



    Ever hear the saying, "be careful what you buy, the next job you save might be your own"?


    I'm not going to shop or make purchase decisions based upon fear.

    I buy what I want to buy and pay what I'm willing to pay....which is usually on the cheaper end of the scale.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,522
    EmBleve wrote:
    such jobs are actually overpaid through government intervention and company benevolence (yes, I said that).
    Edson, do you think that walmart employees are overpaid???

    No. Please read the thread. Thank you.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,522
    redrock wrote:
    Does WalMart not pay minimum wage or what they legally have to pay? Is WalMart worse than say, McDonalds or any other supermarket? I don't live in the US so I don't know. If they do pay what they legally need to pay, is this not an issue with the Government to raise this minimum wage?

    I'm just trying to see where WalMart fits amongst other similar employers.

    Yes, they must pay at least minimum wage. The biggest issue (aside from the CEO vs. employee salary discussion) is benefits. They have also had a few "mis-steps" in the way they've handled some employment issues.

    As for raising the minimum wage - that actually might prove to be detrimental. If companies are forced to pay higher wages, they will scale back benefits and/or just simply higher fewer people. Or, worse yet, what someone else already mentioned - move all the jobs over seas (and simply eliminate everyone).
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    brandon10 wrote:
    Sorry you live in such a shitty town. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
    So am I.
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    EmBleve wrote:
    such jobs are actually overpaid through government intervention and company benevolence (yes, I said that).
    Edson, do you think that walmart employees are overpaid???

    No. Please read the thread. Thank you.
    I did. I just didn't know what you meant by that quote.
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    Yes, they must pay at least minimum wage. The biggest issue (aside from the CEO vs. employee salary discussion) is benefits. They have also had a few "mis-steps" in the way they've handled some employment issues.

    Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, benefits and working conditions were never a forte of the US (compared to most European countries, for example). I worked in the US many years ago after working in Belgium & France and I thought to myself 'never again'! Seems to me things have not changed that much.

    Vicious circle though... low pay, little spending power, less profit for companies and less profit = less investment or cutbacks and we are back to low pay......

    CEO vs. employee salary is everywhere....
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    I don't have problems buying stuff at walmart. Most of the stuff I buy there is the same stuff I would buy if I bought it at the grocery store or somewhere else. I mean the Wii games they sell are the same Wii games. The greeting cards are the same, the Special K is the same, the Purex is the same and the Armor All is the same. Do people think there is someone in the back of a Walmart store watering down bottles of Windex so that they can sell it for cheaper?
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    whygohome wrote:
    By Ed Smith's math, the CEO of Walmart earns more in
    an hour than his employees will earn in a year.

    I don't really have a problem with this, for a few reasons. First off how many hours a week does the average Walmart employee work per week? I would bet it would be less than 20. I have seen a few news specials and documentaries on CEO and I wouldn't be surprised if the CEO of walmart was working 60 hours a week, and pretty much had to be on call 24 hours a day if company business needed him. Plus what are the qualifications for being an average walmart employee? Do you even need to have finished highschool? I bet a CEO has considerably higher education than the average walmart employee. And how long does the average employee stay at walmart? I wouldn't be surprised if it was around a year or two, I doubt many people stay at walmart as a long term employment kind of thing. But when you hire a CEO I think they expect him to be around for awhile. Lastly and probably the most important issue is replaceability. How easy is it to replace the average walmart worker if they quit or get fired. Pretty easily I would say. But there is probably only a very small pool of people out there that could replace the CEO of Walmart.
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,522
    EmBleve wrote:
    I did. I just didn't know what you meant by that quote.

    That is 1 line out of a much longer description. All that line is referencing is that by basic economic theory, employees should actually be paid less. Minimum wage (Gov't intervention) and the desire to hire "more" (relative term here) competent help (company "benevolence") create the higher wage. I think I even used (not that I'm advocating that) in the commentary. It is theory vs. reality that the statement is grounded in.

    Like I said, please re-read in its ENTIRETY and I think it was fairly clear what the context of that (half of a) sentence is.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    EmBleve wrote:
    I did. I just didn't know what you meant by that quote.

    That is 1 line out of a much longer description. All that line is referencing is that by basic economic theory, employees should actually be paid less. Minimum wage (Gov't intervention) and the desire to hire "more" (relative term here) competent help (company "benevolence") create the higher wage. I think I even used (not that I'm advocating that) in the commentary. It is theory vs. reality that the statement is grounded in.

    Like I said, please re-read in its ENTIRETY and I think it was fairly clear what the context of that (half of a) sentence is.
    I did read the whole thing, and I just did not understand that statement in comparison to the rest of what you said. I understood the rest of it. What I highlighted above pretty much explains it more clearly to me. Thank you. (I'm not a business-minded person, if you couldn't tell. :lol: Smart in alot of other ways, but business is not one of them).
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    How can we reasonably expect people to just get jobs elsewhere or shop elsewhere if they live in a small town where Wal-Mart drove out the other businesses? And why should we assume that treating employees like shit is good for business? Take Costco vs. Sam's (a Wal-Mart company), for instance. They are both very successful businesses, but Costco treats its employees WAY better.
Sign In or Register to comment.