What is Digg?114 Comments
- SirCharge, on 07/03/2009, -20/+81If the Wal-Mart CEO cured cancer some liberal would scream that he just did it to keep people alive longer so he could take their retirement savings.
- nickaster, on 07/02/2009, -4/+36Not surprisingly, the hope is to accept some costs in hopes their competitors get stuck with HIGHER costs. Kinda brilliant. I just wish they didn't beat around the bush so much trying to look like everyone's friend.
- timlopez, on 07/03/2009, -5/+33I worked for WalMart for a few years before my software engineer job.
One of the best employers I've ever had. Sorry folks, but honestly, they had the best medical/dental benefits I've had - very much comparable to the company I work for now.
People talk ***** about WalMart, but go and actually work for them then say something. People just hate on them because they're a successful company. It's all politics, and politics hardly ever have facts. - mdelling, on 07/03/2009, -2/+26They are a business... they are only going to support something if it will A) decrease their costs or B) increase their costs, but increase their market segment by such a percentage that the increased revenue will offset the increased costs.
- cashmonkey, on 07/03/2009, -5/+24Employer mandated healthcare is just a terrible idea. The employe pays for it anyway, because that's how labour markets work, and they have to have their health insurance tied to their job.
- Ymeg, on 07/03/2009, -9/+28Because the others can't.
It's a safe, illegitimate way to defeat their competition. They are using governmental guns by proxy. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -7/+25+1.
i remember when wal-mart did a lot of energy saving measures, and they responded with "they're just doing it to cut energy costs, they're not about the green movement!". what *****, who cares. there should be incentive to do good things, not government mandate and punishment if you don't - SpazAttack5000, on 07/03/2009, -4/+18It may be about business and nothing else but try telling that to their 1.4 million employees. Somehow I don't think they care about what Wal-Mart's motives are.
- jitterbits, on 07/03/2009, -0/+12I imagine it might be the nail in the coffin for many smaller competing businesses too.
- Meor, on 07/03/2009, -1/+11Same experience here, it was a great job.
- bratterscain, on 07/03/2009, -1/+11Not dugg down for message but for presentation. Do we have to all be so condescending when trying to make a point? This is why we can't have nice things.
- yocouchdigga, on 07/03/2009, -3/+12and some wingnut would want to outlaw it because it's "against god's will", some moonbat would want to tax it, some nazi would only want it for aryans, etc. etc.
- Barackalypse, on 07/03/2009, -4/+12Besides the one mentioned in the article, another reason is likely that Walmart believes this is going to happen with or without them, so by jumping on board, but asking for the trigger mechanism, they at least prevent it from being as bad as it would have been without their support.
"Tovar defended Wal-Mart’s insistence that a “trigger mechanism,” enacting cuts if costs are not kept down, by saying, “If we're going to agree to this type of mandate, we have to have that fail-safe, which is the trigger.”
So essentially, when the system turns out like everything else the Government is involved in and health care costs continue to rise, they get to start making cuts to the program, which would not have been something Obama would ever put into the program on his own. - monodelasno, on 07/03/2009, -3/+11
Let's remember who was the most efficient organization at getting aid into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. WalMart.
For all it's warts and blemishes, they keep moving along even in todays economy. Maybe others should take note. - collution, on 07/03/2009, -2/+10"I know this may be a shocking concept and very difficult to grasp, but... maybe, just MAYBE, during such a hard recession, one of the largest employers in the nation has decided that instead of losing an already-trained workforce that might seek employment at a company that gives medical coverage and doesn't pay slave wages..."
You don't need to hardly any training to run cash registers and stock shelves. And with the unemployment as it is, you probably don't care about keeping workers for minimal skill jobs; there's already a huge jobless force that will take those jobs in a heartbeat. Companies hardly believe in doing things out of goodwill unless it is for the benefit of the company (and that usually means money).
"This has nothing to do with sticking their "competitors" with higher costs. You need some economics lessons."
Flat out wrong here. It's almost as if your points are opposite of what an actual economist would most likely suggest... - DaDrake, on 07/03/2009, -0/+8Simply put... Wal Mart already pays for health benefits for half of its employees. When you compare the pay/benefits between Wal Mart and other companies... Wal Mart oftentimes has the best coverage. This is especially ironic considering the amount of hate Wal Mart generates.
Forcing other companies to give similar benefits is a way to "even" the playing field for Wal Mart. In other words, it will make them even more competitive. Although, Wal Mart is strongly against a single payer health system. - crossmr, on 07/03/2009, -0/+7stop-gap against unions..one thing unions push for is health care, if workers have it, its one less reason for unions to come in.
- Acesolid, on 07/03/2009, -0/+7Same for me, I'm working at Wal-Mart, and I have a realy good pay, 2 payed holiday weeks a year, and a fun work experience.
- Ymeg, on 07/03/2009, -3/+9Just a few points.
Becoming Wal-Mart trained is not exactly a rigorous process. They don't care if they keep their employees to someone who gives coverage and pays more than "slave wages". It's extremely easy to fill their position, and there is not a shortage of employees. So trying to save their employees by giving out health insurance does not make sense, and they aren't going to lose anyone--that they can't replace--if they don't give them a raise.
There is a minimum wage, and there is no direct benefit for also giving them medical. The notion that lower education employees use it less is a null point (although, I would love to see a citation for that).
This is obviously because of the harm it will do to the competition, and this is not exactly a new concept. Tobacco has done it by supporting regulations and costly sample tests, medical has done it by supporting massive bureaucratic paperwork, and auto has done it by supporting laws that would require overly zealous safety measures. - cbg78, on 07/03/2009, -4/+9Wal Mart is not the Devil.. and if it is, we helped it get there. They have low prices. They are doing a lot for organic food.. etc.
I was anti Wal Mart, Then I lost my job and needed to save money, and I save a lot there.
They are not perfect, but we made that monster. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -5/+10Walmart is endorsing it because Walmart can afford it. Sounds nice, right? Wrong. They aren't being altruistic.. you see, Walmart CAN afford it - but Walmart's competitors CAN NOT. Get it?
- STARTSOMETHING, on 07/03/2009, -0/+5I don't have to work for them. I just read comments off websites, and base all my discussion's from that. Isn't that what everyone else does?
- alpharaptor, on 07/03/2009, -0/+5-also to thrash a reason for workers to unionize.
- Ymeg, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5I heard that Wal-Mart supports curing cancer.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -2/+6Exactly. It was the same thing with raising minimum wage. Walmart is in the best position and competitors are not.
Plus it comes off as self sacrifice, so idiots think it's a noble act. - NJSlacker, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5as a liberal, I LOL'd
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5I understand that they're playing to win, but I don't like when the government is used to squeeze off the competition. That comes off as thuggery.
- Tarl, on 07/03/2009, -2/+6And we all know that a ceo of a major conglomerate would waste his time doing this instead of making shareholders happy.
- Presbyterian, on 07/03/2009, -5/+9I don't care, as long as their prices are low.
- raybury, on 07/03/2009, -3/+7Wal-Mart has two options:
(1) Oppose an employer mandate, be the poster child for evil corporations complete with inaccurate stats, and take whatever comes along which, if it includes a mandate for employer healthcare, will definitely include Wal-Mart at no less than the percentage of revenue, payroll, or whatever it is now paying.
(2) Join with those who are crafting an employer mandate and help define it, avoid being a punching bag, and define the mandate it terms that require no more than it already is doing, while possibly hurting competitors.
The obvious choice is Duh.
WMT's workforce is not the creme de la creme (not an insult, a fact of front-line retail), yet they are insured at a better rate than the American population in general (and I think better than the American workforce in general), with about half of FT employees insured through them, which is on par with large corporations generally and much better than the retail sector as a whole (1/3). Yes you can complain about FT vs. PT, premium costs, etc., but the point is not that they are as good as they could be, but that they do better than you might expect. The half of FT employees not covered by WMT insurance are almost all covered by government plans -- not just Medicaid, which takes the number of dependents into account, but also Medicare for retirement-age folks who choose or are compelled to work full-time, or by family plans -- through parents or spouses.
Why are only about a half of employees of large corporations insured through their employer? Well, some of that half uses their employer insurance to cover their spouse and children as well, which generally eliminates the need for those folks to use their employer for insurance. If a corporate employee is married to a schoolteacher or other government worker, they likely get better coverage cheaper. Others may be in transition -- probationary periods, still under parents' coverage, deciding not to take available coverage (foolishly, IMHO), or, finally, unable to afford it. - Chrysalii, on 07/03/2009, -2/+6Thing is, given WalMart's history and reputation, you have to look for these hidden motives.
They may be doing it out of the goodness of their heart, or because they want an illegitimate way of forcing out competitors...or both. We don't know, and anyone who says that they do, is lying.
But given WalMarts history and reputation, it's more likely that their motive is the latter. - Ymeg, on 07/03/2009, -3/+6There is a difference between college and medical care. Wal-Mart employees are often not cut for college, let alone high school. Medical, on the other hand, is something that they will use.
- jgzman, on 07/03/2009, -3/+6"True" success, as you have defined it here, comes only by preventing the success of others. Generally speaking, the more fabulously wealthy one is, the more people one must have stepped on to get there.
Wal-Mart forces competitors out of business using tactics that are legal, but seen as 'unfair.' Microsoft for a long time had a virtual monopoly on home computing, and took steps that seemed 'unfair' to keep it that way.
Not that very few actors are viewed this way. While the inter-personal relationships can be brutal, the actual business side seems to be less so. That is, from the outside viewpoint, if A is hired for a role rather than B, we assume that A was actually better suited. Neither A nor B has done anything unfair, not been driven out of business. Sports stars the same way.
So, we don't hate success. But at some point the number of people crushed under one's $9.99 made-in-china boot becomes too large to be ignored. - sooperdooper, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3What Business has done for the American people is nothing compared to what the American people have done for Business.
- sooperdooper, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3Maybe our small towns should keep Wal-Marts out through regulations on commercial square-footage?
- cfuse, on 07/03/2009, -1/+4We may someday cure cancer, but the cure for black and white thinking is unlikely.
- mrkmrk, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3Perhaps the ***** government shouldn't give them the legal means by which to destroy their competitors and let them do it the old-fashioned way.
- frenchaccent, on 07/03/2009, -1/+4Aside from the reasons already stated, there are three more that could factor in:
1. Hillary Clinton used to sit on the Board of Directors of Walmart still until very recently (for what reason she had a seat I'm not sure, but basically she knows all the top-level people there, Arkansas "used" to be her home State, and she's probably still friends with all of them now). And since the health-care plan is/was a defining issue for her (one that was seen as a major failure of hers when she was first lady). It's very possible that she called in a few markers to get Walmart to support this Obama initiative (also, that would be one way to get her fingerprints on the project, since Obama seems to be getting all the credit for everything his administration puts out these days -- at least the people in the know -- would know that it's her connections that got him Walmart's endorsement).
2. Corporations, even large "evil" corporations, like to do good especially if it means they can get the credit for it (and print it in their corporate pamphlets). Also, it doesn't hurt to be on the good side of a President who has had some antitrust designs. Notice, the DOJ these days is investigating Google, not Walmart.
3. Supermarkets and superstores are playing an increasing larger role in providing low-cost health-care, so that part may also contribute to their bottom line. I'm speaking of pharmacies, opticians, and even more recently -- doctors office that are located within the supermarkets/superstores themselves -- that are currently being market-tested in low income areas. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -1/+4This thread is like the twilight zone of digg comments. It's almost like reality, but far enough removed to raise an eyebrow in confusion.
- woodrow8292, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3I would bet the real reason is that if they are mandated to offer health care then they can say to their employees "See you have health care now so why do you need a union?" Thus a smoke screen to stop employees from trying to unionize. Being non union is one way they can keep prices down and profit up. The unions weasel their way in and watch Wal-Marts prices go up up up.
- jojothepirate, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2I work for walmart and their insurance is terrible. It was good when I first got insurance coverage and then 2 months after I got it they change carriers and now Im paying the same amount fir sub-par insurance.
- DaDrake, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Ahh no. The general trend for "health care reform" is with a voucher system or a single payer system.... both of which Wal Mart is against. Having corporations be mandated to provide health insurance isn't "going to happen anyway".
Most corporations are STRONGLY against this. Why? Because if the US gets a single-payer system (like in many European countries), then the tax payers pay for the health insurance and not the corporation (one reason why foreign corporations have an advantage over American counterparts). - Trick07, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2So you would prefer Wal*Mart not give the drones health care so you can continue to whine about the evil company not providing health care?
- gigi52, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Maybe it is a good business decision. Health care for employees is cheaper than dealing with unions. And the employees benefit.
- diib, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2Wal-mart does not enjoy a fair playing field. They have historically pushed legislation that superficially looks beneficial to the lower classes. Their intent is to drive costs up for doing business so that competitors have difficulty challenging their market share. Meanwhile, idiots on one side cry "liberal" this and idiots on the other side cry "conservative" that.
And, Americans in the middle suffer while the free market dies. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2All you need to hear is "Government Endorsing" to know it's a bad idea.
- Chrysalii, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Then wouldn't they just offer those benefits without bothering the government to make it mandatory?
- LockeNCole, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2***** that. I made more pushing a broom at Wal-Mart than being a cashier.
- ProphetPX, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2Here is the short answer to the question of the article:
It's what I call "GHETTO EUGENICS" a.k.a. "Keep the poor man down"
Keep us pacified with poor-quality products that barely fill a need and "medicinals" that are barely good enough for animals let alone HUMAN BEINGS. While the rich elites of the world get the best health care technologies in the world and get to extend their lifespans via trans-humanism, the poor serfs of the world get "GHETTO EUGENICS" via Walmart Chinese slave-labor! It's neo-feudalism on the profiteering biological level! - budboomer, on 07/03/2009, -1/+31. Medicine does not cure the flu.
2. Ratmart does not give paid days off. -
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is