the average employee at Walmart earn less than $20,000, of 1,800,000 employees 5% (90,000) are on Medacaid and another 16% (288,000) are completely uninsured, should we as taxpayers pay the cost of Walmart's employee healthcare, is this really capitalism at its best?
2006-12-27 14:46:09 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes, and they should also stop harrassing people who want to join a union, and cutting people out of unemployment benefits they deserve.
LOL saying someone "chose" to work at Walmart is like saying someone "chose" to live in public housing.
2006-12-27 14:51:20 · answer #1 · answered by brickity hussein brack 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Do I personally think they should, yes. It would make sense to me if I owned a business that I would want healthy workers. Workers who could get healthcare and return to work as quickly as possible if something were wrong with them. But, WalMart is a publicly owned corporation. The largest stockholders in Wal Mart are double digit billionaires from the same family. Would it really hurt them if the gave up some of thier earnings in favor of WalMart employees getting better health coverage. Probably not. But this isn't about what is good for the workers, it's about what is good for the stockholders. To me it seems to be capitalism at it's worst.
2006-12-27 15:15:24 · answer #2 · answered by . 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Definitely. A lot of people only work at walmart because it put their local businesses out of business. A wonderful, shining example of why Free Trade is the answer to everything- Not. Stockholders and profit are not the only thing that matter in this world. In fact, they're some of the least important in the long run.
The other big thing I would propose in terms of trade is to de-normalize trade with all nations that do not pay their employees a living wage for the area they are in. A Tariff would be imposed so heavy that a company would have to pay twice as much more then it would take to put it's employees on a living wage. Yes, that would drive prices up, but it would also allow for better work conditions around the world and help protect small businesses that rely on domestic labor.
2006-12-27 14:58:05 · answer #3 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Q: How come Wal-mart, the most important deepest company with 11 billion in earnings won't be able to furnish good health insurance? A: because they couldn't take care of an excellent reward kit and stay aggressive. All deepest businesses are in touch with is maximizing earnings. So, as a fashion to maximise earnings, they're going to sacrifice the worker. in truth, they need it in the experience that they did not ought to pay for labor in any respect. this signifies that they're going to take the low-fee course to provide the most minimum insurance a chance. the basically reason they offer it interior the first position is so as that their competition (who're doing the same element) do not get all the superb human elements. the different reason is because the health insurance equipment itself is corrupt and reward basically the organization proprietor. insurance businesses make no secret of their practice of rescission, and make no apologies for doing away with reward from human beings and allowing them to die on technicalities like an incorrect submission kind.
2016-12-01 06:06:22 · answer #4 · answered by gnegy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, there's no question the blood-sucking company should give its employees some functional health care. On the other hand, pharmaceutical companies could quit charging people more than it costs to build a house every month for meds.
Ha. Wal-Mart and McDonald's (or crappy service-sector jobs) are pretty much the only places left to work nowadays if you're unskilled. People "choose" to work at Wal-Mart; what a crock. That's the rhetoric of personal responsibility capitalist kings like us to believe so we don't realize how thoroughly the system's screwing us over. You can't "choose" where to work if you've got kids and bills to pay and need money now.
2006-12-27 16:30:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Whether you think Walmart should reinvest some of its profits into employee health care is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that it is a publicly owned company with its #1 obligation to its shareholders; if at the next shareholder's meeting it is decided to plow back some profits into health benefits, or not, it is their prerogative. It is probably best not to work at Walmart if you want health care, after all there are many other places to work. Yes, it is capitalism at its best. That's what capitalism is all about.
2006-12-27 15:55:30 · answer #6 · answered by Webber 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wal - Mart practices Corporate Socialism.
It is a stated part of their business model that as many employees as possible get their health coverage from Medicaid, paid for by taxpayers.
They also pressure local govts to have as many road improvements made at taxpayer expense to make it easier for Wal - Mart shoppers to get to their stores. Last year, taxpayers paid for a new entracnce to Wal - Mart's corporate headquarters.
So while the ignorant praise Wal - Mart as a shining example of capitalism at its best, Wal - Mart is actually living off the taxpayers dime.
2006-12-27 17:00:35 · answer #7 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, I think employees should exercise their right not to work for Wal-Mart if they want health care benefits. If they choose to work for the company, they do so knowing that they will not get these benefits.
When deciding whether to take a job that is offered, we all weigh the benefits and make a decision. Leave Wal-Mart alone and let the market take care of this.
2006-12-27 15:02:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think there should be a minimum wage for adults that is above the medicaid cut off level if that employee is working full time.
No I do not think we should have to subsidize how cheap Wal-Mart is through our taxes.
Particularly when they hire people who aren't even legally here so their entire burden wouldn't be on us but for the magnet of the job. It isn't free market within the American economy when people illegally here, undercutting American workers, have to be hired to sustain the wage level.
2006-12-27 16:17:59 · answer #9 · answered by DAR 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
This IS capitalism at it best. Walmat was NEVER meant to be
a career job. Only if you make it through the ranks, invest, and
prosper in the Walmart business will you make money. I have
made money at Walmart, but never have worked. I think when
I retire I will go there for some beer money. Save your money,
go to Oxford, then come back and run Walmart if you want. The
choice is yours. Live out your destiny with smart and honorable
decisions.....or come back and be a greeter...either way, I will
see you soon....they will both get our money!
2006-12-27 14:58:36 · answer #10 · answered by Boats 1 · 3⤊ 3⤋