The reason I ask is because in my business ethics class, my class was having a discussion on wal mart, and my teacher assigned this question to the class. Now, I don't really know a whole lot about Wal Mart, but I have heard they don't treat their employees very well. So, could someone please inform me a litttle more? Thanks!
2007-02-14 06:07:18 · 5 answers · asked by Shane A 3 in Business & Finance ➔ Careers & Employment
Wal-Mart hires average, everyday people out of the general population who are willing to work for the wages and benefits that Wal-Mart provides. Wal-Mart does not provide health benefits to many employees because those employees do not require incentives or extra compensation for their talent.
If Wal-Mart's employees suddenly cried out "We'll quit if we don't get health benefits," Wal-Mart would have to decide whether to risk losing them or giving them benefits. It appears that there are other people willing to work without health benefits, so Wal-Mart would have no trouble replacing those workers. This is why the employees haven't made such demands.
However, the employees could use the hand of government to require Wal-Mart to provide health benefits. Suddenly the employees would have power because Big Brother would say "Provide these people with health benefits, or else..."
This is a very good question for an ethics class. Is it ever ethical to use the government to force one's needs on another? Is it ethical to allow employers and employees to freely conduct transactions? A growing number of people in this country would have you believe that there is nothing unethical about using government as a personal (or group) enforcer so that individuals (or groups) can get their way -- although they may describe it differently.
2007-02-14 06:21:16 · answer #1 · answered by MinstrelInTheGallery 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a person who works for someone else or as an employee, we accept conditions to work for the employer. We offer our services to them based on what we deem satisfactory in return for our time and experience. If the employee over time doesn't think that the exchange is reasonable, then they are able to choose to move to another job opportunity. No one is forcing the employee to stay. There are other employers out there willing to provide things that we feel are a need as is such the case with Wal Mart providing health benefits to it's employees. But as an employee, you may have to improve your marketability whether that is through education or experience or both to qualify yourself for health benefits.
2007-02-14 15:30:32 · answer #2 · answered by Brzo Biciklo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not government's job to interfere in the workings of business unless criminal acts are involved.
There are many businesses, especially small businesses, which do not offer benefits. In fact, many people do not require it as a spouse has benefits, and would prefer a better wage.
You can make many arguments why WalMart SHOULD offer benefits; but none under law why they MUST. Again, it is not government's role to set the conditions under which businesses employ people. If the business doesn't offer adequate compensation, they will have trouble getting good employees. Then, they will have to change their employment package. That is the MARKET at work.
2007-02-14 14:21:06 · answer #3 · answered by Terri J 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No! They should not be forced to give ALL employees health benefits. They definately should increase amount of benefits they distribute. The case of Wal-Mart is very distinct. They rip of most of their full-time, long term employees of these benefits. Why? becuase they dont want to, or have to hire long term employees, its not like anyone there is an expert. But can you blame them, they save millions each year on not giving out benefits.. but that is two sides of the story, they should be forced to offer benefits for a certain % of their employees, yes. After 2 years full time work would be suitable by me.. Unless they are uplevel management, educated, (college grads). They should get it right out of school becuase they have proven to be successful.
2007-02-14 14:14:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You should be able to answer that. Do you believe that the government should run private business or should businesses be run to make money for the stockholders? People do not keep jobs when they can find a better one. Is no job better than a less than a perfect job? If you would read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell you would run circles around your teacher and the rest of the class. Easy fast read.
2007-02-14 14:35:07 · answer #5 · answered by gvh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋