Online Purchasing

[NotHisLady]

I did the math. That's more than roll every two days. It's okay if you have IBS.

And we also have two bathrooms. But we wipe our bottoms nearly half as much as you do. Or twice as efficiently, as I see it.

Are you calling me a Wasteful Wanda??

I think I may just buy the kind that has half as much on a roll.
Tell the truth--do you do Double Rolls?? If you're into DR action I won't judge.

Actually I am guilty of using TP instead of kleenex (used an entire roll in one day just blowing my nose Saturday when everyone on our road decided to mow the grass on the same damn day!)

Incidentally, just to make this relevant, I don't buy that stuff online. For the record I don't go to Walmart either. The only thing we get from Walmart is cat litter because they have the 25 lb bags of non clumping litter. (We have 2 fairly large long haired cats and clumping litter should be illegal.) Things like tissue paper I get at the Dollar General which is actually cheaper than Walmart as well as easier to get in and out of quickly. It's just a matter of shopping in phases. One trip for the sort of things at each place I go. True I end up shopping about once a week but not the same shopping two weeks in a row. In the end it's all split up between a local grocery store, Kroger, Target, the Dollar store, and Big Lots.
I'm an awful cheap skate about most things but it means that where it counts I can spend a little.

 

[silverwhisper]

pmann quoth:
no one is seeing the original point i made.

actually: yes, we did. and we think you're being deliberately and willfully ignorant on the subject by attempting to restrict the focus to this teeny-tiny little aspect of a much bigger topic. it's like the story of the three blind men, describing an elephant.

pmann quoth:
i would pose this question to the anti-big business people. let us say there is an individual who grew up in a small town and there isn't a lot of jobs. amazon comes in. he gets a job at amazon. it sucks. what were his options before amazon opened? what were his options after? people bring up the idea of health issues. well, do you think working at mom and pop shops are going to get whatever health issues sorted? i would assume healthcare is a benefit at amazon. how is he worse off because of amazon, now that he has healthcare?

grrlfriday, bail & i answered most of this already. i'll demonstrate.

let's call our hypothetical dude joe. joe has 3 options: working for a small business, starting his own business, or relocating to find other opportunities. [as bail noted] some people are in situations where options like entrepreneurship or relocation are impossible--aging relative in poor health, sole income in a household with multiple children, etc.

when a company like amazon blows into town, they blow in specifically b/c the land is cheap. this normally means it's a jerkwater that has ready access to good transit infrastructure like rail, major highway or airport [already noted by me], poor employment and is economically depressed--cuz why else would the land be cheap?

most employers who grant benefits--and some employers play cute little games like only scheduling staff to work 30-32 hrs/wk to avoid their being full-time employees--grant staff benefits after 90 days. now, if you read that second link i posted, you already know that when joe becomes eligible for those benefits--assuming he hasn't been screwed out of them with the 30-32 hr work week crap-- he's likely to be more worried about the repetitive stress condition(s) he may have developed while working in the warehouse to worry about anything else.

so joe may or may not have benefits while working at a job that may be the reason he needs those benefits, all the while being obliged continue trying to meet ever-increasing productivity guidelines that keep getting raised on him, leading him to possibly further endangering his health. in short: working for shitty companies is a vicious circle, pmann.

all of this of course ignores the fact that you seem to understand that amazon & walmart are shitty places to work well enough, but you refuse to consider what that actually means beyond the individual problems they cause for any given employee. you refuse to recognize that when a company behaves like this, esp one with a lot of employees, it causes actual harm to a community.

pmann quoth:
*sigh*

you're exasparated with this conversation? i kinda feel like i've been beating my head against a wall here. all the points i just made in this single post have all been there.

anyway. if this doesn't make you look at any of this differently, i guess there's no point in continuing this. to me it's pretty damned elementary stuff: sufficiently so that there's no explaining it further.

ed

 

[NotHisLady]

actually: yes, we did. and we think you're being deliberately and willfully ignorant on the subject by attempting to restrict the focus to this teeny-tiny little aspect of a much bigger topic. it's like the story of the three blind men, describing an elephant.


grrlfriday, bail & i answered most of this already. i'll demonstrate.

let's call our hypothetical dude joe. joe has 3 options: working for a small business, starting his own business, or relocating to find other opportunities. [as bail noted] some people are in situations where options like entrepreneurship or relocation are impossible--aging relative in poor health, sole income in a household with multiple children, etc.

when a company like amazon blows into town, they blow in specifically b/c the land is cheap. this normally means it's a jerkwater that has ready access to good transit infrastructure like rail, major highway or airport [already noted by me], poor employment and is economically depressed--cuz why else would the land be cheap?

most employers who grant benefits--and some employers play cute little games like only scheduling staff to work 30-32 hrs/wk to avoid their being full-time employees--grant staff benefits after 90 days. now, if you read that second link i posted, you already know that when joe becomes eligible for those benefits--assuming he hasn't been screwed out of them with the 30-32 hr work week crap-- he's likely to be more worried about the repetitive stress condition(s) he may have developed while working in the warehouse to worry about anything else.

so joe may or may not have benefits while working at a job that may be the reason he needs those benefits, all the while being obliged continue trying to meet ever-increasing productivity guidelines that keep getting raised on him, leading him to possibly further endangering his health. in short: working for shitty companies is a vicious circle, pmann.

all of this of course ignores the fact that you seem to understand that amazon & walmart are shitty places to work well enough, but you refuse to consider what that actually means beyond the individual problems they cause for any given employee. you refuse to recognize that when a company behaves like this, esp one with a lot of employees, it causes actual harm to a community.


you're exasparated with this conversation? i kinda feel like i've been beating my head against a wall here. all the points i just made in this single post have all been there.

anyway. if this doesn't make you look at any of this differently, i guess there's no point in continuing this. to me it's pretty damned elementary stuff: sufficiently so that there's no explaining it further.

ed

I truly hesitate to interrupt here but the blind men and the elephant is one of my favorite parables. It hardly seems to fit the situation you ascribe it to--one in which one person chooses to see only a small part of the whole. My understanding of it has always been that it teaches more the danger of assuming one knows more than can be seen.

Still, that is neither here nor there, is it?

Other than conceding the existence of poorly run workplaces or badly managed workers, what specifically do you suggest is the solution to the problem?

Do we all nobly and valiantly refuse to offer trade to those businesses until they are forced out of business? I fail to see how you've helped the lot of the worker by doing that.

There has been a lot of identifying of the problem, it has been outlined and highlighted from every angle. Could someone please offer a workable solution?

 

[fire_breeze]

The question is whether or not 24k/year is enough for a family to live on, including health care, benefits, time off and so forth. For a single person, 24K (depending on where the individual lives) is decent. For a family of four, it's only a few hundred bucks above the poverty line - contributing to a cycle of low-wage work.

Just because it's 'factory work', it still is honest and good work. Unfortunately, we, in the West, have a notion that just because a person works in the factory, that person is somehow a 'lesser' contributing member to society and this needs to change. A person's dignity is already stripped. It's probably why I prefer co-ops.

The beef I do have with these companies is the disgusting disparaging salary differentiation. A warehouse worker is just as important than the CEO. Without the labour, the product will not make it to the consumer on time. Furthermore, my gripe is the fact that many of these workers cannot work full-time - not because they don't want to, but rather because they cannot and are cheated out of full-time benefits. It's disturbing.

The issue I have with Walmart - and many MegaCorporations - is how they became such a megacorporation. They move into a new area, underprice everything, forcing local businesses to sell out and essentially become a monopoly in that particular milieu, thus becoming the only employer in the area. This is why I refuse to shop there. People end up not having a choice to work somewhere else because there is no where else.
Case in point: A Walmart in a small city in Quebec muscled out its competitors - mostly local stores and hired everyone. In the province, it's a law that if 50%+1 wants to unionise, then the company has to let the workers form a union (which is why we actually have unionised McDonald's). When the workers decided to form a union, Walmart promptly closed its door, claiming that it wasn't making enough money (to which many said bull). Jonquiere is now in trouble because many people are unemployed because they were exercising their constitutional rights. So, the town and the Quebec government did something that is very un-Canadian - they are suing Walmart.

Which brings me to NHL's very apt questions - questions that I believe we all must be asking ourselves in order to make a working, growing society:

<snip>

Other than conceding the existence of poorly run workplaces or badly managed workers, what specifically do you suggest is the solution to the problem?

Do we all nobly and valiantly refuse to offer trade to those businesses until they are forced out of business? I fail to see how you've helped the lot of the worker by doing that.

There has been a lot of identifying of the problem, it has been outlined and highlighted from every angle. Could someone please offer a workable solution?

I think that the solution (and this will probably be very unpopular) is that a change in attitude is needed, a drive away from a consumer (note that I did not say capitalist) society. That said, I truly believe that a workers co-operative might be the best solution, such as Ocean's Spray, or Alvarado Bakery or Isthmus (the latter two are featured in Capitalism: A Love Story. And while I know that Michael Moore can be quite problematic, he does present an intriguing perspective). I strongly believe that a co-op system, or even a Japanese model, where the highest paid member of a company makes no more that 7 times than the lowest paid employee and is the first to take a pay cut and the last to get a pay raise, is a fair system for all. It still allows an accumulation of wealth, it still allows proper pay for the services, but no one is struggling.

Just thought I'd add my inflated 5cents (there are no more pennies ).

Since this thread has already derailed, might as well take it further!

This information about Amazon and other companies brings up an interesting dilemma for me. I try to be socially conscious and to avoid patronizing companies that treat their employees unethically. But we're also a single income family, and price point is a huge factor in where I buy.

How does one maintain a social consciousness on a very tight budget?

I don't know how it is in the States, but I am very lucky to have several grocery stores and I keep a close eye to coupons. I also tend to shop at whole sellers, which end up being way cheaper (Adonis baby!)

Farmer's markets is also wonderful. So are co-ops. When I lived in a area that offered it, I used the basket co-op, where every week I got a basket of fresh, organic vegetables. (Sustainable Table, and Local Harvest). Also, check out your local health food stores and community centres/cafes, especially for bulk foodstuff. You'd be surprised at how much cheaper it can be, plus locally sourced, fair trade and many cases certified organic (or at least environmentally friendly). Usually, there is a small annual fee, but often you get a discount on everything, plus a discount on a lot of other things, as they try to foster a community.

With fruits, veggies, meats, and dairy, it is possible to shop socially consciously but it takes a bit of work to dig out the gems. But the advantage is not only healthier and cheaper foods, but these are also good community centres (plus you could also find a great deals on other products and services as well, and discover a lot of up-and-coming artists).

And back to the original topic:

I was having a conversation with the girlfriend today about online purchasing, and I'd like some outside perspectives if you don't mind sharing.

What kinds of things do you and your spouse buy online? From fad to useful, hobby to necessity, what kinds of things are you looking for?

Do you buy in bulk? What kinds of consumables do you buy? (pet food, light bulbs, water filters, ???? )

Do you prefer online shopping to brick and mortar shopping?

I do both. I don't buy foodstuff, unless it's European candy, online. I am very lucky that I live in a culinary mecca.

I buy a lot of books online. I do buy some clothes - mostly tops and some dresses. I often will surf the net to find something and see if I cannot get it cheaper here. And because a lot of useful things are in the States, and the import charges will cost me an arm, I really do try to buy whatever in Canuckistan.

 

[Lord Pmann]

The question is whether or not 24k/year is enough for a family to live on, including health care, benefits, time off and so forth. For a single person, 24K (depending on where the individual lives) is decent. For a family of four, it's only a few hundred bucks above the poverty line - contributing to a cycle of low-wage work.

Just because it's 'factory work', it still is honest and good work. Unfortunately, we, in the West, have a notion that just because a person works in the factory, that person is somehow a 'lesser' contributing member to society and this needs to change. A person's dignity is already stripped. It's probably why I prefer co-ops.

The beef I do have with these companies is the disgusting disparaging salary differentiation. A warehouse worker is just as important than the CEO. Without the labour, the product will not make it to the consumer on time.

I don't know anything wrong with factory work or why anyone would be looked down upon because of it. That's shitty for anyone who does that.

This will make me highly unpopular and will cause me to fall from that pedestal you've all placed under me, but I disagree that a warehouse worker is just as important as the CEO to a company. I believe that people from all branches are important to a company. Don't mistake my intent with this. But, if a factory worker fucks up really big one day, then the shipment gets fucked up and the ripple effect is very small and cost is, more than likely, less than $10k. However, if the CEO fucks up really big one day, the ripple is huge and could affect thousands of people and cost millions. So, the importance of one is far greater than the importance of another. Not as a person, but as a contributor to a company.

It's like saying the heart surgeon is equally as important as the medical tech. Not the case. The medical tech provides a valuable service of which I am not diminishing. However, one of them holds a set of skills extremely difficult to replace. The other is much easier to replace. That's why one makes $300k a year and the other makes $30k a year.

I think the model for a company where the highest person makes only 7 times as much as the lowest person sounds ridiculous. I'll preface that by saying that I've not really heard of it until now, so maybe I'm missing something. But do you really want your heart surgeon making only 7 times as much as your janitor?

The problem I have is this concept of "fair". It's such a silly concept. How is that fair? How is it fair that a person's salary is limited by the lowest person's? How is it fair that the highest person gets a pay cut first?

Take the surgeon example. Why should a surgeon be capped at $140k a year because a janitor makes $20k a year? The surgeon spent $200k on medical school and spent 8 years continuing their education. Is that fair?

Perhaps I just miss the idea of it. But that's absolutely insane to me. Life isn't "fair". Those who have specialized skills are worth more. It's just a simple fact of life.

I do find it silly some of the packages that CEOs are able to negotiate. Sometimes it seems outright silly that a person can fuck a company up and leave with a bonus. I scratch my head at that one. However, people seem to paint CEOs as these people who just do nothing but wipe their arses with cash. No one thinks that they can be a doctor or a vet or something of that nature, so why does everyone think that the CEO, making million dollar decisions on a daily basis, shouldn't get paid a huge fucking salary? The truth is, the company and the shareholders see them as worth that much.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Are you calling me a Wasteful Wanda??

I think I may just buy the kind that has half as much on a roll.
Tell the truth--do you do Double Rolls?? If you're into DR action I won't judge.

Actually I am guilty of using TP instead of kleenex (used an entire roll in one day just blowing my nose Saturday when everyone on our road decided to mow the grass on the same damn day!)

These are single ply rolls. I don't like that fluffy shit. Not at all. I'm so tired of all the spoiled anuses (ani?) people have these days. I've never seen so many pampered anuses. A bunch of prima donna assholes.

 

[mwmnpa]

Rather than quote his entire post, pmann's "fair" comments are absolutely spot on. And that's all I'll say on the subject. I'm in the staffing industry, and see all kinds of pay packages at every level. Suffice it to say, when a company needs a key contributor or executive, the packages are necessary to attract the best and brightest. As are my services.

On topic, I've purchased books, CDs, travel services, lodging, specialty foods, things of that sort. And my wife seems to subscribe to the tp hoarding being discussed here.

 

[Lord Pmann]

actually: yes, we did. and we think you're being deliberately and willfully ignorant on the subject by attempting to restrict the focus to this teeny-tiny little aspect of a much bigger topic. it's like the story of the three blind men, describing an elephant.


grrlfriday, bail & i answered most of this already. i'll demonstrate.

let's call our hypothetical dude joe. joe has 3 options: working for a small business, starting his own business, or relocating to find other opportunities. [as bail noted] some people are in situations where options like entrepreneurship or relocation are impossible--aging relative in poor health, sole income in a household with multiple children, etc.

when a company like amazon blows into town, they blow in specifically b/c the land is cheap. this normally means it's a jerkwater that has ready access to good transit infrastructure like rail, major highway or airport [already noted by me], poor employment and is economically depressed--cuz why else would the land be cheap?

most employers who grant benefits--and some employers play cute little games like only scheduling staff to work 30-32 hrs/wk to avoid their being full-time employees--grant staff benefits after 90 days. now, if you read that second link i posted, you already know that when joe becomes eligible for those benefits--assuming he hasn't been screwed out of them with the 30-32 hr work week crap-- he's likely to be more worried about the repetitive stress condition(s) he may have developed while working in the warehouse to worry about anything else.

so joe may or may not have benefits while working at a job that may be the reason he needs those benefits, all the while being obliged continue trying to meet ever-increasing productivity guidelines that keep getting raised on him, leading him to possibly further endangering his health. in short: working for shitty companies is a vicious circle, pmann.

all of this of course ignores the fact that you seem to understand that amazon & walmart are shitty places to work well enough, but you refuse to consider what that actually means beyond the individual problems they cause for any given employee. you refuse to recognize that when a company behaves like this, esp one with a lot of employees, it causes actual harm to a community.


you're exasparated with this conversation? i kinda feel like i've been beating my head against a wall here. all the points i just made in this single post have all been there.

anyway. if this doesn't make you look at any of this differently, i guess there's no point in continuing this. to me it's pretty damned elementary stuff: sufficiently so that there's no explaining it further.

ed

You're frustrated because I don't agree with you. Your method of reasoning is this:

He thinks differently than me and doesn't agree with my points therefore he must not understand all the facts. He's being willfully ignorant.

You keep saying that my focus was on a teeny aspect of a much bigger topic. That was my complaint all along! I don't get how many times I can say that. My complaint wasn't about Amazon. It wasn't about the work conditions. My complaint was actually more about the author throwing that in there than the other stuff.

It's like you're ignoring what my original complaint was and trying to turn me into a bleeding heart do-gooder who thinks all corporations are the devil.

I think that fair/safe working conditions are a necessity. I am an electrical engineer and much of my current job is making things safer for the field workers. I analyze situations and design systems to prevent harm. I completely understand how important safety is. Absolutely.

But you're trying to tell me so much about all of this other stuff that did not even pertain to my original comment. Some of it I agree with you. Some of it I don't.

Your example of Joe seemed completely ridiculous, by the way. Also, your elephant parable was irrelevant. *scratches head*

I don't know that Walmart is a shitty place to work. It sounds like Amazon is based on those articles. I know several people who work at Walmart and, other than complaints about difficulties getting vacation days, the environment isn't bad. I don't know why people hate them so. I hate shopping there because it's just so crowded. But the actual company doesn't bother me.

 

[BonBon1976]

I was having a conversation with the girlfriend today about online purchasing, and I'd like some outside perspectives if you don't mind sharing.

What kinds of things do you and your spouse buy online? From fad to useful, hobby to necessity, what kinds of things are you looking for?

Do you buy in bulk? What kinds of consumables do you buy? (pet food, light bulbs, water filters, ???? )

Do you prefer online shopping to brick and mortar shopping?

I generally buy almost anything I can get a better deal on online lol. I have bought jewelry, car parts, clothing (just the clothing you don't need to try on), a really nice steel boned corset, a few very ice glass toys, plane tickets, skin care products and bubble baths that aren't available where I live. I do not generally buy the basic household items online though...it is a thought...

I am also an ebay junkie, most of my items come via ebay.


BB

 

[bailadora]

How is it fair that the highest person gets a pay cut first?

Because a lot of times the lower rung employees are told that salary freezes or pay cuts are necessary for the company's financial viability. And often, the upper ups still get or take their big ass pay raises or bonuses at the same time they are asking everyone else to make financial sacrifices. (I worked in HR, Pmman. I saw this all the time.)

You don't see why the lower rung employees would cry foul? Call me crazy, but if I ask someone to make a sacrifice I'm not willing to make myself, I've got no place to complain when they call me a hypocrite.

ETA: Upon re-reading, I see you did address the exit bonus thing. But yeah - that happens more often than you think it does.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Because a lot of times the lower rung employees are told that salary freezes or pay cuts are necessary for the company's financial viability. And often, the upper ups still get or take their big ass pay raises or bonuses at the same time they are asking everyone else to make financial sacrifices. (I worked in HR, Pmman. I saw this all the time.)

You don't see why the lower rung employees would cry foul? Call me crazy, but if I ask someone to make a sacrifice I'm not willing to make myself, I've got no place to complain when they call me a hypocrite.

ETA: Upon re-reading, I see you did address the exit bonus thing. But yeah - that happens more often than you think it does.

I think you misunderstand the point I am making with that... I'm saying that it shouldn't be based upon one's pay rank, high or low, on how a paycut is determined. It should be on usefulness and merit. I'm saying that the concept of a paycut simply based upon where you fall in the economic chain is a silly line of thinking. It can be harmful both ways.

I'll give you an example:

I worked at a small, private consulting firm a few years back. When the economic fall hit, the company suffered. The company had about 40 people at the time. A few were let go. Everyone but 4 of us were given a 25% paycut. There were 3 of us who were engineers and 1 who was a VP who didn't get cuts. The president and the CEO took the paycuts, down to the secretaries.

Now, the 3 engineers who were not given paycuts were delivering on work and were providing the company's only source of revenue. Based on the model suggested, the administrative assistants and handymen would have been the last to receive paycuts. While they are necessary for overall operations, they do not provide any actual income to the company, which is what is needed at the time. They needed to keep the engineers working, so that they can submit projects that bring in revenue. I actually got a slight pay increase during that time, because I was extremely valuable to the company and its immediate operations. Had I up and left at the time, they would've struggled greatly to replace someone with my particular skill set.

So, I think my point was misunderstood. I am not lobbying for the uppers to be the last to get a paycut. I'm saying that it needs to be done on the basis of need and value. In my company's case, it would have been retarded to do either of those- save the highest or the lowest paid. They saved who they needed to.

The concept of giving someone a pass because they are the lowest paid employee is like giving the fat kid in dodgeball an extra throw just because he is out of shape. Sometimes life isn't fair.

And the exact same thing about the bonuses happened here at my company. We got measly $1500 bonuses while the uppers got as much as $85k. Does that suck? Yeah. Sort of. But there are elements of that which I understand. I don't have three degrees in finance, engineering and accounting like some of them do (which is insanely impressive) which help them run an efficient business. Perhaps that bonus kept them from moving on to another company.

 

[fire_breeze]

I don't know anything wrong with factory work or why anyone would be looked down upon because of it. That's shitty for anyone who does that.

This will make me highly unpopular and will cause me to fall from that pedestal you've all placed under me, but I disagree that a warehouse worker is just as important as the CEO to a company. I believe that people from all branches are important to a company. Don't mistake my intent with this. But, if a factory worker fucks up really big one day, then the shipment gets fucked up and the ripple effect is very small and cost is, more than likely, less than $10k. However, if the CEO fucks up really big one day, the ripple is huge and could affect thousands of people and cost millions. So, the importance of one is far greater than the importance of another. Not as a person, but as a contributor to a company.

It's like saying the heart surgeon is equally as important as the medical tech. Not the case. The medical tech provides a valuable service of which I am not diminishing. However, one of them holds a set of skills extremely difficult to replace. The other is much easier to replace. That's why one makes $300k a year and the other makes $30k a year.

I think the model for a company where the highest person makes only 7 times as much as the lowest person sounds ridiculous. I'll preface that by saying that I've not really heard of it until now, so maybe I'm missing something. But do you really want your heart surgeon making only 7 times as much as your janitor?

The problem I have is this concept of "fair". It's such a silly concept. How is that fair? How is it fair that a person's salary is limited by the lowest person's? How is it fair that the highest person gets a pay cut first?

Take the surgeon example. Why should a surgeon be capped at $140k a year because a janitor makes $20k a year? The surgeon spent $200k on medical school and spent 8 years continuing their education. Is that fair?

Perhaps I just miss the idea of it. But that's absolutely insane to me. Life isn't "fair". Those who have specialized skills are worth more. It's just a simple fact of life.

I do find it silly some of the packages that CEOs are able to negotiate. Sometimes it seems outright silly that a person can fuck a company up and leave with a bonus. I scratch my head at that one. However, people seem to paint CEOs as these people who just do nothing but wipe their arses with cash. No one thinks that they can be a doctor or a vet or something of that nature, so why does everyone think that the CEO, making million dollar decisions on a daily basis, shouldn't get paid a huge fucking salary? The truth is, the company and the shareholders see them as worth that much.

I am not suggesting that it should be same pay for everyone. I am suggesting that there should be less disparity between pay. If a CSR makes 30K/yr that would amount to 210K for the CEO. Why not raise the salary for the CSR? That's what I am suggesting.

And that was only one of the suggestions - and that's all it was. A suggestion, a model. Models are meant to be changed and transformed and adapted to a particular society, not copied.

I cannot comment on your example of med techs and surgeons because the systems that I know - both in Canada and in Europe - is completely different than the American one. Additionally, I was talking about the corporate culture, not the medical profession, which is in my humble opinion, a completely different ballgame and cannot - and should not - be compared to corporations.

Your example with a warehouse worker and having a minimal ripple effect is, I am sorry to say, a bit short sighted (and you know I adore you Pmann my man, so I am hoping that you take this in the spirit of a debate where we both can learn). The ripple effect has the potential to be huge. A worker fucks up big time can have long term effects as the customers will be effected. A pissed off customer When baggage handlers went on strike to improve mostly working conditions and get a higher pay, the company pretty much shuts down.

I think you have hit it square on the head: it's the idea that a worker is disposable.

Yes, the pay should reflect the skills. I absolutely agree you with that - and despite the left slant of my position, I have no problems with wealth and people working hard to accumulate said wealth. I do have a problem with greed and when people forget where that wealth came from.

See, the bonus is what I completely understand and agree with: the higher ups getting 85K in bonus IS valid. So is percentage profit sharing. These are excellent incentives to work harder. If the decisions made by uppers ensures that the company is making profits, then they should reap the rewards and benefits. On the other side, if the decisions they make causes a loss for the company, they should be punished (pay cut, no bonus, no share in profit). At that point, it doesn't matter what their degrees are. I have enough fancy degrees, but that doesn't make me infallible. If I do something stupid, I should be held accountable. THAT'S what I, in my over-exhaustive state and lack of caffein intake, am trying to put across. Badly it seems, but I digress.

The company you worked for, P, is similar to what I had in mind. However, the issue re. pay cuts: a CEO can afford a pay cut. A secretary cannot. But an admin assistant is valuable to a CEO/President/COO/VP/whatever; so why shouldn't the secretary's pay reflect that value (no, not talking about giving him/her the same amount as the Whatevers).

We may disagree, and that's okay. At least I completely agree with you where it is important: monogrammed towels and über-organised closets.

 

[NotHisLady]

The question is whether or not 24k/year is enough for a family to live on, including health care, benefits, time off and so forth. For a single person, 24K (depending on where the individual lives) is decent. For a family of four, it's only a few hundred bucks above the poverty line - contributing to a cycle of low-wage work.

Just because it's 'factory work', it still is honest and good work. Unfortunately, we, in the West, have a notion that just because a person works in the factory, that person is somehow a 'lesser' contributing member to society and this needs to change. A person's dignity is already stripped. It's probably why I prefer co-ops.

In all honesty, when looking at it strictly in terms of value as labor (because like it or not labor is a commodity) not all people are equal. Some have more value than others. No one likes to face that fact because we're talking about people but it's no less true than if we were talking about metal or stone or wood.
Pine is far less valuable than Teak, it's easier to get and much more abundant. It is also softer and not as easily used in some situations--in other words it has more limitations. Any person looking at the two would immediately agree that Teak should reasonably be valued much more highly than Pine.
However, when that same comparison is made between skilled and unskilled workers, one of which is capable of offering more to a company and is in shorter supply than the other, people develop blind spots. The problem is that it's nearly impossible for most of us to talk about people the way we would metal or wood or stone even though that is what is necessary if we are going to talk about the value of labor. Not every worker is of equal value.
That has nothing to do with dignity or humanity, it isn't even connected to worth as a person. As people we are all equal, all life has great value.
Not all work does.

The beef I do have with these companies is the disgusting disparaging salary differentiation. A warehouse worker is just as important than the CEO. Without the labour, the product will not make it to the consumer on time. Furthermore, my gripe is the fact that many of these workers cannot work full-time - not because they don't want to, but rather because they cannot and are cheated out of full-time benefits. It's disturbing.

The issue I have with Walmart - and many MegaCorporations - is how they became such a megacorporation. They move into a new area, underprice everything, forcing local businesses to sell out and essentially become a monopoly in that particular milieu, thus becoming the only employer in the area. This is why I refuse to shop there. People end up not having a choice to work somewhere else because there is no where else.

Speaking as a person who works in a small family business in a town with a Walmart, a Target, and several other large chain stores I can assure you that not every business is crushed when those stores move into a town. We're usually hurt worse by small short-term retailers (those Going Out of Business sales you see advertised so often at stores opened up just for that purpose.) Like anything else it's a question of shifting to find a place--doing what those stores don't, won't, or can't do. We've been doing that for over 20 years. They may be cheaper (a little bit) but they don't offer the service a small store does so we do that. They can't be as flexible as we can (you want it delivered today? If we need to make that happen we will make that happen.)
Other local store owners do variations of the same thing. They find ways to do what those big box store don't/won't/can't and they maintain their customer base. It's something of a myth that a Walmart moving in means all the local shops will close. Some will take a hit, some won't roll with it and will go under. Many will adapt and survive.
Vilifying the big store because the small store didn't survive the competition has never seemed entirely just to me. If a business can't survive competition then it can't survive being in business. A new factor in the area only means that there was room for one in the first place because no company is going to locate a store where it is likely to fail.

All of that brings me back to the question of whether refusing to patronize a store on the basis of it's employee treatment is really doing anyone any favors. Would those 'oppressed' workers thank you for it, do you think?
I dislike the local Walmart because it seems the store is never quite clean. The place is laid out badly so that getting in, finding what I want, and getting back out feels more like taking a beach than shopping. It's also out of my way to go there but it's no great loss. Hubby goes, buys cat litter and whatever else and it isn't my problem.
(WHY is non clumping litter getting so damn hard to find???)

 

[Lord Pmann]

I am not suggesting that it should be same pay for everyone. I am suggesting that there should be less disparity between pay. If a CSR makes 30K/yr that would amount to 210K for the CEO. Why not raise the salary for the CSR? That's what I am suggesting.

And that was only one of the suggestions - and that's all it was. A suggestion, a model. Models are meant to be changed and transformed and adapted to a particular society, not copied.

I cannot comment on your example of med techs and surgeons because the systems that I know - both in Canada and in Europe - is completely different than the American one. Additionally, I was talking about the corporate culture, not the medical profession, which is in my humble opinion, a completely different ballgame and cannot - and should not - be compared to corporations.

Your example with a warehouse worker and having a minimal ripple effect is, I am sorry to say, a bit short sighted (and you know I adore you Pmann my man, so I am hoping that you take this in the spirit of a debate where we both can learn). The ripple effect has the potential to be huge. A worker fucks up big time can have long term effects as the customers will be effected. A pissed off customer When baggage handlers went on strike to improve mostly working conditions and get a higher pay, the company pretty much shuts down.

I think you have hit it square on the head: it's the idea that a worker is disposable.

Yes, the pay should reflect the skills. I absolutely agree you with that - and despite the left slant of my position, I have no problems with wealth and people working hard to accumulate said wealth. I do have a problem with greed and when people forget where that wealth came from.

See, the bonus is what I completely understand and agree with: the higher ups getting 85K in bonus IS valid. So is percentage profit sharing. These are excellent incentives to work harder. If the decisions made by uppers ensures that the company is making profits, then they should reap the rewards and benefits. On the other side, if the decisions they make causes a loss for the company, they should be punished (pay cut, no bonus, no share in profit). At that point, it doesn't matter what their degrees are. I have enough fancy degrees, but that doesn't make me infallible. If I do something stupid, I should be held accountable. THAT'S what I, in my over-exhaustive state and lack of caffein intake, am trying to put across. Badly it seems, but I digress.

The company you worked for, P, is similar to what I had in mind. However, the issue re. pay cuts: a CEO can afford a pay cut. A secretary cannot. But an admin assistant is valuable to a CEO/President/COO/VP/whatever; so why shouldn't the secretary's pay reflect that value (no, not talking about giving him/her the same amount as the Whatevers).

We may disagree, and that's okay. At least I completely agree with you where it is important: monogrammed towels and über-organised closets.

Yeah, the debate is good and the disagreement is of no consequence. Everyone is entitled to be wrong. Hehe. I keed. Sometimes these discussions are fun. I enjoy it. Although Ed can kiss my black ass.

Not sure what you mean by CSR. Here that would be Customer Service Rep. I don't understand why the salary for a CSR should be raised? It takes no previous skill. You can take most people and train them to do that in a matter of months. It's not a high level skill. You can't do anything even close to that with a CEO. Their value is certainly more than 7 times that of a CSR.

And I realize that it was just a model. It just seems like such an idealistic model and it sounds great to everyone on paper, but seems silly when you actually crunch the numbers.

I don't think the way medical professions and corporate professions are all that different here. For instance, I absolutely love that my surgeon is getting paid $500k a year and not $75k. Get the best of the best and that's what I like when someone is doing my necessary cawk reduction surgery, which has to be done every few years. The same should be said of CEOs. I want the best of the best running my company. Someone with a vast array of knowledge and experience. The knowledge concepts a CEO possesses are no different than that of a surgeon- only the material is different. CEOs are at the top of their craft. The best of the best. Some are fucking idiots and should be fired accordingly.

I believe my example of the factory worker was sound. That's why I use it. Your comment about the factory worked being equal is a bit off. You said that when a group of baggage handlers went on strike, it nearly shut them down. I agree with this. But you compared an individual to a group. Of course an entire group would cause a huge ripple. That's not a fair comparison.

I'll ask this to prove my point: You have a company with 300 factory workers and 1 CEO. You can pick one of them to be fired. Who do you pick if you are making the LEAST ripple? All of them are good employees, but you need to just pick one.

I don't think the worker as a person is disposable, but the skill may be. I don't mean that to sound elitist. I just mean it to say, it's easy to replace someone who answers phones or moves boxes. That is a skill that is quickly learned and requires little previous background knowledge. My job is far more disposable than my CEOs. If I got cut, I would leave less ripple than the CEO. Now, there would be a huge deficiency in cuteness, hilarity, wit, style and class. I realize that. But as far as the company goes, it wouldn't affect the operations as much as the CEO.

I totally agree with your points about them not getting rewarded for their stupidity. If CEOs fuck up the company (or country in the case of our last two presidents), then no bonus for you!!! They shouldn't get rewarded for it.

But I admit this... If I could negotiate a golden parachute into my labour contract, you better bet I would!!!

 

[Lord Pmann]

One more thing...

The company you worked for, P, is similar to what I had in mind. However, the issue re. pay cuts: a CEO can afford a pay cut. A secretary cannot. But an admin assistant is valuable to a CEO/President/COO/VP/whatever; so why shouldn't the secretary's pay reflect that value (no, not talking about giving him/her the same amount as the Whatevers).

A secretary's work is valuable. But I just don't subscribe to the idea that just because someone can afford it, they should take the paycut over someone else. It's a nice gesture to make. I would probably do that myself. In fact, I have done something similar to that in a small way, in the past. But, I don't think that should be a business policy. It should be based on need and skill.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Vilifying the big store because the small store didn't survive the competition has never seemed entirely just to me. If a business can't survive competition then it can't survive being in business. A new factor in the area only means that there was room for one in the first place because no company is going to locate a store where it is likely to fail.

Exactly. It's like the fat kid in dodge ball.

 

[NotHisLady]

Exactly. It's like the fat kid in dodge ball.

That is NOT what I said!!!

 

[Lord Pmann]

That is NOT what I said!!!

Pretty much.

 

[Que]

Given that i am 45 miles from civilization and a lot of places ship for free...

...you would think I would be all about online purchasing.

It usually takes a couple of days after something is "delivered" to figure out where or who with they left it.

Last time was some 3500mAmp batteries for my phone. It ended up at the post office in the name of a friend. The post office gave it to me, no questions, no id required.

Everyone knows everyone, but not necessarily how to explain where someone lives...even with street signs and house numbers.

The place I am typing from shows up on google maps as the street on the hill above, which is also labeled by it's correct name.

Bad news I will be S.O.L. with amazon drones...good news I am invisible to armed ones.

 

[NotHisLady]

Pretty much.

Not even pretty much unless I just didn't explain myself well.

There is no 'fair' or 'unfair' in business any more than there is in life. As a kid every time I said "it's not fair" to my father he answered by telling me it isn't a carnival either. That still grates on my nerves but I still think of it every time someone utters the words "it's not fair."
No, it probably isn't fair but it is life.

Still, what I was trying to say is that a small business is no more doomed by the presence of a large one than it is guaranteed to succeed in the absence of a larger company. Business is an environment based on too many things for that one single factor to be the only important one.
A big store and a small one can co exist. If one or the other fails it may or may not have anything at all to do with the other one.
You are all just going to adore me for this one but think of it this way.
A fox and a wolf can live in the same environment and neither of them starve can't they? They are both predators, both basically competing for the same set of resources. One may be bigger and stronger but the other has advantages of its own. They can both thrive if they each use their own strengths rather than trying to imitate the other.
The same is true in retail. A small store can't be Walmart but then the reverse is also true. Competition is part of business, the big store deals with it and the small store deals with it. There are times that they do directly impact each other but there are a lot of other factors as well.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Not even pretty much unless I just didn't explain myself well.

There is no 'fair' or 'unfair' in business any more than there is in life. As a kid every time I said "it's not fair" to my father he answered by telling me it isn't a carnival either. That still grates on my nerves but I still think of it every time someone utters the words "it's not fair."
No, it probably isn't fair but it is life.

Still, what I was trying to say is that a small business is no more doomed by the presence of a large one than it is guaranteed to succeed in the absence of a larger company. Business is an environment based on too many things for that one single factor to be the only important one.
A big store and a small one can co exist. If one or the other fails it may or may not have anything at all to do with the other one.
You are all just going to adore me for this one but think of it this way.
A fox and a wolf can live in the same environment and neither of them starve can't they? They are both predators, both basically competing for the same set of resources. One may be bigger and stronger but the other has advantages of its own. They can both thrive if they each use their own strengths rather than trying to imitate the other.
The same is true in retail. A small store can't be Walmart but then the reverse is also true. Competition is part of business, the big store deals with it and the small store deals with it. There are times that they do directly impact each other but there are a lot of other factors as well.

Hahaha. I was really just joking around when I said that.

 

[NotHisLady]

Hahaha. I was really just joking around when I said that.

yeah well, I was the kid in glasses during dodge ball--I still get flash backs

 

[Lord Pmann]

Pmann was the dodge ball.

Hahaha. Fuck you.

 

[silverwhisper]

nothislady quoth:
i truly hesitate to interrupt here but the blind men and the elephant is one of my favorite parables. it hardly seems to fit the situation you ascribe it to--one in which one person chooses to see only a small part of the whole. my understanding of it has always been that it teaches more the danger of assuming one knows more than can be seen.

i think it entirely appropriate because in either case, the person in question is operating with a salient & fundamental deficit of information. willfulness thereof is the only question that still needs to be ascertained.

nothislady quoth:
other than conceding the existence of poorly run workplaces or badly managed workers, what specifically do you suggest is the solution to the problem? do we all nobly and valiantly refuse to offer trade to those businesses until they are forced out of business? i fail to see how you've helped the lot of the worker by doing that.

there has been a lot of identifying of the problem, it has been outlined and highlighted from every angle. could someone please offer a workable solution?

i don't accept that voting with my wallet isn't a workable solution. you appear to be making the argument that a single person's choices don't matter. i don't accept that conclusion, because if everyone made decisions on that basis, there truly is no hope for change. people want to know that their choices may make a difference. it's my hope that by discussing such things that perhaps some people might be influenced to do the same. that's how movements start: one person does something, and then others think it's a good idea, too.

mwmnpa quoth:
i'm in the staffing industry, and see all kinds of pay packages at every level. suffice it to say, when a company needs a key contributor or executive, the packages are necessary to attract the best and brightest. as are my services.

funny: me too. :>

pmann quoth:
you're frustrated because i don't agree with you.

no. i'm frustrated b/c i feel like i've explained myself pretty darned thoroughly yet you either can't or won't recognize that there's some validity to what i'm saying.

pmann quoth:
you keep saying that my focus was on a teeny aspect of a much bigger topic.

that part we agree.

pmann quoth:
it's like you're ignoring what my original complaint was and trying to turn me into a bleeding heart do-gooder who thinks all corporations are the devil.

nobody reading this exchange would ever make that mistake, dude. nobody.

pmann quoth:
i think that fair/safe working conditions are a necessity. i am an electrical engineer and much of my current job is making things safer for the field workers. i analyze situations and design systems to prevent harm. i completely understand how important safety is. absolutely.

OK, and that's cool.

pmann quoth:
your example of joe seemed completely ridiculous, by the way. also, your elephant parable was irrelevant. *scratches head*

re: joe example: why? you don't get to dismiss it just cuz you don't get it: show your work. you're an engineer: this isn't exactly a foreign concept for you. and as i'm sure you understand, i think you're completely wrong re: the elephant parable. that particular disagreement is at the heart of why we're disagreeing here i think.

pmann quoth:
i don't know that walmart is a shitty place to work. it sounds like amazon is based on those articles.

OK, my bad. your comments about shitty workplaces involved amazon only. i was wrong.

having said that: i've explained in multiple posts in this thread why walmart is a bad employer. if you still don't get it at this point, you simply aren't paying attention, or you are happy remaining in willful ignorance. your call which it is, pmann.

ed

 

[Lord Pmann]

It's kind of ironic what you're doing here...

You call pmann "dude" like misogynist's call women "dear." You are revealing much more about your character than pmann's or anyone else's.

Everyone else has been very respectful of each other's opinions and discussion, except you. You're just behaving like yet another big-mouthed bully with your "style" here, ed. Have you thought about a career at say......Amazon?

*stands on chair*

"I love this woman!!!!"