Walmart closes 5 stores on same day.."plumbing problems"

[spuwho]

Walmart closed 5 stores across the country on the same day for the same reason.  "Plumbing problems"

Problem is that the same stores were active with union threats. How do you treat it? lay em all off to fix the plumbing.

Some city leaders sent inspectors and permitting teams when they heard of the closures to facilitate an expedited reopening. They were sent away saying "none were needed".

Per the Consumerist:

http://consumerist.com/2015/04/28/walmart-reiterates-5-simultaneous-store-closures-were-due-to-non-urgent-plumbing-problem/

Walmart Reiterates: 5 Simultaneous Store Closures Were Due To Non-Urgent Plumbing Problem



Members of the public, local government officials, and Walmart employees aren't buying Walmart's explanation that five stores in four different states all had to close abruptly on the same day until because of problems with their plumbing. Yet Walmart stands by that explanation, even in the handout it distributed to employees when announcing the store closures.
For now, everyone employed at the five stores is still on the Walmart payroll: the chain has promised them 60 days of severance pay. They can transfer to other nearby stores if there's a position open, or seek employment elsewhere.

Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart) is a movement working for better pay and conditions for Walmart's employees, and is backed by the the United Food and Commercial Workers union. They provided photos of pages from the packet handed out to employees of one closing store to Gawker, and they highlighted the advice given to the thousands of people who were suddenly out of work on a generic "coping with stress" handout. Some of the advice is good, and some is rather patronizing: they provide a list of symptoms that people may experience in stressful times, and advise people to stay away from comforting substances like tobacco, chocolate, and alcohol. The thoughtlessness of this handout becomes clear more than halfway down the page, where it advises Walmart workers who have had their jobs abruptly yanked out from under them to "seek help if reactions [to losing your job] are interfering with job responsibilities."
What job responsibilities? At the job that they just lost, or at one of their two other part-time jobs? There's also a handy sheet of questions that employees might have about the store closure.

9. Did these plumbing issues create a health or safety concern for customers and associates? No. These incidents impact the availability of water and create drainage issues for critical areas of the store, such as the deli section, which impact our ability to serve customers.

So the plumbing problems weren't urgent or dangerous, but worth throwing hundreds of people out of work for the rest of the year anyway.

10. Are you closing the store for financial reasons? No. The store has a strong customer base and is part of the reason we have made the decision to invest in improving the store. We plan to reopen once the improvements are completed.

However, it is not worth investing in making sure that the employees who make store so successful don't lose their homes and don't have to scramble to get another job with short notice. Gotcha.
As Ashley Feinberg over at our semi-estranged former sibling site Gawker points out, "the likelihood of five different stores needing to be shut down simultaneously, all for six months, all due to plumbing issues, and all with just a few hours notice on the same day, is astronomically low."
In a statement to Gawker, though, Walmart explained that everyone is still on the payroll, they're looking for other jobs within the company while the stores are closed, and that OUR Walmart are a bunch of meanies for cherry-picking just a few pages from the very helpful packet that they handed out.

At this point, all associates are currently employed with Walmart. As I mentioned many will have the opportunity to transfer to other stores so they can continue their employment through the temporary closure. We are currently actively working to identify transfer opportunities for associates.
Whenever we have a situation that impacts our associates our goal is to provide them information that will help answer their questions, as well as provide guidance to resources and other information that would help through any transition. The "coping with transition" document is a standard resource we provide associates to help them manage the difficulties of discussing any type of work transition with others. It's unfortunate that our critics are attempting to minimize this process by conveniently excluding all the other valuable information our associates received and need during this time.

[coredumped]

We're going to see more of this if they make minimum wage $15/hr to flip burgers. I'm all for people making a "living wage" but first and foremost the responsibility is on the individual. Don't buy an iPhone, fancy sneakers, car, etc.
The market can't sustain high wages for low/no skill employees. They'll just be layed off or replaced with something automated.
Wal-Mart doesn't owe these people anything.

[menace1069]

We're going to see more of this if they make minimum wage $15/hr to flip burgers. I'm all for people making a "living wage" but first and foremost the responsibility is on the individual. Don't buy an iPhone, fancy sneakers, car, etc.
The market can't sustain high wages for low/no skill employees. They'll just be layed off or replaced with something automated.
Wal-Mart doesn't owe these people anything.

I agree. Minimum wage is not designed to be a living wage or a "career wage." It is designed to be the least amount of money paid for work, hence the name "minimum wage." A person should strive to NOT make minimum wage but get some skills and move on and rise above minimum wage. I don't understand why people who make minimum wage don't understand that. They can't enjoy flipping burgers every day. Do they not want a better job?

[fsquid]

 Paying $15/hour to someone who only generates $7/hour worth of production is not economically viable.

[fsquid]

Why should an employer have to pay $15/hour to a person who only adds $7/hour in value?

What's wrong with the idea that if someone can contribute only $7/hour in value, but needs $15/hour to live, we let the employer pay him/her what his/her labor is worth, and we as a society make up the difference?

[coredumped]

And just imagine.  The wages paid by Walmart are underwritten by billions of dollars of federal aid to workers who can't afford to buy enough food to eat while working for them.

Yep, and those should be cut off too. The market works by itself, only when the government interferes with it do we have such problems.
If people couldn't afford to live on a wal-mart salary they wouldn't. Instead they work there and take money from the gov, which is never going to balance itself out.

[Josh]

Why should an employer have to pay $15/hour to a person who only adds $7/hour in value?

What's wrong with the idea that if someone can contribute only $7/hour in value, but needs $15/hour to live, we let the employer pay him/her what his/her labor is worth, and we as a society make up the difference?

Probably because taxpayers have to pick up the rest of the bill as part of the billions and billions of dollars Wal-Mart employees receive in government assistance. I do not shop at Wal-Mart, yet I am financially supporting Wal-Mart employees. Why shouldn't these expenses be passed on to Wal-Mart and its actual customers instead?

[fsquid]

Why should an employer have to pay $15/hour to a person who only adds $7/hour in value?

What's wrong with the idea that if someone can contribute only $7/hour in value, but needs $15/hour to live, we let the employer pay him/her what his/her labor is worth, and we as a society make up the difference?

Probably because taxpayers have to pick up the rest of the bill as part of the billions and billions of dollars Wal-Mart employees receive in government assistance. I do not shop at Wal-Mart, yet I am financially supporting Wal-Mart employees. Why shouldn't these expenses be passed on to Wal-Mart and its actual customers instead?

so the employers should have to make up the gap between the value produced and the amount to live off of?  You are going to kill small businesses.  Wal-Mart can absorb that because their competitors face the same economics.  Where it doesn't work is when you have to face others who don't face the same economics.  Like China, Germany, Japan, etc.

Toyota and Kia and Fiat/Chrysler would have put GM and Ford out of business multiple times if not for intervention of our government because of the union wage which is what you are arguing but on a national level.

[hiddentrack]

And just imagine.  The wages paid by Walmart are underwritten by billions of dollars of federal aid to workers who can't afford to buy enough food to eat while working for them.

Yep, and those should be cut off too. The market works by itself, only when the government interferes with it do we have such problems.
If people couldn't afford to live on a wal-mart salary they wouldn't. Instead they work there and take money from the gov, which is never going to balance itself out.

The market doesn't work by itself. The market is why the government has to pay for the gap employers like Walmart create. They're the ones who've set up employment this way. Do you think the government went to Walmart and said, "please, pay your employees as little as possible so they'll be forced to come to us for help"? No.

Let's also set the record straight: these workers don't "take" money from the government. They have no choice but to ask the government for help in order to do things like keep food on the table, or have health insurance for their family.

And your solution, unless I misread, is for these workers to quit their jobs at Walmart because they don't pay enough? What do these workers do then? Trade the low-paying job at Walmart for a low-paying job at McDonald's? Where, in that scenario, is the solution to this problem? Would this mass quitting somehow force Walmart to rehire all of these employees at higher wages so government assistance is no longer needed? I don't see that happening.

There are enough people out there who need a job - any job - to get by, and I'm sure Walmart could easily fill every vacancy your solution opens up. And just because there are people out there willing to take those jobs doesn't mean they don't deserve to be paid more.

[fsquid]

And just imagine.  The wages paid by Walmart are underwritten by billions of dollars of federal aid to workers who can't afford to buy enough food to eat while working for them.

Yep, and those should be cut off too. The market works by itself, only when the government interferes with it do we have such problems.
If people couldn't afford to live on a wal-mart salary they wouldn't. Instead they work there and take money from the gov, which is never going to balance itself out.

yeah.  better give the Waldens another tax cut.

Its not just the Waltons, its business owners as a whole.  If only those greedy business owners didn't like their profits so much, right? Well, profits are why they choose to be business owners. If I'm going to risk capital by investing it in a business, I had better to be able to earn a profit that provides sufficient return for my investment. We have been on a steady path of increasing risks and reducing rewards for businesses to invest here in the USA. Businesses have responded logically and reasonably and appropriately by moving elsewhere. Retail and services have stayed here--Walmart and McDonalds--because I can't go to a McDonalds in China for lunch tomorrow. But the producers, the wealth creators, have gone overseas. That's why we have gone from a producer economy to a retail/service economy. The rich do okay in that environment, but it sucks for everybody else, and it sucks worst for those trying to get ahead.

Here's the part that seems complete nonsense to me. On the one hand, democrats criticize businesses for moving investment and jobs overseas to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations. But on the other hand, their solution appears to be higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations. How and why can that possibly work?

[L.P. Hovercraft]

And your solution, unless I misread, is for these workers to quit their jobs at Walmart because they don't pay enough? What do these workers do then?

A: All minimum wage earners unsatisfied with their lot in life should simply just f*ck off and die and decrease the surplus population, to paraphrase the great British economic theorist Ebenezer Scrooge.

[St. Auggie]

I love how the "living wage" argument always starts w Walmart. Walton was a poor man who couldn't raise a family on what he earned, so he, gasp, did something about. He created the most successful store ever. God forbid if people dont like where they are now, they should do something about. It is not an employers job to help people live. They pay them what they are worth on a per hour basis. If they don't like it, figure out how to be the boss.  There are millions save self made millionaires that came from humble beginnings. Don't like your life? Change it.

[coredumped]

I love how the "living wage" argument always starts w Walmart. Walton was a poor man who couldn't raise a family on what he earned, so he, gasp, did something about. He created the most successful store ever. God forbid if people dont like where they are now, they should do something about. It is not an employers job to help people live. They pay them what they are worth on a per hour basis. If they don't like it, figure out how to be the boss.  There are millions save self made millionaires that came from humble beginnings. Don't like your life? Change it.

You get out of here with that COMMON SENSE and ACCOUNTABILITY! Besides, you COULD better yourself and EARN a living, or have another kid and get more money - the government will literally pay you MORE each month to have more kids.

[finehoe]

Wal-Mart Has $76 Billion in Undisclosed Overseas Tax Havens

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. owns more than $76 billion of assets through a web of units in offshore tax havens around the world, though you wouldn't know it from reading the giant retailer's annual report.

A new study has found Wal-Mart has at least 78 offshore subsidiaries and branches, more than 30 created since 2009 and none mentioned in U.S. securities filings. Overseas operations have helped the company cut more than $3.5 billion off its income tax bills in the past six years, its annual reports show.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-17/wal-mart-has-76-billion-in-overseas-tax-havens-report-says