Ageism?

[Tisket]

CNN/Money Magazine wrote:



NEW YORK (Reuters) - An internal memo sent to the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. board proposes numerous ways to hold down health care and benefits costs with less harm to the retailer's reputation, including hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from seeking jobs, the New York Times said Wednesday.

The paper said the draft memo to Wal-Mart's board was obtained from Wal-Mart Watch, a pressure group allied with labor unions that says Wal-Mart's pay and benefits are too low.

The paper said in the memorandum Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) pension contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits.

The memo is quoted as expressing concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive, said the paper, which posted the memo on its Web site

To discourage unhealthy job applicants, the paper said, Chambers suggests Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)"


I'm not saying this is right or wrong or that it should be illegal or whatever but I'm curious: if you support businesses doing this as their own perogative to save costs, what is your solution towards the "unhealthy" who need to remain employeed? I doubt many people are working at Wal-Mart on a lark

Also, I read this and imagined lawyers discussing using the word "discourage" and making everyone do physical labor as opposed to actively banning employees over a certain age (or having some malady that prevents them from sprinting around the parking lot like a gazelle)

[Bobmuhthol]

It's not fair, and it's not something that a consumer should look at and be necessarily happy about, but it is business. Capitalism is capitalism.

[Alfster]

How can you consider cart gathering to be manual labor? The walmart's around here have an automatic pusher that pushes the cart for them. Even without that, if someone's not able to push 10 carts at once, then they most likely are greeters at wallyworld.

It is highly illegal to not hire someone based on age. It is not illegal to not hire someone because they are unable to handle pushing 10 carts at once.

As far as hiring less full time employees, well...it's retail. The vast majority of retail stores hire all hourly employees except for management. It makes sense because there are times where the workload is light and then there are times when they just don't have enough people to finish all the work.

[Parkbandit]

Discrimination.. especially based upon old age.. is a very bad thing. Don't do it.

[Bobmuhthol]

<-- not given a part-time job as a PC technician.
<-- 15.
:(

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Discrimination.. especially based upon old age.. is a very bad thing. Don't do it.

Why am I not surprised that discriminating against old people would upset you? :D

[Latrinsorm]

Which part of this is ageism again?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Which part of this is ageism again?>>


The memo is quoted as expressing concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive, said the paper, which posted the memo on its Web site

Someone working at Wal-Mart for 7 years is going to be older than most working at Wal-Mart for 1 year.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Someone working at Wal-Mart for 7 years is going to be older than most working at Wal-Mart for 1 year.Care to back that up with some data? Who's to say that the majority of those who work there for 1 year aren't those old fogie greeter people?

[ElanthianSiren]

That's capitalism. I don't buy from Wal-mart, as I don't care for where my money goes after it's in their hands. By the same token though, it makes me chuckle when Wal-mart gets offended and huffy that people don't care to have their stores in their community (referencing California here) and boycott them out.

-M

[Gan]

Having had to project out, research employee insurance carriers for a company, and perform cost/benefit analysis on the policies and premiums that my old company was being charged to carry health insurance for its direct labor workforce, I understand why Wal-Mart is wanting to be strategic in how they staff their direct labor pool. While I have equated some of the very things that were said in the memo that was described in the article, I was never foolish enough to put it in writing. Is it illegal? Depends on how you practice that strategy. Welcome to the world of loopholes. By the same token, the demand we place on those who wish to remain competitive in the marketplace dictate that they look at cutting costs anywhere and everywhere. All companies who have a strategic plan consider things as this when they are reviewing operating costs, and they must weigh the risk of crossing the line between being efficient and being predatory.

Once you're viewed as predatory then you deal with a market variable just as powerful as pricing: buyer utility. Not only will consumers decide to shop elsewhere and pay a higher price because of perceived ethical violations or predatory practices; additionally workers will look for other places to work if they perceive that they can not receive equitible compensation for their employment. Ask KMart about using child labor to make their clothes overseas (Kathy Lee clothing line), or Exxon how many customers they lost when the Valdez ran aground in Alaska in the 80's. Thats the beauty with Capitalism, it encourages competition and substitute goods - so consumers have a choice where and what to buy when they want to buy.

[Apotheosis]

How about this for a thought:

Cut down every workers salary, have no consumer base to spend money, lose business.

Continue cutting costs until nothing is left.

There is a point where cutting costs is ridiculous, and probably should not be happening.

Welcome to America, the land of the cheap.

[Tisket]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Which part of this is ageism again?


The paper said in the memorandum Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) pension contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits.

[Tisket]

To discourage unhealthy job applicants, the paper said, Chambers suggests Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)"

It sounds to me like this is an attempt to add physical activities to a job description simply to weed out less desirable applicants. Although I'm sure Wal-Mart's lawyers can come up with a nice exhibition of how having all cashiers share cart retrieval duties is more cost-effective, and therefore a legal requirement....

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by Tisket
CNN/Money Magazine wrote:

[quote]
The memo is quoted as expressing concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive, said the paper, which posted the memo on its Web site.



This is the part that really caught my eye. Like, duh? I should hope people working there 7 years make more than people who've only been there 1! Are they too stupid to realize that a stable and dependable employee is a good thing?

The article gives me yet one more reason why I'll never shop there. I've never even gone inside one.

RD