Walmart Workers Threaten to Strike on Black Friday

[merithyn]

Wrong.  I've worked in plenty of shift work environments that played it all sorts of ways, and they still suck.

You're right in this. It does suck, and it would be great if the economy was strong enough to force companies to treat their employees better via attrition of their best people. I just flinch at the idea of codifying it.

[CountDeMoney]

You're right in this. It does suck, and it would be great if the economy was strong enough to force companies to treat their employees better via attrition of their best people. I just flinch at the idea of codifying it.

DPS' nitpicking is just still doesn't change the fact that an employee has to have their scheduled hours bookended on either side of a holiday to qualify for holiday pay, which is still a bogus manipulation.

Doesn't matter, shift workers are the reason everything is wrong with America anyway.

[derspiess]

Give it up, Seedy.  You lost this one.

Wrong.  I've worked in plenty of shift work environments that played it all sorts of ways, and they still suck.

So go fuck yourself with a fetus without time and a half.

Dude, pick your battles.  Obama won and the Ravens beat the Steelers a couple nights ago.  Be happy with that.

[crazy canuck]

But there's no law that a company has to offer holiday pay at all (usual disclaimer about how there might be exceptions in some US jurisdictions).

I wouldn't be surprised if holiday pay is required by California law.  California has all sorts of stupid laws about stuff like that, which complicates doing business in California quite a bit.  For example, my company acquired another firm in Orange County a few years back, and they have some dumb law about how you can't  mandate employees use or lose accrued vacation, which caused all sorts of problems.  Moral of the story: if you do an acquisition in California, get rid of as many of the California-based workers as possible.

Do you really think it is stupid to have a law which requires companies to pay out unused vacation time?  If you do you should think about the reason such a law exists.  Companies could easily offer generous vacation allowances on paper but never actually allow their employees to take that time using the excuse that they are just too busy.

Such a thing would be illegal in BC (and I believe most other Provinces) but given the view expressed by a few Yanks here that vacation pay is somehow a "perk" and can readily see it happening in the US.

[merithyn]

Such a thing would be illegal in BC (and I believe most other Provinces) but given the view expressed by a few Yanks here that vacation pay is somehow a "perk" and can readily see it happening in the US.

Of course vacation pay is a perk. Otherwise, everyone would have the same time off per year. Every company decides for itself what kind of vacation pay - and the structure of said vacation pay - they offer as a benefit. Benefits are not requirements; they are perks.

[crazy canuck]

Such a thing would be illegal in BC (and I believe most other Provinces) but given the view expressed by a few Yanks here that vacation pay is somehow a "perk" and can readily see it happening in the US.

Of course vacation pay is a perk. Otherwise, everyone would have the same time off per year. Every company decides for itself what kind of vacation pay - and the structure of said vacation pay - they offer as a benefit. Benefits are not requirements; they are perks.

Meri, you are confusing two things.  Minimum standards and what a company might give over those minimum standards.

Around here minimum standards include making use it or lose it policies illegal and requiring employers to give vacation pay for statutory holidays.

[garbon]

Do you really think it is stupid to have a law which requires companies to pay out unused vacation time?  If you do you should think about the reason such a law exists.  Companies could easily offer generous vacation allowances on paper but never actually allow their employees to take that time using the excuse that they are just too busy.

Such a thing would be illegal in BC (and I believe most other Provinces) but given the view expressed by a few Yanks here that vacation pay is somehow a "perk" and can readily see it happening in the US.

I know that at my last job you weren't supposed to be able to have your vacation roll over from year to year. In practice, managers had a lot of discretion as they knew we'd revolt if we'd been too busy and thus never actually got any vacation.  I do know they used that against me when I left said job - but I was just so eager to be free that the loss of a couple hundred bucks was an issue I let slide.

[merithyn]

Of course vacation pay is a perk. Otherwise, everyone would have the same time off per year. Every company decides for itself what kind of vacation pay - and the structure of said vacation pay - they offer as a benefit. Benefits are not requirements; they are perks.

Meri, you are confusing two things.  Minimum standards and what a company might give over those minimum standards.

Around here minimum standards include making use it or lose it policies illegal and requiring employers to give vacation pay for statutory holidays.

I'm not confusing anything. Benefits are just that: benefits. They are not required by law; they are bonsuses to a paycheck to entice people to work at a specific company. The exception is health insurance, which is required because in our country it is nearly impossible to get affordable healthcare in any other way except through company-provided programs. (By the way, that's only true if the company has more than 50 employees.)

I understand how things are structured in Canada. That doesn't mean that it's the only - or the best - way to do things. I think I've been pretty clear that I believe that those types of things should be free-market rather than codified.

[dps]

You're right in this. It does suck, and it would be great if the economy was strong enough to force companies to treat their employees better via attrition of their best people. I just flinch at the idea of codifying it.

DPS' nitpicking is just still doesn't change the fact that an employee has to have their scheduled hours bookended on either side of a holiday to qualify for holiday pay, which is still a bogus manipulation.

Sure, it's a manipulation to ensure that people don't pull stunts like not showing up on Black Friday.  Holiday pay itself is a manipulation to ensure that people actually bother to show up on holidays that they're scheduled to work.  You know what wouldn't be a manipulation?  To just schedule people to work holidays and not give them any extra pay for it.

Given the choice of being "manipulated" and getting bonus holiday pay, or not being manipulated and having to work holidays without any bonus pay, I'll take being manipulated, thank you very much.  Hell, I wish I got "manipulated" into working on Saturdays, too.

[crazy canuck]

Of course vacation pay is a perk. Otherwise, everyone would have the same time off per year. Every company decides for itself what kind of vacation pay - and the structure of said vacation pay - they offer as a benefit. Benefits are not requirements; they are perks.

Meri, you are confusing two things.  Minimum standards and what a company might give over those minimum standards.

Around here minimum standards include making use it or lose it policies illegal and requiring employers to give vacation pay for statutory holidays.

I'm not confusing anything. Benefits are just that: benefits. They are not required by law; they are bonsuses to a paycheck to entice people to work at a specific company. The exception is health insurance, which is required because in our country it is nearly impossible to get affordable healthcare in any other way except through company-provided programs. (By the way, that's only true if the company has more than 50 employees.)

I understand how things are structured in Canada. That doesn't mean that it's the only - or the best - way to do things. I think I've been pretty clear that I believe that those types of things should be free-market rather than codified.

Yeah, I you already provided a fine example of why you will always be stuck with subpar labour laws.  But what you havent done is explain in any coherent manner why you think that is a good thing.  Free Market FTW isnt exactly an argument.

But in a Fox News world I suppose that passes for an argument.

[merithyn]

Sure, it's a manipulation to ensure that people don't pull stunts like not showing up on Black Friday.  Holiday pay itself is a manipulation to ensure that people actually bother to show up on holidays that they're scheduled to work.  You know what wouldn't be a manipulation?  To just schedule people to work holidays and not give them any extra pay for it.

Given the choice of being "manipulated" and getting bonus holiday pay, or not being manipulated and having to work holidays without any bonus pay, I'll take being manipulated, thank you very much.  Hell, I wish I got "manipulated" into working on Saturdays, too.

The term "incentive" works too.

[dps]

Sure, it's a manipulation to ensure that people don't pull stunts like not showing up on Black Friday.  Holiday pay itself is a manipulation to ensure that people actually bother to show up on holidays that they're scheduled to work.  You know what wouldn't be a manipulation?  To just schedule people to work holidays and not give them any extra pay for it.

Given the choice of being "manipulated" and getting bonus holiday pay, or not being manipulated and having to work holidays without any bonus pay, I'll take being manipulated, thank you very much.  Hell, I wish I got "manipulated" into working on Saturdays, too.

The term "incentive" works too.

I'm not sure how tongue-in-check you meant that, but in all seriousness, incentives are, or at least can be seen as, a form of manipulation.  The 2 words aren't exactly synonyms, though, because there are other forms of manipulation that don't provide incentives for the person being manipulated. 

[garbon]

Got a letter from Walmart saying just in time for Christmas, I'm pre-approved for the Walmart credit card!

[derspiess]

Got a letter from Walmart saying just in time for Christmas, I'm pre-approved for the Walmart credit card!

  That was a close one.  Glad they did it in time.

[Ideologue]

Thats why you need sane employment standards legislation that companies cannot contract out of.

Nonsense, all Americans have the right to decide who to work for and where;  whether they can or not is not a concern.

Don't like working at Wal Mart?  Work elsewhere.  If you can't, that's not our problem, man.

Yeah, which of course brings me back to my original question.  Why do you people put up with this.

Even the Union haters should be behind this kind of minimum standards type legislation.  Make the legislative standard strong enough and employees have little need to unionize.

Lol, this is the line you conservative types draw?  Working on Thanksgiving.  Common cause and all that shit, but who cares?  Workers get exploited all year, every year, no problem, but having to show up on a Thursday, BIG FUCKING DEAL apparently.