The Wal-Mart Problem

Originally Posted by Beestie

[QUOTE/ Marichiko
Hibbard's Department Store (now defunct) in Colorado Springs cheats and lies/QUOTE

[richlevy]

It really all comes down to children. While any conservative can argue that a mentally and physically able person should be able to find a job, any job, they still do not have an answer for the children.

Because some fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives, it gets even more confusing when sex is factored in. If a woman fails the abstinence test and does not use the contraception which some conservatives disagree with and does not get the abortion that many conservatives disagree with, then a child is produced.

Except for some obscure technical issues in some doctrines, most people agree that a child is innocent. He or she did not have a choice and can't 'cowboy up' and get a job until age 14 or older in most cases.

The bottom line is that some politicians do not care about starving children as much as they do about aborted fetuses. Recent cutbacks in welfare rules were opposed by some social conservative Congressman a few years back because they were afraid it would lead to more abortions.

It costs $20,000 to $30,000 a year to care for a healthy human being, in an orphanage, prison, or mental facility. Parents and foster parents do it for a lot less. Putting a welfare mother in prison and having the state care for her 8 children would cost taxpayers $100-$200,000 a year.

One of the reasons we are seeing so many abuse stories about foster care is that a) resources are being drained from social services, and b) more and more children are being placed in foster care, forcing social workers to lower standards.

As stated in this post in a recent thread, the 'good old' days were filled with desperate mothers and murdered infants. This does not even consider child labor in dangerous conditions without the benefit of public schooling.

True rock-bottom conservative capitalism is social darwinism. The unfit die, and the children of the unfit usually die first. In this case the church may actually serve a practical function in providing some services, at least for members of their faith. They also provide an outlet and promote social order, possibly avoiding revolution.

Fortunately, we live in a republic where every adult citizen is guaranteed the right to vote. If voting were limited to landowners or people with household incomes over $75k, it is possible that the safety net would disappear. Since our government is responsible to 'all' of it's citizens, removing the safety net would require convincing citizens that they don't need it. Doing so would require that proof be provided that the game is not rigged against the middle and working classes when it comes to accumulating and keeping wealth for retirement. Anyone reading the headlines would realize that this is not true.

The safety net right now is unwieldy, and probably needs to be fixed. However, health care, illegal immigration, and a lot of other topics, some of which the president is avoiding with all of his singleminded determination, are mixed into the goal of universal employment. Taking care of them includes taking on some very big lobbies that have now aligned themselves with the ruling party to prevent reform.

For example, to get businesses to hire people off of welfare, non-farm employment of illegal aliens would have to be curtailed Even under pressure by common sense conservatives in the Republican party, there has been no real progress on this. This is because illegal immigrants are the drug of choice for businesses looking at the bottom line. It is cheaper to keep people on welfare and pass the cost along to taxpayers than to make the extra effort to give a job to a citizen with a history of chronic unemployment, or a single parent, or a recovering substance abuser.

Part of our welfare system is designed to prop up the people displaced by illegal aliens and allow more corporate profits, which, thanks to tax cuts, are not even taxed sufficiently to balance the cost.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Heh! Don't know about other states, but here in Colorado, many outfits get around providing health insurance, etc. by only giving employees 35 or 36 hour work weeks which makes them "part time."

What do you mean by "get around"? Is there a federal law that defines a full time employee as one who works 40 hours or more, and thus must be provided with health insurance? Can I get a link please?

[Trilby]

richlevy, i bow to your entire post, above. You really ARE the bee king!

You all know I go to a university around here (a rather, ahem, lame one, but! one nonetheless!) you should hear the kids. Pro-life, Anti-AssistedSuicide, Pro-Bush, etc. I worry. I worry.

Then I think: eh, what do twenty-somethings know? And then I feel better.

Originally Posted by jinx

What do you mean by "get around"? Is there a federal law that defines a full time employee as one who works 40 hours or more, and thus must be provided with health insurance? Can I get a link please?

Find your own link, sorry. I speak from real life experience. Hibbard's would keep us at 39 hours a week because that way they could avoid having to pay us a higher wage and/or health insurance. I am not going to slog thru the Federal Register only to have Wolf reply that I'm living off the taxpayer and therefore have no right to post the facts much less voice an opinion, or to have Beestie post "Quote/Marichiko "The Federal Register steals and lies"/Quote."

Go back and read Rich's post if you want to read something, and if you want to prove me wrong, go research the Federal and US Code yourself. :p

[Trilby]

ah, you girls...

I've been (un)happily employed for years and years. If you worked forty, you pulled enough weight to have insurance. If they could stick thirty-eight hours to you, they could claim you were part-time (with the exception of folks they WANTED RE:nurses. As an RN, I could, and DID, work 36 hours/week and carry F/T bene's). Happens everywhere. That's not the Question, though. I am reasonably sure that there is a law about how many employees you have and how much/how many bene's you must cough up. Lots of stuff about this. gads.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Find your own link, sorry. I speak from real life experience.

You know exactly how much faith I have in your "real life" experience.
I looked. Didn't find anything other than;

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Question: How many hours is full-time employment? How many hours is part-time employment?

Answer: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define full-time employment or part-time employment. This is a matter generally to be determined by the employer. Whether an employee is considered full-time or part-time does not change the application of the FLSA.

Didn't find anything on mandatory benefits or pay increases (beyond time+ .5 for 44+hours).

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Lots of stuff about this. gads.

Point me in the direction of it eh? I'm genuinely interested.

Originally Posted by jinx

You know exactly how much faith I have in your "real life" experience.

No? REALLY?!?

Originally Posted by Jinx

Marichiko cheats and lies

Whatever. Believe what you want. Its nothing to me.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I just realized that sounded pretty harsh. There is definitely no excuse for being callous. However, charity should come from individuals, and it should be freely given. It's our responsibility as fellow humans to make sure the other humans in our sphere of influence are taken care of.

It's not the job of government nor of corporate entities.

That was a rather Godwinian statement Mr Noodle...

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by Brianna

I've been (un)happily employed for years and years. If you worked forty, you pulled enough weight to have insurance. If they could stick thirty-eight hours to you, they could claim you were part-time (with the exception of folks they WANTED RE:nurses. As an RN, I could, and DID, work 36 hours/week and carry F/T bene's). Happens everywhere.

Marichiko and Brianna both mirror my experiences with IBM, a company every bit as manipulative as you can find but very aware of their legal issues. So aware that they called meetings to discuss the hours-per-week/day with us every time they were getting the shaft ready. We were told that according to law only a regularly scheduled 40 hpw made you a "full-time employee" and only then could you have benefits. You couldn't just get them by working a scheduled 20 hour week and an equal amount of "overtime". It was not until later that I discovered that did not include the special "consultant" status that they gave hourly employees who were so special that they needed extra persuasions (but none of that applied to me anyway since I was in sales support/administration). They see-sawed back and forth so many times about overtime being forbidden to overtime being compulsory that finally they solved the problem by making every administrative employee above a certain grade "exempt". That meant that no matter how many hours per day/week you worked over your scheduled 40, you got paid a flat rate (formerly that was just for management). This allowed them to legally work you into the ground without having to mess up their budget for salaries. 20 years later, they are in court facing a class action suit over non-payment of overtime But as far as benefits, those of us with the required 40 hours got all expenses paid for any psychiatric care needed to cope with the stress the company caused.

[jinx]

Tonchi, are you saying that IBM is being sued for not paying overtime to their salaried-exempt employees?

We were told that according to law only a regularly scheduled 40 hpw made you a "full-time employee"

I've "heard" this too and was wondering if it was true - it doesn't appear to be. I would have checked into it had it affected me, but I received full bennies with 35 hours at my last real job.

[Trilby]

I think so much of it depends on who you're working for and how valuable they think you are to them. In the many hospitals around here it all depends on what STATUS you hired in as. If I was hired AS a part-time employee and they gave me 60 hrs/week, I'd get paid OT for anything over forty,but no benes. I was part time until I found an opening that gave me full time status.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

They see-sawed back and forth so many times about overtime being forbidden to overtime being compulsory that finally they solved the problem by making every administrative employee above a certain grade "exempt". That meant that no matter how many hours per day/week you worked over your scheduled 40, you got paid a flat rate (formerly that was just for management). This allowed them to legally work you into the ground without having to mess up their budget for salaries. 20 years later, they are in court facing a class action suit over non-payment of overtime But as far as benefits, those of us with the required 40 hours got all expenses paid for any psychiatric care needed to cope with the stress the company caused.

I don't know when the current rules went into effect, but according to the Dept of Labor the minimum for 'exempt' is $455 per week which works out to about $23.5K if you don't take vacations. That is above the poverty level for a family of four, placing someone in the 'working poor' category, especially if they have to pick up their own health care.

Administrative Exemption To qualify for the administrative employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:

• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and
• The employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

• That last item is open to a lot of interpretation.

[Badgerino]

I worked part time for my city's park department.
At that time part time meant that as a municipality they did not have to pay time and a half for overtime and there were weeks when I worked for 50 hours or more. Quite a deal for the city. They strung me along for 2 years, promising to put me on full time "next spring" or "next fall". Finally the union got it in their contract that after 180 days they would either hire the part timers onto full time or lay them off. No more stringing along. In spite of the city saying they had no money, I got hire that summer. And then surprise, surprise, they hired 4 guys after me. I quit after 4 years--the flat out most stupid thing I have ever done and that choice cost me tens of thousands of dollars in lost pay. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.

P.S.,
Republicans' concern for life begins at conception and ends at birth.