Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 398 posts

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#211

Post by rectang »

ythn wrote: post #166
vkou wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, if only there was some sort of way to force Wal-mart to answer these kinds of questions. Maybe... A union of employees, who want to understand their relationship with their employer better, and to push back on unfair parts of said relationship.

If you don't understand why businesses don't like unions, you've never owned a business. Also, historically, unions in the USA for whatever reason a lot of times end up becoming mafioso (not sure if it's the same in other countries).

Yet without unions, employees are on their own to evaluate the non-obvious risks and hidden costs in deals such as this one. It's massive information asymmetry leading inevitably to exploitation; it's far from the ideal of perfect information and distorts the labor marketplace, leading to huge inefficiencies in the labor economy.

We desperately need innovation in how labor unions are structured and compete with each other to reduce the drag they impose while keeping the benefit they provide.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#212

Post by Chaebixi »

smileysteve wrote: post #177
Chaebixi wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> ...Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to...pay...pennies...and forc[e]...the government to pay the rest of a living wage. > What difference does it make where the money is coming from? Because taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart's business, for one. That's unacceptable, especially if the subsidy is the result of conscious policy on Walmart's part. > If we force Walmart to pay mor…

> Because taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart's business We can assume then that taxpayers are subsidizing all businesses with employees making under $11 and hour, so why isn't the government changing minimum wage laws from $7.25/hr and $2.35/hr

There's something especially slimy about the #1 company in the Fortune 500 consciously doing it. And by it, I mean pay its employees so little they need to go on welfare, and then directing them to the welfare office.

> so why isn't the government changing minimum wage laws from $7.25/hr and $2.35/hr

Because it's been captured by people who like to pay their employees as little as possible.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#213

Post by Consultant32452 »

SilasX wrote: post #199
Consultant32452 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least 80% of humans live on $10 per day or less. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-sta...

The parent meant in the area where Walmart etc are paying that wage .

Okay, then since the Walmart employees are still alive, the answer is yes. They can live on $40/day. As an added bonus, they have a higher standard of living than the vast majority of humans on the planet.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#214

Post by ianai »

petra wrote: post #131
losteverything wrote: post #79

As a professional delivery worker and an employee of the everyone-hates retailer i have this view: This is an experiment. Only. Lore has said that 75% of delivery cost is labor related. Wal-Mart is insane about not working off the clock. They won't force associates to do this. From the delivery aspect: When we get a new delivery person they suck for months. There are so many variables that make failure probable: unma…

Interesting view. You mention many problems. Most of them can be solved with data gathering - what's this unmarked address, which is the relevant unit, what the right access path, which workers do and don't give a shit, etc. and with the right app, and so many employees, you can gather all that data relatively fast, assuming some repeat orders. Heck, maybe do that with augmented reality via phone, to make it dead sim…

Yes, let's just magic up a borderline plausible/sci-fi fix to a foreseen problem.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#215

Post by smileysteve »

Chaebixi wrote: post #212
smileysteve wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart's business We can assume then that taxpayers are subsidizing all businesses with employees making under $11 and hour, so why isn't the government changing minimum wage laws from $7.25/hr and $2.35/hr

There's something especially slimy about the #1 company in the Fortune 500 consciously doing it. And by it, I mean pay its employees so little they need to go on welfare, and then directing them to the welfare office. > so why isn't the government changing minimum wage laws from $7.25/hr and $2.35/hr Because it's been captured by people who like to pay their employees as little as possible.

Slimy about consciously, doing what? Paying a minimum of 122% of what they are legally required to? Paying an average of 191% of what they're legally required to?

[If nearly doubling "expectations" is slimy, what does it take to exceed expectations]

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#216

Post by [deleted] »

leggomylibro wrote: post #113
SilasX wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think you're jumping the gun here, maybe? Do you even know what the compensation will be? >Instead of paying their employees a living wage, or offering benefits befitting a delivery driver, Obviously you can criticize Walmart's current practices. The issue is whether this policy is any worse than what they had before. >they can offset all of the risk, deprecation costs, etc associated with delivering a pack…

You're right that I don't know all the details, but I know how Walmart tends to behave with regards to their workers, and I know that the system their proposing looks unusually ripe for abuse, to the point where it seems like it must have been intentional. I'm tired of people wrapping shit in a pretty bow and trying to pass it off as a gift. It keeps happening, and people keep going along with it. Maybe this time we'…

[deleted]

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#217

Post by s73ver »

wutbrodo wrote: post #159
penpapersw wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of our local friends work at Walmart, because there's honestly not much other choice for them. Our economy is so broken that the only people who win are people who know how to abuse the system, and who have designed the system to be easier to abuse and harder to survive by honest hard work. I read once that Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to allow them to keep paying penni…

> I read once that Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to allow them to keep paying pennies for hard work, and forcing the government to pay the rest of a living wage. I have never understood this complaint. I'm 100% onboard with the idea that, in a society as affluent as ours, no one should be going hungry, unhoused, etc. But how is that not our collective responsibility, as oppos…

Because that is Walmart shoving their costs onto the rest of us. I'm glad that the social safety net exists, but a company that requires the rest of us to pick up their slack quite frankly should not exist. If they are not capable of paying their employees a living wage, then they are not a viable business.

I honestly cannot see how anyone can consider subsidizing a massively profitable multi billion dollar business is an "ethical approach".

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#218

Post by grasshopperpurp »

wutbrodo wrote: post #159
penpapersw wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of our local friends work at Walmart, because there's honestly not much other choice for them. Our economy is so broken that the only people who win are people who know how to abuse the system, and who have designed the system to be easier to abuse and harder to survive by honest hard work. I read once that Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to allow them to keep paying penni…

> I read once that Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to allow them to keep paying pennies for hard work, and forcing the government to pay the rest of a living wage. I have never understood this complaint. I'm 100% onboard with the idea that, in a society as affluent as ours, no one should be going hungry, unhoused, etc. But how is that not our collective responsibility, as oppos…

You don't understand why someone would complain that a mega-rich corporation is increasing its own wealth by refusing to pay a living wage, which then requires everyone else - not profiting on this person's labor - to make up the difference?

I don't know how you get, 'Everyone else is turning their backs on the poor and forcing Walmart to take care of them' from 'Walmart should pay their employees a living wage.'

The only other alternative would be to drastically increase social services and tax people - like the Waltons - a LOT more.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#219

Post by logfromblammo »

As long as you pay me at least $0.54/mile, pay me my regular wage for the entire time spent driving, and insure me and my vehicle until I get home, I would have no problem with this.

That said, I doubt Wal-Mart would be avoiding dedicated delivery drivers if they intended to do all that.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#220

Post by eanzenberg »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #187
rbanffy wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone actually live on $40 a day?

At least 80% of humans live on $10 per day or less. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-sta...

Irrelevant without context.
Post reply on HN