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

291–300 of 398 posts

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

#291

Post by api »

bjl wrote: post #288
api wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often heard that the biggest problem with unions isn't higher salary and benefit demands but inflexibility. Unions often insist on things like work rules (who gets to do what) and are resistant to automation or other forms of efficiency improvement. They basically end up mandating that things never change, eventually killing the host. From what I know of union work rules I can't even imaging trying to run any fo…

Union rules change all the time. Management just isn't usually willing to offer sufficient incentive during negotiations, since that would eat in to their profits.

Ultimately I think this comes down to the paradox of thrift.

You want everything as cheap as possible, which means you want everyone else to not belong to a union. But you want to be paid as much as possible, so you want to belong to a union. Your economic self-interest would be maximized if you were the only unionized person on Earth... but of course that's impossible.

It's not just "corporate greed." I mean that definitely exists and many executives are over-compensated, but compared to other costs like capital, labor, and taxes, that's usually just not that big of a cost center for a large company. That's part of how they get away with it. If CXOs were a significant cost center the shareholders would be less tolerant of those fat compensation packages.

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

#292

Post by anigbrowl »

api wrote: post #267
bjl wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, businesses don't like unions because they decrease their power over employees. That's not a good argument against them, however. If anything, I'd say its a good argument for them.

I've often heard that the biggest problem with unions isn't higher salary and benefit demands but inflexibility. Unions often insist on things like work rules (who gets to do what) and are resistant to automation or other forms of efficiency improvement. They basically end up mandating that things never change, eventually killing the host. From what I know of union work rules I can't even imaging trying to run any fo…

Germany's economy seems to be humming, and while it has some industrial giants like Siemens the bulk of its economic energy comes from the mittelstand, quality manufacturing firms with 500 or fewer employees. Worker's councils are the norm in German industry and have a collegial rather than adversarial relationship with employers.

It's not hard to find more information about this. You might also find it instructive to consider the much narrower earning discrepancies between line and executive workers in other countries compared to the US, even after you filter out the more sensationalist comparisons and allow for the fact of the larger domestic market.

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

#293

Post by zaroth »

petra wrote: post #17
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #5

> Workers can opt in to earn extra money by making deliveries using their own cars. They’re assigned packages based on where they live so the route aligns with their commute home The headline makes it sound coercive but that actually sounds like an efficient use of time and energy (less big trucks on the road, less miles driven, more money for people who want it). I wouldn't mind dropping a few things off on my way h…

Incentive: their hourly wages. Routes are selected to minimize extra time on commute. Up to 10 packages per person. Will get a navigational app. Source: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/walmart-begins-testing-usi...

If the incentive doesn't include a mileage reimbursement, then I'd say it's not a great deal unless their routing is extremely intelligent.

I mean, if you're paying me to drive home and drop off a package at my neighbor's house, that's fine. But 10 packages are going to take quite a bit of driving around to deliver, and so you better be paying for time and equipment cost.

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

#294

Post by timthelion »

dominotw wrote: post #161
timthelion wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

utter nonsense. Walmart makes 131 BILLION dollars a year in pure profit [1]. Obviuosly, forcing walmart to pay their employees more could lead to them making less profit and the poor being better off. EDIT: Basically there is no correlation between walmart's costs and how much the consumer pays. [1] http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Pro...

>forcing walmart to pay their employees more could lead to them making less profit and the poor being better off. What's stopping them from passing on costs to consumers, given they have eliminated all competition in large parts of the country.

The same thing stopping them from rasing prices right away without any change in the law.

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

#295

Post by anigbrowl »

api wrote: post #291
bjl wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Union rules change all the time. Management just isn't usually willing to offer sufficient incentive during negotiations, since that would eat in to their profits.

Ultimately I think this comes down to the paradox of thrift. You want everything as cheap as possible, which means you want everyone else to not belong to a union. But you want to be paid as much as possible, so you want to belong to a union. Your economic self-interest would be maximized if you were the only unionized person on Earth... but of course that's impossible. It's not just "corporate greed." I mean that de…

Everyone wants everything cheap.

A popular assertion, but one which ignores the demonstrable willingness of people to pay more at places like farmer's markets or shop at stores that don't always offer the lowest prices or widest selection. Since many people willingly make sacrifices on either price or convenience, you're arguing from a flawed premise.

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

#296

Post by api »

anigbrowl wrote: post #292
api wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often heard that the biggest problem with unions isn't higher salary and benefit demands but inflexibility. Unions often insist on things like work rules (who gets to do what) and are resistant to automation or other forms of efficiency improvement. They basically end up mandating that things never change, eventually killing the host. From what I know of union work rules I can't even imaging trying to run any fo…

Germany's economy seems to be humming, and while it has some industrial giants like Siemens the bulk of its economic energy comes from the mittelstand , quality manufacturing firms with 500 or fewer employees. Worker's councils are the norm in German industry and have a collegial rather than adversarial relationship with employers. It's not hard to find more information about this. You might also find it instructive…

> and have a collegial rather than adversarial relationship with employers.

That's basically what I've heard.

I'd like to see a US company intentionally try to form a union among its employees along the German model. That'd be an interesting experiment. I could see this working in a high skill area where ability to attract and retain top talent is a major differentiator.

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

#297

Post by bjl »

api wrote: post #291
bjl wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Union rules change all the time. Management just isn't usually willing to offer sufficient incentive during negotiations, since that would eat in to their profits.

Ultimately I think this comes down to the paradox of thrift. You want everything as cheap as possible, which means you want everyone else to not belong to a union. But you want to be paid as much as possible, so you want to belong to a union. Your economic self-interest would be maximized if you were the only unionized person on Earth... but of course that's impossible. It's not just "corporate greed." I mean that de…

Nah, I'd be willing to pay more if it meant my fellow workers were all provided with the protections a union. There's more to life than just money.

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

#298

Post by anigbrowl »

xienze wrote: post #290
anigbrowl wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tough titty for the employees who do rely on transit. No extra $ for them.

Well to hear it from HN readers, they're the lucky ones: they won't be exploited like their car-driving brethren.

A specious mischaracterization of the arguments on display.

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

#299

Post by __jal »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #252
dragonwriter wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either way, in the long run it's not possible for any employer to pay wages below the basic survival rate. Sure it is, if they are willing to accept more rapid turnover and the workers they are competing for have no better offers.

How long do you honestly believe an employer can sustain a business providing wages insufficient to purchase food to provide the calories necessary to complete the work?

You are attempting to recast the question to looking at median subsistence-rates worldwide. The Walmart workers we are discussing work in communities in the U.S.

Certainly, some folks in the world survive on $1/day. That doesn't work in the U.S.

We know that Walmart wages are insufficient alone, because workers there tell us that they need, for instance, SNAP to feed their kids.

Thus SNAP is, in part, now a subsidy to Walmart.

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

#300

Post by Fomite »

pyre wrote: post #14
mikeash wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, huge difference between "deliver this on your way home or your fired" and "if you want some extra money, deliver this on your way home." Not much difference between this and, say, LaserShip, aside from it being a small part of the overall job.

Well, where the rubber meets the road here is in whether or not there is an unspoken expectation that you need to do this, compensation or not. "Official" policy doesn't always reflect what gets implemented, and is sometimes just used as a way to legally CYA so that you can have your cake and eat it too.

"Not a team player"
Post reply on HN