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

381–390 of 398 posts

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

#381

Post by wutbrodo »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #218
wutbrodo wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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?

It seems like you've completely failed to understand any of my comment. I'm taking issue with the entire construction of the claim you're making. If I buy a guy's used car from him on Craigslist, and he doesn't have a job and that was his only income that year, am I "increasing my own wealth by refusing to pay him enough to live, which then requires everyone else to make up the difference"? No, and your claim makes as little sense as that one does.

My whole point is that I've never heard an argument for loading the purchase of labor with the responsibility for arbitrary parts of the seller's life. The only arguments I've ever heard in support of it (like yours) are just a poor excuse to shrug off the responsibility that society owes to its citizens.

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

Well _duh_. That's entirely my point. And it makes infinitely more sense to target governmental revenue intentionally (ie through a progressive tax code) than to resort to the current messy workaround and all the distortions of the labor market that it implies.

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

#382

Post by studentrob »

rayiner wrote: post #380
angry_octet wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even if you read it, you're not actually qualified to understand it unless you're a lawyer. Even if you think you understand it, you don't.

The irony is that if a lawyer gave you legal advice about what a car insurance agreement means with zero background knowledge of insurance law or extra research, that'd be malpractice. But we hold ordinary people accountable for adhering to those agreements and understanding the implications.

Nothing wrong with holding the lawyer accountable.

If someone purports to be a professional about something, I expect them to be, particularly about matters as serious as law. I suspect we hold them accountable because those are the people society has entrusted with such matters. Same goes for doctors and medical malpractice.

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

#383

Post by Broken_Hippo »

dlubarov wrote: post #339
CamperBob2 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The no-left-turns rule isn't crude, it's an incredibly valuable (and incredibly obvious) optimization. A mapping service that tells me to turn left in downtown San Francisco at rush hour is literally worse than useless. In many cases, if I follow its directions blindly, not only will I be delayed, I'll delay the traffic around me. It's mind-boggling that Google, Apple, and other consumer-grade routing providers haven…

It's crude because it's too general. Making three right turns might be the right choice on a busy street in SF, but on a side street in a quiet suburb, making a single left is normally the better choice.

It isn't just the wait time, but safety. There is less to look out for when turning right vs turning left, resulting in fewer accidents. This is the same reason some employers require employees to back into a parking space when possible.

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

#384

Post by Broken_Hippo »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #179
leggomylibro wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

What do you propose? I'm against exploitation of workers, too, but at the end of the day there is only so much you can do with jobs that require relatively unskilled labor. If a 15 year old can do your job as well as you can after a few months of training, it's not a safe job that you can expect anything out of. It's gonna get automated away anyway. But here Walmart (whatever their other faults), offers a way for wor…

So you are against exploitation, yet you add a "but"? Who cares if someone else can do the job pretty readily. Anyone can be a prostitute or stripper (yeah, I know, looks and all). Some folks would argue that a 17 year old might do it better, but that's no excuse for exploitation.

"If people's regular jobs paid a "living wage", people wouldn't have to Uber, but it's how the world works." Just because some folks have to do it to get by doesn't make it right or desirable. If we can do things as a society so that people don't have to Uber just to get by - and we aren't doing it - we as a society are horrible people. And that is more where we are at now.

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

#385

Post by sokoloff »

jlarocco wrote: post #336
sokoloff wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the delivery is on the employee's typical route home, this could be a win for both the employee and for Walmart (and a minuscule reduction in overall traffic and miles driven). That's not at all the case of Walmart buying a Sprinter van and driving it around all day on routes that weren't naturally being covered.

You've completely missed my point. No doubt it's favorable to Walmart - they've had a team of people running the numbers and they get to set the rules. The question is whether or not it's actually favorable to employees and whether or not Walmart will inform them of the costs they'll be responsible for. "Here's $10 to deliver this" sounds great until you realize it's $5 in gas, your insurance is going up $50 a month,…

The same question exists for Uber/Lyft drivers. I talk to them nearly every time I ride and for the most part, the drivers understand their costs in a rough sense. (I don't buy the "people are blind idiots" narrative that suggests that a commercial entity has all the power and we must protect people from corporations at every turn.) Only one driver (out of 40+ such conversations) struck me as the type who believed that his Uber earnings were straight profit into his pocket.

"Hey, there's $10 in it for you if you drop off a package on your way home." Let the employee decide if it's worth it or not. So long as there is no coercion, I don't need Walmart to educate the employees on maintenance, the cost of gas, etc. I do think it's fair and reasonable to disclose/inform/explain the insurance situation.

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

#386

Post by rbanffy »

mythrwy wrote: post #362
rbanffy wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that qualify as life or merely survival? Can a person under these conditions become a parent? Can someone in this situation raise a healthy kid? I doubt it.

No, you can't have a kid on this money. Nor is it a very good life in terms of material possessions. You probably can't afford a horse either. But none of those things were specified in OP's post.

That's more or less what it meant - a meaningful, healthy life, above merely survival. I would know - I'm the OP.

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

#387

Post by rayiner »

studentrob wrote: post #382
rayiner wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that if a lawyer gave you legal advice about what a car insurance agreement means with zero background knowledge of insurance law or extra research, that'd be malpractice. But we hold ordinary people accountable for adhering to those agreements and understanding the implications.

Nothing wrong with holding the lawyer accountable. If someone purports to be a professional about something, I expect them to be, particularly about matters as serious as law. I suspect we hold them accountable because those are the people society has entrusted with such matters. Same goes for doctors and medical malpractice.

I'm not saying anything is wrong with holding the lawyer accountable. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to hold ordinary people accountable for complex consumer contracts. Even if you're a lawyer, you need either some familiarity with the relevant law or need to do some research to understand these contracts. We'd say it would be reckless for a lawyer to advise a client about such a contract with no background knowledge of applicable law. But we expect ordinary people to do it all the time and pretend like they understand what they're signing.

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

#388

Post by [deleted] »

sokoloff wrote: post #385
jlarocco wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've completely missed my point. No doubt it's favorable to Walmart - they've had a team of people running the numbers and they get to set the rules. The question is whether or not it's actually favorable to employees and whether or not Walmart will inform them of the costs they'll be responsible for. "Here's $10 to deliver this" sounds great until you realize it's $5 in gas, your insurance is going up $50 a month,…

The same question exists for Uber/Lyft drivers. I talk to them nearly every time I ride and for the most part, the drivers understand their costs in a rough sense. (I don't buy the "people are blind idiots" narrative that suggests that a commercial entity has all the power and we must protect people from corporations at every turn.) Only one driver (out of 40+ such conversations) struck me as the type who believed th…

[deleted]

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

#389

Post by rectang »

sokoloff wrote: post #385
jlarocco wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've completely missed my point. No doubt it's favorable to Walmart - they've had a team of people running the numbers and they get to set the rules. The question is whether or not it's actually favorable to employees and whether or not Walmart will inform them of the costs they'll be responsible for. "Here's $10 to deliver this" sounds great until you realize it's $5 in gas, your insurance is going up $50 a month,…

The same question exists for Uber/Lyft drivers. I talk to them nearly every time I ride and for the most part, the drivers understand their costs in a rough sense. (I don't buy the "people are blind idiots" narrative that suggests that a commercial entity has all the power and we must protect people from corporations at every turn.) Only one driver (out of 40+ such conversations) struck me as the type who believed th…

> I don't buy the "people are blind idiots" narrative

That's like saying criminal defendants shouldn't have lawyers because they aren't "idiots".

The problem is that the negotiation between the corporation and the worker is skewed by information asymmetry. Furthermore, the cost of changing jobs is high, and the same negotiation disparities exist elsewhere.

Collective bargaining would address those concerns, as it allows workers to amortize the cost of analysis across all their transactions. But labor unions are a heavyweight solution.

It would be nice to see other suggestions from people who don't wave off concerns over information asymmetry as paternalism.

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

#390

Post by timthelion »

ruste wrote: post #171
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...

Gross profit. Not Net profit. They made a tenth of that after all other costs are considered. [1] 13.6 billion spread over 2.1 million employees works out to about a $6500 per year raise or about $3.10 per hour given 2087 working hours in a year before they're in the red. It'd help a bit, but nothing life changing. You're vastly overestimating their ability to raise wages without raising prices. [1] http://www.market…

Are you sure that a 35% increase in sallary wouldn't be life changing for a person making 18k a year? https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Sales-Associate...
Post reply on HN