$8 hr new Breadwinner Benchmark for U.S. & No Insurance

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
10-22-2003 More workers go without insurance

A growing number of workers in large firms traditionally the places with the best pay and best benefits are going without health insurance, reflecting economic changes and the rapid rise in health care costs.

"This shows a weakening in the bedrock of employer-based coverage"

"We have a system where, every year, an increasing fraction of the workforce cannot afford health insurance"

"Less than half the employees of this company have health coverage," Shea says. The study said the health benefits offered by Wal-Mart may be unaffordable to families relying on $8-an-hour breadwinners.

 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
Part-time and temps are not seperated out which flaws the study. Also, as pointed out in the article by a Wally World rep, the numbers only show workers who have no coverage through wal_mart, it does not take into account how many employees have coverage through a parent, spouse, etc.

typical half ass journalism.
 

djNickb

Senior member
Oct 16, 2003
529
0
0
I work for a medium sized company ~250 people and have every year watched senior management increase the costs of benefit coverage while simultaneously decreasing the level of coverage and service - Friday we have another meeting to see just how low our 'new' plan will go. Makes me sick, and I may optionally choose to go without coverage since the increase in cost and decrease in service don't really justify keeping the coverage - IMO
 

nowareman

Banned
Jun 4, 2003
187
0
0
Originally posted by: 308nato
Part-time and temps are not seperated out which flaws the study. Also, as pointed out in the article by a Wally World rep, the numbers only show workers who have no coverage through wal_mart, it does not take into account how many employees have coverage through a parent, spouse, etc.

typical half ass journalism.

Employers are increasingly using part-time and temps precisely to avoid providing benefits and paying standard pay. These workers should definitely be included in the figures.
 

Zombie

Platinum Member
Dec 8, 1999
2,359
1
71
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They should have gone to college.

dude are you freakin retarded? What difference would college degree do in a lousy economy? Nobody is hiring college grads thus they end-up working low pay jobs like walmart and therefore no insurance.
 

djNickb

Senior member
Oct 16, 2003
529
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: djNickb
I Makes me sick,


Damn thats inconvenient!

LOL - exactly why I may go without coverage -- won't make myself sick thinking about how much more I'm paying for less service!

 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
Originally posted by: djNickb
I work for a medium sized company ~250 people and have every year watched senior management increase the costs of benefit coverage while simultaneously decreasing the level of coverage and service - Friday we have another meeting to see just how low our 'new' plan will go. Makes me sick, and I may optionally choose to go without coverage since the increase in cost and decrease in service don't really justify keeping the coverage - IMO
When you (and all others similarly situated) give up your toys, your home broadband, cable/satellite TV, eating out, and expensive car payments, then you can complain. Until then, it's just a lifestyle choice. You could also look for a new job/career if you're really unhappy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: nowareman
Originally posted by: 308nato
Part-time and temps are not seperated out which flaws the study. Also, as pointed out in the article by a Wally World rep, the numbers only show workers who have no coverage through wal_mart, it does not take into account how many employees have coverage through a parent, spouse, etc.

typical half ass journalism.

Employers are increasingly using part-time and temps precisely to avoid providing benefits and paying standard pay. These workers should definitely be included in the figures.

Precisely. The move to exclude people from full time benefits has been going on for quite some time. It is in fact policy in many companies to only hire part timers for this reason. If they are prohibited from getting benefits, they ought to be counted. As far as having coverage through spouses, parents, they are losing coverage too. You can believe that if parents/spouses lost coverage, Wally World et al would only be too glad to deny them too. Denying benefits is becoming institutionalized, and that is worth reporting.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Zombie
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They should have gone to college.

dude are you freakin retarded? What difference would college degree do in a lousy economy? Nobody is hiring college grads thus they end-up working low pay jobs like walmart and therefore no insurance.

Ok. let me put it this way. They should have made themselves more marketable, employable.
 

djNickb

Senior member
Oct 16, 2003
529
0
0
Originally posted by: tk149
Originally posted by: djNickb
I work for a medium sized company ~250 people and have every year watched senior management increase the costs of benefit coverage while simultaneously decreasing the level of coverage and service - Friday we have another meeting to see just how low our 'new' plan will go. Makes me sick, and I may optionally choose to go without coverage since the increase in cost and decrease in service don't really justify keeping the coverage - IMO
When you (and all others similarly situated) give up your toys, your home broadband, cable/satellite TV, eating out, and expensive car payments, then you can complain. Until then, it's just a lifestyle choice. You could also look for a new job/career if you're really unhappy.

If you we're to look at my 'toys' and expenses you would see that I actually live quite modestly - No expensive car payment - rent/utilities split 3 ways, no credit card debt, etc. My problem is that I just can't justify paying more (significantly more in this case) for less. As for a new job/career - that search is already underway. However as a recent college grad I need 'experience' to get a better job that more than likely will be moved to India in 6 months to a year anyways.
- Just my vantage point and opinion -

 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
3
0
"You can believe that if parents/spouses lost coverage, Wally World et al would only be too glad to deny them too."



Wal-Mart offers benefits to every employee, even part timers.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,879
6,417
126
The US will have "Socialized"(single payer/Government run) healthcare within 20 years. The current US Healthcare system is on the verge of collapse, is the most expensive by GDP in the world, and has a large(25%ish) segment of the population without any coverage(Emergency care only). As the system nears its' end even those opposed to "Socialized" Healthcare will embrace it as the only option left.

I predict.
 

nowareman

Banned
Jun 4, 2003
187
0
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
"You can believe that if parents/spouses lost coverage, Wally World et al would only be too glad to deny them too."



Wal-Mart offers benefits to every employee, even part timers.

That is not an accurate statement. This is from the Providence Journal. WalMart pays poverty wages and only 38% of its employees have health care coverage.

Froma Harrop:
Wal-Mart's everyday high costs
01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, October 22, 2003


AMERICA WORSHIPS at the altar of Everyday Low Prices. That's how Wal-Mart can get away with ravaging American wages, benefits and the jobs themselves. That's how Wal-Mart can go on hollowing out America's downtowns -- and with taxpayer subsidies, to boot.

Wal-Mart is not the only big-box discounter turning the American countryside into a "crudscape" and its working people into paupers. But the monster leads the pack in terms of size and its holy crusade to cut costs. With $245 billion in revenues last year, Wal-Mart is the world's largest company. Sales at the Bentonville, Ark.-based giant are bigger than the combined total of Home Depot, Target, Sears and Kroger.

Business Week described the "everyday low prices" slogan as the core value of "a cult masquerading as a company." All those yellow smiley faces and front-door "greeters" are part of a bigger strategy: to get rich off America's workers while undercutting them at every turn. What am I talking about? Here are the particulars:

-- Wal-Mart likes to call its sales clerks "associates," but "serfs" would be more like it. The company paid its salespeople an average $8.23 an hour in 2001. At that wage, a full-time worker made only $13,861 a year. The poverty level for a family of three was $14,630. Only 38 percent of Wal-Mart's workers have health coverage. It should surprise no one that nearly half of Wal-Mart's employees quit every year. (Before the recession, the annual turnover rate was 70 percent.)

-- Wal-Mart is destroying factory jobs in America. Example: Levi Strauss was one of the last apparel makers to actually produce stuff in the United States. But the made-in-America label means zip to Wal-Mart, which scours the globe's sweatshops for the sweetest prices. Demands for the cheapest jeans have forced Levi Strauss to shut down about a dozen U.S. plants. A factory in San Antonio is about to become the latest casualty.

Wal-Mart lobbies furiously in Washington for free-trade deals that guarantee a flood of goods made by pennies-an-hour labor ($12 billion worth from China alone last year). Small wonder America's manufacturers call Wal-Mart the Beast from Bentonville.

-- To Wal-Mart, unions are the devil and must be destroyed. Three years ago, meat cutters in Jacksonville, Texas, tried to establish the first Wal-Mart union. Eleven days after they joined the United Food and Commercial Workers, Wal-Mart closed all the meat-cutting departments at its stores and started buying pre-cut meat.

Wal-Mart is now on a rampage to devour the nation's supermarkets, and so threatens workers everywhere. Its Supercenter stores, which sell groceries, have already sent more than 20 national supermarket chains into bankruptcy. Wal-Mart has plans for 1,000 new Supercenters.

Terrified of a Wal-Mart invasion, California's three biggest supermarket chains have tried to lower their own costs by demanding concessions from their unionized employees. The result is a strike by 70,000 workers at supermarkets in southern California.

-- Wal-Mart is paving over America and destroying our communities. Its ugly boxes, plopped down on the edge of town, vacuum up business from local shopkeepers. (So much for any notion of customer loyalty.)

A group named Sprawl-Busters was formed 10 years ago to block Wal-Mart from forcing itself onto Greenfield, Mass. Every day, five or six towns from across the country contact Sprawl-Busters for advice on stopping a Wal-Mart, according to the group's founder, Al Norman. "It's not even about shopping," Norman says. "It's about how we relate to the places we live in. These towns are being changed economically, physically and socially."

-- Wal-Marts hurt surrounding communities. Iowa State University economist Kenneth Stone has studied the impact of Wal-Mart on rural Iowa. He found that some business districts benefited from a Wal-Mart but other towns within 20 miles suffered badly, with retail sales plummeting 25 percent after five years. Having lost their local merchants, the people in surrounding areas find themselves driving long distances to the Wal-Mart.

The line of groups calling for a boycott of Wal-Mart and its Sam's Club subsidiary grows by the week. As a former Wal-Mart customer, your author appreciates the lure of a good price. But there are competing values. When we understand the real cost of these "everyday low prices," they don't seem much of a bargain at all.

Froma Harrop is a Journal editorial writer and syndicated columnist. She may be reached by e-mail at: fharrop@projo.com.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
"Wal-Mart offers benefits to every employee, even part timers"

The union on strike against Von's (Safeway) and locked out of Ralph's and Albertson's also provided health benefits fully paid along with a livable wage of up to around 18$ an hour ~ $37,000 a year. There are over 70,000 folks involved in So. Cal. in this strike/lock out. The main issue is Health benefits and shift differential pay. The stores will not negotiate on the issues.
Look at what has occured. Walmart under prices the other stores by reducing the labor cost component of their structure. The wage level is going down in this and other industries. It is accepted employment by many because there is no alternative for them. They usually hire folks who've used up their UI and need work.
If Walmart was to be unionized or Costco then we'd see wages climb. Would costs climb.. at Walmart and Costco, yup! At Von's and the others, Nope!
We do it to our self. We do it to others by always looking for the cheapest price and forgetting that down the road we'll be faced with the reality too. It must reach equilibrium and it will.. slowly but surely in every industry until we are on par with the rest of the world.. we will be a one car two bike society... and don't get sick.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
"Wal-Mart offers benefits to every employee, even part timers"

The union on strike against Von's (Safeway) and locked out of Ralph's and Albertson's also provided health benefits fully paid along with a livable wage of up to around 18$ an hour ~ $37,000 a year. There are over 70,000 folks involved in So. Cal. in this strike/lock out. The main issue is Health benefits and shift differential pay. The stores will not negotiate on the issues.
Look at what has occured. Walmart under prices the other stores by reducing the labor cost component of their structure. The wage level is going down in this and other industries. It is accepted employment by many because there is no alternative for them. They usually hire folks who've used up their UI and need work.
If Walmart was to be unionized or Costco then we'd see wages climb. Would costs climb.. at Walmart and Costco, yup! At Von's and the others, Nope!
We do it to our self. We do it to others by always looking for the cheapest price and forgetting that down the road we'll be faced with the reality too. It must reach equilibrium and it will.. slowly but surely in every industry until we are on par with the rest of the world.. we will be a one car two bike society... and don't get sick.

"until we are on par with the rest of the world.. we will be a one car two bike society... and don't get sick"

Well put Ray except for minus one group, the super wealthy.

In fact the super wealthy group in the U.S. is the root cause of all of it. We have too many multi-millionaires that never have to work their entire lives and will never be affected by the actions that they are doing. Mark it down in History folks.

Edit: Just as I was posting the above, there are others that get it too:

Originally posted by: djNickb[/i]
Originally posted by: tk149
"The law of Deep Pockets" - don't you just love it?

Its the modern day 'American Dream' - Win a frivolous lawsuit for millions, join the upper class and laugh at the unemployed.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Since when has any company/business been responsible to give their employees benefits. That is whey they are called BENEFITS... they aren't REQUIREMENTS.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
"Wal-Mart offers benefits to every employee, even part timers"

The union on strike against Von's (Safeway) and locked out of Ralph's and Albertson's also provided health benefits fully paid along with a livable wage of up to around 18$ an hour ~ $37,000 a year. There are over 70,000 folks involved in So. Cal. in this strike/lock out. The main issue is Health benefits and shift differential pay. The stores will not negotiate on the issues.
Look at what has occured. Walmart under prices the other stores by reducing the labor cost component of their structure. The wage level is going down in this and other industries. It is accepted employment by many because there is no alternative for them. They usually hire folks who've used up their UI and need work.
If Walmart was to be unionized or Costco then we'd see wages climb. Would costs climb.. at Walmart and Costco, yup! At Von's and the others, Nope!
We do it to our self. We do it to others by always looking for the cheapest price and forgetting that down the road we'll be faced with the reality too. It must reach equilibrium and it will.. slowly but surely in every industry until we are on par with the rest of the world.. we will be a one car two bike society... and don't get sick.

Actually just one point I'll take issue with. If Walmart or Costco raise their prices - you can bet your @ss the other stores will raise their prices - been there done that;):D I was constantly on top of pricing category competitveness - You'd be amazed the games that industy plays...well maybe not because I'm the other ones do it too, but most people think of grocery stores as where they get their food - not a multi billion dollar industry.:)

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Since when has any company/business been responsible to give their employees benefits. That is whey they are called BENEFITS... they aren't REQUIREMENTS.

Shhh... dontcha know? Insurance is a right...pfftt - and you say you are up on economics and politics. :p

/sarcasm ;)

CkG
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Since when has any company/business been responsible to give their employees benefits. That is whey they are called BENEFITS... they aren't REQUIREMENTS.

Shhh... dontcha know? Insurance is a right...pfftt - and you say you are up on economics and politics. :p

/sarcasm ;)

CkG

Oops... I must of missed that memo... thanks CkG ;)
 

djNickb

Senior member
Oct 16, 2003
529
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Since when has any company/business been responsible to give their employees benefits. That is whey they are called BENEFITS... they aren't REQUIREMENTS.

No, but when you are trying to attract and keep skilled workers (this methodology is becoming aged far too quickly since you can do it in India anyways) benefits are a strong bargaining point. When companies provide benefits or partial benefits they utilize economies of scale. Employees get coverage that they likely could not otherwise afford. But I guess it's all moot since the majority of companies with the types of jobs that would likely offer such benefits are offshoring their workforce except for CEOs and the like who can afford to pay their own health care benefits since they just dropped the bottom line another 4% and can pat themselves on the back with a nice fat kickback. IMHO

 

ZaneNBK

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2000
1,674
0
76
Hmm.. This article seems HEAVILY biased and it's facts seem questionable.

-- Wal-Mart likes to call its sales clerks "associates," but "serfs" would be more like it. The company paid its salespeople an average $8.23 an hour in 2001. At that wage, a full-time worker made only $13,861 a year. The poverty level for a family of three was $14,630. Only 38 percent of Wal-Mart's workers have health coverage. It should surprise no one that nearly half of Wal-Mart's employees quit every year. (Before the recession, the annual turnover rate was 70 percent.)

Ok, $8.23/hour * 40 hours (Full-time is 40 hours last I checked) = $329.20/week. $13,861/$329.20 = 42 weeks of work in a year. Last time I checked most people don't take 10 weeks of unpaid vacation and/or sick-time in a year. $8.23/hour FT is not below the poverty level as defined by them. It's still sucky pay but just points out that their facts are questionable.

I'm not saying that Wal-Mart isn't the Devil, I'm saying this article sucks.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: djNickb
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Since when has any company/business been responsible to give their employees benefits. That is whey they are called BENEFITS... they aren't REQUIREMENTS.

No, but when you are trying to attract and keep skilled workers (this methodology is becoming aged far too quickly since you can do it in India anyways) benefits are a strong bargaining point. When companies provide benefits or partial benefits they utilize economies of scale. Employees get coverage that they likely could not otherwise afford. But I guess it's all moot since the majority of companies with the types of jobs that would likely offer such benefits are offshoring their workforce except for CEOs and the like who can afford to pay their own health care benefits since they just dropped the bottom line another 4% and can pat themselves on the back with a nice fat kickback. IMHO

Then the company will suffer the consequences of its actions. However, perhaps a company doesn't need to provide benefits to keep workers. Is that wrong? No. That's business.
 

djNickb

Senior member
Oct 16, 2003
529
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: djNickb
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Since when has any company/business been responsible to give their employees benefits. That is whey they are called BENEFITS... they aren't REQUIREMENTS.

No, but when you are trying to attract and keep skilled workers (this methodology is becoming aged far too quickly since you can do it in India anyways) benefits are a strong bargaining point. When companies provide benefits or partial benefits they utilize economies of scale. Employees get coverage that they likely could not otherwise afford. But I guess it's all moot since the majority of companies with the types of jobs that would likely offer such benefits are offshoring their workforce except for CEOs and the like who can afford to pay their own health care benefits since they just dropped the bottom line another 4% and can pat themselves on the back with a nice fat kickback. IMHO

Then the company will suffer the consequences of its actions. However, perhaps a company doesn't need to provide benefits to keep workers. Is that wrong? No. That's business.

You're right they don't need to provide benefits to attract/keep workers (anymore - I was referring to past times), hell they don't even need the workers since they too are driving costs up. As long as there are millions of skilled workers overseas willing to work for a fraction of the wages we've seen here, and no restrictions on operating facilities in foreign countries then you're statement about benefits will hold true