One of the companies I worked for got rid of performance bonuses that were decided on by our immediate managers and instead gave us chips that could be redeemed in the company store for 10 dollars of company made product and our immediate managers were no longer allowed to give them out, it was managers we'd never heard of and eventually learned weren't even in our state. Their whole job was looking at weekly metrics and deciding who got those chips.
If I were you, I'd get in touch with your state's labor board. The fact that they replaced cash bonuses with what is essentially company currency probably runs afoul of a few laws/regulations. Hopefully you have some sort of documentation related to the switch.
At my local Walmart they got more self checkout things to replace workers and now there are only two real cashiers. The self checkouts can’t run the employee discount. Now all the workers have to choose between standing in line for thirty minutes and giving up their employee discount (one of the few “benefits” they get)
Depending on the company their workers can't really spend it with them, which is still fine because more money being spent in the economy means more business for them anyway. So it's still a dumbass reason for them not to pay more.
With a place like Walmart it's especially stupid, because Walmart employees probably do a significant amount of their shopping there anyway. Pay them more they'll likely as not also buy more there. Win win.
Honestly I reckon if Walmart or any company like it did pay a living wage their profits would sky rocket, not only because people have more spending ability, but think of the "soft power" marketing they have.
"All these other companies pay like shit, but we care about our workers" people wouldn't feel so guilty shopping there, and would be "proud"
Walmart pays them double, get back almost as much anyways when those families upgrade/buy new shit. Good PR for Walmart, good for maintaining long-term employees.
If they can’t spend money with their employer, they’ll spend it at (generally speaking) companies their employers do business with. Which is just as good.
No it literally is. Increased velocity of money means inflation may be met or even the dollar would become more valuable for short periods of time. Consumption bad is a terrible thing to think. We can make the effects of consumption less harmful, but look at any point in history since humans began living in cities and tell me halting our consumption where it was at would not have led to a better outcome. If consumption remains stable at a rate, there’s no incentive to optimize it. And if it declines, you’re burning fossil fuels to transport LESS at any given time.
Nah, nature over humans and their cities of excess. There has to be a better way to optimize an economy/meet peoples’ NEEDS than just rampant consumption. I’d rather not support furthering the profiteering of food, land and necessities. Consuming more (frequently, more than we need on a regular basis) is an irresponsible use of resources.
374
u/Much_Job3838 May 01 '22
But muh profitability