Teens at Work - Walmart

I wonder how many waitreses know they're being exploited. How about paper routes ? I never made anything close to minimum wage humpin' papers around town, but that first ten-speed bike I got after saving money all summer was suhweeeeeeeeeet !

Much ado about nothing.

Do they kidnap the children, and force them to bag ?

 

Why would anyone have a problem with this or even a 14 year old working? Violations of child labor laws listed were :

1. Running a forklift. What is it about this that should be illegal?

2. Running a chainsaw. Why would Wal-Mart employess of any age need to run a chain saw? And just what is the problem with a teenager runing a chainsaw?


This appears to be more propaganda to destroy big business. Such agandas reduce the credibility of accusations. And these accusations are just silly.

 

My step-father has worked for Wal-Mart for years, the only negative comment that I would like to make is that, even though he is in management and has often moved the many times that were required for him to move up... he will still have to work until he is around 70+ before he can retire...

IOW, I will likely retire before he will.

 

Umm.. Apparently you need to read the article better. It is against child labor laws to hire these children according to the UN.

You also failed to acknowledge the part of the article that shows there is an agreement made by walmart and Mexican officials that is being followed here.

Walmarts hands are tied and yet they are still providing a way to let these children earn money in spite of opposition from UN child labor laws.

Not only have they found a way to provide income for these teens in the face of opposition, they provide other benefits for them as well.

So what have we learned from the article:

1. Wal-Mart has gone out of its way to find an avenue of income for teenagers that has been effective in providing income, removes some of the percieved need for dealing drugs and panhandling, and encourages schooling and good grades.

2. Wal-Mart is acting in accordance with Child labor laws set by the UN which is enforced in Mexico.

3. It is illegal for teenagers to be employed by companies in Mexico.

4. And finally this article is propoganda against big business.

 

1. Wal-Mart has gone out of its way to get access to a child labor force it does not have to pay.

2. Wal-Mart's prices are therefore lower than they would be otherwise, since the costs of their labor have not been included. Wal-Mart sells more.

3. The financial risk is placed entirely on the children.

4. We wouldn't need propaganda against big business if there wasn't so much propaganda for it.

 

So is it your position that these teens should not be working considering the child labor alws in Mexico?

Why is this a problem?

Considering thes teens would not otherwise recieve any income in the face of the Mexican child Labor laws what would your remedy be?

Is it your position that the article is without its bias and completely correct?

 

Have you ever looked at wal-Mart's charitable donations ? Look them up. That bible verse does not apply to them.

 

Nope, I have no problem with them working. I just strongly object to any suggestion that Wal-Mart is benevolently working to provide jobs for the kids. They're there to make money, anything else is a PR bonus.

Exploitation. Wal-Mart is taking advantage of the kids poverty to make more money.

A mandatory tip added to the bill for purchases over $10 would be an excellent start.

I have no position on the subject, though I highly doubt that could be said about very many articles these days.

 

What is your evidence for such a claim?

What would be your remedy for the income of the teens if Wal-Mart only hired baggers, which would require older workers?

If Wal-Mart handed out the mandatory tip then wouldnt that be considered employment. The volunteer bagger program works because Wal-mart is not directly involved paying out the baggers. that is between the bagger and the grocery buyer.

 

Their refusal to hire union employees and constant squeezing of suppliers would be an excellent place to start. Both of those practices hurt workers while improving Wal-Mart's bottom line.

Again, I have no problem with the teens working. I don't want to force them out of their job.

I don't see how ensuring that someone is payed by a third party would constitute employment. If anything, Wal-Mart would be working for the kid.

 

How are they hurt?

If it goes through the hands of Wal-Mart or if it enforced by Wal-Mart then Wal-Mart becomes directly responsible. In this case it is apparent that they are trying to provide a need to the community and work within the laws.

It is a fallacy that a company that works to keep its overhead down so that it can sell its product cheaper is incapable of doing something without alterior motives.

 

Unions give employees leverage to earn better wages and benefits. You can take a quick look at Wal-Mart's purchasing policies here.

Proof?

No, it is apparent that they are working within the laws to hire 14 year olds. It is not apparent that they're trying to fill a need in the community, that's your presumption.

Indeed, but I never said they were incapable of doing something without ulterior motives -- I simply rejected your implication that they were benevolently motivated in any sense beyond their bottom line.

 

At the local air force base, though they don't use children, the commissary uses baggers who depend solely on tips, receiving no pay from the base.

That's the government at work!

 

As a former union member I am aware of union benefits. Unions are not free from corruption any more that companies i can assure you.

If you are lookig for a link I do not have one. But as a former business owner if I payed out money taxes had to be payed on that, and in all circumstances it was considered mine. I had employees given tips but I always stayed out of that mix.

If you are agreeng that they are working within the laws to provide income for these teens then what could be your objection?

Why? And lets just say your correct about their motivation. what wrong is being done?

 

How is this exploitation? Are these kids required to work? Are they working against their will?

If they weren't working, Walmart wouldn't be spending more money for this service. They simply would not have it.

It sounds like this is teaching kids to work for a living, and that the money they earn depends on the service they give. What a great alternative to the free society others have created where teens get money for doing nothing.

Why is Walmart on the hook to pay people more than Walmart feels they are worth? Here's a good idea. If you don't like what Walmart is paying you, then don't work there. If you don't like what Walmart is paying others, don't shop there.

And why is the UN being cited an authority for child labor? They have done such a good job in other parts of the world, let's by all means bring them here.

 

Oh, I'm under no such delusion. The right's attack on unions has been met by the left with such a staunch defense that they're not willing to look at the many ways that unions need to be reformed. Fortunately we can agree on this!

Right, but this is in Mexico so different laws would apply and even if they are similar I'm not sure that it would have to be done through the employer paying out. Either way, there are creative ways around that, if Wal-Mart was really interested in guaranteeing that the kids got compensation.

1. Your unproven implication that they are benevolently motivated in doing so.

2. The fact that Wal-Mart is receiving the benefit of their services without having to shoulder any of the costs or responsibility.

Wal-Mart doesn't exactly have a history of great worker benefits. It does have a history of squeezing every source to their detriment for their own profit. The wrong being done is the benefits Wal-Mart is receiving without cost.