Have you seen this photo? If you watch TV or participate in social media at all, the answer is probably yes. It began circulating a few days ago; it's a photo of a food drive one particular Walmart store is holding for it's associates to support their own. Customers aren't asked to give, it's simply between associates. I first saw it on my Facebook feed, with a very disparaging comment not only about Walmart (surprise, surprise), but about entire principle of the food donation. How could they, one commenter exclaimed. This is clearly an example of how Walmart cannot pay it's workers enough, that they have to stoop so low to asking for handouts from other staff, asserted another. Unbelievable, said yet a third. When I first saw the photo, I had no idea what company this occurred in. My first thought was "Wow, what a caring company. It's great to see employees helping each other!". Then I read the negative comments. Then the photo went viral.
I still stand by my original comment.
I won't get into the "Walmart is a horrible company" debate. Perhaps in another post. Whether you believe that rhetoric or not isn't important. My point is this: why can't we just celebrate this food drive for what it is? Associates caring about each other during the holiday season.
Guess what? There is need across all socioeconomic statuses. I'd be willing to bet that there is an associate struggling to put food on their table at every company, but not every company's associates goes this far to fill that gap. Don't even get me started on the "living wage" debate. The definition of "living wage" is a wage that is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living. This is not a static figure for every working American. What would provide for one person would not for another. Does a single mother deserve more per hour than a single person, simply because the single mother requires more income to maintain a normal standard of living? Do we pay people based on how much they need to survive, or how much knowledge, skills and ability their position requires? If the living wage is $21.50 for a mother and two children in my town (true story, it is), is it realistic to expect a Walmart cashier with little skills or education to make this wage? How would you feel if you were paid less simply because your financial needs were less than a co-worker with the same resume? What I'm getting at: Does this problem really lie with Walmart? I hardly think so. But I digress.
The fact that this store - no matter what company they work for - felt so strongly to rally around their own and help provide Thanksgiving dinner is something that needs to be celebrated.
This isn't a story about a company who can't support it's associates. It's not a story about Walmart at all. It's a story about associates who are willing to go so far to support each other by providing food to ensure each of them can enjoy a Thanksgiving dinner. If you were in need, could you say the same of your co-workers? I only hope that you're so lucky.
I don't get this. Nearly every employee will have to work Thanksgiving, not to mention all stores will have a catering company come out to give dinner to employees. Why bother donating food when employees won't be able to enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with family?
ReplyDeleteInteresting - I hadn't heard about the catered dinner. Thanks for pointing that out!
Delete@Heather M. wrote, "Does a single mother deserve more per hour than a single person, simply because the single mother requires more income to maintain a normal standard of living? Do we pay people based on how much they need to survive, or how much knowledge, skills and ability their position requires? If the living wage is $21.50 for a mother and two children in my town (true story, it is), is it realistic to expect a Walmart cashier with little skills or education to make this wage? How would you feel if you were paid less simply because your financial needs were less than a co-worker with the same resume? What I'm getting at: Does this problem really lie with Walmart? I hardly think so."
ReplyDeleteHeather M. I trust that you wrote the above in good faith, not as a provocateur or a fowler baiting a trap. Therefore, I must assume that you are blissfully unaware that every day, employers and corporations effect pay variances based upon need and family responsibilities.
even to the extent of (female) HR staffers punishing, penalizing, or trashing single (male) employees and applicants who have not met their responsibility to society to marry and financially maintain a single female (or a divorcée) and to create a family with at least two children (or accept, adjust to, and adopt her children from a previous marriage), even at entry level pay (which guarantees financial conflict between husband and wife, very often leading to divorce and subsequent alimony and child support).
So, how do I "feel" about pay inequities? As an adult male, I can't afford "feelings". Just to survive, I lost any "feelings" some time between swearing in and combat. But I will not have this to be about me.
Hi Brian - I hear what you're saying, thanks for taking the time to post. I am (unfortunately) aware of situations such as these, and I think you're right, not everybody realizes it. At least, that's my assumption. My fear is that others don't realize what you already know, especially those that champion the Living Wage arguments. I feel as though it just creates another inequality problem, instead of solving it, but that's just me.
DeleteThe following is what I intended to post, but when I clicked on "Preview", blogspot snatched my half-written comment (above) and posted it. So disregard my last, and read this as what I actually meant to write.
Delete__________________________
@Heather M. wrote, "Does a single mother deserve more per hour than a single person, simply because the single mother requires more income to maintain a normal standard of living? Do we pay people based on how much they need to survive, or how much knowledge, skills and ability their position requires? If the living wage is $21.50 for a mother and two children in my town (true story, it is), is it realistic to expect a Walmart cashier with little skills or education to make this wage? How would you feel if you were paid less simply because your financial needs were less than a co-worker with the same resume? What I'm getting at: Does this problem really lie with Walmart? I hardly think so."
Heather M. I trust that you wrote the above in good faith, not as a provocateur or a fowler baiting a trap. Therefore, I must assume that you are blissfully unaware that every day, employers and corporations effect pay variances based upon need and family responsibilities. I attest that, despite resumé check-offs and merit badges, a single mom (a divorcée) outmerits a single male with no family responsibilities, such that she not only receives equal pay or better, but she may also get the full package, pay and benefits - health insurance (both for herself and for her children, perhaps including dental), a credit reference, 401k matching and pension contributions, tuition assistance, paid vacation and holidays, employee discounts, business travel reimbursement, charitable contribution matching, and in some cases, even childcare or childcare assistance - as opposed to zero dollars paid to a single male who is not a family breadwinner. That is in spite of the single mom receiving child support (and perhaps alimony) from her ex, in all but the most egregious cases of unfit motherhood.
"To each according to his needs" (Karl Marx) increases a single mom's chances of being hired and adequately paid, all else being equal, and SOMETIMES in spite of manifold deficiencies and having less education, training, and experience than a single male competing for the same job, so long as the single mom can get the job done. An employer may be shrewd enough to realize that single moms and their children, if left to public provenance through unemployment, exert an upward pressure on taxes, in contrast to single males, who can be entrusted to bridges for shelter and dumpsters for sustenance, at no expense to the taxpayer.
The single male, on the other hand, is disadvantaged by pro-family discrimination, which a single mom cannot count on in the way that other employees can count upon EOE criteria, but which is like air: unseen and unnoticed, but ubiquitous, nonetheless. The paired-off community of intact families is biased in favor of its own kind, even to the extent of (female) HR staffers punishing, penalizing, or trashing single (male) employees and applicants who have not met their responsibility to society, that is, to marry and financially maintain a single female (or a divorcée) and to create a family with at least two children (or accept, adjust to, and adopt her children from a previous marriage), even at entry level wages (which guarantees financial conflict between husband and wife, turmoil which very often leads to divorce and subsequent alimony and child support).
So, how do I "feel" about pay inequities? As an adult male, I can't afford "feelings". Just to survive, I lost any "feelings" some time between swearing in and combat. But I will not have this to be about me.
I'm glad you went back and posted your original comment; it's like a Dateline Expose on the living wage argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me the most was the the term "discrimination", which is exactly what I think the living wage argument is about, when you really dissect what that means. I don't think people understand this is happening, that it's what they're basically asking for, and I can't imagine that people support this - thus the questions I posed in the original post.
It's a different kind if discrimination. What's ironic is that people choose to have families, choose to have children they maybe aren't yet prepared to support, etc (unplanned pregnancy or not - you chose to have sex) - and we look the other way or encourage discrimination by advocating they get paid higher because their financial need is greater by asking for a living wage for these people; a wage that is higher for them based solely on the fact that they have children. This is essentially discrimination against people that didn't make those choices, who potentially showed greater responsibility by not making those choices. Yet unfair treatment towards people based on race (which one cannot choose), is almost universally condemned - as it should be. I realize that those with dependents have a higher cost of living, but it shouldn't be any employer's responsibility to provide that. As a hiring manager (which I am), I would never that that into consideration when making hiring decisions, nor is it even legal to ask about children during the interview process!