Wal-Mart introduces new dress code, employees must buy own clothes

[Tresha91203]

So it is not the policy, but the specific company. Others can play by the same rules, just not the evil WalMart.

There's a way to change the rules if you get enough people to agree. I believe the ripple would be harmful to the country. I don't see how you can make WalMart follow different rules than KMart. If you somehow did, suddenly KMart would become evil and be next on the list, then Buffy's.

It would be a very small percentage drop in profits.

That only one company has to absorb. If you get too big, watch out! We will knock you down a peg or two.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you use a product you cannot write it off twice. It's no different than using a perishable good off the shelf. If i own a convenience store and use a carton of cream for the coffee station I can only write off the cost of the cream once. if I make less profit on that one carton of cream I cannot call that a loss and write it off again.

Using a product wasn't an issue. An ex-employee not returning a uniform was the issue. That's loss.

If you provide uniforms for staff all you can write off is the cost of the uniform. You cannot write it off again if that uniform gets stolen or damaged.

Someone breaks into a company truck and steals tools and I have no deductible loss? Really? My CPA would have issue with that.

Now on the other hand the uniforms can be considered an employee benefit and the employees may be liable for taxes as the value of the uniforms can be counted as income.

Not if the uniform must be returned.

The uniform IS a product the store sells.

And you might want to wear a ratty set of clothes that someone else wore but I don't think most businesses would like to see it. So most likely even if Walmart bought a polo shirt and a pair of Khakis for an employee they would just count the value as a benefit and the employee would be liable for the taxes.

The uniform is given to an employee as a benefit. The value of the uniform unless it meets very specific requirements which btw a pair of pants and and a shirt do not meet is then listed as taxable income to the employee.

At that point the employee owns the uniform or clothes and does not have to return them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What good is paying for the uniforms if the employee can't get to work in the first place?

Walmart should make car payments for their employees, they have the money to do so after all.

We'll talk about Wally World paying the car insurance later.

WalMart should pay enough for their employees to make car payments.

Really?

Any car?

People should not buy cars they can't afford to make payments on with their level of income.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What good is paying for the uniforms if the employee can't get to work in the first place?

Walmart should make car payments for their employees, they have the money to do so after all.

We'll talk about Wally World paying the car insurance later.

WalMart should pay enough for their employees to make car payments.

Let me get something st right here.

Is it your proposal that any employer base what they pay their entry level employees on the bills the employee has to pay?

So if I want to spend my life stocking shelves in the kitty litter aisle at a store when I apply for a job I should bring copies of all my bills including car payments, rent, electricity, food etc and that an employer should base my pay on those bills and then add some extra spending money?

Are you ******* insane?

 

[Pop23]

What good is paying for the uniforms if the employee can't get to work in the first place?

Walmart should make car payments for their employees, they have the money to do so after all.

We'll talk about Wally World paying the car insurance later.

WalMart should pay enough for their employees to make car payments.

Really?

Any car?

People should not buy cars they can't afford to make payments on with their level of income.

Sarcasm is a subtle art. My bad

 

[EverCurious]

Alaska State Troopers don't have a uniform allowance? The former Governor should be proud.

Contract employees and self-employed CAN deduct cleaning. That would cover all three that you listed. Also, all three don't wear a uniform.

Yea not sure how or when that happened. On the other hand the troopers generally don't mind the added expense so they've not raised a row over getting it changed.

I suppose it's possible for some of the three to claim clothes. Still salary isn't self-employed nor contract, which is what a good deal of them are (up here anyway.) But then CPA's can't claim their business clothes, even though they ARE often self-employed. Thing is you have to prove to the IRS that the clothes are necessary for your work - and that's not as easy as one might think. My husband can't write off his coveralls as a mechanic, I can't write of my suits as an interim exec, in fact, the only person I can think of off hand that 'could' write off their clothing are military.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow are you going all class warfare on us while screaming everytime a liberal brings up wealth discrepancies? Thats pretty bold. You are on both sides of the fence while yelling at both sides...classic.

I should not be surprised that you are too ignorant to know what "class warfare is - yet I still am. But whatchagunnado?

Yes, the left defends Citizens United, Wealth gaps and all that stuff...except, thats you.

It astounds me that you think a SCOTUS case upholding the 1st amendment right to criticize party members has anything to do with the subject at hand.

Of course you seethe over Citizens United, the democratic party is dedicated to eradicating civil rights. A ruling that said "yeah, it IS legal to make a movie critical of Hillary Clinton" outrages the party - infidels are to be silent.

The average age of people in those "entry level" jobs is 29. So your premise of the teens working these jobs is circa 1980. Btw this now sounds like you are defending the low wages while complainning that the left wants to put the rich in charge of the poor. Classic double talk there.

Ah, lying through your ******* teeth, eh?

Well, you are a communist.

31% of minimum wage workers are teen - under 20 years of age. 55% are under 25.

Tables 1 - 10 Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers 2012

Lol Whut?

You are a dull witted sot, which is why you're a democrat...

People are always looking to advance dummy. So you're saying paying someone more will hurt them AND complaining that the left wants to keep ppl poor. Double talk

If all jobs pay the same, as you leftists are working to make a reality, then the INCENTIVE to advance is destroyed.

We are in the great leveling, where the rulers at the top have braced their backs on the ceiling and are using all their strength to push down on the Bourgeoisie. The middle is a bridge from the bottom to the top, democrats seek to burn that bridge to protect the entrenched rulers. Or as Obama brags, they are pulling the ladder up behind them.

Ahahahaha...No the definition of capitalism is to make money.
cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapətlˌizəm/
noun
noun: capitalism
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

Thats the definition. Not what your story time opinions THINK capitalism is. Or are we not using actual definitions?

The irony of you making claim to a definition, then posting the actual definition, which contradicts the idiocy you just posted, is too funny...

The Dark ages...**** are you J. R. R. Tolkien lol. You addressed exactly nothing and went the Political Chick route of blathering on about nothing. Double talker

Ah, so you think the Dark Ages are out of a fantasy novel.

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to be democrats."

 

[ClosedCaption]

↑
Wow are you going all class warfare on us while screaming everytime a liberal brings up wealth discrepancies? Thats pretty bold. You are on both sides of the fence while yelling at both sides...classic.
I should not be surprised that you are too ignorant to know what "class warfare is - yet I still am. But whatchagunnado?

Ahh the classic "I've been caught with my foot in my mouth hurl and insult instead because denying it will look silly" tactic

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hmmm, maybe it is a lease fee. I'll have to ask him. I know it comes out of each check and they clean them weekly, so I assumed that was what he was charged for. If that is the case, though, what was the up front cost?

Probably neither one.

A common practice on uniforms is to take the lease cost out of a check, tax it, then put the money back in. That way the company pays the lease on the uniform, but the employee pays the tax.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
WalMart subsidies are $7.8 billion per year which doesn't include the $6.2 billion per year in welfare their employees receive.

Walmart subsidies are zero each year. Not one dime of federal money goes to Walmart as a subsidy. That you blatantly lie demonstrates the depths to which the Unions will sink in this campaign to rape and pillage Walmart to satiate the greed of the unions.

The simple fact that WalMart has full-time employees that make so little they qualify for welfare (your tax monies) should be pissing you off, but instead you are humanizing the villains. What's wrong with you?

If the employee has 14 kids, it isn't hard to qualify under Obamunism. What is the threshold now, anyone making less than $55K per year is eligible for food stamps?

 

[Tresha91203]

Hmmm, maybe it is a lease fee. I'll have to ask him. I know it comes out of each check and they clean them weekly, so I assumed that was what he was charged for. If that is the case, though, what was the up front cost?

Probably neither one.

A common practice on uniforms is to take the lease cost out of a check, tax it, then put the money back in. That way the company pays the lease on the uniform, but the employee pays the tax.

Noted. Thanks for the correction. That's what I get for assuming.

 

[EverCurious]

Did you notice that a person making a dime over min wage is no longer considered min wage?

Show the poverty stats and get back to me

Alright - Welfare Statistics Statistic Brain

Going off the latest statistics, and I'll even give the benefit of the doubt to your position and say that the entire 4.1% of welfare recipients in this country are actually employed at all, much less by Walmart:

4.1% of Walmart's 1.3million workers = 53,300, out of a nationwide number of 12,800,000 on welfare. Which would equate to roughly 0.0042% of welfare recipients working at Walmart. And lets keep in mind that Walmart supposedly employs 1% of the US workforce, and they pay less than 1/2 of a percent of that 1% 'welfare' rates.

Still not a blip on the radar.


Related: I found this stat interesting; "Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive welfare: $1000." Which would be 129 hours a month/32.25 hours a week at federal min wage. Maybe these folks should try getting full time jobs, especially if they have family to support?? I also found it interesting that welfare pays more than an $8/h job in 39 states.

 

[EverCurious]

I suppose one could be in poverty status and not on welfare as well.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2012/table5.pdf

310,648 workers (this one specifies those employed) are in poverty. Even if we say that every single one of those poverty workers are employed by Walmart we come up with roughly 0.24% of their entire workforce in poverty. (Now I guarantee you that not all of them work at Walmart.)

If we want to be statistically realistic, you won't like it - we'd actually be saying that far less than 1% of those in poverty would be working at Walmart since the national average is 0.002% of working employees are in poverty - which equates to 2,600 Walmart employees.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Did you notice that a person making a dime over min wage is no longer considered min wage?

Show the poverty stats and get back to me

Alright - Welfare Statistics Statistic Brain

Going off the latest statistics, and I'll even give the benefit of the doubt to your position and say that the entire 4.1% of welfare recipients in this country are actually employed at all, much less by Walmart:

4.1% of Walmart's 1.3million workers = 53,300, out of a nationwide number of 12,800,000 on welfare. Which would equate to roughly 0.0042% of welfare recipients working at Walmart. And lets keep in mind that Walmart supposedly employs 1% of the US workforce, and they pay less than 1/2 of a percent of that 1% 'welfare' rates.

Still not a blip on the radar.

Not sure what a "blip on the radar" means to you but those are people.

Related: I found this stat interesting; "Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive welfare: $1000." Which would be 129 hours a month/32.25 hours a week at federal min wage. Maybe these folks should try getting full time jobs, especially if they have family to support?? I also found it interesting that welfare pays more than an $8/h job in 39 states.

Ok if they worked 8 more hours they wouldnt be on welfare. And they can put that whopping $64 in their pockets and not be poor anymore lmao.

C'mon man...

 

[EverCurious]

Not sure what a "blip on the radar" means to you but those are people.

Well as I've mentioned before they are people who are likely kids, not adults raising families, but I gave the full benefit of the doubt to the position that Walmart are scum bags.

What do I mean by a blip on the radar, just that. Frankly these folks are statistically underemployed if they are working min wage while trying to raise a family. If someone is making min wage and can't get a raise or a better job, they are probably not working very hard, sorry to say.

I've worked with a LOT of companies, large and small, and I've met a ton of bad employees who don't even do the work to 'earn' minimum wage, much less for this $10-15/h people want for a low skill job - texting constantly on the clock, 2 hour lunch breaks, 20-30 min's late all the time, calling in sick regularly, and basically neglecting their work to dick off - then someone else has to cover that shit that they slough off. The business ends up hiring two people to do a job that one person 'should' be able to do if they weren't glued to their stupid phone.

Then there's the other side of the equation; people not being responsible. If you are making min wage, you don't take on a car payment, you don't have a massive cell phone bill, cable bill, eating out all the time, etc., etc. IF you decide to do that, well then you are going to be broke, no shit. Hell, I had one gal who was bitched constantly cause she couldn't pay her cell bill and it kept getting shut off, of course she blew off half her scheduled hours, sometimes only working an hour - DUH. And I'm afraid that's pretty typical of a lot of low skill employees, they want everything NOW and have no concept of budgeting, nor planning ahead, and to make things worse for them they are "bad" employee's and likely won't get a raise because of their shitty work ethics.

The saddest part is that I've yet to be able to turn one of these types around, they are self-entitled brats to be blunt. Half the time the dipsticks quit when I say something like, "we need you to come in on time," or "we're starting a new policy of no cell phones while not on break," or my favorite one, "we need you to stop talking on the company phone and ignoring the other calls to the business." And I what I get from them is basically '**** you, you *****' then they quit. So I mean yea I have a bit of a callus for the 'plight' of employees, and especially low skill, low pay earners. I could understand it from kids, but not so much from adults.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What do I mean by a blip on the radar, just that. Frankly these folks are statistically underemployed if they are working min wage while trying to raise a family. If someone is making min wage and can't get a raise or a better job, they are probably not working very hard, sorry to say.

Here is the part that kills me. Are we going on whatever the company does is right? Because if so, then I'd agree that whatever the company pays is correct and shows that the person doesnt have skills.

But if we are going to be objective....Is it possible that a company underpays its employees in order to maximize profit? And has nothing or little to do with the skill associated with that individual?

Or do companies always pay according to their skills? Because there are a shit ton of soldiers, nurses, teachers, policemen etc that will tell you thats not correct

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What do I mean by a blip on the radar, just that. Frankly these folks are statistically underemployed if they are working min wage while trying to raise a family. If someone is making min wage and can't get a raise or a better job, they are probably not working very hard, sorry to say.

Here is the part that kills me. Are we going on whatever the company does is right? Because if so, then I'd agree that whatever the company pays is correct and shows that the person doesnt have skills.

But if we are going to be objective....Is it possible that a company underpays its employees in order to maximize profit? And has nothing or little to do with the skill associated with that individual?

Or do companies always pay according to their skills? Because there are a shit ton of soldiers, nurses, teachers, policemen etc that will tell you thats not correct

That's my point when people try to say the minimum wage is what a person is worth.

what a coincidence that an entry level position in SO many different industries, and so many companies across so many states is worth EXACTLY the same.

 

[ClosedCaption]

See, the narrative changes when you talk about Soldiers or Police officers. No one in their right mind believes they get paid according to their skills but all you have to do is mention someone flipping burgers then suddenly everyone does a complete 180 and says that companies pay according to skills.

They change their tune according to what segment of the population you are talking about and it smacks of envy or bullshit....

Or Envious bullshit

 

[Iceweasel]

The saddest part is that I've yet to be able to turn one of these types around, they are self-entitled brats to be blunt. Half the time the dipsticks quit when I say something like, "we need you to come in on time," or "we're starting a new policy of no cell phones while not on break," or my favorite one, "we need you to stop talking on the company phone and ignoring the other calls to the business." And I what I get from them is basically '**** you, you *****' then they quit. So I mean yea I have a bit of a callus for the 'plight' of employees, and especially low skill, low pay earners. I could understand it from kids, but not so much from adults.

Have you ever been in government?

 

[dadsgm]

Will it never stop with these guys?

Employees at Walmart are about to be forced to dress a little nicer at their own expense.

The world's largest retailer has unveiled a new dress code for its massive workforce, Business Insider reports. Starting Sept. 29, associates must wear navy blue or white collared shirts paired with khaki or black pants, capris or skirts.

Employees will also be required to wear a Walmart-branded vest, which the company will provide. However, Walmart says its employees will have to purchase the rest of their work uniform at their own expense. The company even set up a website for employees to buy their new required work clothes at Walmart.

The company even set up a website for employees to buy their new required work clothes at Walmart.

Well, isn't that nice?

http://abc13.com/careers/walmarts-new-dress-code-criticized-by-employees/295823/

I do not know what all the trash talk is about.
All Walmart did was reestablish a dress code they have had for years. Making the clothes available on their web site is a bonus for the employee by making acquisition easier.

What they should do is make a dress code for customers. Just look around they are a bunch of slobs without any self-confidence, self-awareness, self-control or any other psychological problem. And this problem does not only occur in Walmart. Look around and you will see slobs in other stores and parking lots. They are just slobs who do not care.