Black Friday/Thanksgiving Retail Outrage

[KitFisto]

$25/hour! That's more than I make (not counting my Christmas bonus).

The last thing I want to do on a holiday(or Black Friday) is go shopping. I stay away from the hordes and tend to do most of my shopping online anyway.

Their min wage is high because the cost of everything else is high too. People who scream to make more money never take into account that cost of their high wage will be past on to the consumer in the form of higher prices so no matter how much you make you're not getting ahead.

 

[BadMoon]

Their min wage is high because the cost of everything else is high too. People who scream to make more money never take into account that cost of their high wage will be past on to the consumer in the form of higher prices so no matter how much you make you're not getting ahead.

Hi sexy.

 

[Mr. Green]

I used to work in retail; and the holiday season that comes with it. To me christmas and thanks given and w/e is the same as any other day. I was just happy I can get times n a half pay and just happy to make as much as I can get. Needless to say I moved on, like I moved on from other industry. Now my hourly range is $30-40/hr as a contractor. The trick is to work continuously.

On the other hand, time spent together is important to family/relative structure/relationship. You don't get much quality of life if all you do is work. Work is supposed to make life better and not to just survive. Its a tricky situation to some for sure and not an easy answer. I suppose, one can take the holiday off and take a risk of getting a warning or possibly fired. Call in sick or something. At least the good thing about retail is one can get another retail position much easier than other field of work.

 

[Ktjn]

Looks like WM had a BF prices fiasco early this morning, and are now handing out GC...

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/wal-mart-blames-technical-glitch-price-errors-20804959

 

[Devil_666]

Last week when I was at the Jack in the Box drive-thru I noticed the hours of operation; they're open 24-7 including ALL holidays.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Last week when I was at the Jack in the Box drive-thru I noticed the hours of operation; they're open 24-7 including ALL holidays.

Yep. We always got a JITB on the 3 hr. drive to my Grandmother's house every Christmas Day. Only fast food joint that was open until McDonald's opened select locations a year or two ago.

There's also a JITB in my Grandmother's hometown that always had a line on Christmas night ... drive-thru lined up into the street. They were out of everything good, though. Being the only place open apparently puts a strain on the supply.

SnakeDoc

 

[BadMoon]

Matt S, I actually saw your reply before it was deleted by our mods. I was fine with your post to be honest. Honored really. What is sacred to me is hard work and sacrifice. It's in my DNA. A "holiday" is nothing. What is sacred to me is being able to take care of my family and shelter and feed them. Daycare for us is $1,650 a month. We also own our own home and have two cars. I have no problem working on a holiday to help cover the bills. Nor do I harbor bad thoughts for the companies that pay other hard workers to work. Holiday or not.

The attitude displayed in your deleted reply is exactly what is wrong with the mentality of the US as it stands today. Everyone wants something for nothing. Me? I'll work for a living. Holiday or no Holiday. My family loves me enough to understand that I work for them. I also don't need a holiday to have an excuse to spend time with them. Every chance I get I'm with them.

 

[CelticPredator]

Well. All humans are different, and they all have different view points on life and all that ****. Not to mention their own personal issues, ideals, and situations.

Bam.

 

[devilof76]

If I don't have to work a holiday, I consider myself lucky. I usually don't. People who have always had them off should consider themselves extremely fortunate.

It's hard not to be disgusted with people who see employers as simply the people whose responsibility it is to give them a job. I think you have it backwards. It is your job to work for them. All they owe you is a paycheck.

 

[karamazov80]

In a very basic sense, that's true. But I think there is a bigger picture issue at play. Not that these workers are concerned with such things, but some major retailers--Wal-Mart specifically--are so powerful at this point that they actually transcend being simply "a business." Wal-Mart's lobby affects governmental policies, both in the U.S. and abroad. They have engaged in shady tactics like bribing foreign governmental officials to work around laws that would have prohibited their being allowed to build Wal-Mart stores in historically significant or protected areas. I'm sure they have had influence on policies regarding the ability to hire workers on for maximum possible hours without being required to offer benefits, among other things. So the question then becomes--do they have a greater responsibility to those that work for them, considering how much money and power they obtain on the backs of these poor schmucks, who don't have lots of other options or the influence or wherewithal to genuinely negotiate positive change for workers? Maybe not, but I think it's easy to caricature the arguments by workers in these places in the backdrop of a simplistic worldview, where some businesses aren't more than businesses. But when the businesses use their influence to change the game in so many ways--contributing to the massive trade surplus that China has over the U.S., lobbying to the detriment of U.S. workers, manufacturers, and civic well being by using money and potential tax revenue to do what they please where they please, destroying any semblance of small businesses in much of the U.S. Should some of these companies take on more genuine responsibility for those they use, when they have actually become more powerful than many countries in the world? Or do the powerful simply owe nothing to anyone but themselves? Do the victors deserve all the spoils, and to hell with any conception of real civic duty?

 

[Blackthornone]

In a very basic sense, that's true. But I think there is a bigger picture issue at play. Not that these workers are concerned with such things, but some major retailers--Wal-Mart specifically--are so powerful at this point that they actually transcend being simply "a business."

Wal-Mart's lobby affects governmental policies, both in the U.S. and abroad. They have engaged in shady tactics like bribing foreign governmental officials to work around laws that would have prohibited their being allowed to build Wal-Mart stores in historically significant or protected areas.

I'm sure they have had influence on policies regarding the ability to hire workers on for maximum possible hours without being required to offer benefits, among other things. So the question then becomes--do they have a greater responsibility to those that work for them, considering how much money and power they obtain on the backs of these poor schmucks, who don't have lots of other options or the influence or wherewithal to genuinely negotiate positive change for workers?
Maybe not, but I think it's easy to caricature the arguments by workers in these places in the backdrop of a simplistic worldview, where some businesses aren't more than businesses.

But when the businesses use their influence to change the game in so many ways--contributing to the massive trade surplus that China has over the U.S., lobbying to the detriment of U.S. workers, manufacturers, and civic well being by using money and potential tax revenue to do what they please where they please, destroying any semblance of small businesses in much of the U.S.

Should some of these companies take on more genuine responsibility for those they use, when they have actually become more powerful than many countries in the world? Or do the powerful simply owe nothing to anyone but themselves? Do the victors deserve all the spoils, and to hell with any conception of real civic duty?

All excellent points, but could you break up the text into paragraphs and possibly indent a bit?
It makes it a bit difficult to read as you have it written.
I will break it up in my quote.

 

[Mr. Green]

Both excellent points, lol.

 

[devilof76]

Civic duty is a load of horse****. Get the government out of business, and there'll be no lobbies. No need for protection money when there aren't any gangsters.

Then what are you left with? Just a really big business, and not some spooky myth to give statists an excuse to scream, "Monster!"

 

[Mr. Green]

lets just hope they don't pass lead toys or poison the local water supply or etc.

Being a Quality Personnel in my last career, I've seen it myself that even with govt regulation, business can still bypass them. They'll bypass their own SOP sometimes. This may be in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry but I am sure retail have its own issues.

We need govt to some point.

 

[Blackthornone]

Civic duty is a load of horse****. Get the government out of business, and there'll be no lobbies. No need for protection money when there aren't any gangsters.

Then what are you left with? Just a really big business, and not some spooky myth to give statists an excuse to scream, "Monster!"

It's impossible to get government out of business. On the one hand, you have government to regulate harmful products, and on the other, there is inevitable corruption by businesses bribing politicians under the table to set policies to establish monopolies, like the AMA.

A lot of big businesses ARE gangsters.
At least with government regulating businesses openly there is SOME public accountability.

 

[Adoptedscot]

I think a lot of this 'outrage' is attitude (imo).
If you go into work complaining that you don't want to be there, whatever the day or night, you're gonna have a very tough time of it. If you just embrace the fact that it is necessary, it's the job you accepted which includes unsocial hours (which retail is very well known for) and make the most of it, it can be fun. At least, that's what I experienced.

I've worked retail and in pubs over holidays/ weekends and nightshifts. Long time ago but I just got on with it because it was necessary and I enjoyed it, but that's just me.
x

 

[devilof76]

It's impossible to get government out of business. On the one hand, you have government to regulate harmful products, and on the other, there is inevitable corruption by businesses bribing politicians under the table to set policies to establish monopolies, like the AMA.

A lot of big businesses ARE gangsters.
At least with government regulating businesses openly there is SOME public accountability.

As I said, horse****. Government regulation creates the corruption. If businesses are committing criminal acts, charge, try, and convict them. There is no need for regulators treating them guilty until proven innocent.

As usual, you have it assbackwards. In and of itself, no private business has use for, nor the legal protection, to initiate force. Government is the social institution possessing a legal monopoly on the use of force. Insofar as it it restricted to retaliatory use, in the interest of the defense of its citizens, government is no threat. The moment it reserves for itself the power to initiate force to exact obedience to its dictates (i.e., all regulatory law) it becomes a violator of the rights it was charged to protect. The only time anyone is brought to account in such societies is when it becomes expedient to those in positions of political power. Without regulation, a free press and the free choice of the market hold all business accountable, and ruthlessly so.

There is more than enough historical evidence, and even more literature, explaining how regulation destroys the wealth of a nation, private and public. You like to learn things. Get to it.

 

[Blackthornone]

As I said, horse****. Government regulation creates the corruption. If businesses are committing criminal acts, charge, try, and convict them. There is no need for regulators treating them guilty until proven innocent.

As usual, you have it assbackwards. In and of itself, no private business has use for, nor the legal protection, to initiate force. Government is the social institution possessing a legal monopoly on the use of force. Insofar as it it restricted to retaliatory use, in the interest of the defense of its citizens, government is no threat. The moment it reserves for itself the power to initiate force to exact obedience to its dictates (i.e., all regulatory law) it becomes a violator of the rights it was charged to protect. The only time anyone is brought to account in such societies is when it becomes expedient to those in positions of political power. Without regulation, a free press and the free choice of the market hold all business accountable, and ruthlessly so.

There is more than enough historical evidence, and even more literature, explaining how regulation destroys the wealth of a nation, private and public. You like to learn things. Get to it.

The government is the pawn of the rich businessmen.
There is a greater disparity between the highest paid and the lowest paid employees in history.

The lowest paid employees do not even make a living wage in many cases, like many fast food chains.
This means that those low paid workers must get the money so they can live so they can work for those companies so those companies can continue to make profits from elsewhere.
That elsewhere is the government in the form of welfare. That money doesn't come from the rich, since they pay so few taxes. That comes from people who actually work and pay taxes.

This means that the government is in effect, giving welfare to those companies indirectly by giving it to minimum wage earners so they can keep those companies going, when those companies should be paying them instead.



Where is government when you need it as far as regulation?

Those who are rich use the government to maintain wealth.

This underpaying of workers is an example of how government does not get involved enough with businesses to police them, to allow these businesses to do as they will, at the expense of the taxpayers.

 

[youbastards]

I mean I work two jobs. One is my career, the other is part time job. I choose to work an extra 20 or so hours each week retail. Why? Well two kids in daycare just about sums it up. But seriously I work about 70 hours a week. Because I work retail guess what day I have to be at work? Black Friday is one of those days.

That's my choice. I'm not going to complain. I get time and a half that day (still far less than my other job) but still the company is nice enough to pay that. Plus having that second job means we can afford extra fun things like dinners out and what not.

Get over it lazy *****es. And if you don't work in retail and want to complain, then stop going out and spending money on those days.

Some may argue that instead of working a second job to "afford extra fun things like dinners out an what not", your time would be better spent with your 2 children, but I'm not going to post a thread *****ing about it.

 

[Blackthornone]

Some may argue that instead of working a second job to "afford extra fun things like dinners out an what not", your time would be better spent with your 2 children, but I'm not going to post a thread *****ing about it.

Yes.

Is going out to dinner and having your children in day care really better than spending time with your children?