At what point does the worker have the right impose an unpredictable schedule on Wal Mart executives by burning down their palaces?

welcome back, Andrew..

I spent the last 25 years of my working life to get to the point where I work when I want, for excellent compensation. It took a long time, an enormous amount of unpaid overtime, and moving around the country, to get to this point, but I did it, and it's a very fine thing.

And I imagine that many, many people, would like to have what I have. Most of us dream of working when we want.

At Wal-Mart, this ambition of mine is turned utterly on its head: workers work solely at the pleasure, and time, of the employer. To me, at this point in my working life, that sounds not-unlike a form of slavery.

And before anyone says I'm just one of the lazy upper-class..it ain't true. I work for my money, and I worked like a dog to get to this point.

To laud Wal-Mart for essentially turning workers into ever more efficient robots makes a me a tad uneasy, even if it is good for customers.

These situations highlight the increasing chasm between those of us who control our lives to some degree, and those of us who have no control to speak of. At the least.

We need unionized service sector jobs - ALL of them.

We need a serious class war in this country, but the level of ignorance about our past, as well as the total unawareness of how most working class and middle class Europeans live, does not give me hope.

While I'm not a great supporter of Wal-Mart, I'm also not a fan of blaming every ill on the world on Wal-Mart. Ultimatley, every employee should have choice to work under specific conditions, be it pay or flex hours. As you can guess I'm not supporter of minimum wages which is not to say that I think employees don't deserve some minimum standard of living. I rather support an earned income tax credit, or provide universal health care to those can't afford via higher taxes. Wal-Mart's employment practices are only a problem when it's employees don't have other options. I don't think this quite the case in most locations Wal-Mart is in. If Wal-Mart finds that by having a flex schedule is more effecient, and assuming they have competitors for their employees, to compete for those employees Wal-Mart would have to incentivize workers by higher wages - Wal-Mart benefits, Employees benefit, Society benefits - that's what we call productivity gain by technology. We should focuse first that the market is working and that Wal-Mart is not unfairly competing through either monopoly or cartel power. On that end i'm not convinced that Wal-Mart may not be unfairly advantaged somehow. However let's not stifle innovation just because it's coming from Wal-mart. As society we should foster different opportunities and choices for the members of that society not to force specific requirements upon them.

To the notion that "if Whole Foods did this, we'd applaud", I can only point out that the phrase "flex-time" in this context of Wal-Mart's new scheduling is 180-degrees from what that very same phrase means in almost any other employment context.

Traditional flex-time: employees may 'flex' their daily schedules to better balance the employee's work-life balance, provided that it does not negatively impact productivity. Come in early to leave early for a doctor's appointment instead of using a sick day.

Wal-Mart flex-time: employees schedules will be 'flexed' without regard to the employee's work-life balance (or personal scheduling needs) solely to improve corporate profits and productivity. Employees wind up with wasted time spend "on call"? (unpaid, but must be availble or be fired) Saves the company money! Employees prevented from working overtime, even if they wanted to? Increases corporate profits. Increases the number of part time workers, decreases the number of full-time workers? Saves money on heale care costs, and does it matter how many of those part-time workers want full time employment but are denied? Full-time employees working part-time hours because of 'on-call' status, unable to afford enrollment in the health care plan? The savings keep piling up!

That's the problem. "Flex-time" used to be an example of companies empowering their employees, to both the employees' benefit and the company's benefit. Maybe it's just terribly "progressive" of me (when did that become a dirty word?) but I don't see the employee benefit of Wal-Mart's approach. Flex time used to be a benefit to the employees, from the company, which was nice given that the company imposes rules on the employees. Wal-Mart's approach goes the other direction in benefits, but originates and is imposed from the same direction.

I used to think the same way you do, then I thought a bit harder. Earned Income Tax Credits and taxpayer subsidized medical care for low income people are federal subsidies for businesses that choose to pocket profits rather than pay their workers decent wages. The real harm is to the competitors of Wal-Mart, and ultimately to society. If a competitor doesn't drop their wages and lower the cost of their goods, then they lose business. If the competitor DOES drop their wages, then their employees become as much a burden on society as Wal-Mart's employees. Every time Wal-Mart convinces a business to sell them a product for a lower price, that business has to cut it's employees wages a bit more. Every time they switch to a Chinese supplier to cut prices, American jobs are lost. Thus, the Wal-Mart business model doesn't just effect it's own employees - it effects the employees of all of it's suppliers and competitors. It also effects employees in other nations, who are forced to work longer hours for lower wages in order to contribute to the financial success of one of the wealthiest businesses in the world.

Pure capitalism is simpley survival of the fittest applied to human beings. The strong prosper and the weak perish. The real question we have to ask ourselves is: "Are we willing to let the weakest members of society suffer in order to enable the wealthiest to be even richer?". It's a simple choice. We don't have to provide income subsidies to anybody. We can let people live in poverty. But if we choose to subsidize the wages for employees of profitable companies, then more companies will be induced to cut their own employees wages in order to become more profitable.