Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The off loading of benefits and support by WalMart onto the

by Rob_Boyter / April 17, 2014 3:23 AM PDT


" A new report estimates that U.S. taxpayers spend more than $6 billion each year to provide government benefits to low-paid Walmart workers. The Walton family, which owns Walmart, is worth $149 billion, and is always working to pay lower taxes. "

Apparently the 4 members of the family, who are cumulatively worth more than $100 Billion, have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population. That's 4 people worth more than the total wealth of 126,800,000 people in the US.
" Chief executives at some of the nation's largest companies earned an
average of $12.9 million in total pay last year -- 380 times more than a
typical American worker, according to the AFL-CIO."
" From the 1940s to the 1980s, the top 10% of American wage-earners
took home 35% of all the income in the United States. In the 1980s,
however, this "take" began to increase. In 2007, it topped out at a
shocking 50%."
The page this statement comes from has quite a number of charts the most telling of which IMO is the tracking of CEO salaries as multiples of the workers salaries.

"The inequality has gotten so extreme that the ratio of CEOs' pay to average workers' pay rose from 50X in 1980 to 350X by 2007."

The graph shows that CEO salaries in 1960 were roughly 50 times that of the average worker, creeping up to 100 times in 1990 at which point it went vertical to 200 times in the space of two years. This peaked in 2000 at 500 times the average worker's earnings. Currently it is thought to be from 350 times to 400 times that of the average worker.

I have no problem with a CEO earning 100 times what his workers earn. I have a great deal of difficulty when it exceeds 150 times. All that money comes out of the pockets of the employees who should be earning more since it is they who make the business successful. Entrepreneurs start businesses, but the average CEO is just a paper shuffler and manager. Paying a living wage should be mandated, and adequate staffing levels should also be mandated to ensure no less than 35 hours a week and paid benefits.


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The off loading of benefits and support by WalMart onto the
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The off loading of benefits and support by WalMart onto the
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) Viva la France
by Willy / April 17, 2014 3:55 AM PDT
Collapse -
They could always discontinue the business

and offload about a million and a half people on the unemployment system.

Collapse -
RE: discontinue the business
by JP Bill / April 17, 2014 6:50 AM PDT
Collapse -
I think the concept is great
by Steven Haninger / April 17, 2014 7:36 AM PDT

My employer also had an employee to employee assistance program. Just like Walmart's design, it was to help create a family type atmosphere where people were encouraged to help each other get through unexpected calamities. HR would occasionally put out a call for donations of just about anything needed to restore a person's basic needs. There was also a vacation donation program for employees who needed extra time off to care for a sick or injured family member. This isn't new and it's certainly nothing to scoff at.

Collapse -
Did you invest more time in reading about
by Steven Haninger / April 17, 2014 7:37 PM PDT
In reply to: Did your employer also

and understanding this concept than just the linked articles? I did.

Collapse -
RE:Did you invest more time
by JP Bill / April 17, 2014 8:33 PM PDT


I suppose when the store is closed Walmart Executives sneak in and put food in the boxes.....Oh wait...Walmart never closes.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on the concept of an employer receiving the benefits from an employees death.

Perhaps it's to give your job a "working for the family" feeling.

Collapse -
And what did you find in your research about the truth
by Steven Haninger / April 17, 2014 10:26 PM PDT

behind the "secret" life insurance policy program?

Did you find Walmart to be alone in or the innovator of the practice?

Did you find that Walmart expected to or was receiving more money from the insurance companies by filing for death benefits than they were paying them in premiums?

My own reading found the answers to the above to be "No". As for my thoughts on an employer receiving benefits from an employee's death, I'd say it could sound quite sinister but don't believe that applies in this situation. Certainly, when the entire program isn't conveyed to a person, something seems quite amiss. I'd think that, if a company could actually profit from employees dying...that is to raise their overall bottom'd see evidence that some businesses would do what they could to hasten the demise of some of their workers. Maybe they'd offer free lunches featuring menu fare high in saturated fat content? Pass out free cigarettes? Find me a company that does that and I'll be happy to offer condemnation of that practice. I could also say that Walmart and other companies who take out insurance on lower level workers are only offering equal treatment to the longstanding practice of insuring their high level employees against losing them by their dying. Employers already take out policies on those considered to be difficult to replace and the families of those persons get no death benefit from those policies. Couldn't that mean that some companies don't consider lower level employees to be expendable through death?

Oh...and appears that the "secret" death benefits received come not from the demise of employees but from tax savings. Companies pay more in premiums than they get back by filing claims. That's the way insurance works. It would be stupid of a company to buy such a policy without the intention of ever filing a claim. I also read (but cannot confirm because I've not had access to their secret meetings) that the savings found in the tax loophole (one government is trying to close) was used to help fund employee pension and retirement plans. Of course it sounds less vanilla to write that the savings was to further line the pockets of the executives. What publisher would want to buy articles that contain the whole truth?

Collapse -
RE: death benefits received come not from the demise
by JP Bill / April 17, 2014 11:38 PM PDT
death benefits received come not from the demise of employees but from tax savings.


I guess once an employee dies...they don't replace them...THAT would increase their taxes.

Employees have a "job for life" with Walmart....AND they are Irreplaceable.
Collapse -
blame our govt
by James Denison / April 17, 2014 4:29 PM PDT

Obamacare came along and more and more businesses saw a way to help increase the enrollment to help Obama. Wink

Maybe Obama should thank them?

Collapse -
I'd fully agree that many CEO salaries are obscene

I feel the same way about the pay demands of other highly sought persons such as some athletes, entertainers and other celebrity figures, etc. No doubt many sweat hard in their work and do make sacrifices but there's a point where enough is enough and any more is too much and serves as a bad example for others...especially young people. All of that comes from my senses and not from sensibility. What I consider to be more important than a person's income is their ethics. What they produce as income is of less concern than what they they do with that income.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!