• LasherzM
    link
    fedilink
    1017 months ago

    Friendly reminder that Walmart has staff members specifically to help their low-end workers apply for assistance programs.

    Question for all of your least favorite family members: If Walmarts employees need assistance programs while working full time at Walmart, then who is benefitting more from social safety nets? Walmart or the worker?

    Alternatively, if they were to have a minimum wage above the poverty line, wouldn’t that fix the glitch?

    • @firebyte@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      427 months ago

      … who is benefitting more from social safety nets? Walmart or the worker?

      For those who can think critically: Walmart, because they don’t pay a living wage for full-time workers

      For those who can’t think critically: the worker, because they’re ‘double-dipping’ by working full-time and are putting their hand out to receive government benefits.

      • @affiliate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        27 months ago

        i think that’s giving them too much credit. i would be surprised if the non-critical thinkers even tried to answer the question. i would expect them to deflect/change the topic/rant about something loosely related.

    • Walican132
      link
      fedilink
      English
      277 months ago

      I’ve always believed if a full time employee is collecting benefits the company they work for should be charged 110% of what ever they receive.

      • @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        177 months ago

        That risks creating a perverse incentive that in turn makes Walmart stop helping workers get government assistance without paying them a living wage.

        Much better to tie the fines to the profits of the company, the one thing they wouldn’t sacrifice for ANYTHING.