When I did "on call" I didn't have more than 2 hours notice as to whether I was definitely working. I was scheduled tentatively a week ahead, yes, but when it came down to actually working, I didn't know more than 2 hours before. When I see them using the term "on call" that's what I take it to mean.

I would hope they would have a one week notice, but considering this is Walmart, I really doubt they would be that thoughtful. (Reminds me of Lily Tomlin - "we don't care! We don't have to! We're the phone company!")

Even though your kid has obstacles (ADHD and Asperger's) he clearly has good teachers and parents. What about the kid who has ADHD and Asperger's and attends (rarely, nobody cares if he goes) an overcrowded class in a crappy school where teachers don't even notice he's struggling and his mom is a crackhead who has never explained anything to him and rarely provides enough food for him to eat? To argue that this kid is responsible for his decision to do poorly in school implies that he should have some type of built-in adult ability to figure out for himself the consequences of his behavior without an adult to help him learn these things. I think that is unreasonable.

Sure you're assuming -- you're assuming that Wal-Mart will use a system like the one you worked under, instead of the one she worked under, even though she mentioned that she worked for "the worlds largest electronic retailer" and the article specifically mentioned Radio Shack. (Yes, I'm assuming as well.)

No, you didn't see anything mentioned in the article about choosing a schedule or hours, meaning the article didn't say anything about it one way or the other. That might mean that no such choice will be available, but without more to go on, that's just an assumption.

Frankly, I think you're assuming that just because it's Wal-Mart, it must be bad for the employees.

When it's been proven over and over again that they don't give a shit about anything but profit, why on earth should I think otherwise?

I see that, but what I was really challenging was Valkyrie's statement that "a child under the age of say, 15 or 16, is not old enough to be independently responsible for his or her behavior to that extent." I think they are old enough. Without support they may not be motivated to be independently responsible or see the value in being responsible, but that's a different challenge from saying that they are not old enough to be independently responsible.

Son wailed one night, "why do I have to have parents who care about things like school and grades?!" :D

Look back at my post and at my response to AlphaFrog -- what I was challenging was the contention that a child younger than 15 or 16 isn't old enough to be independently responsible. From plenty of experience with my own kids and others, I stand by that challenge. Sure, in early years it takes someone to teach most kids the value and expectation of that kind of personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean the kid isn't capable of holding himself responsible. I've seen too many young children -- kids of parents who don't care, even -- hold themselves responsible to buy into the idea that "a child under the age of say, 15 or 16, is not old enough to be independently responsible for his or her behavior to that extent."

Just because no one has taught a kid to read doesn't mean the kid isn't capable of reading.

Maybe you shouldn't. But based on the information at hand, you're still making an assumption, which is what you said you weren't doing.

Or maybe you should ask yourself if Wal-Mart is really as evil as you make it out to be, especially when people on this board who have worked there have disagreed repeatedly with the idea that Wal-Mart is a terrible place for employees.

I'm actually an AVID tutor for a middle school in Florida, so I'm very familiar with the program and how it works. Yes, it does help kids who don't have all the advantages that other kids have and it gives them a chance that they made not have had otherwise. But AVID isn't implemented in every school and its only 20 years old. What about all the folks who never got to experience a program such as AVID, or may never get to due to their geographic location?

For every person on here who said they were treated well, I'm sure you can find another who was treated like crap.

If Enron started up again, would you trust their accounting practices? I'm sorry, but a company that has done as many shitty things as Walmart has doesn't get a pass because 2 or 3 people on a message board (for college educated people, mind you) said their experience was hunky dory.

But unlike Enron there's not an indictment of management. All you have are two different sides of anecdotal evidence.

Exactly, which in my experience usually means that the truth is somewhere in between.

Look, I don't care if you hate Wal-Mart with every fiber of your being. Like I said, I hate Wal-Mart, too, although for different reasons. All I'm saying is that it's possible -- possible -- that this is a good business move that just might work out okay for employees.

AVID is only one choice that is available. It's certainly not that novel a concept. It may be a tried and true way for a kid to get his or her life back on track, but kids were and are able to do this without an organized program.

Even so, just about everyplace has charter schools now which offer these kinds of programs, and if they're anything like the charter schools in OKC are, people are not exactly beating down the doors to get in.

In fact, my wife's school, as great as they do, does not even have a full enrollment. Not even close. It would seem that kids would rather stay in the failed inter city schools which have NCLB scores which total up to a full third of what my wife's school scores. It's their choice though.

For what it's worth, I'd give back my GWB tax cuts to see AVID implemented in every school in the country. It's really a terrific program. Education isn't the only solution to poverty, but it's definitely the best.

Otherwise you'd be disabled!

Oh come on, there wasn't even a point to that.

Apparently you are too. Run along to Kroger now.

It's ok, GP...I got the joke. Funny, haha.:) :)

First off, the article notes that 'some' employees 'may' be subject to an on-call arrangement, so we're really, really stretching to assume this will be the case for even most employees, or even a significant number of shifts.

Second, almost every other store in the advanced world, including most grocery stores, already uses a similar process - having a 'guaranteed', strict 40 hours per week is TERRIBLE for business purposes. Unskilled labor often requires you to work hours suited to people shopping after work, over lunch or stocking before the business day - getting pissed about this seems odd.

Now, to argue with the above points, you're really digging for a reason to be pissed - this type of flexible child-care arrangement is not only eminently possible, but if it doesn't exist already it will probably spring up to meet the needs if there is demand . . . you know, market and all that. Wal-Mart is not holding anybody hostage, as far as I know, and if a profitable decision for the company is ruinous for employees, the employees have a right to strike, to seek other employment, etc etc etc.

These things do NOT require money, nor education, nor anything related.

It is QUITE a stretch to claim that being scheduled two days, two evenings and one 'flex' period on Friday makes it 'impossible' to find child care or to adequately budget.

Will it require the employees to change their current lives? Quite possibly - but again, there are other no-collar options, and demand will always create supply for the subsidiary elements you've focused on (even if I consider them somewhat superfluous) if these changes are dire or even drastic, and adapting to these will make the company more profitable, which benefits shareholders, creates jobs and all of that good stuff. Is it a 'poor tax'? Possibly, but again, we can all stop shopping there and stop the whole thing. See how circular this becomes?

Finally, and I hate to break it to this level, but what on Earth don't you understand about the fact that a.) a company is responsible (to shareholders and employees alike) for turning a profit and b.) its employees are out much more than a few hours a week if the company does not turn a profit?

Wal-Mart is profit-oriented? Do you own mutual funds or a 401(k)? I mean, come on . . .

Times are tuff, just be glad to have a friggen job. Oh, getting some money to live on and put bread and milk on the table.

Try owning a small business in this economy!

Got my quartly hair cut and look good!:p

If it hasn't happened to you, you know nothing about it. Period.

Those damn six year olds who don't investigate the quality of their area schools and transfer to the one that will provide the best opportunity for success later in life!

Once they're 16, they can do what they want to in that regard. If their parents decide to hold them back, they can always go and become emancipated. I think denial of educational opportunity would be strong grounds for that.

And even after high school, there are community G.E.D. programs, there is financial aid to get into college or trade school.

My point is that unless someone just completely pisses their life away, there are options. Those options may not be as easy and accessible as those which were available to me and probably you, but those things are out there.

But what if some of us have been in similar work situations to the Wal-Mart workers? What if some of us come from similar limited financial backgrounds? How do you draw the line about who knows about these types of situations, and who doesn't?

Then tell us about it, without the posturing? Respond to my points by explaining to me why I'm wrong, and thus educate me about "it" (I don't know what "it" means here)?

I don't get what has "happened" here - it's a work situation. One that can and has worked for millions of people.

Maybe we should try it this way: what reason does Wal-Mart have to keep an inefficient status quo?

I know we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue and all that crap.

I don't think there's a magical thing that happens when a kid with an incredibly screwed up life of poverty/violence/parental drug use/crappy schools/hunger/illness/gangs/trauma/whatever turns 16 (or whatever age) and suddenly sees the light and the road to education/success/independence/health/whatever. I think it's entirely possible that someone who had a really terrible childhood would turn 16 and not even have any idea that anything in the world but the shit he or she has known since birth was possible or how to go about doing it. Having never experienced this, I don't know for sure -- but I can imagine it.

This isn't such a sticking point with me because I want to offer excuses for people who work at Walmart or collect welfare or commit crimes or do whatever it is they do that isn't considered successful. I'm just bothered by what seems to me to be a rather callous statement that it's their fault or they could succeed if they tried or they're lazy. Of course you're free to have whatever opinion you want, but I just find it sad -- because I don't think it's that simple for many people and I don't like the way our society in general doesn't give a rat's ass about the poor or disadvantaged. But like I said, I'm kind of a hippie, uh, which is why I don't shop at Walmart.

If I read the article correctly, it sounds like Target already uses a similar system for their scheduling. I am not a fan of Wal-Mart by any means, and as a result, I don't shop there.

I have no doubt that this could very well result in people who were used to be full-time employees being reduced to part-time hours depending on schedule forecasting and their availability. Who knows, it might mean more people on welfare as a result. It's unfortunate for those people. I would think that if the employees are truly that upset about it maybe they'd finally decide they should unionize or strike, etc., or start looking for a job elsewhere (which may require them to move).

Hmmm...I imagine this isn't good news for some people, especially those who are used to working regular hours. Sounds kind of like a server's schedule...

Oh, and I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I hate it, too.

So logically, since you haven't worked at Wal-Mart, you know nothing about it?

Well, I worked at Walmart in Highschool. I win the thread.:p :p

If they try to unionize, they'll most likely get fired anyway.

And what I meant with my statement is that UNLESS you have lived in a SMALL town (I'm talking 7000 people) that Walmart comes in and fucks up, you know nothing about the damage they can do. No, the Walmart in North Versailles is not going to destroy Pittsburgh.

Wal-Mart coexisted with the businesses in my mother's hometown just fine. It's been there since the early 80's. The population of that town today is 8,371 which is a lot higher than it was in the 80's.

^^^ Sounds a lot like my hometown, where Wal-Mart managed to keep some business in town that otherwise would have been lost to nearby towns, and where the only local businesses that closed after Wal-Mart arrived were a few other chains that were struggling long before Wal-Mart arrived.

Come to think of it, sounds like my wife's hometown, too.

Again, Walmart can only screw a town if the population allows it to happen.

If Walmart did run everyone else out of business, then the lack of competition will eventually bring in another super store to compete with Walmart, thus bringing prices back down. Assuming they're artificially high currently.

Walmart sucks because I say so.

End of thread.

:p

Awww, now if you had just pulled that card up front, we all could saved our fingers lots of typing and put the carpel tunnel syndrome off for a few more minutes. ;)

I'm okay with that.