Wal-Mart to use Scheduling-Optimization

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You're assuming, without much evidence as far as I can see, that's how it would work. Heather17, who actually has worked under a system like Wal-Mart is implementing, described it quite differently.

I'm not assuming. I worked under this sort of "on call" system, and it blows. Although I was part time, so I really can't complain. I can't imagine using it for employees who are supposed to be fulltime.

Heather said she was allowed to CHOOSE HER OWN SCHEDULE AND HOURS. I didn't see that mentioned in any of the articles about Walmart.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm not assuming. I worked under this sort of "on call" system, and it blows. Although I was part time, so I really can't complain. I can't imagine using it for employees who are supposed to be fulltime.

Heather said she was allowed to CHOOSE HER OWN SCHEDULE AND HOURS. I didn't see that mentioned in any of the articles about Walmart.

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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?

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I think that's valkyrie's point though. Many children (especially those born into poverty) have parents who either don't care enough or themselves don't understand the affect doing poorly in school has on their life to impose short-term consequences and explain the long-term.

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.

Darn you responsible parents for actually caring enough about your children to MAKE them make something of themselves.

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

Originally Posted by valkyrie

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.

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.