• Lasherz12@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    23 hours 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?

    • Walican132@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      20 hours 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
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        20 hours 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.

    • firebyte@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      22 hours 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
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours 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.