Wal-Mart Gets 6 Applications for Every Job
TAMPA, FL -- The temporary Wal-Mart Hiring Center had more than 2,000 jobseekers hoping to fill its 350 open positions in time for the new Supercenter's opening in August, according to one of the new Supercenter's co-managers.
MP: When it gets 6 applicants for every job, doesn't that mean Wal-Mart's wages are too high, or at least competitive? That is, Wal-Mart could obviously lower wages and still have thousands, or at least hundreds of applications, and fill its positions. WakeUp Wal-Mart has a lot of complaints about Wal-Mart's wages and compensation, but the 2,000 Florida residents applying to work at Wal-Mart seem to welcome the job opportunities available there.
In a previous CD post, I suggested that Wal-Mart was more selective than Harvard University.
12 Comments:
I disagree with your assessment. WalMart /may/ have decent wages, but the real sign of the times is that so many people are applying to any one low-skill job. Wal Mart opened a store in some medium sized town in Ohio about a year back, and there were about 5,000 applicants per opening. There simply weren't any other jobs in the area.
Matt, your "real point" is a different point.
" There simply weren't any other jobs in the area."
Perhaps, but that's not exactly the situation in Tampa, is it?
The surprise is what they'll experience once they stand up for themselves. At least one of their competitors (Meijer) works with (and not against) unions to some success.
On selectivity:
They don't want another Jonquiere, nor anyone who'll improve conditions. I'll give credit that Harvard would rather keep those they select (versus Wal-Mart who acts quite hostile).
As for those applying:
The apt phrase "a sucker born every minute" would apply quite well to Walmart. Not only does it apply to the consumers, but those who make the mistake of applying there.
"WalMart /may/ have decent wages, but the real sign of the times is that so many people are applying to any one low-skill job"...
It couldn't be that these people applying for a job at Wal-Mart have no marketable skills, right?
"There simply weren't any other jobs in the area"...
Are people forced to stay where they are?
"The apt phrase "a sucker born every minute" would apply quite well to Walmart. Not only does it apply to the consumers, but those who make the mistake of applying there"...
Ahhh, the mantra of the elitist libtard echos again...LOL!
Well sethstorm please don't shop there, you don't want to be seen rubbing elbows with the great numbers of, "unwashed suckers" waltzing through Wal-Marts proletarian aisles, do you?
> " There simply weren't any other jobs in the area."
Perhaps, but that's not exactly the situation in Tampa, is it?
And, more critically, it demonstrates the attitude of spoiled, whiny people like Matt.
There's a simple solution, available to every American, when things suck where they are.
MOVE.
Pack your bloody belongings and MOVE.
Go somewhere that there ARE jobs. Go somewhere that the economy ISN'T in the toilet.
I hear *Texas* is doing quite well.
(Similarly, or even more so, if you live in some rat-infested ghetto -- why the HELL would you want your kids to grow up there?)
I'm not saying this is something you do at every downturn, but when things aren't getting better, and it's been a while, you need to accept that and stop victimizing YOURSELF.
You happen to live in one of the most free, mobile societies in the world. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
There is always SOME part of America where the economy isn't in the toilet -- our interests and such are far too varied and geographically spread out for any one situation to screw with everything at once (even The Depression had bright spots!)
> At least one of their competitors (Meijer) works with (and not against) unions to some success.
As opposed to working against the unions, to GREAT success, lol.
Yeah, I can SEE your point. Comb your hair, please.
Juandos:
I have been there before / after - so I have no trouble with being associated with those shoppers. What I have not done is give them a dime, and have suggested others do the same for what they have done.
I'd acknowledge that was a bit over the line. However, seeing the overload while knowing their practices is stretching belief. Sure, the average shopper/applicant isn't going to know, but they certainly will find out by some means.
OBH:
Financially, that can be a point of agreement. What I'm saying here is that unions can exist in profitable companies.
Making about everyone else look clean in their industry is where I disagree. I'll agree that there is a certain amount of hard decisions that have to be made. Not only do they lead in finances, but they lead(enough that they would be off the charts compared to competitors) in about every social undesirable quality in their industry.
As for those in Ohio, those who can leave do leave. The rest are mostly a) those who do not have the resources/desire to leave, or b) those who engage in corrupt(by legal definition) activities.
As for my hair, it's well-groomed.
"What I have not done is give them a dime, and have suggested others do the same for what they have done"...
Hmmm, just exactly what has WalMart done sethstorm?
Has the WalMart management held a gun to their employees heads and told them they have to work there?
Has the someone from WalMart management forced people into the stores at gun point?
BTW which is the bigger outfit Meijer or WalMart?
Which of these two outfits shows an almost unbroken line of profits?
Compared to WalMart what did Meijer do for Katrina victims?
> What I'm saying here is that unions can exist in profitable companies.
seth, my chief argument is that unions tend to be irritants. Unless there already are problems which should be addressed, they function to create problems so they can be the saviors and justify their existence. This tends to lead, inevitably as socialism leads to totalitarianism, to Big Labor.
As such, they are like Government (which inevitably leads to Big Government): An evil to be avoided where possible.
I won't, and don't, deny that there are places where unions serve a purpose. I just say that unless you have some fairly predatory circumstances, you are better off going out looking for another job, if you are unsatisfied with your current one, than you are joining a union. There have certainly been some examples in history where they were called for -- but, having done what they were created to address, they should have "softly and silently faded away". However, like Wool And Mohair Price Supports, they go on forever.
> a) those who do not have the resources/desire to leave
Everyone has the resources need to leave. It's called a "bus". And the fewer alternative resources you have to worry about, the easier it is to use.
And if someone "doesn't want to leave", well, hey, fine by me. Just don't be asking for any of MY money there, to help support your continued existence, and we're hunky-dory. Steal money from my pocket, though, "to support yourself in the manner to which you have become accustomed", the operative phrase would be 'bite ME'.
Unless you've been giving me oral sex on a regular basis (and I assume you have too few "X" chromosomes for that job) you have no call to be asking for that sort of money.
;o)
Hi. I like your blog. I also like Walmart. There is everything there. Everything I need. The prices are moderate. The customer service is also perfect. Personally I consider it to be one of the greatest. People on www.pissedconsumer.com express their dissatisfactions with the company and if you have something in common to say then rush there and do that!!!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home