CNN/Money Magazine wrote:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - An internal memo sent to the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. board proposes numerous ways to hold down health care and benefits costs with less harm to the retailer's reputation, including hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from seeking jobs, the New York Times said Wednesday.
The paper said the draft memo to Wal-Mart's board was obtained from Wal-Mart Watch, a pressure group allied with labor unions that says Wal-Mart's pay and benefits are too low.
The paper said in the memorandum Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) pension contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits.
The memo is quoted as expressing concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive, said the paper, which posted the memo on its Web site
To discourage unhealthy job applicants, the paper said, Chambers suggests Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)"
The paper said the draft memo to Wal-Mart's board was obtained from Wal-Mart Watch, a pressure group allied with labor unions that says Wal-Mart's pay and benefits are too low.
The paper said in the memorandum Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) pension contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits.
The memo is quoted as expressing concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive, said the paper, which posted the memo on its Web site
To discourage unhealthy job applicants, the paper said, Chambers suggests Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)"
That aside, about this "Don't hire the unhealthy, old and infirm because they cost us too much" bit. There are jobs within the retail world that someone with limited mobility can accomplish: the traditional door greeter, cashier, customer service desk, etc. Wal-Mart proposes to fold physical tasks into those positions in order to weed out a particular class of people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong or that it should be illegal or whatever but I'm curious: if you support businesses doing this as their own perogative to save costs, what is your solution towards the "unhealthy" who need to remain employeed? I doubt many people are working at Wal-Mart on a lark.
Do we support them via the reviled 'welfare state'? Do we just tell them to get another job despite the limited availability of jobs suitable for such people? In fact, Wal-Mart itself is accused of taking over the economic market in areas. Perhaps a town may have had enough small businesses that some had jobs but now there's a single entity that doesn't want you working there. Discounting legality, does Wal-Mart have any ethical responsibility? If not, who does? No one? Is the answer "tell them to die in the streets"?
I'm not trying lead anyone in this but I'm interested to hear what your solutions would be, particularly from fiscal conservatives.