There's an interesting Q&A in today's Stuart Elliott column in the NY Times:
A Reader Asks: I have a question regarding Wal-Mart's advertising. Do you know if Wal-Mart actually uses employees in its ads or does it hire actors?
I've wondered about this myself. Are there really all these happy people working at Wal-Mart? Elliott's response:
The people appearing in the television commercials and print advertisements for Wal-Mart Stores are actual employees, according to Wal-Mart and its agencies. Such ads have been appearing more frequently as part of efforts by Wal-Mart to counter critics who charge the company does not offer its employees adequate health care or other benefits.
So they're really employees. But I'm still not buying that Wal-Mart is such a great place to work.
Comments
Seems to me like just another effort to increase profits... instead of paying union wages to professional actors and models they can just get their own employees to do it for $12 per hour or whatever...
"How does using employees in it's ads and commercials counter critics claims that it doesn't offer its' employees adequate health care or other benefits???"
Well, it doesn't--at least not in any LOGICAL way. I've recently come to the conclusion that the REAL schism in our society is between those who take things at face value and those of us who at least TRY to look beneath the surface.
How many people do you know, or have seen on TV, who say things like, "That George Bush is a regular guy" because he talks about liking barbecue or whatever? Yup, a "regular" guy who was born into wealth, went to private schools, whose Dad got him into the National Guard, etc.
They see a guy who struggles with the language--like they themselves do, perhaps--and ignore all the evidence to the contrary of the conclusion they've already drawn.
Same with Wal-Mart. The evidence is ample that they no longer adhere to founder Sam Walton's idea of "buying American," that they lobby legislators to allow them to pay workers as little as possible, etc. Put a couple of happy, smiling employees in the ads, though, and they MUST be a wonderful employer and corporation. Throw an American flag or two in there and it's a FACT, Jack. Duh.
You're allowed to see the surface of things for a reason: it's the nicest-looking part.
http://factchecker.purpleocean.org/
If you wanted a better job, you should have gone to college like your mommy said, and gotten a degree, so you could have been in charge at the wal-mart, instead of re-stocking baby food.
"At least that convinced her to go to college."
Maegan says:
"...you should have gone to college like your mommy said..."
That kinda says it all. I spent 10 years working in sawmills in British Columbia. Hated every minute. Noisy, dusty, 95 above in summer and 40 below in winter. I still remember the one night it was -52F. I said to myself, "Self, what am I doing here? There's got to be a better way to make a living." And you know, there is. Get an education!
Perhaps all high school students should be required to spend a semester at some real shit job so they see what it's like. And I'm not talking about at Walmart where it's heated in winter and air-conditioned in summer. The point has to be driven home that there are no rewards in life unless you earn them. The world does not owe you a decent wage if you choose to make a career out of an unskilled job. The reward for that philosophy is "minimum wage".
Even Niki, who works there, says the worst thing is the customers. Those customers are the consumers who force retailers to be the way they are by demanding the absolute lowest price and best service. But they sure like to bitch about how the company treats the employees.
I know some of the people I worked with at those sawmills years ago are still there. That thought keeps me doing whatever I have to, to ensure I won't be with them.
And to be fair, of all of them I have to say wal-mart provides the most usefulness.
About the not-offering benefit point of view, I'm guessing it's to offer its employees gigs like posing for ads as an bonus and additional source of income. When I used to work for Home Depot I auditioned for serveral of commercials for them.
You end up pregnant! That goes for you boys too! Stay in school. Don't get pregnant.
Obviously, Wal-Mart really cares about its employees (and you and me).
I don't know... after seeing those "Girls of Wal-mart" in Playboy, I think I'd like to work there."
I know what you mean, Joe. Sometimes I, too, wonder what it would be like to work at Playboy.
"About the not-offering benefit point of view, I'm guessing it's to offer its employees gigs like posing for ads as an bonus and additional source of income. When I used to work for Home Depot I auditioned for serveral of commercials for them."
So, a few employees making a one-time appearance in a commercial somehow makes up for the fact that many of them don't have health care or a pension, etc.? I'm not following your logic here (assuming you're not joking, that is).
"Although if you spend all your time looking too deep and ignore everything near the surface, you're still only getting a partial picture."
Well, the thing to do (and what I was suggesting) is to look at the surface and see if what underlies that contradicts or supports it. The surface will almost always be what "they" (whoever the specific "they" happens to be in a given case) WANTS you to see. The underlying stuff is what they DON'T want you to see.
It's comparing the two that gives you the REAL story.
So, compare to similar places like let's say, Target, how does Walmart match up? Does Target offer any benefits? What about the difference in wages? (They're questions, I don't know what Target offers.)
Even then, you may have to have a full time status for X period before being eligable. Companies do it to keep from having to pay for benefits for people who work 2 hours a week. My company pays about $350 total EVERY 2 WEEKS for my benefits. I pay $78 for medical, $8 for dental, and $12 for vision. Our Medical is for the whole fam, dental/vis is just for hubby & myself...didn't think baby would need covg until she was about 2 for dental, vision, maybe 4.
So it's really a cost effective thing. Is it worth is to pay $700/month for someone who works 12 hours a month. If that were the case...they're probably ONLY doing it for the benefits.
I don't blame them. It means that children's close are cheaper than Baby Gap, and if the employees wanted benefits, as mentioned before, they should go to school to be eligable for a job that will give them benefits.
Think about this; you hire 30 employees in one month, by month 3, you've replaced them all once. That's 60 employees in 2 months. You'd have to file hiring docs, benefit docs, 90 day evals, then an exit interview w/ docs at then end FOR EACH EMPLOYEE. Termination of benefits docs as well. What's that? You had benefits from your job? Here's some KOBRA paperwork to fill out, if you'd like to keep your benefits.
So just the manpower it would take to do all that is atrocious.
There will always be people that will be willing to work for less, so Walmart and companies like them will always be able to pay what they want. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. People say that there is no longer any need for unions. I disagree. And before you come up with somethig about how being in a union allows you to stand around and do nothing, remember that there are bad apples in any situation. Some people will take advantage of the rules to work less, but just as many people will appreciate what the union does for them and work hard.
*End of rant* :zip:
Silentz, my hubby's former employer did that. They started firing people that made $13/hr, and hired temps for $8. The same temps didn't always get hired back...but my husband left before it got really out of hand.
"Benefits can also be determined by status. If you're part time, you probably won't get benefits. Working 39 hours a week, is still part time. You've got to be working 40 hours a week for it to be considered full time."
Well, that's how it's usually defined, but not by Wal-Mart. As Jon Stewart of The Daily Show pointed out recently, Wal-Mart defines 29 hours a week as "full-time." That helps them raise the percentage of workers they can claim as full-time employees. That, of course, does not mean that those "full-time" employees receive the kind of benefits you might expect.
Take, for instance, the tech department at our local Wal-Mart a few years back. Practically the entire department was caught in a sting operation selling tech items (game consoles, games, TVs, etc.) stolen from the store THAT THEY WORKED IN! This had gone on for YEARS! From what I understand, they made quite a bit of dough.
I also heard of another Wal-Mart where someone set up a drug manufacturing operation - Right in the store! Everyone always wondered why he enjoyed working double-shifts...
Damn us liberals...
Wanting fair pay and benefits.
Just a quick one! I can confirm the Wal*Mart use actual employees in their ads!! How do I know: I work for ASDA and I have just come home from filming the ASDA 2005 Christmas Commercial, one thing for sure: no actors!!!!
Hi there, i was an actor in a recent asda commercial that filmed with Santa out there in Basingstoke.
The company who filmed it is ANNEX FILMS, they are based in Dean Street, in SOHO. Just google them to get a contact number.
Laters
Jefferson.