Walmart offers all Vets a job.

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780
Walmart offers all Vets a job.

[h=1]Wal-Mart Plans to Hire Any Veteran Who Wants a Job[/h]Wal-Mart, the nation?s largest retailer, will announce Tuesday a plan to hire every veteran who wants a job, provided that the veterans have left the military in the previous year and did not receive a dishonorable discharge.
Company officials said they believe the program, which will officially begin on Memorial Day ? May 27 this year ? will lead to the hiring of more than 100,000 people in the next five years, the length of the commitment.
?Let?s be clear: Hiring a veteran can be one of the best decisions any of us can make,? Mr. Simon will say in his keynote speech to the National Retail Federation, according to prepared text. ?These are leaders with discipline, training and a passion for service.?
In a statement, the first lady, Michelle Obama, who has led a campaign by the White House to encourage businesses to hire veterans, called the Wal-Mart plan ?historic,? adding that she planned to urge other corporations to follow suit.
?We all believe that no one who serves our country should have to fight for a job once they return home,? Mrs. Obama said in the statement. ?Wal-Mart is setting a groundbreaking example for the private sector to follow.?
The unemployment rate for veterans of the recent wars has remained stubbornly above that for nonveterans, though it has been falling steadily, dropping to just below 10 percent for all of 2012. That was down from 12.1 percent the year before. The year-end unemployment rate for nonveterans was 7.9 percent in 2012.
Reducing the veteran unemployment rate was among the few veterans? issues discussed by the presidential candidates last year. It has also been central to the work of Mrs. Obama?s campaign to assist veterans and military families, Joining Forces. Last August, her office said that private companies working with Joining Forces had hired or trained 125,000 veterans or their spouses in a single year, surpassing the group?s goal of 100,000 a full year early.
Wal-Mart?s foundation has consistently been among the most generous contributors to veterans? charities, committing to donate $20 million to veterans? causes by 2015. ?I take this one personally,? Mr. Simon, a Navy veteran, says in his prepared text.
But the company has also been aggressive about hiring veterans because it views them as good employees, said Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the author of the book ?The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business.?
About 100,000 of the company?s 1.4 million employees in the United States are veterans, company officials said.
?They like military people because they have a sense of hierarchy and a commitment to the organization they are in,? said Professor Lichtenstein, who has been a critic of Wal-Mart?s management practices. ?And that?s important to Wal-Mart.? In recent years, Wal-Mart has been the target of lawsuits by women, accusing the company of discrimination in salaries and promotions.
Gary Profit, a retired Army brigadier general who is senior director of military programs at Wal-Mart, said the company might not be able to guarantee that every veteran who wants a full-time job will be able to get one. But he said that because of the size of Wal-Mart?s retail operation and supply chain, it is almost certain that the company could find a job ? even a part-time one ? close to any veteran who wanted one.
?If you?re a veteran and you want a job in the retail industry, you have a place at Wal-Mart,? he said.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: January 14, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the position of William S. Simon. He is the president and chief executive of Wal-Mart U.S. He does not fill that role for Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/wal-mart-to-announce-extensive-plan-to-hire-veterans.html?smid=fb-nytimes

Reading the comments there are a TON of very negative comments about this "generous" move. A lot of them focused on the fact that

A. Walmart would not have to give these Vets health benefits (since they are Vets they would already have it) so this move benefits Walmart.
B. Walmart is a reason many Vets are coming home to no jobs in their small town in the first place
C. Working at Walmart hardly provides a "living wage"

What do you think? Do you think that this is a way to give Vets who are having a hard time finding work a job? Is any job always, by default, better than no job at all? Is this move truly generous, or simply another way for Walmart to take advantage of more people to their own benefit?

smsturner's picture
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303

The "C" is the big one for me. We are bringing vets home who deserve more.
It's great to offer them a job. It's sad to think of many vets living in poverty because of their wages. Sad

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

Very interesting. I'm pretty anti-walmart. I don't shop there. But this doesn't strike me as something horrid, aside from the fact that I would not choose to work at Walmart if i didn't have to. They have been questionable in their employee treatment in the past so that is a general negative to me. But there isn't anything about choosing to offer veterans specifically a job that bothers me I guess.

I mean i'm sure i could twist my walmart hatred in some fashion or another to fit this scenario and find ways to scorn them for it...but i guess i don't see the need to.

I think i would need to see how it plays out.

ETA: In regards to the points generally made in the comments i would say the following:

A)True that Walmart benefits from not having to provide health benefits, however this is a matter of a situation and true of any employee willing to hire a vet. Seems silly to hold that against them...or too easy to hold against them just because we can.

B)I do agree with B, however that is just a problem with walmart, and really has nothing to do with who they offer jobs too.

C)Same as B. I criticize Walmart all the time for how they treat their employees and how they have bullied low prices out of companies forcing them to leave the US. But neither of those have anything to do with the veterans.

Walmart does a lot wrong...doesn't mean everything they do is wrong.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I think it is wonderful to offer the jobs. If people want Walmart and other businesses to pay a living wage they need to go through the legal process and raise the minimum wage. In my opinion it would just inflate the dollar though.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

It think it is wonderful too, just because something is good for me, doesn't mean it isn't also good for you. And I say some job is better than no job. I do think that benefits ie food stamps etc, should be reexamined and so that those with part time jobs would benefit by keeping them :). And also those with injuries whether vet or not get help so they can then get back into the workforce. We are having trouble over here in Oregon, I see lots without the ability to work that would easily be rectified if they got XYZ surgery but can't get on Oregon Health Plan. And then I see tons more that don't want to work and get full healthcare it is a bit messed up, not sure how to fix it really so those that really need it and are doing their best get the benefits, and those that are leeching the system are forced into the job market.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

I am very happy with Walmart right now because they hired my son who is an amputee who has been looking for a job for over a year and no one would hire him because of his disability. Walmart not only hired him but have gone out of their way to accomodate him.

My niece worked for them as a store manager and retired after 20 years. She has nothing but good to say about the company and saw no gender bias.

I say good for Walmart, it is silly to say that they are doing it because vets have benefits because most people who have only been in for a few years and get out don't get health benefits.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I am very happy with Walmart right now because they hired my son who is an amputee who has been looking for a job for over a year and no one would hire him because of his disability. Walmart not only hired him but have gone out of their way to accomodate him.

My niece worked for them as a store manager and retired after 20 years. She has nothing but good to say about the company and saw no gender bias.

I say good for Walmart, it is silly to say that they are doing it because vets have benefits because most people who have only been in for a few years and get out don't get health benefits.

If that is true I am surprised he didn't pursue it.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

I pretty much agree with everything Kim said. My only concern would be that a given store might now get a lot of unemployed vets in that area who want a job, and then they end up laying off other workers who didn't do anything wrong except not be a vet. That wouldn't be right, but it wouldn't be the first wrong thing Walmart would have done, and won't be the last. This is nothing more than a publicity stunt IMHO; they could have put the program into place without making a national announcement about it, put up signs in the stores & send a memo to the VA.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

If that is true I am surprised he didn't pursue it.

Exactly how would you prove that they didn't hire him for other reasons? It's not like he is a skilled worker or anything, he is a college student with little experience.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I am very happy with Walmart right now because they hired my son who is an amputee who has been looking for a job for over a year and no one would hire him because of his disability.

That's illegal. He should consult an attorney.
A Guide to Disability Rights Laws

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

"Spacers" wrote:

I pretty much agree with everything Kim said. My only concern would be that a given store might now get a lot of unemployed vets in that area who want a job, and then they end up laying off other workers who didn't do anything wrong except not be a vet. That wouldn't be right, but it wouldn't be the first wrong thing Walmart would have done, and won't be the last. This is nothing more than a publicity stunt IMHO; they could have put the program into place without making a national announcement about it, put up signs in the stores & send a memo to the VA.

And you don't think Michelle Obama had anything to do with that?

In a statement, the first lady, Michelle Obama, who has led a campaign by the White House to encourage businesses to hire veterans, called the Wal-Mart plan ?historic,? adding that she planned to urge other corporations to follow suit.
?We all believe that no one who serves our country should have to fight for a job once they return home,? Mrs. Obama said in the statement. ?Wal-Mart is setting a groundbreaking example for the private sector to follow.?

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I am very happy with Walmart right now because they hired my son who is an amputee who has been looking for a job for over a year and no one would hire him because of his disability. Walmart not only hired him but have gone out of their way to accomodate him.

My niece worked for them as a store manager and retired after 20 years. She has nothing but good to say about the company and saw no gender bias.

I say good for Walmart, it is silly to say that they are doing it because vets have benefits because most people who have only been in for a few years and get out don't get health benefits.

I am also really happy with Walmart (in Canada at least) these days for very similar reasons. They have hired several people I know, my SO and DSS included, who were really struggling to find work. SO has worked for several local companies (the kind many people would back over walmart) and know what? They were horrible to him. They did so many nasty things that if we had pursued would have probably been illegal. Walmart gave him a chance and he is doing so well there. He has been promoted, has full time and benefits. And when sh1t did get weird with a slightly crazy manager, the company worked with him to resolve the situation without anyone losing their job or dealing with huge strife. It is awesome. My DSS and my friend have had similar experiences. They are all really happy with their employer.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

I think it is great that walmart has said they will hire any vet who needs a job. It may not be the best job, or the highest paying, but sometimes it is better than nothing. No one has to take the job if they don't want to. And if they do there is plenty of room in a big company to find the right niche and hopefully enough hours. Of course it would be better with a higher wage, but that isn't always something that is out there. If I had to choose between mcdonalds and walmart I would choose walmart. And if someone has better prospects than that they can probably do better than walmart anyways.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Exactly how would you prove that they didn't hire him for other reasons? It's not like he is a skilled worker or anything, he is a college student with little experience.

We ran into similar issues with SO and his health. No one wanted to take a chance on him with a bad knee and a bad back. Even though he is skilled. We couldn't prove anything though.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

"Spacers" wrote:

That's illegal. He should consult an attorney.
A Guide to Disability Rights Laws

Seriously he is going to sue every company where he applies for a job? No attorney would take that when he would have absolutely no proof.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I would think if you had 100 people apply for a job, there would be no way to prove that you did not choose someone because they were disabled.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Seriously he is going to sue every company where he applies for a job? No attorney would take that when he would have absolutely no proof.

You might be surprised at what kind of proof a good attorney can uncover in discovery. There might be a history of disabled people not getting hired and he's the first one to do something about it. Or maybe there's someone else who's been turned down at the same places and now with your son there's a track record of discrimination. Even if all some of them get is a cease & desist letter reminding them of their legal obligations under ADA, it might make them think twice about discriminating against the next person and that can't be a bad thing.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I admit to being skeptical about this whole move and seeing it as a PR and bottom dollar move rather than a "kindness of our heart" sort of thing.....but then again, I don't believe that the majority of corporations make most/any decisions out of true kindness......but something about Walmart posturing this as a "do right by AMERICA!" thing rubs me wrong. I fully admit that I dislike pretty much every single thing about Walmart and actively boycott them, so of course my view is tainted.

I don't believe that bringing our Vets home to a part time/underpaid/underbenefited job at a place like Walmart is the solution to any of our countries or our Vet's problems.

I also don't necessarily blame Michelle Obama for any of that, I mean, what was she to do, decry the move? Slam Walmart publicly? What would you have liked her to do, Gloria, if you object to her support of their statement/pledge?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I think if there are several vets out there that have looked everywhere else for a job and found nothing, and Walmart has open positions, then it is much better for them to get a job at Walmart than to not have a job at all. I also agree that I would rather work at Walmart than at McDonalds.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Out of curiosity, why would the two of you rather work at Walmart than McDonalds?

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"Potter75" wrote:

I admit to being skeptical about this whole move and seeing it as a PR and bottom dollar move rather than a "kindness of our heart" sort of thing.....but then again, I don't believe that the majority of corporations make most/any decisions out of true kindness......but something about Walmart posturing this as a "do right by AMERICA!" thing rubs me wrong. I fully admit that I dislike pretty much every single thing about Walmart and actively boycott them, so of course my view is tainted.

I don't believe that bringing our Vets home to a part time/underpaid/underbenefited job at a place like Walmart is the solution to any of our countries or our Vet's problems.

I also don't necessarily blame Michelle Obama for any of that, I mean, what was she to do, decry the move? Slam Walmart publicly? What would you have liked her to do, Gloria, if you object to her support of their statement/pledge?

Being lazy and just agreeing with this.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

"Potter75" wrote:

I also don't necessarily blame Michelle Obama for any of that, I mean, what was she to do, decry the move? Slam Walmart publicly? What would you have liked her to do, Gloria, if you object to her support of their statement/pledge?

Who said I objected? I was merely pointing out that that is probably why it is in the media, rather than that they are tooting their own horn.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

"Spacers" wrote:

You might be surprised at what kind of proof a good attorney can uncover in discovery. There might be a history of disabled people not getting hired and he's the first one to do something about it. Or maybe there's someone else who's been turned down at the same places and now with your son there's a track record of discrimination. Even if all some of them get is a cease & desist letter reminding them of their legal obligations under ADA, it might make them think twice about discriminating against the next person and that can't be a bad thing.

Ya I guess we are just not lawsuit happy like everyone else. He could have easily sued Six Flags if he wanted to because they all of a sudden they changed the requirements last year and wouldn't let him ride the same roller coasters he had ridden since he was 10 years old. Sometimes it just really isn't worth the battle.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Who said I objected? I was merely pointing out that that is probably why it is in the media, rather than that they are tooting their own horn.

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you.

That said, I totally disagree with you. I think that if Hobby Lobby announced their plans to hire 100,000 vets it would make headline news, too, with or without Michelle's stamp of approval.

In fact ~ BRAINSTORM! Stand back, peeps.

Hobby lobby should announce plans to hire 100,000 vets. This could be huge. It could both draw attention to their plight as a picked on Christian taxpaying company and pick and choose provider of women's health care, while simultaneously providing jobs for our vets AND hobbies for our kids other than gun shooting video games! Dang it, I think that we are onto something here. This is, like, the tipping point of the debate board! 4 threads come together as one and we sell the idea to the owners of the ole hobby lobby and we all get rich! Smile

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"Potter75" wrote:

I don't believe that bringing our Vets home to a part time/underpaid/underbenefited job at a place like Walmart is the solution to any of our countries or our Vet's problems.

I tend to agree with you but thats what Walmart jobs are...thats what they offer to everyone, at least everyone without a specific skill set. They are just saying they will guarantee a vet a job if they come asking for one. And as the testimonial in this thread shows...people go to walmart to look for jobs when they are having trouble. So in that sense, i don't see it as such a bad thing. Aside from requiring them to revamp their whole view on hiring, employee wages and treatment....what could they do to make this sound right? Know what i mean? Should they just not bother making the promise?

I'll continue to not shop there because so many things DO bother me about walmart. But i just can't get too critical of a guarantee to offer a job to a vet who says they want one.

And this:

but then again, I don't believe that the majority of corporations make most/any decisions out of true kindness

I 100% agree with this...but like you said, that is definitely not walmart specific. That is pretty common place is our society when it comes to businesses.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

I think its crazy that everyone thinks Walmart is so much different than any other retail store as far as hiring part time workers and how they distribute hours and stuff. I worked for Sears while I was in college and they did the same thing as far as making sure that people only worked 28 hours a week so they weren't full time and paid people minimum wage ($4 an hour at that time) and this was 30 years ago. Its not like this is anything new.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"Potter75" wrote:

Out of curiosity, why would the two of you rather work at Walmart than McDonalds?

A couple of reason. You don't end up smelling like burgers working at Walmart. (I would rather do a retail setting than a food one.) I have also know people to work within both companies and Walmart treats its employees better than McDonalds does. At least the Canadian companies.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I think its crazy that everyone thinks Walmart is so much different than any other retail store as far as hiring part time workers and how they distribute hours and stuff. I worked for Sears while I was in college and they did the same thing as far as making sure that people only worked 28 hours a week so they weren't full time and paid people minimum wage ($4 an hour at that time) and this was 30 years ago. Its not like this is anything new.

I have seen the same. What is different at our Walmart is they are paying above minimum - not by much but it is still more - for entry level. And there are opportunities to get extra hours. SO can go and do sick coverage in other departments to pick up more hours. It doesn't make you a full timer with benefits but it gives a bigger paycheck.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

To me it smacks of exploitation, but I can't really fully explain why. It's my suspicious nature I suppose.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I think that it is a little depressing that this is the work that our soldiers are qualified for.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"Potter75" wrote:

I think that it is a little depressing that this is the work that our soldiers are qualified for.

My brother-in-law, a vet, went through this agency for vets that hooks them up with excellent jobs. Once he returned home he ended up working for Aldi as a zone manager which is an excellent job. What he had behind him was a college education and his years serving our country. So I don't think its really that all our vets don't qualify for good jobs.

But I think our vets face what a lot of americans have been facing these days. There are lots of highly qualified people who have had no luck finding a professional job, and if you don't have previous related experience for a position or don't have a college education its going to be even harder.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"KimPossible" wrote:

But I think our vets face what a lot of americans have been facing these days. There are lots of highly qualified people who have had no luck finding a professional job, and if you don't have previous related experience for a position or don't have a college education its going to be even harder.

This is what SO faced. He has good qualifications and a good education. But he has a health issue which just knocked him out of the running. There are plenty of people with good qualifications and good health.

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

"Potter75" wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/wal-mart-to-announce-extensive-plan-to-hire-veterans.html?smid=fb-nytimes

Reading the comments there are a TON of very negative comments about this "generous" move. A lot of them focused on the fact that

A. Walmart would not have to give these Vets health benefits (since they are Vets they would already have it) so this move benefits Walmart.
B. Walmart is a reason many Vets are coming home to no jobs in their small town in the first place
C. Working at Walmart hardly provides a "living wage"

What do you think? Do you think that this is a way to give Vets who are having a hard time finding work a job? Is any job always, by default, better than no job at all? Is this move truly generous, or simply another way for Walmart to take advantage of more people to their own benefit?

I think all three comments are possibly valid. We can't know WM's true thinking. I can't say if it's such a noble gesture or if they are trying to take advantage of anyone. In any event, I'm not bothered by it. It's an opportunity available should a Vet need it. Something is better than nothing if you need something and can't get it. So with that in mind and how lots of people are jobless, it's no big deal to me at all.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"KimPossible" wrote:

My brother-in-law, a vet, went through this agency for vets that hooks them up with excellent jobs. Once he returned home he ended up working for Aldi as a zone manager which is an excellent job. What he had behind him was a college education and his years serving our country. So I don't think its really that all our vets don't qualify for good jobs.

But I think our vets face what a lot of americans have been facing these days. There are lots of highly qualified people who have had no luck finding a professional job, and if you don't have previous related experience for a position or don't have a college education its going to be even harder.

This. And a lot are so burnt out they want a simple job that isn't complicated, doesn't have too many rules, and doesn't expect as many sacrifices as many high-paying jobs do. My first supervisor got out with a MBA, 16 years of computer programming, 4 years of project management and went to work at Shopko stocking shelves because with his retirement check and his frugal nature, the stress of a real job wasn't worth the extra money.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

If that is true I am surprised he didn't pursue it.

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Exactly how would you prove that they didn't hire him for other reasons? It's not like he is a skilled worker or anything, he is a college student with little experience.

If he's an unskilled, college student, with little experience, perhaps that IS the reason and not his disability.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

If he's an unskilled, college student, with little experience, perhaps that IS the reason and not his disability.

Could be. I'm still grateful that Walmart hired him when no one else would.