70
Walmart Tests Onsite Pod Hotels for Workers as Housing Costs Rise (reddthat.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/viral@reddthat.com
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

EDIT: I apparently fell for a fake news Lemmy community. Its explained in the sidebar. I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt that they couldn't link the real new story, but trusted the attribution to APNEWS. If you enjoy participating in OPs social experiment on posters you're in the right place. I'm not, so I'm out.

The article said they don’t even have access to a toilet unless they are on the clock, so No, no showering facilities.

The context in the article where that line was taken was meaning: access to toilets after leaving the DC and accessing the new housing.

An employer isn't going to stop you from relieving yourself immediately after you clock out.

I'm not sure about your personal work experience, but for folks that work jobs that get you dirty many employers offer shower facilities on-site for employee use. The article says this housing pilot project is in a Walmart distribution center (warehouse). A quick google search shows that many Walmart DCs have employee shower facilities available. Here's evidence of that from an indeed poster:

source

Now, I don't know for sure that this DC where the pilot is taking place has showers. I also don't know if those using the housing are allowed to use the showers. However, the possibility exist, and I think Walmart would want its folks sleeping in company owned sleep pods to be bathed, so I think its highly likely that they chose a pilot location with showers, and I would guess they would allow the folks using these sleep pods to bath. It is not in Walmart's interest to have dirty/stinky workers showing up the next morning for work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Maybe, but I also know that you'll never get far by counting on Walmart's respect for humanity, especially its own workers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    EDIT: I apparently fell for a fake news Lemmy community. Its explained in the sidebar. I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt that they couldn't link the real new story, but trusted the attribution to APNEWS. If you enjoy participating in OPs social experiment on posters you're in the right place. I'm not, so I'm out.

    In this case I'm not. If we take the most cynical view I don't think Walmart would be offering this for the benefit of its workers. That just happens to be a side effect.

    Human labor is expensive. The available workforce that is both housed and has their own bathing facilities have demands on short commute to work, consistently rising wages, preferential hours, and preferential tasks. Even with these demands, employee turnover is very high increasing repeated training costs for replacements. This new pilot would allow Walmart to access another pool of labor that would be willing to forgo those things. However, there are certain hygiene demands that Walmart has of all of its workers irrespective of where they source the labor. Being well slept and bathed are two of these. Walmart can provide the facilities for these two things at a low cost to Walmart. Showers already exist and DCs so just some operational costs there and the real estate for the housing is already company owned as its in an unused warehouse. The only new costs are the sleeping pods, which are likely not expensive in volume to Walmart should this pilot be expanded, and they are charging a small fee to their employees using them further offsetting the cost to Walmart corporate.

    The end result are additional workers that were not fit to work at Walmart before, but are now, and provide benefits to Walmart to increase the labor supply to its locations especially where acquiring required staffing has been difficult.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    And now they are slaves to Walmart, relying on Walmart for their pay, and housing. One wrong move, and their delicate house of cards collapses, and they are homeless.

    That makes them extremely vulnerable to exploitation by supervisors, managers, and Walmart itself.

    Instead, Walmart and other Big Box retailers who have run countless small businesses out of operation, should be forced to fund and supplement low income independent housing for low income workers, no matter where they work. Those stores do a lot to suppress wages and the lives of hard-working Americans. At least 50% of their profits should be spent on funding and supplementing housing and transportation for the working poor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    EDIT: I apparently fell for a fake news Lemmy community. Its explained in the sidebar. I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt that they couldn't link the real new story, but trusted the attribution to APNEWS. If you enjoy participating in OPs social experiment on posters you're in the right place. I'm not, so I'm out.

    Instead, Walmart and other Big Box retailers who have run countless small businesses out of operation, should be forced to fund and supplement low income independent housing for low income workers, no matter where they work.

    I take a different view that minimum wage should be increased so workers could afford to buy their own housing.

    However, until either of our ideas for increasing working housing through legislation are passed, I'm not going to try to stop Walmart from providing housing to those that have none. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •