Poll of the Day > Safeways have given grocery store employees a $1.50 raise!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

I personally do not think that is enough for the work they are doing and the risk they are taking. What was a bit disturbing is that many of the employees at Safeway didn't even know about the raise, or the fact that here in WA the min wage increased to $13.50 in January.

The person at the check out counter though she was still making $12.50 an hour (which she had reached do to getting raises while working there).

They should be making $15 an hour now, but...honestly this seems wrong to me still.

Do you think $15 an hour is enough for grocery store employees when people at home, with no jobs, will be making significantly more from unemployment? Even the bare minimum under the relief act is $750 a week, or $3000 a month.

At 15$ an hour, safeway employees would need to work 50 hours a week to make that much (and would receive less than that due to taxes being taken out (but not from unemployment). To recieve the same amount after taxes, Safeway employees would need to work over 60 hours AND be at constant risk of getting the virus and becoming sick.


---

They got $2 more an hour where I'm from. Kinda lucky their jobs didn't get closed but at the same time a 2 month vacation with 100% unemployment benefits would be nice.

It's not actually a raise, it's "appreciation pay." When things go back to normal it goes away. Also it's $2 in Arizona, but we have a lower minimum.

And no it isn't right that unemployment is going to be worth more than those with full time jobs. Everyone I know is peeved about it.

---

I think Congress royally fucked over grocery store employees and other "essential" employees forced to work at their existing low wages while handing out an insane +$600/wk to unemployed people.
It's nice that Safeway is increasing the pay a bit, but it's still way less than the employees would make if Safeway just laid them off.
And all such employees are trapped in their situation because leaving your job b/c "It's bull shit that people make more sitting home than I do working" isn't a valid reason to collect unemployment. As the people in Congress who defended the absurd increase were quick to point out.

Veedrock- posted...

It's not actually a raise, it's "appreciation pay." When things go back to normal it goes away. Also it's $2 in Arizona, but we have a lower minimum.

And no it isn't right that unemployment is going to be worth more than those with full time jobs. Everyone I know is peeved about it.

I'm pretty peeved about being forced into unemployment myself because of this nonsense so I guess we agree in some regard

---

I lot of essential businesses are offering more per hour

I wonder how long it'll last thou, most stores around here are pretty much back to normal.. paper towels and TP included

---

I mean self-checkouts exist. If its such a horrible, dangerous job there are ways around that.

Keep telling those multi-billionaires that you think their employees deserve more. See what happens.

Be happy with what youve got.

---

In San Antonio, where HEB is headquartered, they buy very well from my understanding normally. Not sure if they are giving more now. But I remember seeing fliers at the one I shop at pre-covid asking for baggers @14.95hr

---

streamofthesky posted...

I think Congress royally fucked over grocery store employees and other "essential" employees forced to work at their existing low wages while handing out an insane +$600/wk to unemployed people.
It's nice that Safeway is increasing the pay a bit, but it's still way less than the employees would make if Safeway just laid them off.
And all such employees are trapped in their situation because leaving your job b/c "It's bull shit that people make more sitting home than I do working" isn't a valid reason to collect unemployment. As the people in Congress who defended the absurd increase were quick to point out.

Remember that the House had a different plan ready to go giving out less money all the way around until Nancy Pelosi opened up her big trap and sunk it. Its really almost all her fault.

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Remember that the House had a different plan ready to go giving out less money all the way around until Nancy Pelosi opened up her big trap and sunk it. Its really almost all her fault.

I blame it on both sides. Republicans should've read the bill, and while a handful of Republican senators spoke up for common sense, a bipartisan attack both people in both parties overruled them.
Trump desperately wanted the stimulus bill to pass ASAP to help his economy, which meant no time to seriously scrutinize the language in the bill.

The bill is a sterling example of how bipartisanship is often bad...
"we want to run up the debt for this!"
"fine, but only if we can run up the debt for this other thing!"
"Deal!"
"Yay, we're working together!"

zebatov posted...

I mean self-checkouts exist. If its such a horrible, dangerous job there are ways around that.

Keep telling those multi-billionaires that you think their employees deserve more. See what happens.

Be happy with what youve got.

Self checkouts still have to be cleaned and managed by humans.

The rest of your post is lol

---

Haggen was doing a 2$ "appreciation pay" increase for the last two weeks. I've no idea if that is being extended with the lockdown continuing to the end of April, but it would be nice if it did.

---

Entity13 posted...

Haggen was doing a 2$ "appreciation pay" increase for the last two weeks. I've no idea if that is being extended with the lockdown continuing to the end of April, but it would be nice if it did.

Yeah, I hope it gets extended, it should also be more, and not just up to the company to pay it for that matter.

Flat out the gov should pay a bonus to any "emergency" jobs right now that make under X amount per hour.
If they are bumping unemployment by $600 freaking dollars a week, they should at least bump the pay
for people who literally can be making less than unemployment normally pays as well.

It doesn't make any sense otherwise.

The max you can get from unemployment varies state to state, but in washington the max PER WEEK normally is frreaking $800, and the miniumum is $188 (no matter how little you made).

But the $600 bumps that significantly, to a max of $1400 per FREAKING week right now, and even the
absolute min you can get is $788.

A $2 bump for people making near min wage here is just plain not enough. In fact they would be making
significantly more.

I did the math for people in Wa and making min wage, you are normally eligable for $277 a week unemplolyment.

Right now, that means you would get $877 per week *4 weeks is $3508 a month (tax free I believe).

That is compared to $2400 a month WITH the $2 bonus currently in effect, working 40 hours a week, and before taxes are taken out.

It's not fair , at all.

---

Unemployment is taxed, but you can choose to not have the tax withheld and pay whatever is due on tax day, so it's like an interest free loan equal to your tax burden. Still a big advantage over normal wage work, where you have to get taxes taken out every paycheck.

And if you only raise the pay of people under X amount by a significant amount, you fuck over anyone over X amount.

Here's some better ideas:

1. FIX THE FUCKING BILL that hands out the crazy +$600/week in unemployment
2. Stop having the middle class play the lottery w/ their all time favorite game of, "do you make under this arbitrary limit so you can be a big winner?!", stop half assing this, and just blanket give everyone a UBI.

I mean, agree that they should ammend it to add an extra $600 up to a maximum amount, and I am NOT trying to take money out of the hands of people who need it mind you.

That being said with the max being almost $1400 a week, I'm sorry but you do not need $5600 a month in unemployment insurance right now. Nobody NEEDS that much.

It's crazy.

It should be $600 a week up to a maximum of $600 a week, in otherwords it boosts the min from $188 (here in WA) to $600 and that is it.

But I didn't write the bill.


---

wolfy42 posted...

I did the math for people in Wa and making min wage, you are normally eligable for $277 a week unemplolyment.

Right now, that means you would get $877 per week *4 weeks is $3508 a month (tax free I believe).

Unemployment is taxed Federally as income but some States dont tax it, so in those States youd see less of it taken out by whatever amount the State normally taxes income.

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Unemployment is taxed Federally as income but some States dont tax it, so in those States youd see less of it taken out by whatever amount the State normally taxes income.

Yeah, no income taxes here in WA, but still have to pay federal. I'm curious if you have to pay Social Security tax etc on unemployment, but it will never actually matter for me.

I am all for helping people living paycheck to paycheck, I just think the $600 should be spread around among everyone including those working.

How about just a flat $300 for everyone per week (which would be $1200 a month instead of just once), if your working or not, and that is on top of whatever unemployment benefits, normal wages etc you make, unless you mmke $50k or more a year.

That would at least be more fare, and you can do it on a month to month basis as well, depending on the economic situation etc.

That would probably have been WAY better than this and cost about the same.

---

wolfy42 posted...

How about just a flat $300 for everyone per week (which would be $1200 a month instead of just once), if your working or not, and that is on top of whatever unemployment benefits, normal wages etc you make, unless you mmke $50k or more a year.

That would at least be more fare, and you can do it on a month to month basis as well, depending on the economic situation etc. That would probably have been WAY better than this and cost about the same.

This is exactly what I was thinking. The stimulus check should be considered a relief check. If you're still working then it's a nice bonus, and of you're unemployed it can supplement your benefits which evens out to 300 a week. The unemployed would have incentive to start working again instead staying unemployed. Then the money that is allocated to this debacle would instead be put towards doing it every month until the crisis is over.

But instead no, fuck the workers they get nothing while the unemployed rake it in with no reason to seek employment until the well's dry.

---

Veedrock- posted...

This is exactly what I was thinking. The stimulus check should be considered a relief check. If you're still working then it's a nice bonus, and of you're unemployed it can supplement your benefits which evens out to 300 a week. Then they could do it every month until the crisis is over.

But instead no, fuck the workers they get nothing.

Yeah, it irks me. I'm not working, it doesn't affectme either way, as I wouldn't get money either way (or accept it even if I was eligable, infact I think I AM eligable if I filed for unemployment under the new rules).

But seriously I hate to see the people at the store, fast food places etc, run ragged, working their asses off, risking their health, and basically getting shafted.

And yeah, this is going to sound concietedd but I don't care. It's my freaking taxes (and everyone elses) that are paying for this. I want it to be freaking fare. Heck I have money saved for retirement and blowing 3.5 trillion (so far) is probably going to devalue that.

If you have to do it, fine, I agree, we can't let people suffer, but do it in a fare way and DON'T freaking give people $5200 a month when I live on less than $1000 a month, and people working full time right now are getting about double that.

---