Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses Education

Walmart Offers To Foot College Tuition Bills for US Employees (bloomberg.com) 181

Walmart will begin offering to subsidize college tuition for its 1.5 million workers in the United States, joining a growing list of companies that are helping employees pay for higher education as a perk in a tight labor market. From a report: The retailer's 1.5 million employees can now pursue associate's or bachelor's degrees in business or supply-chain management at three nonprofit schools for $1 a day, according to a statement Wednesday. Walmart will subsidize tuition, books and fees and provide support with the application and enrollment processes. As many as 68,000 employees might sign up, Walmart executives estimated. "Many of our associates don't have the opportunity to complete a degree," said Drew Holler, Walmart's U.S. vice president of people innovation, in an interview. "We felt strongly that this is something that would improve their lives and help us run a better business." The tuition program -- offered to part-time staff as well as full-timers -- is the latest move by Walmart to improve employee retention and engagement. A handful of other companies, including Starbucks and Amazon, also offer tuition support.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Walmart Offers To Foot College Tuition Bills for US Employees

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @01:13PM (#56700540)
    How about paying a livable wage.
    • >> a livable wage

      Nah...I'd take a serious look at this if I was about to start college in a semi-rural community.

      I worked in a crappy health care data center for $10/hr during my first two years of college but I did it because they paid for most of my school, which boosted my real wages to closer to $20/hr (in the 1990's), or closer to $40/hr since half the time I was "working" in the data center I was actually working on homework.

      As for all the shmoes who are perfectly happy stocking shelves their wh
    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @01:34PM (#56700692)

      Tuition assistance is actually more affordable.

      Low Labor cost tends to go to the young where their livable wage is much cheaper ( often do not have a home or family to support)
      As employees stay at the company longer they will normally get raises (especially if they are ambitious and hardworking) There reaches a point where their work ability exceeds what Walmart can offer. So Walmart is paying more for an employee then their actual worth to the organization is.

      So Tuition assistance will attract young people trying to get a college degree, work at Walmart for 4 or 5 years graduate and move to bigger and better things.

      So they keep employees long enough for them make the company money, have them leave on their own free will once they become too expensive to keep on board.

      Walmart may not be a livable wage, however it isn't too bad for a introduction job without having any skill sets.
       

  • The catch is that you can only apply to one of three schools.
    Which will be ok for some with the online classes, but most prolly won't be able to do it with a crappy connection.
    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @01:18PM (#56700576)
      it was basically an backhanded way to get me into a training program for the job. The way it worked they would send me to a specialized program for some skill they wanted me to have (that had no value outside of their business). If I dropped out I was on the hook for tuition. Also I had to pay out of pocket and wait for reimbursement, which wasn't paid out until 6 months after I graduated.

      Fortunately I got out before they foisted it on me. The way it was structured I was basically paying for required training and then if they made enough money off me in 6 months I'd get it back. All the risk was on me. I'm not saying this is what it is, but it sure looks like it.
      • by novakyu ( 636495 )

        You are right this is meant to benefit the corporation, but it does sound like they are at least taking some of the risk. From TFA:

        and there is no penalty for courses already taken if an employee leaves the company while enrolled in school. There’s also no requirement to continue working at Walmart for any period after receiving the degree.

    • I missed another.
      The only allowed degrees are 'business or supply-chain management'
      AKA what Wal-Mart wants you to learn to keep you stuck there.
      Seems like a bad deal. It'll be good if you could work towards any degree.
  • Will they also allow employees the time to actually take advantage of the benefit? Do only full-time employees qualify, or can part-timers take advantage as well?
  • That's nice, Walmart, but I think what people want is to not have both mom and dad working 60 hour work weeks yet still be living paycheck-to-paycheck.
    • by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @01:45PM (#56700760) Homepage Journal

      WalMart makes their entire business on low prices, at a 3% profit margin (impressive). They've said they're neutral in minimum wage; they seem to support it, some say because a higher minimum wage will crush WalMart's small competitors.

      Higher wages will inevitably lead to higher prices. It's not by much, but it's there. A $2 raise is about a 10% price increase on average--$20 pants become $22 pants--and they don't want everyone running to Target, causing loss of WalMart jobs, gain of Target jobs, and disruption for working families.

      A minimum wage increase would cause a wage increase at WalMart and Target, causing the associated price increases. Structurally, nothing changes: WalMart still has lower prices, even if those prices are slightly-higher. Any impoverished Target employees shopping at WalMart are still shopping at WalMart, are better-paid, are paid more than enough to offset the price increases themselves, and so funnel more money into WalMart (so they can keep their same profit margin without as much of a price increase). WalMart gets richer.

      It's WalMart's 3% NOP that gets me. That's insanely-low; it's impressive, to say the least. Adidas Shoes has 5%; about 8% is reasonable, just by being a common baseline; Comcast usually has 11%; and Microsoft and Apple hold above 20% NOP. I support a fair corporate income tax with a higher tax rate when the corporation's NOP is above reasonable levels; that generally means WalMart gets a tax cut and Apple gets to pay 48%. I don't honestly have a problem with this.

      • Wal-Mart's business is not just cheap goods, but the economic class of goods known as "inferior goods." If people have the money to shop elsewhere, they will shop at Wal-Mart considerably less, and likely even save money in the long run (since well-made goods don't need to be replaced as often, or fail less).

        Higher wages would be detrimental to Wal-Mart.

        • Higher wages across the board would be detrimental to WalMart if and only if the class of people earning those wages were more-interested in less-inferior goods than in lower prices. If the minimum wage pushes prices up at WalMart and its competitors, WalMart's business strategy is contingent on people deciding they like WalMart's lower prices.

          WalMart doesn't just sell inferior goods. I'm not entirely sure what's different about clothing bought at WalMart versus Sears, at a glance; and besides, your kid

          • The very definition of inferior goods is that demand decreases when wages increase, which has overlap with, but is not the same as, cheaper goods. We can debate whether or not, or to what extent, Walmart operates in inferior goods, but if we accept the premise that this is a major part of their business model, it would be hurting at least that part of the model. There is also no shortage of discussing whether or not Walmart is a business of inferior goods, with the consensus leaning towards yes.

            Walmart

            • The very definition of inferior goods is that demand decreases when wages increase, which has overlap with, but is not the same as, cheaper goods.

              Yes, and "when wage increases" is an important but imprecise concept. The difference is really that people would like to buy a nicer thing, but it's expensive; whereas cheaper goods which are not inferior are rationally-preferable even when you have unlimited money.

              My point is that now you can afford a $100 backpack; but if you buy the $20 backpack, you can afford nicer food instead of GreatValue (WalMart) brand shit. You'll probably opt for the shitty backpack and clothes, for reasons stated above abo

          • by RyoShin ( 610051 )

            They have a lot of the same brand products as everywhere else.

            They have the same brand name, but not the same brand products. Wal-mart explicitly encourages brands [fastcompany.com] to make lower-quality versions to sell at their stores for a lower price, capitalizing on the brand name recognition:

            The Wal-Mart vice president responded with strategy and argument. Snapper is the sort of high-quality nameplate, like Levi Strauss, that Wal-Mart hopes can ultimately make it more Target-like. He suggested that Snapper find a lower

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 )

      Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.

      It's more about managing what you spend to match what you take in than making more money. Usually more money doesn't help people who live paycheck to paycheck, it just allows them to dig a deeper hole. If you are struggling to service unsecured debt, you likely have a spending problem. If you find that a raise only puts you deeper in debt, your problem is spending, not earnings.

      In today

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        I agree. There are certain people, that, no matter how much you pay them, will always be living paycheck to paycheck. In our own company, I've seen people who are making 50% more than when they started, in the exact same financial situation as when they started, as well. Inputs matter, but so does what one does with that money.
      • Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.

        I don't know who you think you are by being rational, but stop it! People don't want to take responsibility for themselves, but would rather make poor decisions and then blame someone else for the inevitably poor results.

        • If you're being paid $10/hr or $20,000/yr, take home more like $18,000, where do you start cutting expenses. Housing = $7000/yr minimum. Car, if you want to get to work, probably $2000/yr just for repairs and insurance. Utilities, $1200/yr. Food, $3650/yr if you eat at home. Health insurance, subsidized, $1200/yr. Gas for the car, just to get to work, $500/yr. Clothes, $1000/yr. Activities outside of work, say $1000/yr (no pleasures make a person go nuts). We're up to $17,550/yr without any unexpec
        • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @02:59PM (#56701290)

          Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.

          I don't know who you think you are by being rational, but stop it! People don't want to take responsibility for themselves, but would rather make poor decisions and then blame someone else for the inevitably poor results.

          Yea, I'm very sorry.. The whole "pull yourself up by your own boot straps" "hard work wins" message is quite hurtful to those who think the world owes them and will throw a riot, burring down their own neighborhoods to prove it. I know the pain they feel when the welfare checks get delayed or the WIC debit card stops working for 20 min and I just added to it by making them feel responsible for themselves, if just for a brief moment..

          • The majority of WIC recipients are actually gainfully employed. Stop repeating racist dog-whistle stereotypes from 1993.
    • by slapout ( 93640 )

      I believe the idea is that people can use this education to get a better job.

      • I'm okay with that concept so long as it's actually a viable concept; if you're saying that people who work at Walmart only work there for a few years then move on to a real job, then that's fine, but I don't have that data.
    • That's nice, Walmart, but I think what people want is to not have both mom and dad working 60 hour work weeks yet still be living paycheck-to-paycheck.

      That sounds reasonable when shooting from gut instinct, but that instinct is almost always wrong. I've watched what happens when the minimum wage gets an unreasonable boost: working hours go down to compensate, and usually go low enough to overcompensate. Thus, employees make less money with the wage increase than they made before it.

      In my city, most full time minimum wage employees saw working hours slashed substantially so employers wouldn't have to pay as much as they were already paying. When the Aff

      • A better solution would be for those parents to not be parents until they are financially and educationally viable to support a family.

        Any solution depends on time travel is not actually a solution.

      • A better solution would be for those parents to not be parents until they are financially and educationally viable to support a family. For those parents who didn't think before exchanging DNA, this is why your parents told you to not have sex until you were able to support a family. Your life is probably very difficult now, and you have only yourself to blame

        You were doing fine right up to that point where you revealed what a complete and total authoritarian asshole you are, who also by the way doesn't have a grip on reality. People have kids when they have kids and if you want to invoke the most violent reaction possible from them, then try to dictate to them when and/or how many kids they can have, because it's nobody's business but their own. No, I don't have kids nor have I ever wanted any so don't EVEN try that crap with me, mister. Your holier-than-thou s

        • You were doing fine right up to that point where you revealed what a complete and total authoritarian asshole you are....

          I think you have...issues.

          No, I don't have kids nor have I ever wanted any so don't EVEN try that crap with me, mister.

          I do have kids. I didn't do a whole lot of worrying about getting married and starting a family until after I got my degree and was satisfied that I was in a stable career. I worked my way into a stable and respected position in my career before taking on the responsibility that comes with having a wife and creating young people that depend on me for everything.

          Again, it's basic common sense. Be outraged about it all you want, but having a wife and kids you can't support because

    • Walmart's starting hourly wage is $11/hr. If both mom and dad are working 60 hr work weeks, they're making almost $70,000/yr combined. There are a lot of places in the US where making that much is not living paycheck to paycheck.

  • by BronsCon ( 927697 ) <social@bronstrup.com> on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @01:34PM (#56700690) Journal
    Until participants get fired for having restricted availability due to the classes they're now taking.
  • The summary mentions that these degrees are in "business or supply chain management", and only available through 3 institutions. I'll give them credit for not going to ITT Tech or U of Phoenix or something...that's a plus. But, does the world need any more generic business students? Will Walmart even need them as time goes by?

    Even when I graduated a million years ago, the generic business, psychology, communications, etc. students were basically attending class between parties and most just squeaked by. Wit

  • Why restrict the choice to second-tier "adult ed" schools in three states? This means that most people will be forced to take the classes online, which denies a lot of opportunities. In a traditional class, you have contact with professors and other students and hear of research opportunities, etc. Of course, that's what Wal*Mart doesn't want -- they don't want students to develop connections outside the company. Otherwise, the students can just up and leave after they have their degree.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The big issues are:
      The university SJW demands for a free "living" wage.
      SJW are looking for workers to talk to about unions, wages changes.
      To put what the SJW academics educated generations of SJW about into reality all over the USA.
      The desire for a worker once on campus to discover unionism at university. SJW can help workers on campus discover new ways of understanding their place in society.
      The ability for a worker to meet a SJW student who passes on unionist reading material and they get talkin
  • Just like student loans drove tuitions higher. You can subsidize something on the demand side, or the supply side.

    If you subsidize on the demand side, you lower the cost to buyers while keeping the price to sellers the same. Someone in the middle (government, scholarship fund, Walmart, etc) makes up the difference. The lower cost to buyers increases demand. If the product is a commodity (all versions of the product are more or less identical and interchangeable, e.g. lettuce, or oil), this increased d
  • Instead of footing the bill for more useless college degrees, why not just pay the employees a livable wage?

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Working...