I work for Wal-Mart (Sam's Club) too. You DID get a "bonus". The company contributions to your profit sharing and 401K account and matching funds for stock purchases are counted as "bonuses". The company gives them to you in addition to the wage you earn. The amount of the 401K and profit sharing depend on the profitability of the company as a whole. They also give other bonuses on a store by store basis based on increasing the profitability of the individual stores beyond a threshold, and also for accident cost reduction beyond a threshold. This is the only bonus that would show up on your paycheck (well the company stock purchase match does too). If you didn't get one of these bonuses, it means you and your co-workers need to work harder at making your store more profitable by making things safer, by serving your customers better, helping make incremental sales (selling someone buying a printer some paper, extra ink, a USB cable, etc) and just plain working harder period. I have gotten both of those bonuses several times in stores where everyone has good morale and a strong work ethic. It is all in your employee benefits book. Maybe you should try reading it. Wal-Mart is a great company to work for if you work hard and learn everything you can. As an example, Sam's Club just had an (evil, greedy) executive VP named Greg Johnston retire. He started with the company with little or no experience or training as the boy who pushes the carts in from the parking lot if I'm not mistaken, in the early 80's.

Unlike what most of you are saying, I think this is EXACTLY the same as what AIG has done with paying out bonuses. Notice I said that everything is spelled out in the employee benefits book? That book represents a CONTRACT. If Wal-Mart didn't pay it according to the terms in the book, they can be sued for it. AIG, for better or worse, had a contract guaranteeing these bonuses, and LEGALLY HAVE TO PAY THEM, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS ABOUT THEM! As Neal pointed out, in the state where AIG is incorporated, they have to pay DOUBLE plus court/attorney costs if they have to be sued for it. Say you owed someone $100. You could just pay them the $100, or you could let them sue you, knowing FOR SURE you would lose, and have to pay $200, plus another $100 court fees. $100 or $300. Which would you do? Sure, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth since we taxpayers gave them so much money, but they didn't have any choice or they would have been on the hook for a whole lot more than they paid. They just obviously need to make new rules for the bonuses, more like Wal-Mart has, for the next contract they make with these people.

Just like Jordan pointed out Neal,
Wal-Mart has not recieved TAXPAYER BAILOUT MONEY. Although beit a small inconvenient fact for you and important fact for those of us with FULL FUNCTIONING BRAIN STEMS.

Don't worry Neal, just as soon as the great unwashed doze off after listening to another AIG story, the media will move on to another target. Wal-Mart will always be a favored whipping boy for the leftist media. They just haven't quite figured out how to tie the two together yet.

Wait a minute. I work for Wal-mart, I have not received a bonus. We did get fancy new time clocks 0,o I wonder if I can get a bailout now.

Did you hear about the HOAX text messages sent out warning Wal-Mart shoppers about upcoming gang initiation shootings at selected stores? Sounds like union harassment to me. It was very well organized.

Boortz you are wrong about this issue! People are angry because the bailout happened in the first place. Additionally, they PO'd because the bailed out companies paid bonuses on the backs of the tax payer. Contrary to your bias beliefs, most people could care less about bonuses paid to exec's.

.......WalMart ever asking for a bailout.....but that unionized companies like GM/Chrysler/Ford are on death's door....can't be coincidental, can it?? That's why libs hate WalMart--it succeeds when unionized companies are failing. And Democrats just can't have companies making it on their own two feet, can they? It's just another tactic to keep everyone on the government teat, pure and simple.

Again, from Wikipedia

Those who oppose card check argue it strips workers of their right to a secret ballot and that card check increases intimidation and pressure by union organizers, making card check an inaccurate mechanism for determining employee support for unionization. Many business organizations, including The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the implementation of card check. From its website:
"Under the existing law today, workers have a chance to vote for or against unionization in a private-ballot election that is federally supervised. Under Card Check, if more than 50% of workers at a facility sign a card, the government would have to certify the union, and a private ballot election would be prohibited--even if workers want one. By forcing workers to sign a card in public - instead of vote in private - card check opens the door to intimidation and coercion. Over 70% of voters agree that a private election is better than card check."

Any other questions?

Neal would love to believe that people don't cry out against Wal-Mart bonuses because they're paid to those lowly, filthy working-class peasants. Remember, Neal has tons of working-class spite, as he's the one who tells you you deserve to be fired if you don't come to work in the dark and leave in the dark (without regards to your performance) and then takes random Fridays off to go joyriding when he only works 4 hours a day anyway.

Unfortunately for his failed analogy, that's not true. Nobody cares about Wal-Mart's bonuses because Wal-Mart isn't sucking from the government teat like AIG and all the other failed financial institutions. Wal-Mart isn't giving millions of dollars to failures who cost their companies billions, and funding it with taxpayer dollars.

But that's okay, just keep pretending that it's unjust outrage against your precious executives who can do absolutely no wrong ever and are never responsible for the poor decisions they make, only for the good ones they make. Kind of like your last failure of a president.

First... I've never complained about the bonuses given to AIG employees. My beef has ALWAYS been with the reason they were able to receive their bonuses in the first place; AIG was given a welfare check instead of going to bankruptcy court.
Now on to WalMart. Even though WalMart is not the best example of free-market capitalism, they haven't received a welfare check from the government. To be fair though, how many times has WalMart convinced local officials to use the power of eminent domain to take someones land so WalMart could put up a store. Just saying WalMart is not the best example of free market capitalism by a long shot!

For those that keep complaining that we can't change the bonus contracts for AIG... I hope everyone is keeping up with the facts. Here's something in today's news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_co/dodd_on_thin_ice

"After first denying it, Dodd admitted he agreed to a request by Treasury Department officials to dilute an executive bonus restriction in the big economic stimulus bill that Congress passed last month. The change to Dodd's amendment allowed AIG to hand out the bonuses and sparked a blame game between Dodd and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner."

And all this time, we're told these were pre-existing contracts (which I'm sure is true) that should not be broken. Apparently, they were in question a few months ago behind the scenes.

Let's keep the story staight and focus on ACCOUNTABILITY rather than executive brown nosing. Because in fact, the owners of AIG did switch hands.

To be fair, Wal-Mart hasn't been at the teat of the taxpayer recently, and they have been profiting nicely through this recession. Thats why no one cares about those bonuses... not because they are going to hourly employees. There were bonuses at my place of employment, a major tech company, even though our stock is down 50%, we didn't ask for any money and still remained profitable, so bonuses were paid out. No big deal. There's no need to make this into something it's not, Neal.

No one cares about Wal Mart's bonuses because Wal Mart isn't in trouble nor is part of causing the mess in Wallstreet. It has nothing to do with who get's what. Wal Mart is paying bonuses because they make good decisions.

Wealth Envy? Sounds like Boortz has a case of Working Class Envy to me.

Do people here know why Sam of IBM makes 20 million a year? Because in light of the economic times, IBM stock is priced right, dividends paid, and revenue/guidance is UP! Give Sam a bonus! He's one of the few that earned it.