Wow.....I see the American mentality of self-entitlement is in full swing.
I'm not sure where to even begin with this thread, but I'll try to fire down the list absurdities as best as I remember it. First of all, Raices03, let me start off by saying I don't think anyone is "frowning upon" people for making $7/hr. Rather, what they're frowning upon is your opinion (and those of a few others) which seems to be that you are OWED or ENTITLED to keep your previous discount policies BECAUSE you're getting paid so little/the job sucks so bad that the only reason you and others work at FTL is FOR said discount. That is flat out ridiculous. Whether someone works at FTL because that is the only type of job they're qualified for, or because it's an extra job they're just using for the discount/extra income, how is it the company's fault that you made this decision? Under what rationale should the company be held responsible or accountable for YOUR life choices? Why would they owe you just because YOU decided the only justification to work at a store like this is because of the discount? That is a justification you made for personal reasons, and so if they take that away, then your justification for working there is gone which = quit, not "protest against the company till I can get my personal justification for working there back again".
It seems we need to differentiate between rights, and perks. When it comes to employees, the only thing a company is obligated to do is comply with labor laws (must pay at least minimum wage, must provide no less than a 20 min break to any employee working more than 7.5 hrs in a day, etc), and that's it. No company
is obligated by law to give you PERKS, which are added bonuses to
encourage you to work for company A over company B. IF you don't like the perks of a certain company, or the perks of a company you work for change in a way you don't like, you have only one choice: DON'T WORK THERE! Where did this mentality come from that you feel "screwed over", or "ripped off" by a company making changes to perks that you don't care for, worse yet thinking you should protest to demand to have those non-obligatory perks returned?? As to pay, it's very simple. In the American workforce, pay is determined by the mental and technical skills involved in doing any particular job/bring in money for the company. Working in almost any big chain/mall stores at an entry level position requires little to no skills what so over. Thus, the pay is low accordingly. I don't say this to be mean. I'm just explaining the way the system works. As you move up the scale, say a manager, more skills are involved (creating worker's schedules, monitoring sales/profits, etc), thus the pay goes up accordingly, and so on. That is supposed to be your motivation to "better yourself" in life, and not settle.
Now let's get to just how "unfair" this cap is. If I read the previous posts correctly, you are allowed $500 in discounted shoes per MONTH (that's up to $6000 per year) with a 40% discount. That's about $840 per month at MSRP. Think about that for a second. At $150 - $170/pair at MSRP, that would allow you about 5 - 6 pairs each month. Even as an avid collector, the only reason I can see needing more than 5/6 pairs of shoes in any given month is to resell them, or because you're buying them for friends, both of which are violations of this perk. Sooo....what this REALLY boils down to for the vast majority of those complaining is that you're only upset about the changes to this perk because it interferes with your ability to illegally use the perk. You see, that's called theft, and you'll have to excuse a few of us if we can't sympathize with your situation of not being able to steal as much from the company any more. Oh wait, I forgot. Theft is OK since the company doesn't pay a "livable wage", and it's the only way for some to get by.
Or maybe it's OK because the company has been so profitable the last couple years. This seems to be another point brought up a few times in this thread, but it has no relevance to the subject. Any company has an OBLIGATION to its shareholders to continually grow and increase profits, and to get the share values up (which is not solely dependent on a company's profits). If the CEO cannot do this on a consistent basis, s/he is replaced pretty quickly in most cases. So what the company did last year is of little relevance to the shareholders other than a barometer to compare how successful the CEO has been THIS year. There is never such a thing as "enough profit" to them. After all, the shareholders don't buy stock just to see them sit there at the same value year after year. They want results for their investments. If you can't do the job, they'll find someone who can.
Another issue raised is how people can afford to spend $500+/mth on shoes. Some of you pointed out that this isn't the only job for many employees, or that not everyone is in an entry level position/making $7/hr. That's fine, but even given that, I still don't see how most are affording this. Even if you made DOUBLE that either through a 2nd job, or because you have a higher position, that still only comes out to around $1700 a month at full time hours after taxes. That means almost 1/3 of your income is going to shoes alone. Now unless you have no rent/car payments/car insurance/utilities/gas/cell/internet/cable/food/etc. bills, I don't see how one would could afford that. It is most likely because the term "afford" is being thrown around too loosely. Putting it on your credit card doesn't mean you can afford it. If after making a payment on your credit card, you still have a remaining balance from last month, that means YOU CAN'T AFFORD YOUR SPENDINGS! Affording it means you have the entire amount for the purchase you're about to make sitting in your bank account and expendable so that even if you put it on a card, you can pay off the entire balance at the end of the billing cycle.
NotoriousMJ23 said why does it matter how much people spend on kicks/their personal life and responsibilities are none of our business. Well there in lies the problem. When people act irresponsible, it is others that pay for it. When tons of people spend beyond their means, and eventually accumulate so much debt that they file for bankruptcy, we pay for it in many ways (harder for EVERYONE to get a loans/credit cards, higher credit scores needed for lower interest, etc). When tons of people say they have the right to eat/look however they want, and eventually cause self inflicted health problems like high blood pressure, high blood sugar, cholesterol problems, heart disease, etc, we flip the bill in the form of higher overall health insurance costs for EVERYONE, and so on. So while people's personal lives SHOULDN'T be anyone's business, they MAKE it our business when their irresponsible behavior costs all of us.
Aaaaaand that's all I can think of for now.