I'm Sure This is Happening in NZ as Well

[zqwerty]

https://i.redd.it/lh7csgxj9inc1.jpeg

Also this as well

https://i.redd.it/yxzvkuvrijnc1.jpeg

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Shrinkflation happens here...

[Lilith7]

Lately, I find the words 'bunch of utter bastards' coming to mind more frequently than usual...

[SueDonim]

Walmart. A huge retailer.

Net income 2022 $13.6bn. 2023 down $2bn to $11.6bn.

2.1m employees. So each employee has earned the company $5500. Doesn't seem like much to me.

The net income divided by the 3bn shares comes to aout $3.50 each. Fine for the Walton* family who own 50% and have plenty, but not much for the smaller shareholders, especially considering the $60.68 share price at the moment.

* Ahh, the Walton family. The richest family in the world. The people who, like most of the richest people in the world, give away huge amounts of money to charitable causes that arguably do more good in the world than incompetent governments would if it had been swallowed as taxes instead. For example, $1bn over 5 years "to expand "educational opportunity" by partnering with charter school operators, researchers, and education reformers".

Then start looking at the flow-on business impacts - like the motor companies that would go bust if they weren't supplying trucks for carriage of goods. Etc.

The world we live in today needs people/companies like this "bunch of utter bastards" far more than they need to continue the business. Unless you choose to step aside from the life we have learned to enjoy and go back to subsistence farming with no technology, modern comforts or freedom of choice in life you need them to continue to succeed so that we can continue to live the lives we choose.

[Lilith7]

Walmart. A huge retailer.

Net income 2022 $13.6bn. 2023 down $2bn to $11.6bn.

2.1m employees. So each employee has earned the company $5500. Doesn't seem like much to me.

The net income divided by the 3bn shares comes to aout $3.50 each. Fine for the Walton* family who own 50% and have plenty, but not much for the smaller shareholders, especially considering the $60.68 share price at the moment.

* Ahh, the Walton family. The richest family in the world. The people who, like most of the richest people in the world, give away huge amounts of money to charitable causes that arguably do more good in the world than incompetent governments would if it had been swallowed as taxes instead. For example, $1bn over 5 years "to expand "educational opportunity" by partnering with charter school operators, researchers, and education reformers".

Then start looking at the flow-on business impacts - like the motor companies that would go bust if they weren't supplying trucks for carriage of goods. Etc.

The world we live in today needs people/companies like this "bunch of utter bastards" far more than they need to continue the business. Unless you choose to step aside from the life we have learned to enjoy and go back to subsistence farming with no technology, modern comforts or freedom of choice in life you need them to continue to succeed so that we can continue to live the lives we choose.

Using 'bunch of bastards', I was referring more to politicians.

However, it seems Walmart (& others) underpay employees to the extent that those employees require things such as food stamps to avoid starvation. Perhaps they could simply pay a living wage to their employees - that & continuing their benevolent donations to charities would surely improve their popularity.


The world we live in today also needs fair wages, decent housing, freely accessible healthcare & education, and considerably less greed.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-...aries.html

" Walmartand McDonald’s are among the top employers of beneficiaries of federal aid programs like Medicaid and food stamps, according to a study by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office.
The question of how much taxpayers contribute to maintaining basic living standards for employees at some of the nation’s largest low-wage companies has long been a flashpoint in the debate over minimum wage laws and the ongoing effort to unionize these sectors.

The GAO analyzed February data from Medicaid agencies in six states and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — known as SNAP, or food stamps — agencies in nine states.
Walmart was the top employer of Medicaid enrollees in three states and one of the top four employers in the remaining three states. The retailer was the top employer of SNAP recipients in five states and one of the top four employers in the remaining four states."



https://www.worldhunger.org/report-walma...ssistance/

"Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published by Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups."

[SueDonim]

... So each employee has earned the company $5500. Doesn't seem like much to me.  ...

Using 'bunch of bastards', I was referring more to politicians.

...

"Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published by Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups."

The link was about Walmart, not about politicians.

I don't know enough about how the welfare systems work in the US, but if a company's employees aren't actually earning a significant profit per employee for the company shareholders, then that would seem to show that there is a degree of community good going into the employment of those people. The Walton family is probably happy to have it that way because they don't need the extra profit they could make, but the smaller shareholders might find it a problem. Or maybe they are all philanthropists too. The other way to do it would be to make all the excess staff redundant. The company could possibly make a more realistic profit margin but large numbers of people would need more assistance than just the subsidies they receive now. Just because actual numbers are huge doesn't mean the basic principles can be overlooked. A company is either earning a decent profit, or its failing, or it chooses to allow smaller profit margins for an overall benefit to society. It looks like Walmart is doing this.

[Lilith7]

Using 'bunch of bastards', I was referring more to politicians.

...

"Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published by Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups."

The link was about Walmart, not about politicians.

I don't know enough about how the welfare systems work in the US, but if a company's employees aren't actually earning a significant profit per employee for the company shareholders, then that would seem to show that there is a degree of community good going into the employment of those people. The Walton family is probably happy to have it that way because they don't need the extra profit they could make, but the smaller shareholders might find it a problem. Or maybe they are all philanthropists too. The other way to do it would be to make all the excess staff redundant. The company could possibly make a more realistic profit margin but large numbers of people would need more assistance than just the subsidies they receive now. Just because actual numbers are huge doesn't mean the basic principles can be overlooked. A company is either earning a decent profit, or its failing, or it chooses to allow smaller profit margins for an overall benefit to society. It looks like Walmart is doing this.

Underpaying employees isn't community good, since they also need to rely on welfare from that wider community. These are people so poorly paid that often they can't afford medical care, & sometimes. food.


https://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/20/wal-mart...drive.html

Wal-Mart on Thursday came under fire from the Making Change at Walmart organization, after the labor group posted an image to its Facebook page showing a food drive for employees at an Oklahoma store.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Kayla Whaling quickly responded to the criticism, saying the drive was planned by one of the store’s employees, who was collecting food for two co-workers who were on a leave of absence and unable to work.


Whaling added that Wal-Mart, which is frequently the subject of attack over its pay practices, never plans this type of event at the corporate level.

Dawnne Sulaitis, who has worked at Wal-Mart for 19 years, said she asked for permission to hold the food drive when she found out that two families would be down to one income over the holidays.
“It just really comes down to wanting to lend somebody a helping hand,” Sulaitis said.
She added there are two medium-size boxes for donations in the store, and each is about three-quarters of the way full.


“It’s been very well-received,” Sulaitis said.

Wal-Mart came under similar criticism last year, when an employee held a food drive for one co-worker who had lost their home in a fire, and for another who had stopped receiving child support from her ex-husband.
“It’s unfortunate that when a store in those situations, when they want to give back to the local community or to others that they work with based on maybe finding out that they aren’t able to work…that they would be criticized for wanting to help,” Whaling said.

As the nation’s largest retailer, critics argue changes made at Wal-Mart will trickle to other retailers and help improve conditions for low-wage workers. That is one belief expressed by the Making Change at Walmart group.

However, they are not the only critic. On Thursday, public health attorney Michele Simon issued a report on Wal-Mart that said the retailer is contributing to the hunger crisis in the United States.
“In addition to paying workers so little that too many rely on public assistance, Walmart and the Waltons are building their wealth with income from food stamps,” the report said."




 If Walmart were to pay a living wage, that would be avoided & its extremely unlikely that a living wage would cause Walmart to become bankrupt.

[SueDonim]

The link was about Walmart, not about politicians.

I don't know enough about how the welfare systems work in the US, but if a company's employees aren't actually earning a significant profit per employee for the company shareholders, then that would seem to show that there is a degree of community good going into the employment of those people. The Walton family is probably happy to have it that way because they don't need the extra profit they could make, but the smaller shareholders might find it a problem. Or maybe they are all philanthropists too. The other way to do it would be to make all the excess staff redundant. The company could possibly make a more realistic profit margin but large numbers of people would need more assistance than just the subsidies they receive now. Just because actual numbers are huge doesn't mean the basic principles can be overlooked. A company is either earning a decent profit, or its failing, or it chooses to allow smaller profit margins for an overall benefit to society. It looks like Walmart is doing this.

Underpaying employees isn't community good, since they also need to rely on welfare from that wider community. These are people so poorly paid that often they can't afford medical care, & sometimes. food.


https://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/20/wal-mart...drive.html

Wal-Mart on Thursday came under fire from the Making Change at Walmart organization, after the labor group posted an image to its Facebook page showing a food drive for employees at an Oklahoma store.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Kayla Whaling quickly responded to the criticism, saying the drive was planned by one of the store’s employees, who was collecting food for two co-workers who were on a leave of absence and unable to work.


Whaling added that Wal-Mart, which is frequently the subject of attack over its pay practices, never plans this type of event at the corporate level.

Dawnne Sulaitis, who has worked at Wal-Mart for 19 years, said she asked for permission to hold the food drive when she found out that two families would be down to one income over the holidays.
“It just really comes down to wanting to lend somebody a helping hand,” Sulaitis said.
She added there are two medium-size boxes for donations in the store, and each is about three-quarters of the way full.


“It’s been very well-received,” Sulaitis said.

Wal-Mart came under similar criticism last year, when an employee held a food drive for one co-worker who had lost their home in a fire, and for another who had stopped receiving child support from her ex-husband.
“It’s unfortunate that when a store in those situations, when they want to give back to the local community or to others that they work with based on maybe finding out that they aren’t able to work…that they would be criticized for wanting to help,” Whaling said.

As the nation’s largest retailer, critics argue changes made at Wal-Mart will trickle to other retailers and help improve conditions for low-wage workers. That is one belief expressed by the Making Change at Walmart group.

However, they are not the only critic. On Thursday, public health attorney Michele Simon issued a report on Wal-Mart that said the retailer is contributing to the hunger crisis in the United States.
“In addition to paying workers so little that too many rely on public assistance, Walmart and the Waltons are building their wealth with income from food stamps,” the report said."




 If Walmart were to pay a living wage, that would be avoided & its extremely unlikely that a living wage would cause Walmart to become bankrupt.

Clearly you prefer that they have no jobs at all. There's no easy answer, but being blindly critical doesn't really help.

[king1]

Underpaying employees isn't community good, since they also need to rely on welfare from that wider community. These are people so poorly paid that often they can't afford medical care, & sometimes. food.


https://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/20/wal-mart...drive.html

Wal-Mart on Thursday came under fire from the Making Change at Walmart organization, after the labor group posted an image to its Facebook page showing a food drive for employees at an Oklahoma store.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Kayla Whaling quickly responded to the criticism, saying the drive was planned by one of the store’s employees, who was collecting food for two co-workers who were on a leave of absence and unable to work.


Whaling added that Wal-Mart, which is frequently the subject of attack over its pay practices, never plans this type of event at the corporate level.

Dawnne Sulaitis, who has worked at Wal-Mart for 19 years, said she asked for permission to hold the food drive when she found out that two families would be down to one income over the holidays.
“It just really comes down to wanting to lend somebody a helping hand,” Sulaitis said.
She added there are two medium-size boxes for donations in the store, and each is about three-quarters of the way full.


“It’s been very well-received,” Sulaitis said.

Wal-Mart came under similar criticism last year, when an employee held a food drive for one co-worker who had lost their home in a fire, and for another who had stopped receiving child support from her ex-husband.
“It’s unfortunate that when a store in those situations, when they want to give back to the local community or to others that they work with based on maybe finding out that they aren’t able to work…that they would be criticized for wanting to help,” Whaling said.

As the nation’s largest retailer, critics argue changes made at Wal-Mart will trickle to other retailers and help improve conditions for low-wage workers. That is one belief expressed by the Making Change at Walmart group.

However, they are not the only critic. On Thursday, public health attorney Michele Simon issued a report on Wal-Mart that said the retailer is contributing to the hunger crisis in the United States.
“In addition to paying workers so little that too many rely on public assistance, Walmart and the Waltons are building their wealth with income from food stamps,” the report said."




 If Walmart were to pay a living wage, that would be avoided & its extremely unlikely that a living wage would cause Walmart to become bankrupt.

Clearly you prefer that they have no jobs at all. 

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

[Lilith7]

Underpaying employees isn't community good, since they also need to rely on welfare from that wider community. These are people so poorly paid that often they can't afford medical care, & sometimes. food.


https://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/20/wal-mart...drive.html

Wal-Mart on Thursday came under fire from the Making Change at Walmart organization, after the labor group posted an image to its Facebook page showing a food drive for employees at an Oklahoma store.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Kayla Whaling quickly responded to the criticism, saying the drive was planned by one of the store’s employees, who was collecting food for two co-workers who were on a leave of absence and unable to work.


Whaling added that Wal-Mart, which is frequently the subject of attack over its pay practices, never plans this type of event at the corporate level.

Dawnne Sulaitis, who has worked at Wal-Mart for 19 years, said she asked for permission to hold the food drive when she found out that two families would be down to one income over the holidays.
“It just really comes down to wanting to lend somebody a helping hand,” Sulaitis said.
She added there are two medium-size boxes for donations in the store, and each is about three-quarters of the way full.


“It’s been very well-received,” Sulaitis said.

Wal-Mart came under similar criticism last year, when an employee held a food drive for one co-worker who had lost their home in a fire, and for another who had stopped receiving child support from her ex-husband.
“It’s unfortunate that when a store in those situations, when they want to give back to the local community or to others that they work with based on maybe finding out that they aren’t able to work…that they would be criticized for wanting to help,” Whaling said.

As the nation’s largest retailer, critics argue changes made at Wal-Mart will trickle to other retailers and help improve conditions for low-wage workers. That is one belief expressed by the Making Change at Walmart group.

However, they are not the only critic. On Thursday, public health attorney Michele Simon issued a report on Wal-Mart that said the retailer is contributing to the hunger crisis in the United States.
“In addition to paying workers so little that too many rely on public assistance, Walmart and the Waltons are building their wealth with income from food stamps,” the report said."




 If Walmart were to pay a living wage, that would be avoided & its extremely unlikely that a living wage would cause Walmart to become bankrupt.

Clearly you prefer that they have no jobs at all. There's no easy answer, but being blindly critical doesn't really help.

How exactly did you manage to get that from my post - extraordinary!

If a business as large & successful as Walmart is  unable to pay its workers a living wage, then perhaps they really shouldn't be in business. The family which owns Walmart is very wealthy; their standard of living is unlikeltyto drop dramatically should they decide to do the morally right thing.
Fairly obviously, they prefer not to.

[harm_less]

The (misguided) logic that is becoming apparent here is similar to the reasoning in support of tipping service staff in the US hospitality sector. Those employees rely on what are essentially donations in order to supplement their deficient pay rates and in turn the employers use tipping to justify their pitiful pay rates.

Thankfully that model is one that is shunned by New Zealanders.

[Lilith7]

The (misguided) logic that is becoming apparent here is similar to the reasoning in support of tipping service staff in the US hospitality sector. Those employees rely on what are essentially donations in order to supplement their deficient pay rates and in turn the employers use tipping to justify their pitiful pay rates.

Thankfully that model is one that is shunned by New Zealanders.

And long may it remain so. Workers shoudn't have to rely on an unpredicatable source simply to survive.

[SueDonim]

" If Walmart were to pay a living wage, that would be avoided & its extremely unlikely that a living wage would cause Walmart to become bankrupt."

If the cost of employing staff is greater than the value of those staff, then the most likely "fix" would be to reduce the number of staff. It's what most businesses do if they are in that situation. So I said "Clearly you prefer that they have no jobs at all. There's no easy answer, but being blindly critical doesn't really help." Which I stand by. We have no real idea of the staffing structure and who on the staff is or isn't paid the right amount for the work they do. Here in NZ we have large numbers of part-timers who do not earn a "living wage" because they don't work enough hours and still need benefit top up. Staff structures involving a lot of part-timers can work in some industries, but it does spread the salary budget over more people. From a social point of view is it better to have a lot of employees earning not very much, or fewer earning more each but putting more people out of work? I can see pros and cons both ways. The bottom line is that we have no idea how Walmart is working, and the fact that some people protest is not evidence of an overall problem, just a problem for some individuals who may or may not be justified in their complaints. Sitting over here in NZ we simply do not know.

"How exactly did you manage to get that from my post - extraordinary!"

I didn't get anything from your post. A 2014 article from a left wing "news" source taken out of context is neither informative nor interesting. What I did do before I posted was look up some evidence via data on Walmart compared to some other companies and learn a bit more about the business concept of "profit per employee". From a straight business perspective Walmart needs a lot more than they show in the public books.

And, by the way, your habit of copying the text of your links into posts contravenes copyright unless it is specifically permitted by the publisher - you can make links to articles, and you can quote passages in the context of discussion, but just posting the whole article with little or no comment is pushing boundaries pretty hard I think.

"If a business as large & successful as Walmart is unable to pay its workers a living wage, then perhaps they really shouldn't be in business."

Ability or inability to pay is very complex, and when you add in the philanthropic aspects of many of the big businesses you love to hate, there is no clear cut answer.

"The family which owns Walmart is very wealthy; their standard of living is unlikeltyto drop dramatically should they decide to do the morally right thing."

The Waltons are clearly extremely wealthy on paper and there is plenty of information on the big things they do in their lives, but we don't really know what kind of people they are.

You also have to consider the other 50% (approx) shareholders in the company. Some of them are probably very wealthy too, but it's quite possible that many are not. And the profit per share in the company looked pretty woeful to me. Unless we are there walking in their shoes we cannot begin to speculate on what the "morally right thing" to do is.

[Lilith7]

" If Walmart were to pay a living wage, that would be avoided & its extremely unlikely that a living wage would cause Walmart to become bankrupt."

If the cost of employing staff is greater than the value of those staff, then the most likely "fix" would be to reduce the number of staff. It's what most businesses do if they are in that situation. So I said "Clearly you prefer that they have no jobs at all. There's no easy answer, but being blindly critical doesn't really help." Which I stand by. We have no real idea of the staffing structure and who on the staff is or isn't paid the right amount for the work they do. Here in NZ we have large numbers of part-timers who do not earn a "living wage" because they don't work enough hours and still need benefit top up. Staff structures involving a lot of part-timers can work in some industries, but it does spread the salary budget over more people. From a social point of view is it better to have a lot of employees earning not very much, or fewer earning more each but putting more people out of work? I can see pros and cons both ways. The bottom line is that we have no idea how Walmart is working, and the fact that some people protest is not evidence of an overall problem, just a problem for some individuals who may or may not be justified in their complaints. Sitting over here in NZ we simply do not know.

"How exactly did you manage to get that from my post - extraordinary!"

I didn't get anything from your post. A 2014 article from a left wing "news" source taken out of context is neither informative nor interesting. What I did do before I posted was look up some evidence via data on Walmart compared to some other companies and learn a bit more about the business concept of "profit per employee". From a straight business perspective Walmart needs a lot more than they show in the public books.

And, by the way, your habit of copying the text of your links into posts contravenes copyright unless it is specifically permitted by the publisher - you can make links to articles, and you can quote passages in the context of discussion, but just posting the whole article with little or no comment is pushing boundaries pretty hard I think.

"If a business as large & successful as Walmart is  unable to pay its workers a living wage, then perhaps they really shouldn't be in business."

Ability or inability to pay is very complex, and when you add in the philanthropic aspects of many of the big businesses you love to hate, there is no clear cut answer.

"The family which owns Walmart is very wealthy; their standard of living is unlikeltyto drop dramatically should they decide to do the morally right thing."

The Waltons are clearly extremely wealthy on paper and there is plenty of information on the big things they do in their lives, but we don't really know what kind of people they are.

You also have to consider the other 50% (approx) shareholders in the company. Some of them are probably very wealthy too, but it's quite possible that many are not. And the profit per share in the company looked pretty woeful to me. Unless we are there walking in their shoes we cannot begin to speculate on what the "morally right thing" to do is.

"How exactly did you manage to get that from my post - extraordinary!"

What I meant by that was your comment that I 'clearly prefer that the workers do not have jobs' - that was not at all what I either said or meant. Which I think most others reading it will have understood.

Again, if they paid their staff a living wage & if need be, take a little less profit that would at least improve their reputation - which isn't altogether shining.

And I disagree - its very common practice to C&P articles & AFAIK, copyright is OK as long as said article's source is credited, i.e, link included .

According to this, they're apparently living reasonably ordinary lives & making donations to various causes. (Business insider) And continuing to increase their wealth - Mother Jones.

https://www.businessinsider.com/life-of-...ub-2018-12

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/201...th-cities/

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I have a friend who lives in a trailer in California. She is disabled, very low income, and has a tragic family background, but manages surprisingly well considering. Her last job was as a greeter at a Walmart, some of the stories she told me about the things that happened at work made me really glad I live here. The pay was really low, but as she said every worker except the supervisors was on really low pay. But they were desperate for work, and the competition for picking up shifts was quite intense.

We don't know how lucky we are.

[harm_less]

I have a friend who lives in a trailer in California. She is disabled, very low income, and has a tragic family background, but manages surprisingly well considering. Her last job was as a greeter at a Walmart, some of the stories she told me about the things that happened at work made me really glad I live here. The pay was really low, but as she said every worker except the supervisors was on really low pay. But they were desperate for work, and the competition for picking up shifts was quite intense.

We don't know how lucky we are.

Your post brings to mind a semi documentary movie I saw a while back about the people who live nomadic lives following job opportunities at the likes of Amazon dispatch centres called Nomadland.

 

I really enoyed it but then I've yet to see a movie with Frances McDormand in it that I didn't like.

[Lilith7]

I have a friend who lives in a trailer in California. She is disabled, very low income, and has a tragic family background, but manages surprisingly well considering. Her last job was as a greeter at a Walmart, some of the stories she told me about the things that happened at work made me really glad I live here. The pay was really low, but as she said every worker except the supervisors was on really low pay. But they were desperate for work, and the competition for picking up shifts was quite intense.

We don't know how lucky we are.

Indeed - but sometimes lately, I have a horrible feeling that we may yet find that out. 
What exactly is so dreadful about paying workers a living wage & taking a bit less profit is something I simply don't understand & I'm fairly sure I don't want to..

---

I have a friend who lives in a trailer in California. She is disabled, very low income, and has a tragic family background, but manages surprisingly well considering. Her last job was as a greeter at a Walmart, some of the stories she told me about the things that happened at work made me really glad I live here. The pay was really low, but as she said every worker except the supervisors was on really low pay. But they were desperate for work, and the competition for picking up shifts was quite intense.

We don't know how lucky we are.

Your post brings to mind a semi documentary movie I saw a while back about the people who live nomadic lives following job opportunities at the likes of Amazon dispatch centres called Nomadland.

 

I really enoyed it but then I've yet to see a movie with Frances McDormand in it that I didn't like.

I saw that too, a really interesting way of life & she's always good value.

[SueDonim]

And, by the way, your habit of copying the text of your links into posts contravenes copyright unless it is specifically permitted by the publisher - you can make links to articles, and you can quote passages in the context of discussion, but just posting the whole article with little or no comment is pushing boundaries pretty hard I think.

And I disagree - its very common practice to C&P articles & AFAIK, copyright is OK as long as said article's source is credited, i.e, link included .

Speeding is also a common practice but that doesn't make it right.

Basically the Copyright Act 1994 forbids copying, then has 236 clauses to define the exceptions and how they are to be managed. When you do copy something, you need to know what clause is allowing you to take that action, or what permission the author has given you to make a copy.

I checked the news site you quote here and the main web pages says "all rights reserved" but when I looked through to their terms of service it seems that they are OK with articles being posted on social media. So I was wrong on this one. My apologies. But then I also checked a few other news sites and found that for some, either the action wasn't covered, or it was specifically forbidden.

In general practice, the usual standard for anything is to post the link so that those who are entitled to see the article can do so, and those who aren't can't, eg if it is behind a paywall. A short passage with discussion is acceptable - eg post the link then say "The article says "[quoted sentence]" which I agree/disagree with because ....".  Or whatever other introduction/comment is appropriate to get people interested in reading it.

That then covers you.

[Olive]

In general practice, the usual standard for anything is to post the link so that those who are entitled to see the article can do so, and those who aren't can't, eg if it is behind a paywall. A short passage with discussion is acceptable - eg post the link then say "The article says "[quoted sentence]" which I agree/disagree with because ....".  Or whatever other introduction/comment is appropriate to get people interested in reading it.

That then covers you.

The problem for me with links is I am reluctant to click on them as they can be disguised links to malware, or links to publications that I do not wish to support with engagement. It's getting wilder out there all the time and I err very much on the side of caution.

[Lilith7]

And I disagree - its very common practice to C&P articles & AFAIK, copyright is OK as long as said article's source is credited, i.e, link included .

Speeding is also a common practice but that doesn't make it right.

Basically the Copyright Act 1994 forbids copying, then has 236 clauses to define the exceptions and how they are to be managed. When you do copy something, you need to know what clause is allowing you to take that action, or what permission the author has given you to make a copy.

I checked the news site you quote here and the main web pages says "all rights reserved" but when I looked through to their terms of service it seems that they are OK with articles being posted on social media. So I was wrong on this one. My apologies. But then I also checked a few other news sites and found that for some, either the action wasn't covered, or it was specifically forbidden.

In general practice, the usual standard for anything is to post the link so that those who are entitled to see the article can do so, and those who aren't can't, eg if it is behind a paywall. A short passage with discussion is acceptable - eg post the link then say "The article says "[quoted sentence]" which I agree/disagree with because ....".  Or whatever other introduction/comment is appropriate to get people interested in reading it.

That then covers you.

Generally, I tend to both post the link & use quote marks around the quoted piece so there can (or should be) no possible mistake that it is from the quoted source. So far, (until now) most people understand this & often tend to do likewise.

I use quotes to back up what I've said in a post so that its clear that its not just my view....