• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart workers demand better wages

Deuce said:
Do you honestly believe that working harder would make Wal-Mart employees get paid more? :lamo
Click to expand...

Lets get back to basics. Prove yourself first. The mangement is not that dumb.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Most of the Walmart protests are what was popularly coined as "astroturf."
From the reports I've seen, the majority of those protesting are on the payroll of "OUR Walmart."

Walmart's average wage is around $10.50 an hour and benefits like 401k with a 6% match, profit sharing, medical, in store discount card, ESPP, etc.
This is plainly just an attempt of the union trying to get more due paying members.
Click to expand...

Many Wal-Mart employees qualify for food stamps. You and I are subsidizing their employees.
You mention "medical" but strangely left out the details. Details like how the company will strategically schedule employees to fall just below the threshold of being eligible, or the fact that you're not eligible at all for the first two years of employment. Or the premiums.

Only about half of Wal-Mart's employees get healthcare through the company. You and I pay for the other half.
 
DA60 said:
Click to expand...
Al Jazeera TV? Interesting source. Level 1 pay at WalMart is $8 per hour for cart pushers fitting room attendants and people greeters. That is about $1 more per hour than the federal minimum wage. Could someone tell me just how much such an unskilled position should pay? Plus, since every position they offer pays above the federal minimum wage, whats the problem?
 
Deuce said:
Many Wal-Mart employees qualify for food stamps. You and I are subsidizing their employees.
You mention "medical" but strangely left out the details. Details like how the company will strategically schedule employees to fall just below the threshold of being eligible, or the fact that you're not eligible at all for the first two years of employment. Or the premiums.

Only about half of Wal-Mart's employees get healthcare through the company. You and I pay for the other half.
Click to expand...

Sans Walmart, we may be paying for 100% of their employees healthcare and food costs.

So basically you're saying that, Walmart causes people to utilize these services, even though the case may well be that they were using these services, before being employed by Walmart.
I worked in retail for a while in my youth, it wasn't unusual to have a mix of full and part time workers.
What Walmart does is no different than what many retail establishments have been doing decades before Walmart came into fruition.
 
Deuce said:
Do you honestly believe that working harder would make Wal-Mart employees get paid more? :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes. Do you honestly believe that paying the average Walmart employee more will make them be more productive? It works both ways. Walmart, or any other employer, is unlikely to volunteer a pay increase, yet the manager realizes which of their employees get more done, make fewer mistakes and seem to rise above their peers; when these "model" employees ask for a raise and/or a promotion they surely will be taken seriously. It is common business sense to help retain their better employees, rather than to have to train a replacement unlikely to be as good as, much less better than, those that show promise.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes, that's why a large mix of the full time associates and managers came from entry level.
Click to expand...

Going full-time isn't a promotion. It's just working more.

So, you promote a couple hard-working associates to supervisor/manager positions. What about the other 95% of the store's employees? Let's say every one of them works harder. How much more are they going to get paid?
 
Mycroft said:
As I have with other posters, I reject your contention that Walmart has any responsibility or mandate to improve the general state of our economy or to reduce the number of people who take government benefits. Their only responsibility it toward maximizing the profits of their stockholders.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree.

However: It is corporations that have allowed this view to develop that somehow they can be responsive to other imperatives. These other imperatives can be classed as things which fall under the name "corporate responsibility". They have done this in order to short circuit any lawmaking which would create regulations on their behavior which would actually create new imperatives by which they would be lawfully governed. And then here you come along and basically say there is no such thing as "corporate responsibility".

To which I again heartily agree. So, let's get back to the business of lawmaking, which will create corporate responsibility under the force of law.
 
Deuce said:
Going full-time isn't a promotion. It's just working more.

So, you promote a couple hard-working associates to supervisor/manager positions. What about the other 95% of the store's employees? Let's say every one of them works harder. How much more are they going to get paid?
Click to expand...

Promote some to full time associates and department heads, of course based on space available, but when you add in regular turn over, that's not always a problem.
But sorry, there isn't always room for more full timers.
That's life in retail.

They can always pursue this option, it's practically free.
http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/ + http://www.midlandstech.edu/?_accProps=[object+Object] = win!
 
Deuce said:
Going full-time isn't a promotion. It's just working more.

So, you promote a couple hard-working associates to supervisor/manager positions. What about the other 95% of the store's employees? Let's say every one of them works harder. How much more are they going to get paid?
Click to expand...

what is the purpose of a wage? to get the quantity and quality of a commodity known as labor. If the current wage achieves that why should an employer pay more?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes. Do you honestly believe that paying the average Walmart employee more will make them be more productive? It works both ways. Walmart, or any other employer, is unlikely to volunteer a pay increase, yet the manager realizes which of their employees get more done, make fewer mistakes and seem to rise above their peers; when these "model" employees ask for a raise and/or a promotion they surely will be taken seriously. It is common business sense to help retain their better employees, rather than to have to train a replacement unlikely to be as good as, much less better than, those that show promise.
Click to expand...

Yes, in the libertarian universe of unicorns and fairies, this is how it would work. In the real world, Wal-Mart does not work this way.

TurtleDude said:
what is the purpose of a wage? to get the quantity and quality of a commodity known as labor. If the current wage achieves that why should an employer pay more?
Click to expand...

How come your free market economics support is so selective? If employees feel their current work situation is unfair and that the company is exploiting them, why shouldn't they get together and try and change it?
 
Dezaad said:
I absolutely agree.

However: It is corporations that have allowed this view to develop that somehow they can be responsive to other imperatives. These other imperatives can be classed as things which fall under the name "corporate responsibility". They have done this in order to short circuit any lawmaking which would create regulations on their behavior which would actually create new imperatives by which they would be lawfully governed. And then here you come along and basically say there is no such thing as "corporate responsibility".

To which I again heartily agree. So, let's get back to the business of lawmaking, which will create corporate responsibility under the force of law.
Click to expand...

not exactly a legitimate governmental power

"corporate responsibility" tends to be a code name socialists use to redistribute wealth contrary to market forces
 
TurtleDude said:
not exactly a legitimate governmental power

"corporate responsibility" tends to be a code name socialists use to redistribute wealth contrary to market forces
Click to expand...

Where in the US Constitution does it say our legal and social system is to be a slave to what you call "market forces"?
 
haymarket said:
Where in the US Constitution does it say our legal and social system is to be a slave to what you call "market forces"?
Click to expand...

more importantly, where was the power to give the federal government such jurisdiction plainly delegated. remember, the intent was to have a limited federal government, restrained to acting only in the specific areas where power was clearly delegated.
 
TurtleDude said:
more importantly, where was the power to give the federal government such jurisdiction plainly delegated. remember, the intent was to have a limited federal government, restrained to acting only in the specific areas where power was clearly delegated.
Click to expand...

what are you referring to when you use the term SUCH JURISDICTION?

I take it your inability to answer my question

Where in the US Constitution does it say our legal and social system is to be a slave to what you call "market forces"?

shows clearly that you are unable to find any passage which does just that. And thus your devotion to what you call "market forces" is personally ideological and has no legal or Constitutional basis.
 
Dezaad said:
I absolutely agree.

However: It is corporations that have allowed this view to develop that somehow they can be responsive to other imperatives. These other imperatives can be classed as things which fall under the name "corporate responsibility". They have done this in order to short circuit any lawmaking which would create regulations on their behavior which would actually create new imperatives by which they would be lawfully governed. And then here you come along and basically say there is no such thing as "corporate responsibility".

To which I again heartily agree. So, let's get back to the business of lawmaking, which will create corporate responsibility under the force of law.
Click to expand...
If people wont do things the way we think they ought to be done we will force them to do it. Thuggery at its finest. So much for a free society, bring on the leftist despotism.
 
haymarket said:
Where in the US Constitution does it say our legal and social system is to be a slave to what you call "market forces"?
Click to expand...
Our nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty. The Constitution is there to protect that liberty. The free market is just liberty in the field of economics. It is you and I engaging in the free exchange of value for value. But as usual, you have the question backwards.
 
Fletch said:
Our nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty. The Constitution is there to protect that liberty. The free market is just liberty in the field of economics. It is you and I engaging in the free exchange of value for value. But as usual, you have the question backwards.
Click to expand...

Employees have the individual liberty to group together to fight for better working conditions. Your libertarianism is selective, apparently.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, in the libertarian universe of unicorns and fairies, this is how it would work. In the real world, Wal-Mart does not work this way.



How come your free market economics support is so selective? If employees feel their current work situation is unfair and that the company is exploiting them, why shouldn't they get together and try and change it?
Click to expand...

What is a fair pay and benefit "package" for a low/semi-skilled worker? If all low/semi-skilled U.S. labor paid enough to warrant a "middle class" lifestyle then why should one bother to graduate HS, get additional job skills and become more productive? If a McWorker gets a "living wage" then why become a McManager, electrician, carpenter, engineer or any other skilled worker?
 
haymarket said:
what are you referring to when you use the term SUCH JURISDICTION?

I take it your inability to answer my question

Where in the US Constitution does it say our legal and social system is to be a slave to what you call "market forces"?

shows clearly that you are unable to find any passage which does just that. And thus your devotion to what you call "market forces" is personally ideological and has no legal or Constitutional basis.
Click to expand...

the issue is where the government was actually given the power. You see, under the intent of the authors, the government ONLY HAS POWER SPECIFICALLY GIVEN IT

the Leftwing attitude that the government has ANY POWER NOT SPECIFICALLY DENIED IT is specious and contrary to the obvious intent of the founders
 
Deuce said:
Employees have the individual liberty to group together to fight for better working conditions. Your libertarianism is selective, apparently.
Click to expand...

sure they do-that is the right of association

and an employer should have the equal right to be able to non-associate with those who join a union and fire them
 
TurtleDude said:
not exactly a legitimate governmental power

"corporate responsibility" tends to be a code name socialists use to redistribute wealth contrary to market forces
Click to expand...

Specific market forces, actually. These:

  • Market power
  • Information asymmetry

These are the two of the market forces that cause free markets to malfunction and behave less free and less efficiently than they would otherwise. "Socialists", as you call them, correct the effects of these bad market forces through the law. A very legitimate function of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom