• 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

there are far too many attorneys. many of them are churning frivolous cases trying to create work for themselves. Until we have a LOSER PAYS law this will continue. I have had 11 cases with an attorney 10 have been thrown out as having no merit, one we settled for nuisance value against our advice because the client wanted it. If he had been hit with loser pays for his first case (65K in fees, 5 K in costs) I doubt he would have filed the other cases. Feel free to try to get that approved

You can also argue if doctors didn't have to go to accredited medical schools or pass state boards the cost of doctors' services would go down

They certainly would

The cost for many medical visits would drop drastically. Specialist costs probably not, as most people would not go to the local barbershop for brainsurgery, but it does not require a brain surgeon to reset a simple broken bone. The higher level of choices for the simple procedures (ie take two asprin and call me in the morning) will drive the costs much lower (due to the higher level of people providing the service)

Imagine the cost of taxis in New York or Chicago if the government did not restrict the numbers artificially
 
Last edited:
The certainly would

The cost for many medical visits would drop drastically. Specialist costs probably not, as most people would not go to the local barbershop for brainsurgery, but it does not require a brain surgeon to reset a simple broken bone. The higher level of choices for the simple procedures (ie take two asprin and call me in the morning) will drive the costs much lower (due to the higher level of people providing the service)

Imagine the cost of taxis in New York or Chicago if the government did not restrict the numbers artificially

good thinking, I await for you to change your lean to LIBERTARIAN!!
 
They certainly would

The cost for many medical visits would drop drastically. Specialist costs probably not, as most people would not go to the local barbershop for brainsurgery, but it does not require a brain surgeon to reset a simple broken bone. The higher level of choices for the simple procedures (ie take two asprin and call me in the morning) will drive the costs much lower (due to the higher level of people providing the service)

Imagine the cost of taxis in New York or Chicago if the government did not restrict the numbers artificially

Depends on where the leg is broken at. One of the things happening due to reform is that lesser needs and procedures will likely be handled by less than the brain surgeon.

Though I'm not sure either of you addressed med school. How unqualified do we want our surgeons?
 
Those strikes didn't do anything.
Mainly because it wasn't initiated by the Walmart employees.
It was started by the UCFW.

It was astroturf.

It has Americans talking about how Wal Mart and other corporations treat their employees. I call that something.
 
They certainly would

The cost for many medical visits would drop drastically. Specialist costs probably not, as most people would not go to the local barbershop for brainsurgery, but it does not require a brain surgeon to reset a simple broken bone. The higher level of choices for the simple procedures (ie take two asprin and call me in the morning) will drive the costs much lower (due to the higher level of people providing the service)

Imagine the cost of taxis in New York or Chicago if the government did not restrict the numbers artificially

My broken femur has a rod in it and a bone graft. My hand took 5 and half hours to put back together it still hass 13 tiny screws in it.
 
My daughter worked there part time while going to college, as a cashier....
if an item didn't have a price tag she would ask the customer how much it was, and rung it up...unless it looked like a high priced item. Her line was always among the fastest at getting the customer checked out. They liked her, and wanted her to stay after college, and with her degree in economics she probably would have done well there. But her husband's job was farm building construction and they had to travel too much for her to take the WalMart job.
Now he has his own construction company, with a partner, and is doing well enough to put a 1/3 down payment on his own building, so no more renting....and she has a successful website business, with a partner, that makes very good money working from home.
AND STILL she hasn't bought me a jaguar.....:shock:
When I worked at Wall-Mart the policy gave cashiers a dollar amount of discretion when it came to contested or unknown prices. The idea was to keep the lines moving. If a price was unknown or a customer said it was tagged at a lower price than it rang up, I just did a little thing and changed the price and went on with the day.
 
It has Americans talking about how Wal Mart and other corporations treat their employees. I call that something.
It has us talking about how there's nothing to talk about. That's not really anything.
 
It has us talking about how there's nothing to talk about. That's not really anything.

Ha! It's really disappointing to me to see the number of posters who think our capitalistic system is a failure. I don't think this is a fair representation of the population at large, certainly not any of the people I personally know, but maybe the people who are so dead set against capitalism are young people who lacked opportunity...? Or avid union members...? I just don't know.

Low-end jobs are always going to be there. They have to be. A WalMart Associate is not a career opportunity. It's a stepping stone. Or a fill-in job. To think that people believe that everyone has to earn a minimum of....what? $25,000 a year? Sounds absolutely ludicrous to me. It is never going to happen unless we inflate into it.

Edit: And to think that a union at WalMart will eventually have cart pushers who've been with the company for 15 years making $40,000?? OMFG.
 
Sure Read these....

Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News

Obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000

Obamacare Raises Taxes on 3 Million Middle-Class Americans

On Environmentalism'

EPA Regulations Ensnare Small Businesses in a Web of Red Tape | Energy & Commerce Committee

Americans for Tax Reform : EPA Regulation of the Day: Greenhouse Gases

http://assets.nationaljournal.com/pdf/NERA 3 0 FINAL.pdf

Although I am sure that you probably won't even read these articles, and papers provided before you just out of hand dismiss them, it is a sad state of affairs that Obama was re elected on pure rhetoric by the very people he is bleeding dry.

I read the links you posted. I don't trust them because they are mostly opinions from right wing rags, but the ones on Obamacare bring up some interesting points. However, what the articles fail to point out is that we are already paying for the uninsured with taxes. Our taxes won't go up, they will just be more clearly defined. Taxes on medical coverage are used to pay for the medical coverage of people who would most likely end up in the emergency room. Emergency room care is the most expensive form of medical care. By providing more affordable coverage and having that coverage address preventative care, we save the amount of money we spend in taxes each year to care for the uninsured. There is a real argument to be made here that the taxes we will pay to provide medical coverage for all Americans is wise. The way we have been doing it has been penny wise and pound foolish.
As for the EPA articles you posted, they are all propaganda pieces as well. There are two sides to the argument. These links only provide one side of the argument. The other side is that without these regulations our air, land, and water become polluted. Once that happens, medical costs go up because pollution effects peoples health. The cost of cleaning up the pollution is passed on to the government which increases taxes. You see, the EPA was created for a reason, to protect the environment. Had the EPA and pollution regulations not been put into play, our Gulf Coast would still be an oily mess which effects the economy greatly. We can not allow corporations to opporate regulation free because they will not clean up their own messes or pay for the damage they cause unless they are forced to.
 
Yeah if you can keep up with your bills while investing in that; it must be harder for people part time too. :roll:

I'd ask why are their bills so high in the first place? Oh right, they have never been married and they have three kids. And then I'd ask where is that my problem?

Don't get me wrong, I do care about people. But I care about society a lot more, and society cannot encourage this sort of dysfunctional nonsense. Is economic inequality a problem? Yes. But a FAR greater issue is the cultural inequality that seems to be persisting. Violent neighborhoods, drug abusers, pre-martial kids, deadbeats, parasites, high school dropouts; all of these are not a result of economic inequality, they directly cause it. And it appears that every time we start talking economic inequality, we simply ignore the cultural inequality and allow it to worsen. Its not just a matter of "values," its a matter of what is and isn't a feasible way for society to be constructed. Choices that have a negative impact on society as a whole MUST have a proportional negative impact on the individual. In return, it is society's responsibility to provide things like education, public infrastructure, law enforcement, and opportunity so individuals don't ONLY have bad choices to make. (Note, I did not say welfare, or transfer payments.)

And before you say I hate the poor, I think businesses need to feel the exact same negative consequences. I've repeatedly favored slashing specific tax breaks and subsidies to companies and instead using that money for the things I listed above.
 
Greed is greed nothing about it. When your giant company can afford to treat, and pay the people that work and keep your company running you should do it. After all without these "no skill workers" your company would fail.
What is 'more' greedy...a family who through hard work created an empire (which also BTW creates substantial wealth for others) or whiny people thinking they somehow have a right to that legacy?

The job pays what any typical retail job pays. it provides above average opportunities for growth and progress. It provides a paycheck.
 
Ha! It's really disappointing to me to see the number of posters who think our capitalistic system is a failure. I don't think this is a fair representation of the population at large, certainly not any of the people I personally know, but maybe the people who are so dead set against capitalism are young people who lacked opportunity...? Or avid union members...? I just don't know.

Low-end jobs are always going to be there. They have to be. A WalMart Associate is not a career opportunity. It's a stepping stone. Or a fill-in job. To think that people believe that everyone has to earn a minimum of....what? $25,000 a year? Sounds absolutely ludicrous to me. It is never going to happen unless we inflate into it.

Edit: And to think that a union at WalMart will eventually have cart pushers who've been with the company for 15 years making $40,000?? OMFG.

And god forbid a customer deciding to grab a cart from the parking lot!
 
I read the links you posted. I don't trust them because they are mostly opinions from right wing rags, but the ones on Obamacare bring up some interesting points. However, what the articles fail to point out is that we are already paying for the uninsured with taxes. Our taxes won't go up, they will just be more clearly defined. Taxes on medical coverage are used to pay for the medical coverage of people who would most likely end up in the emergency room. Emergency room care is the most expensive form of medical care. By providing more affordable coverage and having that coverage address preventative care, we save the amount of money we spend in taxes each year to care for the uninsured. There is a real argument to be made here that the taxes we will pay to provide medical coverage for all Americans is wise. The way we have been doing it has been penny wise and pound foolish.
As for the EPA articles you posted, they are all propaganda pieces as well. There are two sides to the argument. These links only provide one side of the argument. The other side is that without these regulations our air, land, and water become polluted. Once that happens, medical costs go up because pollution effects peoples health. The cost of cleaning up the pollution is passed on to the government which increases taxes. You see, the EPA was created for a reason, to protect the environment. Had the EPA and pollution regulations not been put into play, our Gulf Coast would still be an oily mess which effects the economy greatly. We can not allow corporations to opporate regulation free because they will not clean up their own messes or pay for the damage they cause unless they are forced to.

Businesses are/should be forced to clean up their mess. But the environmentalists (especially the ones at my college, gag me) have gotten to the point of hysteria when it comes to opposing things such as natural gas. Fracking may not be perfected yet, but this is an issue of engineering, not of public opinion. It's been safe in a majority of the cases, but the minor cases it has had have been blown up to infinity. Some of those cases had nothing to do with fracking, and other even more have been completely false. Not to mention its not like most of this environmentalists know anything about engineering or management anyways. And when public hysteria starts overtaking sound regulatory and business practices, is when I start to distrust the EPA.
 
Businesses are/should be forced to clean up their mess. But the environmentalists (especially the ones at my college, gag me) have gotten to the point of hysteria when it comes to opposing things such as natural gas. Fracking may not be perfected yet, but this is an issue of engineering, not of public opinion. It's been safe in a majority of the cases, but the minor cases it has had have been blown up to infinity. Some of those cases had nothing to do with fracking, and other even more have been completely false. Not to mention its not like most of this environmentalists know anything about engineering or management anyways. And when public hysteria starts overtaking sound regulatory and business practices, is when I start to distrust the EPA.

There are radicals on both sides. I don't agree with the far left or the far right on any issue. They both take the issues to the extreme.
 
I think this is the essence of oir problems.

They keep leaving oht part of the explanation when wages are stagnant and the working class is required to accept various cuts.

"In order for the investor class to continue to harvest profits at the rate to which they have become accustomed, it is necessary for the working class to accept less (x)."

And in turn the worker is always wanting more. Yet for everyone to continue to get goods that do not rise in cost, and for a business to even maintain its current level of profits, the worker can not have more.
 
If you can't grow out of your comfort zone, don't cry about it.
You're limiting yourself.

If that's what is keeping them from earning more, I have little regard for them.

That's fine, don't have any regard for them and you don't have to sympathize with them or empathize with them. But the very least you can do is understand what's going on. We're talking about Walmart employees who protest their jobs yet keep them, in case you've forgotten. People are motivated by fear - fear of the unknown, fear of losing their money or their friends or their house. Walmart will hire you if you don't have a solid education or proficient skills, they'll still hire you when a lot of other companies won't. And it's NOT because they think you'd make a great employee, it's because they hire people who can be paid minimum wage and get the shaft in every aspect of their employment and still not quit or even demand a raise. Most don't stick around too long but many of them do and of those that do are afraid of what I mentioned before: loss and discomfort. That's human, dawg. That's what we all do.

When a woman can't bring herself to leave her abusive husband, do you say you have little regard for her and that if she was really abused she would have divorced him? Yes, that's a long way away from working at Walmart, but the important thing is that many (or arguably most) people find it impossible to make big changes in their lives, even when that change would greatly benefit them in the long run. And just because they are afraid to change doesn't mean that they should be exploited for that inability.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that Walmart employees are a lower class of people? Anyway, I think your speculation of how Walmart employees feel about Whole Foods is just that...speculation - and a bit hyperbolic at that.

In any event, what makes you think Walmart has any "responsibility as a group of human beings"? (whatever that is)

I used to work at Whole Foods and it's pretty close to how I described it. And no, I am not saying that Walmart employees are a lower class of people. I would say that the average Walmart employee is a lot more down to earth and the average Whole Foods employee is a lot more open minded. Those personality traits are irrelevant to the discussion except to provide an answer to your question.

But what I was getting at was what I wrote in response to the Harry Guerilla. And as to your last sentence, Walmart's board of directors have a responsibility as a group of human beings to treat their employees reasonably well and make sure they have opportunities to improve their lives whether that means a wage increase, benefits, time off, education, or just compassion and the willingness to assist the individuals they employ and the community in which they exist. Somebody who works at a group home may have a job that consists entirely of feeding and clothing a disabled individual. But when that disabled individual is approaching the end of their life, the responsibility we all have as a human being is to help that individual in any way we can (again, within reason) no matter what our job description says. If corporations are people, they sure don't know how to show their feelings.
 
And in turn the worker is always wanting more. Yet for everyone to continue to get goods that do not rise in cost, and for a business to even maintain its current level of profits, the worker can not have more.

The way for the worker to "get more" in the real world is to become more proficient at his job, accept more responsibility, and get promoted -- or, even more likely -- to get a job at another company using the skills he's learned to advance his career.

Unions, on the other hand, reward . . . what? They don't reward ingenuity. In fact, your ingenuity isn't even welcome. They don't reward accepting more responsibility. In fact, you'd better not take on more responsibility than your job classification requires. They don't reward working faster or better. In fact, you'd better not make the rate change on a job. Unions reward length of service. Whoop-dee-freakin-doo.

I just don't get it. What a way to reward a worker. What a fine way to work together with a company to help them be profitable. Whoosh.
 
I used to work at Whole Foods and it's pretty close to how I described it. And no, I am not saying that Walmart employees are a lower class of people. I would say that the average Walmart employee is a lot more down to earth and the average Whole Foods employee is a lot more open minded. Those personality traits are irrelevant to the discussion except to provide an answer to your question.

But what I was getting at was what I wrote in response to the Harry Guerilla. And as to your last sentence, Walmart's board of directors have a responsibility as a group of human beings to treat their employees reasonably well and make sure they have opportunities to improve their lives whether that means a wage increase, benefits, time off, education, or just compassion and the willingness to assist the individuals they employ and the community in which they exist. Somebody who works at a group home may have a job that consists entirely of feeding and clothing a disabled individual. But when that disabled individual is approaching the end of their life, the responsibility we all have as a human being is to help that individual in any way we can (again, within reason) no matter what our job description says. If corporations are people, they sure don't know how to show their feelings.

This shows a decided lack of knowledge of things that Wal-Mart does for its employee's.

1: Thier employee's get pretty darn good benefits...Wal-Mart health benefits and financial benefits

2: Employee's do get vacation time and sick time which are seperate from each other.

3: Thier employee's and dependents can also get scholarships...Wal-Mart and education

Edit: Btw, I should also note that those health and financial benefits were offered when I worked there long before Obamacare came around.
 
Last edited:
Walmart could raise wages 30% for EVERYONE and still be profitable ... Also the Walton family got their wealth very partially through their own work, and a LOT through other peoples work.

Unions and industrial action are how workers get better conditions, thats been the case historically and thats the only way its gonna happen.
 
Own? Not the word I would use. But I am part of the team. We need each other, so some give and take is better for both of us.

Actually they don't need "you". They just need someone to do the job. And there is always someone willing to work that job at the pay they offer. If there wasn't then they would just increase the pay rate until someone did take the job. That's how the market works.
 
Actually they don't need "you". They just need someone to do the job. And there is always someone willing to work that job at the pay they offer. If there wasn't then they would just increase the pay rate until someone did take the job. That's how the market works.

If every Walton died tomorrow, leaving behind all the assets and capital, Walmart would be fine ... If every Walmart employee, or not even employee, Janitor died tomorrow Walmart would have major problems.
 
Not to the level that Walmart is. Now, I'm aware that the SBA and other government organizations exist to help businesses get off the ground, but once you get to a certain point, you're cut off. Walmart is far beyond that point.

They're also a big union target because they essentially ask for it. I've seen Walmart recruitment and employee training videos, and I've met many employees. I've never seen a company work so hard to prevent unions. Hell, I...well, we'll say "dated" for politically correct purposes...a girl who said that she was hanging out in the parking lot after hours with a couple other employees. They were smoking, chit-chatting, just carrying on like normal people do. Apparently a manager saw this on tape and called Bentonville to the HQ (as required by company policy) and reported it as "union creation activity". Apparently a few weeks later, some stuffed shirt flew in from Arkansas and droned on some anti-union rant. Seems like slight overkill for such a situation, but the vitriol Walmart has against unions is bordering paranoia. It makes me wonder why they're against it so much.

I knew people who made a living out of giving advice to small companies who wanted to stop the union from coming in to their businesses. Their standard line of advice to the owner was simple: give your employees as good of a deal as they can get in a union shop - maybe even better in some ways and your employees will never see a need for the union. Wal Mart seems to reject this approach in favor of of Big Brother techniques and intimidation. Which then makes then hated even more.

If you went around the nation and took a survey asking this question - WHICH NATIONAL COMPANY DO YOU REFUSE TO PATRONIZE BECUAE YOU HAVE STRONG DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITH HOW THE COMPANY OPERATES? is there any doubt who would win going away? I cannot even think of a company which would finish second.
 
If every Walton died tomorrow, leaving behind all the assets and capital, Walmart would be fine ... If every Walmart employee, or not even employee, Janitor died tomorrow Walmart would have major problems.


Not with 23 million unemployed in this nation....I have a feeling that the jobs would be filled within a week.
 
Not with 23 million unemployed in this nation....I have a feeling that the jobs would be filled within a week.

I'm pretty sure anyone here could to the Walton families job also ...
 
I'm pretty sure anyone here could to the Walton families job also ...


Well, then I just don't know what to say to someone who truly thinks that....It is stunningly ignorant.
 
Back
Top Bottom