• 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

Manc Skipper said:
There's a great barrack-room lawyer's response!
Maybe if companies were required to do due diligence on their suppliers to ensure that the the same health and safety standards were applied as if they were in-country, then these things wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

You're right, they would leave those supplying countries; sending them back into absolute poverty, starvation, and war. You don't want that do you?
 
haymarket said:
if the point is that working at Wal Mart is little better than a root canal then perhaps he did make that point. Sadly, the root canal - once done - is over while the drone like WM job keeps hurting day after day after day. So perhaps we should change it to a series of never ending root canals.
Click to expand...

Which is why you dont have credibility on this issue, over the top hyperbole doesnt do much to convince people. Move along.
 
Mustachio said:
I knew I was wasting my time the moment I typed "the least you can do is try to understand it." It should have been obvious to me that you set your bar a little lower than the point of comprehension. I was comparing the psychological reasons that compel people to stay in a situation that is detrimental to their long term well being and I made that clear.

The people who work at Walmart work incredibly hard. I was there on Thursday night and I saw hundreds of people running around the store and I remember working in retail (and the time a coffee shop I worked at ran a promotion where they gave away free blended drinks which was traumatic) and it's amazing what those people do. You've deflected a lot of other people's opinions but aren't eager to offer up your own. Why do Walmart employees stay there? Do they like their jobs? Do they deserve whatever they get because they can walk out the door at any time and find a new job, but they don't?

I've already shared my opinion as to why they stay there. But whatever the reason is, this much is clear - they work extremely hard, they are the foundation of Walmart and they deserve to have a voice and fair compensation. Also, while I think most Walmart employees want more in life than what they've got, some of them simply don't care about getting rich, but that doesn't mean they're forfeiting their right to speak up for themselves. They shouldn't live knowing they'll lose their house if their child gets cancer just because they don't make enough money to afford a top shelf health care policy.
Click to expand...
First, you cannot declare by your personal observation at a single store on a thursday night that all the people at Wal Mart work 'incredibly hard.' I suspect they work no harder than emplyees of K Mart, Target, Hollister, Toys R Us, or any one of a thousand other retail stores that pay roughly the same and have exactly the same working conditions. Second, you claim to have worked in retail, how much did you make? Why are you no longer there? Did you use that retail experience to get a better job? And could it not be said that you exploited the retailer you worked for in that they hired you, trained you, and gave you the work experience you needed to move up in the world, then left them?
 
RGacky3 said:
Yeah .... and the reason that they have that is because of the leadership system, instead of looking at short term profits they look at long term viability and workmanship, and that is because the board is run half by the workers, who have a much more long term stake in the buisiness than liquid shareholders, they also stop outsourcing and they make sure that the benefits go to the workers and not just to profits.
Click to expand...

Way to go ignore history. Germany has had a manufacturing reputation since prior to WW2. Leadership is part of it, its certainly not all of it. Youre wrong about German board makeup, by the way, as well. Unions and mgmt work out conciliatory compromises, its not an us versus them mentality that has always existed between unions and business here in the US.

Its funny, I believe thats sort of what Hostess offered was a 25% stake in the company and the union turned it down. shrug
 
OpportunityCost said:
Way to go ignore history. Germany has had a manufacturing reputation since prior to WW2. Leadership is part of it, its certainly not all of it. Youre wrong about German board makeup, by the way, as well. Unions and mgmt work out conciliatory compromises, its not an us versus them mentality that has always existed between unions and business here in the US.

Its funny, I believe thats sort of what Hostess offered was a 25% stake in the company and the union turned it down. shrug
Click to expand...

The reason you ahve that dynamic between unions and management is because labor is IN the leadership, i.e. they partially choose who the management is, they make up half the board.

That has to do with the POWER of unions.

German manufacturing reputation prior to WW2 is not the same as it is today.
 
RGacky3 said:
The reason you ahve that dynamic between unions and management is because labor is IN the leadership, i.e. they partially choose who the management is, they make up half the board.

That has to do with the POWER of unions.

German manufacturing reputation prior to WW2 is not the same as it is today.
Click to expand...

Its amazing you can talk about values and then ignore them as they apply to the rest of the argument. Of course it isnt the same, it was mostly bombed out. They have reps on the board, they cant sway votes with that representation its primarily as a measure to ensure labor's interests are heard as part of strategy. Your idea that they control boards is ludicrous.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it doesn't. What you speak of would raise employee salaries, skilled workers, and not CEO pay, not at the level we're speaking of.

They are largely over rated and need a sound work force, without show we've seen them fail. Interesting though that you'd try and make excuses for the foolish practice of overpaying them.
Click to expand...
CEO compensation is determined by their market value. Why is Messi (or any highly paid athlete) paid so many millions a year? Because he can do something that most people can't. There are only a few people in the world that can compete on his level. He consistently provides results. You can't say that putting some guy off the street in his spot would produce similar results.

CEO's are no different. The quality of the CEO is the single most important factor to a business's success. Not just anybody can be a successful CEO, or they would, and CEO's wouldn't be paid dick.
 
RGacky3 said:
The reason you ahve that dynamic between unions and management is because labor is IN the leadership, i.e. they partially choose who the management is, they make up half the board.

That has to do with the POWER of unions.

German manufacturing reputation prior to WW2 is not the same as it is today.
Click to expand...

The unions in America no longer have any power. They make up only 7% of the workforce here, and are dwindling. People ignored the astro turf the UFCW put up to get the deals. Even the employees ignored it. It was a defeat, and a joke.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Its amazing you can talk about values and then ignore them as they apply to the rest of the argument. Of course it isnt the same, it was mostly bombed out. They have reps on the board, they cant sway votes with that representation its primarily as a measure to ensure labor's interests are heard as part of strategy. Your idea that they control boards is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

They don't control the board ... they have HALF of the representation. If you don't think that makes a major difference on how the company is run I don't know what to tell you.
 
j-mac said:
The unions in America no longer have any power. They make up only 7% of the workforce here, and are dwindling. People ignored the astro turf the UFCW put up to get the deals. Even the employees ignored it. It was a defeat, and a joke.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and with the decline of Unions comes the decline of the middle class.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Which is why you dont have credibility on this issue, over the top hyperbole doesnt do much to convince people. Move along.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can list your credentials to tell us all what qualifies you to judge who may or may not speak about a Wal Mart job let alone attack me for daring to comment about them?
 
ReformCollege said:
I don't think you understand what I am saying. I know how a corporation works in theory. The CEO shouldn't be paid in salary and bonuses, he should strictly own a portion of the business and realize the profits and losses. Perhaps, all senior executives should be organized like this, they should not represent the board of directors, they should BE the board of directors. Make it so you can't pay executives of a corporation a salary/bonus/stock package; and you will see those management positions being filled by people who strictly want the business to succeed because of their personal stake in the business.
Click to expand...

In almost every corporation executive compensation is directly tied to how well the business does, how much profit it makes, how much growth it experiences, whether the stock price goes up or down. All corporate executives own stock in their companies, so they are motivated as you suggest.

As I said, your knowledge of corporate management is somewhat lacking. CEOs do not get huge salaries and bonuses if they do not get results.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps you can list your credentials to tell us all what qualifies you to judge who may or may not speak about a Wal Mart job let alone attack me for daring to comment about them?
Click to expand...
Not sure that anyone who has not worked at WalMart is really qualified to discuss what working there is like. But anyone who compares it to a root canal pretty much disqualifies himself. But since you seem to think yourself qualified, perhaps you could clear up why WalMart is the focus of evil and every other retailer whose pay and working conditions are identical gets a pass. An Agenda perhaps?
 
RGacky3 said:
That isn't a democratic economy, we have a plutocracy, i.e. an economy run by the rich, it's one dollar one vote, and whoever has the property makes the rules.

I wnat an economy which is one person one vote, a socialist economy IS a democratic economy, by definition.

Also no one disagrees with supply and demand principles, it's just who controls the supply and who makes the demand, the answer to both of those questions in capitalism is the capitalist and the people with the most money, the socialist answer is the people democratically.
Click to expand...

"run by the rich" ? Hmmm, then did the rich reelect obama? If so, why don't you hate obama as much as you hate the rich?
 
Bobcat said:
"run by the rich" ? Hmmm, then did the rich reelect obama? If so, why don't you hate obama as much as you hate the rich?
Click to expand...

I don't HATE the rich, thats a straw man, I just don't want a select few running an economy.
 
CalGun said:
Last I heard Texas was part of the United States where you were free to leave your employer for one that you liked and respected. I hope you told your mother to quit immediately so someone that wouldn't mind working for that poor management could have the job?
Click to expand...

Pay attention. If you had read past the first page of this thread, you would've seen another post describing the town of about 16K people with WalMart being the 5th largest employer aside from the school system, hospital, etc. In small town, rural Texas WalMart is often one of very few employers. Add to that the current unemployment rate...
 
Fletch said:
Not sure that anyone who has not worked at WalMart is really qualified to discuss what working there is like. But anyone who compares it to a root canal pretty much disqualifies himself. But since you seem to think yourself qualified, perhaps you could clear up why WalMart is the focus of evil and every other retailer whose pay and working conditions are identical gets a pass. An Agenda perhaps?
Click to expand...

Have you cleaned up behind the elephant? But I bet you can judge that to be a pretty crappy job just the same.

Have you ever climbed into the hold of a garbage truck to scrub it out periodically? But I bet you can judge that to be a pretty lousy job just the same.

Are you following me here or do you need some other examples?

Jobs a little better than minimum wage where your employer actively works to subvert your rights and manipulates your hours so you never qualify for benefits fit right into the definition of a lousy job.

Why is WM the target? Probably because their size and success makes them the poster pin up boy for everything that is wrong with the economic trends these days
*** rabidly anti labor union
*** expects government to subsidize their lousy wages with tax payer funded welfare/food stamp payments to their workers
*** buys products from overseas sweat shops who have stolen millions of American jobs
*** ugly stores where customer service is almost nonexistent
*** drives out smaller stores and businesses from towns all across America
*** bullies towns and cities to get breaks and assistance that other businesses cannot get giving them unfair advantage

and that is just to start
 
Fletch said:
Not sure that anyone who has not worked at WalMart is really qualified to discuss what working there is like. But anyone who compares it to a root canal pretty much disqualifies himself. But since you seem to think yourself qualified, perhaps you could clear up why WalMart is the focus of evil and every other retailer whose pay and working conditions are identical gets a pass. An Agenda perhaps?
Click to expand...

Walmart is the biggest and is thus the new symbol of corporate success. Many see their success as "unfair" as they do not "share" this success by granting their lowest level employees with better pay/benefits (than the competition). Even though the net profit margin of Walmart is fairly low (3.57%) their sheer size makes the dollar amount of that profit quite high. If unions can get in on this booty then they can grow their power, as we are talking about up to 1 million workers added using only a few thousand protestors.

Unions refuse to admit that their demands have hurt the competitive advantage of many companies/industries that they control and seek to impose gov't protection to maintian their dwindling power. This time of year is, by far, the busiest season for retailers so they can point out the "expliotation" of the workforce as overtime requests increase and management seeks to maximize employee production to meet the increased business demand spike.
 
RGacky3 said:
View attachment 67138636

Your embarrasing yourself now.
Click to expand...

Corelation does not indicate causation. One could just as easily show corelation of the increased use of computers, the increase in fuel effeciency of cars or the increased availability of new technology allowing production per worker to increase. You simply show close (but not exact) corelation of two factors, but not causation.

Note also that union membership fell by over 50% but that income share dropped by only about 15%, clever use of different scales on the left and right of graph "force" these lines to look similar. :roll:
 
Last edited:
RGacky3 said:
I don't HATE the rich, thats a straw man, I just don't want a select few running an economy.
Click to expand...

Then why do you support obama? MOst of his campaign contributions came from rich people. Do you think any hollywood people or rappers contributed to Romney?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Corelation does not indicate causation. One could just as easily show corelation of the increased use of computers, the increase in fuel effeciency of cars or the increased availability of new technology allowing production per worker to increase. You simply show close (but not exact) corelation of two factors, but not causation.
Click to expand...

right, but I beat you too it :) see # 797
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom