• 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

I've answered this already.

This outsourcing happened in the 80s and 90s mainly, AFTER UNIONS WERE WEAKEND ... and after neo-liberal policies ... So obviously its not the unions fault, since those things happened post union decline ....

the union decline in the textile and shipbuilding industires was because those jobs no longer existed---the union destroyed those jobs by making those industries unprofitable in the USA.
 
It's the CEO's company. No one else's. It really is as simple as that.

Lets put it this way. Lets say that you hired a mechanic to fix your car. They give you a fixed amount of how much the job will cost. Part cost and hourly cost. What would you do if half way through the job the mechanic told you that he wouldn't finish fixing your car unless you agreed to pay him 30% more? Same amount of work to be done, nothing new added beyond that of him simply wanting more money for the job.

This I fundamentally don't buy. A company is more than the owner. In fact the companies success depends as much or more on the employees than ti does the owner. The larger the company the more this is true.

And it's not half way through the job. Instead, there are scheduled times when they negotiate, which would be like the next time I took the car in. The mechanic, as happens, would inform me of the need to raise prices, and I would weight that against my needs and begin a negotiation (and yes, it is possible to negotiate).
 
Interesting story... kinda blows away the arguments from all the lovers of walmart and wall street:

Story has been truncated. Whole story at link


How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart

But not everyone is happy with Costco's business strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well.

Mr. Sinegal begs to differ. He rejects Wall Street's assumption that to succeed in discount retailing, companies must pay poorly and skimp on benefits, or must ratchet up prices to meet Wall Street's profit demands.

Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."

He also dismisses calls to increase Costco's product markups. Mr. Sinegal, who has been in the retailing business for more than a half-century, said that heeding Wall Street's advice to raise some prices would bring Costco's downfall.

With his ferocious attention to detail and price, Mr. Sinegal has made Costco the nation's leading warehouse retailer, with about half of the market, compared with 40 percent for the No. 2, Sam's Club. But Sam's is not a typical runner-up: it is part of the Wal-Mart empire, which, with $288 billion in sales last year, dwarfs Costco.

Despite Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies.

"I've been very well rewarded," said Mr. Sinegal, who is worth more than $150 million thanks to his Costco stock holdings. "I just think that if you're going to try to run an organization that's very cost-conscious, then you can't have those disparities. Having an individual who is making 100 or 200 or 300 times more than the average person working on the floor is wrong."

This knack for seeing things in a new way also explains Costco's approach to retaining employees as well as shoppers. Besides paying considerably more than competitors, for example, Costco contributes generously to its workers' 401(k) plans, starting with 3 percent of salary the second year and rising to 9 percent after 25 years.

ITS insurance plans absorb most dental expenses, and part-time workers are eligible for health insurance after just six months on the job, compared with two years at Wal-Mart. Eighty-five percent of Costco's workers have health insurance, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart and Target.

Costco also has not shut out unions, as some of its rivals have. The Teamsters union, for example, represents 14,000 of Costco's 113,000 employees. "They gave us the best agreement of any retailer in the country," said Rome Aloise, the union's chief negotiator with Costco. The contract guarantees employees at least 25 hours of work a week, he said, and requires that at least half of a store's workers be full time.​


Sesnsible strategy.
Paying employees much better.
Much better employee benefits.
Engaging in business WITH unions and is the #1 buisness in his field.

Yeah.... **** wall street and the GOP sheeps' nonstop mantra of how business should be gutting the working class to compete with third world slave labor.
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect. The shift to a globalized information-driven economy has not really effected the shelf stocker job. It has massively effected the CEO job. Both are paid according to their value added, and one just happens to have what this economy will leverage far more.

Lets be clear, as we do tend to talk apples and oranges when we talk. We're not talking just stock persons. The comment referred to work force, below the CEO. This includes many who work in the information-driven economy, effected profoundly by it, who are still lagging light years behind the CEO. There is no logical rationale for this gap. Now, any business is free to be illogical and throw their money away as much as they want. And we've seen more than one do so only to see their companies fail, and the CEO leaving with a bundle.


If knowledge workers were overrated, then they would not be getting paid the way they are en masse. Though it is interesting that you think that you have greater subject matter expertise and knowledge than the combined knowledge of millions of directly-involved decision makers.

Nonsense. First, Knowledge workers as a term includes more than CEOs. You're not trying to sneak something past are you? Second, what someone is paid is not necessarily related to any objective measure of worth. Certainly the CEO who badly managed his company and lost it can't be actually worth much.
 
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.

Again I don't buy that. And while they might be able to justify higher pay, which is not the being argued, 671 times the average worker salary is not in any way market value in any reasonable sense.

And no, it is false that the CEO is the single most important factor to a businesses success. That any have gotten that myth to spread is a sign of how easy it is to sell something to a willing audience. The military used to say that they were only as strong as their weakest private. Such is the case in business as well. Those on the front lines so to speak make or break the company. Overwhelmingly, they are the company.
 
the union decline in the textile and shipbuilding industires was because those jobs no longer existed---the union destroyed those jobs by making those industries unprofitable in the USA.

So, you're saying our working conditions should be more like China's? :lamo
 
Again I don't buy that. And while they might be able to justify higher pay, which is not the being argued, 671 times the average worker salary is not in any way market value in any reasonable sense.

And no, it is false that the CEO is the single most important factor to a businesses success. That any have gotten that myth to spread is a sign of how easy it is to sell something to a willing audience. The military used to say that they were only as strong as their weakest private. Such is the case in business as well. Those on the front lines so to speak make or break the company. Overwhelmingly, they are the company.
So you are also baffled as to why athletes get paid so much? The concepts are identical.

Let's take a hedge fund manager, for instance. Using his enormous amount of education, skills, experience and intellect, a hedge fund manager makes a 200 million dollar return for his hedge fund. Because of his performance, he gets a 10 million dollar bonus at the end of the year. Now, that's about 500 times what the maid who cleans his office makes. Why the difference in pay? Because anyone can clean an office. Not everyone can manage a hedge fund with that kind of profit.

He brings in profit, he makes a proportional amount of profit. Simple as that.
 
So you are also baffled as to why athletes get paid so much? The concepts are identical.

Let's take a hedge fund manager, for instance. Using his enormous amount of education, skills, experience and intellect, a hedge fund manager makes a 200 million dollar return for his hedge fund. Because of his performance, he gets a 10 million dollar bonus at the end of the year. Now, that's about 500 times what the maid who cleans his office makes. Why the difference in pay? Because anyone can clean an office. Not everyone can manage a hedge fund with that kind of profit.

He brings in profit, he makes a proportional amount of profit. Simple as that.

It's not the identical concept, but I would argue they are largely overpaid. Their value is not one objectively reached, and that could be said of most entertainers. Still, the concept is a different one. They divide revenue, and thus have a basis of objective division.

And we're also not measuring CEO pay against one, the lowest paid, employee on staff, but the average of all the employees, which would include middle management. The hedge fund manager doesn't sound like the CEO, but that aside, the point is how we're making the comparison. You would take all the employees under them, average out the salaries, and then say he is worth some 500 to 600 times more than them. Again, for any company, that makes little logical sense.
 
Again I don't buy that. And while they might be able to justify higher pay, which is not the being argued, 671 times the average worker salary is not in any way market value in any reasonable sense.

And no, it is false that the CEO is the single most important factor to a businesses success. That any have gotten that myth to spread is a sign of how easy it is to sell something to a willing audience. The military used to say that they were only as strong as their weakest private. Such is the case in business as well. Those on the front lines so to speak make or break the company. Overwhelmingly, they are the company.

The CEO really is the single most important and has the greatest impact on the success or failure of the business. He sets the corporate culture, communicates what is important (in his eyes), and sets a vision for the company. The employee's job requirements are set based on that vision and if they are not meeting that vision will be fired and if they are meeting that vision will be rewarded.

It's why when a company does poorly, they typically don't fire the customer service rep, they fire the CEO.
 
The CEO really does have the greatest impact on the success or failure of the business. He sets the corporate culture, communicates what is important (in his eyes), and sets a vision for the company. It's why when a company does poorly, they typically don't fire the customer service rep, they fire the CEO.

It is not a situation of either most important or not important at all. So, while the CEO has an important role, all of what you list falls short in comparison to how important those who actually carry that out are. They, and not the CEO, will make or break that vision.

And yes, the customer service rep gets fired long before the CEO, and without a golden parachute.
 
The problem with paying a "living wage' for unskilled minimum wage labor is that "someone" has to foot the bill for those higher wages. Is Walmart just going to eat the increase if they have to start paying their workers $4-5 more an hour? of course not, they are going to pass that increase along to the consumer. which in turn makes the cost of living go up and the new pay hike the walmart worker is getting is now no longer a living wage...so we have to hike their wages again. in response walmart raises their prices again.... rinse, repeat ad infinitum.
 
Where are you getting this greedy union boss thing? Where are the Union bosses on the furtune 500? Also it works in Germany because its a good idea, and they are forced to think of the consequences BECAUSE THEY ARE DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE!!!

They are democratically accountable here in the states too. The union bosses get elected. Problem being is that people are too stupid or too partisan to actually look at the truth. So the same union bosses keep getting elected over and over and over. Just like politicians.

And yes they are greedy. This was evidence by the fact that 18,000 employees lost thier jobs while them union bosses still have thier jobs. After all, a Union often covers more than just one company. If they had actually cared about the employees then they would have allowed them to go back to work before the deadline. They may not get the billions that Wal-Mart or the like get, but they still get more than their average worker.

Guess what, when Unions were strong in America, we had a strong middle class and strong industry as well ...

We also didn't have a free trade agreement. Whats your point? The jobs that were available were also not near as specialized as they are now adays and there are multiple other reasons as well. Alot has changed since Unions were strong and needed. They simply are not needed in the US anymore.

There is nothing genetically that makes germans better than americans, its the system.

Where did I mention genetics? Of course there is nothing different between us genetically. But there is a world of difference between us culturally.
 
Because we arn't talking about their father .... Also even IF they work hard, they don't get their money from their work, they get it from controlling capital, if it is from their hard work then put it up to a vote, if they are really indispensible to the company the workforce would vote them compensations that are comprable to what they get now ....

Of course you don't want to talk about thier father. It would quite easily show that your position was wrong if you did.

And there are different types of work. There's the kind of work that uses your back and arms every day. There's the mental kind of work that may not drain you physically but certainly drains you mentally...and can even be more dangerous than physical work. I doubt very seriously that you could handle a corporation like Wal-Mart.

And no vote is needed. They are not a democracy. And besides, mob rule should NEVER be followed. Mob rule tramples peoples individual rights. Which is far more important than collective rights.

We have examples of this in cooperatives, managers generally get paid somewhat more, but not nearly as much as they do when they choose their own compensation in capitalist firms.

They why don't those managers chose thier own compensation? There is nothing saying that they have to work were they get payed less. All they have to do is ASK for more or find another job. Just like any other employee.

Doesn't change the point. BTW, you can move out of a monarchy if you want.

Not always. Not to mention you don't have to move to quit a job and find another.
 
It is not a situation of either most important or not important at all. So, while the CEO has an important role, all of what you list falls short in comparison to how important those who actually carry that out are. They, and not the CEO, will make or break that vision.

And yes, the customer service rep gets fired long before the CEO, and without a golden parachute.

As the CEO sets what is and is not important, he is absolutely - contrary to your claim - "the single most important factor" to the sucess or failure of a business. Sure, he needs the employees to carry out that vision, but as they are carrying out the vision of the CEO, he is the most important factor. All things, including how the employees are measured will be set by the requirements of the CEO, adding to his importance.

The CEO's actions, vision and the way he was running the company, will have a very large impact upon wether the company still exists. Further solidifying the CEO as the single most important factor. So, yes, if the CEO's vision is failing you are correct, the CS rep may lose their job due to lack of work, but the CEO is losing his job because he was responsible for the lack of work.
 
As the CEO sets what is and is not important, he is absolutely - contrary to your claim - "the single most important factor" to the sucess or failure of a business. Sure, he needs the employees to carry out that vision, but as they are carrying out the vision of the CEO, he is the most important factor. All things, including how the employees are measured will be set by the requirements of the CEO, adding to his importance.

The CEO's actions, vision and the way he was running the company, will have a very large impact upon wether the company still exists. Further solidifying the CEO as the single most important factor. So, yes, if the CEO's vision is failing you are correct, the CS rep may lose their job due to lack of work, but the CEO is losing his job because he was responsible for the lack of work.

I have to hurry but nonsense. There is seldom any real difference in what any of them set, and they can be replaced, like anyone else. They are not magic, or even super educated. Sure, they are knowledgable. But without the employee, the company fails.
 
This I fundamentally don't buy. A company is more than the owner. In fact the companies success depends as much or more on the employees than ti does the owner. The larger the company the more this is true.

And it's not half way through the job. Instead, there are scheduled times when they negotiate, which would be like the next time I took the car in. The mechanic, as happens, would inform me of the need to raise prices, and I would weight that against my needs and begin a negotiation (and yes, it is possible to negotiate).

I'll respond to this later. Gotta get back to work.
 
If we wanted them skilled, we'd get them there. Ask yourself why we don't?

Ah, there is the core of it at last. WE should do something, not the individual. You want to place the blame on others, not the individual that made the choices.

Should we hold a gun to someones head and force them to go to school to learn how to be a $15 an hour EMT with all the hard work needed to get through that school, so that individual won't take the $30/hr unskilled union job in the auto industry that requires no schooling or skills? That way they won't end up unemployed when that auto maker outsources the job to someplace with a better labor rate. Should we stand over them with whips in hand and beat them mercilessly until they choose to go to Nursing school instead of letting them choose for themselves because they might end up a cashier at Walmart instead?

Each and every individual makes their own choices, WE cannot force them to make different ones. Even today, with our less than stellar over-expensive liberalized school systems, there are opportunities available if those individuals would choose to pursue them. Raising unskilled labor rates is not the way to encourage people to take advantage of those opportunities.
 
I have to hurry but nonsense. There is seldom any real difference in what any of them set, and they can be replaced, like anyone else. They are not magic, or even super educated. Sure, they are knowledgable. But without the employee, the company fails.

You are wrong. I work for a company that has had 1 CEO retire and 1 that was otherwise replaced... I, as a simple analyst, notice huge impacts and differences between the CEO and the way the company goes including goals/requirements.
 
Last edited:
If and only if a union were strictly between a business and its workers.
like i said, everything in my post is correct....the employees in the shop ARE THE UNION.
 
Ah, there is the core of it at last. WE should do something, not the individual. You want to place the blame on others, not the individual that made the choices.

Should we hold a gun to someones head and force them to go to school to learn how to be a $15 an hour EMT with all the hard work needed to get through that school, so that individual won't take the $30/hr unskilled union job in the auto industry that requires no schooling or skills? That way they won't end up unemployed when that auto maker outsources the job to someplace with a better labor rate. Should we stand over them with whips in hand and beat them mercilessly until they choose to go to Nursing school instead of letting them choose for themselves because they might end up a cashier at Walmart instead?

Each and every individual makes their own choices, WE cannot force them to make different ones. Even today, with our less than stellar over-expensive liberalized school systems, there are opportunities available if those individuals would choose to pursue them. Raising unskilled labor rates is not the way to encourage people to take advantage of those opportunities.

Yes, we. If the work force wanted trained individuals, they'd make sure they had them. As a nation, if we valued education of this sort, people would be educated so. While you're trying to suggest I'm taking individual responsibility away, you're wrong. We all hold individual responsibility. And nothing takes that away. But we also hold communal responsibility. As a community, we can make it easier or harder. Left up to nothing but the individual, fewer will get there. We know that. It's how the bell curve works. So, when we have not enough, as you suggest, all of us, including business can throw up our hands and say, too bad. Or we can act to help increase the number. It's not socialism. It's not removing personal responsibility. And it is kind of silly to suggest either, Instead it is merely problem solving. Something good CEOs do. ;)
 
You are wrong. I work for a company that has had 1 CEO retire and 1 that was otherwise replaced... I, as a simple analyst, notice huge impacts and differences between the CEO and the way the company goes including goals/requirements.

Again, the choice isn't between either no difference or all the difference. A good one is far superior to a poor one. But not the most important thing. A company, particularly a large corporation, is more than any one person. The strength, the core, is the average employee. Like the private in the military, they move the company, interpret the vision, create and foster the image in the customer, and make the business run. We need both workers and management. But no CEO is worth 671 times more than the workers in the company.
 
the world needs ditch diggers and toilet cleaners, but to insist that anyone should get paid $20/hr to do so is ridiculous. minimum wage, unskilled jobs should be stepping stones...temporary gigs until you can educate/train yourself for something better and not a career. If you are 40 years old and still stocking shelves at walmart you are either mentally challenged and just plain lazy/unmotivated.
 
Be realistic. There is a very quick plateau for cashiers in terms of "accumulated experience". It is not a deep career or skillset, and there is nothing wrong with that. I was a cashier/stocker for two years. I was a bank teller for two (glorified cashier). I'm not silly enough to claim that in 10 years I would be worth a lot more to the company however. There are plenty of entry-level people looking for entry-level jobs. You could look at it from the reverse perspective, you cheat entry-level candidates of that entry-level position if you park yourself at a job that plateaus in a few years, but you make it your "career" instead.

No, you are right. That's defintely true on both accounts. I don't know necessarily if there is a quick plateau. I do think people learn things whatever they are doing but yes, I agree....it's not a job comparable to say a surgeon seeing everything under the son and someone just out of med school.

I do think though there are a lot of benefits beyond just to the employee. Experience, even if there is a quick plateau. Training costs. Not to mention, a revolving door of underpaid employees, it's horrible for morale and I think is the reason service sucks so bad in this country. My 2 cents though. I think we get what we pay for including lowering median wages/poor service/and just overall horrible experiences at the bank/electronics store/grocery store or whatever.
 
The marketplace works in the sense that you're trying get the most for the least for yourself, and you're forced to ignore the externalities,

No one is forced to ignore any externalities. Man your arguments sure do require some hard spin.

especially when workers have less and less disposable income, they are going to go for the cheapest .... However if you put it to a poll, most would vote that the US would be better off if Walmart was unionized, and infact many workers WANT to join unions but cannot.

If people are stupid and hypocritical enough to lambaste Walmart for cost-minimizing at the same time as they SHOP AT WALMART to cost-minimize, then I could give a **** what they vote in some imagined poll about unionizing Walmart.

Workers do not go for the cheapest just because of their dwindling disposable income. They go for the cheapest because it is rational. Raise their minimum wage and they will still deal-seek. It is in everyone's rational best interests to maximize benefit while minimizing cost. So yeah, let the morons think that unionizing Walmart will make the country better. At the very best it would result in no gain. All their prices for "the cheapest" will rise, so they will be paying directly for that idea, and will be no better off. In fact they'll be worse off because they can buy less Asian-made plastic ****.
 
Like the private in the military

Fine, so if you want to keep comparing it to the military... When a military loses a war, historians will almost always point to decisions made by "the single most important factor", the generals. They are not blaming Private Schmidt for not being positioned properly to repel a DDay invasion or blaming Private Wagner for marching against Russia in the winter without proper equipment. I am hardly saying workers have no import at all, just that, contrary to your claim, the leadership is by far the most important factor and have a much larger and outsized influence upon a business then does the worker.
 
Back
Top Bottom