• 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 says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes

pbrauer said:
What great way to kept them out of your town, just increase the minimum wage.


View attachment 67150149

Walmart says it will cancel its plans to build three new stores in D.C. if local lawmakers approve a bill that would force the retailer to pay its employees at least $12.50 an hour.

Alex Barron, a regional general manager for Walmart U.S., writes in an op-ed published in the Washington Post Tuesday that the company feels the D.C. Council's proposed "living wage" legislation “would clearly inject unforeseen costs into the equation that will create an uneven playing field and challenge the fiscal health of our planned D.C. stores.”


Walmart currently has three other new stores under construction in the area, and Barron says those stores will also be jeopardized if the bill passes.




Read more: Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes | Fox News
​




​


​
Click to expand...

Wal-Mart serves the poorest (and least influential) consumers, so their better off neighbors are happy to throw them under the bus so they themselves can thump their chests about how progressive they are. What breathtaking hypocrisy.:roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
Wal-Mart serves the poorest (and least influential) consumers, so their better off neighbors are happy to throw them under the bus so they themselves can thump their chests about how progressive they are. What breathtaking hypocrisy.:roll:
Click to expand...

They don't just serve the poorest consumers, they also tend to make the poorest consumers. Those in D.C. won't be missing anything without these Walmarts in there.
 
captainawesome said:
No stupid is letting corporate non humans have rights under the constitution.
Click to expand...

Some of which are reserved for American citizens when it comes to real people such as the right to contribute to political campaigns, but corporations have stock holders from all over the world. Cool way of letting Chineese nationals, Middle Eastern dictators or whoever wants to buy influence over American political outcomes by letting them buy constitutional rights in ways financially out of reach for most Americans.

Trivia: where does your political party stand on the issue of saying corporations should have contitutional rights and do you even care because your favorite pundit of whom you are a certified groupie convinced you to support handing over our sovereignty to foreigners (as long as they're rich foreigners) under the guise of being pro-business?
 
Smeagol said:
Some of which are reserved for American citizens when it comes to real people such as the right to contribute to political campaigns, but corporations have stock holders from all over the world. Cool way of letting Chineese nationals, Middle Eastern dictators or whoever wants to buy influence over American political outcomes by letting them buy constitutional rights in ways financially out of reach for most Americans.

Trivia: where does your political party stand on the issue of saying corporations should have contitutional rights and do you even care because your favorite pundit of whom you are a certified groupie convinced you to support handing over our sovereignty to foreigners (as long as they're rich foreigners) under the guise of being pro-business?
Click to expand...

When corporations can vote, the worry about foreign nationals having a say in our political process will be warranted.
 
poweRob said:
They don't just serve the poorest consumers, they also tend to make the poorest consumers. Those in D.C. won't be missing anything without these Walmarts in there.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good bumper sticker. Like most bumper stickers, it doesn't make any sense when you try to find some truth behind it and come up with nothing.
 
captainawesome said:
Unions have no Rights. I am pretty sure most states are right to work. What a misnomer for of a name.
Click to expand...

(1) The term “person” includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11, or receivers.

(5) The term “labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
 
captainawesome said:
..... I am pretty sure most states are right to work. What a misnomer for of a name.
Click to expand...

It is a very appropriate name. You have a right to work in "right to work" states even if you don't have a Daddy or uncle that can "get you into the Union" in those right-to-work states. Unions can't keep anyone from working in right to work states so it's not a misnomer at all.
 
Papa bull said:
It is a very appropriate name. You have a right to work in "right to work" states even if you don't have a Daddy or uncle that can "get you into the Union" in those right-to-work states. Unions can't keep anyone from working in right to work states so it's not a misnomer at all.
Click to expand...

It means the government ended the right to to collective bargain by deciding contract terms beforehand.
 
captainawesome said:
It means the government ended the right to to collective bargain by deciding contract terms beforehand.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It merely means that Unions can't force everyone who works to pay dues nor can they restrict people who aren't union members from getting a job in what would otherwise be a union-controlled industry. Right to work laws are separate from collective bargaining laws.
 
Papa bull said:
Nonsense. It merely means that Unions can't force everyone who works to pay dues nor can they restrict people who aren't union members from getting a job in what would otherwise be a union-controlled industry. Right to work laws are separate from collective bargaining laws.
Click to expand...

It means the government decided the terms of the contract beforehand.
 
captainawesome said:
It means the government decided the terms of the contract beforehand.
Click to expand...

You'll have to explain that one since collective bargaining may absolutely take place in right-to-work states.
 
captainawesome said:
Sorry I will not pander to your pretending to fail to understand.
Click to expand...

translation from progressivese into English, "I hate it when my dishonest crap gets challenged and I've got nuthin'".
 
captainawesome said:
Who is being intellectually dishonest is easy to see.
Click to expand...

Yes, I say that you're wrong and you can't possibly support the assertion that "right-to-work" law means that collective bargaining contracts must be pre-approved (whatever you mean by that). And, of course, you don't support that assertion with facts since you can't because it's wrong and you go on to claim you're right, anyway. Yes, it's easy enough to see who's being dishonest here.
 
Mason66 said:
I would see a situation like that as kidnapping and that is a legal matter.
Click to expand...

If it were then I suppose the local District Attorney would be involved. No mention in the article that the D.A. ever did.

Mason66 said:
Here where I am the manager of the store told her employee to use a floor cleaner that had an internal combustión engine while customers were present.

I got a hedache from it.

I found her and yelled at her about it.

She looked stunned I said anything.

That does not show anything about Wal-Mart itself, just a stupid manager.
Click to expand...

No idea what your talking about or what it has to do with WalMart, whatsoever.
 
Papa bull said:
Yes, I say that you're wrong and you can't possibly support the assertion that "right-to-work" law means that collective bargaining contracts must be pre-approved (whatever you mean by that). And, of course, you don't support that assertion with facts since you can't because it's wrong and you go on to claim you're right, anyway. Yes, it's easy enough to see who's being dishonest here.
Click to expand...

Free riders destroy systems. They destroy insurance, and business and unions. The law forces unions to accept free riders. So the law dictates the terms of the contract beforehand. Thus undermining collective bargaining rights.
 
captainawesome said:
Free riders destroy systems. They destroy insurance, and business and unions. The law forces unions to accept free riders. So the law dictates the terms of the contract beforehand. Thus undermining collective bargaining rights.
Click to expand...

The fact that unions must accept free riders means that they have to do a better job of selling the value of their services in order to get the highest revenue in Union Dues. It does not mean that the law dictates the terms of the contract beforehand. You can't make an honest connection between "right to work law" and "the law dictates the terms of the contract beforehand". If the latter was the case, then there wouldn't be any unions at all in right to work states. Instead, we have pissed off unions that are miffed because they don't get to automatically receive a piece of every employee's paycheck.
 
poweRob said:
They don't just serve the poorest consumers, they also tend to make the poorest consumers. Those in D.C. won't be missing anything without these Walmarts in there.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - by lowering the cost of living, they increase the relative wealth of the poorest consumers.
 
captainawesome said:
Free riders destroy systems. They destroy insurance, and business and unions. The law forces unions to accept free riders. So the law dictates the terms of the contract beforehand. Thus undermining collective bargaining rights.
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting statement. Where?
 
cpwill said:
Now that's an interesting statement. Where?
Click to expand...


Unless I totally misunderstand the situation, the unions force companies to accept free riders, and closed shop laws back it up.
 
jimbo said:
Unless I totally misunderstand the situation, the unions force companies to accept free riders, and closed shop laws back it up.
Click to expand...

If it is the unions that are forcing companies to compensate free riders in alignment with union compensation packages, then unions are suicidally stupid. Methinks that is unlikely.
 
Papa bull said:
The fact that unions must accept free riders means that they have to do a better job of selling the value of their services in order to get the highest revenue in Union Dues. It does not mean that the law dictates the terms of the contract beforehand. You can't make an honest connection between "right to work law" and "the law dictates the terms of the contract beforehand". If the latter was the case, then there wouldn't be any unions at all in right to work states. Instead, we have pissed off unions that are miffed because they don't get to automatically receive a piece of every employee's paycheck.
Click to expand...

The union must accept open shop and free riders. That is government dictating contract terms.
 
jimbo said:
Unless I totally misunderstand the situation, the unions force companies to accept free riders, and closed shop laws back it up.
Click to expand...

No unions negotiate a contract. Business can say no it yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom