• 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

captainawesome said:
The union must accept open shop and free riders. That is government dictating contract terms.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. That is the government not allowing unions to milk every single employee for "dues" whether they like it or not. And that has nothing to do with whatever the union and the shop negotiate for a contract. You're all wet.
 
Papa bull said:
Nonsense. That is the government not allowing unions to milk every single employee for "dues" whether they like it or not. And that has nothing to do with whatever the union and the shop negotiate for a contract. You're all wet.
Click to expand...

No it forces free riders into the work contract. Right to work is anti freedom of contract and association.
 
Anthony60 said:
Huh? The government has decided everyone's contract terms? When does that happen?
Click to expand...

It happens in right to work states. Unions are barred from negotiating a closed shop. That is anti freedom and dictates contract terms.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
What subsidies were being provided by local government (there would be no state subsidies since DC is not part of a state)?
Click to expand...

Um, local government can also be city government and cities can and do give many a corporation subsidies.
 
captainawesome said:
It happens in right to work states. Unions are barred from negotiating a closed shop. That is anti freedom and dictates contract terms.
Click to expand...

It's anti freedom to not be able to restrict the freedoms of others???
 
A funny thing about all this, the D.C. council is doing their political best to get votes here. All WalMart is doing is reacting to the events, nothing personal, no emotion or politics about it. They even had the courtesy to let the council know beforehand what their business plans were.

That discriminatory government action doesn't fit their plans. So they'll open stores just outside of D.C., no big deal. The people in D.C. will have to go out of their way to get there, just an added inconvenience they can thank the council for. Oh, and drive further for a job, if they can. Or someone else will get the job.
 
captainawesome said:
No it forces free riders into the work contract. Right to work is anti freedom of contract and association.
Click to expand...

Yep, and free riders who want the freedom not to pay union dues should also not be able to receive the benefits from a union. They have the freedom to pay their own fees for representation.
 
Anthony60 said:
A funny thing about all this, the D.C. council is doing their political best to get votes here.
Click to expand...

A funny thing like giving their constituents what they expect and/or want? Don't they know where their bread and butter comes from:lamo
 
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...

This comes as no surprise since Walmart is notorious for being opposed to wage increases; and I suspect that's more driven by wishing the market (continuing wage compression; lower consumer ability, per capita) to trend in a way that's most beneficial to them: people who make less shop at Walmart.

And as for their threats of not expanding into markets that make them money, it's pure nonsense. They're expanding into my state (WA) and even into higher-wage areas with their Walmart Neighborhood Market concept, despite us having the highest MW in the nation at $9.19 and rising steadily.

So in the end, whine as Walmart Execs might, they'll go where there's fruit to be picked. And with service workers in DC making $12+ an hour, that's some pretty low hanging fruit, with so many paycheck getting bigger, and consumers more able to spend. And they know it, too. So they'll build. Bank on it.

Meanwhile, greetings ya'll. I'm new here because the Liberalforum.org URL seems to have gone away (I was Ayn Stein, there) and some new folks to chat it up with was needed in any event.

Pleased to meet all ya'll.

-S
 
Moon said:
It's anti freedom to not be able to restrict the freedoms of others???
Click to expand...

Pretend to not understand in another thread.

In a free negotiation no one is forced to accept anything. The company can say no.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yep, and free riders who want the freedom not to pay union dues should also not be able to receive the benefits from a union. They have the freedom to pay their own fees for representation.
Click to expand...

That is government dictating terms. Just like dictating wage terms.
 
Right wing logic.

Government setting min wage is anti freedom of contract.

Hey government needs to bar unions from negotiating closed shop.

Herr derr
 
captainawesome said:
Pretend to not understand in another thread.

In a free negotiation no one is forced to accept anything. The company can say no.
Click to expand...

I understand you completely. You're only concerned about freedom as it pertains ro unions, so please stop pretending otherwise.
 
Sisyphus said:
This comes as no surprise since Walmart is notorious for being opposed to wage increases; and I suspect that's more driven by wishing the market (continuing wage compression; lower consumer ability, per capita) to trend in a way that's most beneficial to them: people who make less shop at Walmart.

And as for their threats of not expanding into markets that make them money, it's pure nonsense. They're expanding into my state (WA) and even into higher-wage areas with their Walmart Neighborhood Market concept, despite us having the highest MW in the nation at $9.19 and rising steadily.

So in the end, whine as Walmart Execs might, they'll go where there's fruit to be picked. And with service workers in DC making $12+ an hour, that's some pretty low hanging fruit, with so many paycheck getting bigger, and consumers more able to spend. And they know it, too. So they'll build. Bank on it.

Meanwhile, greetings ya'll. I'm new here because the Liberalforum.org URL seems to have gone away (I was Ayn Stein, there) and some new folks to chat it up with was needed in any event.

Pleased to meet all ya'll.

-S
Click to expand...
Welcome to DP Sisyphus. Great post.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
A funny thing like giving their constituents what they expect and/or want? Don't they know where their bread and butter comes from:lamo
Click to expand...

Is that what they are doing? I think they are just trying to make themselves look like heros because they are standing up to the evil WalMart. They don't care that their voters are paying higher prices, don't have a job, or have to drive out of town if they want to go to Walmart. As long as they get their low information vote,
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yep, and free riders who want the freedom not to pay union dues should also not be able to receive the benefits from a union. They have the freedom to pay their own fees for representation.
Click to expand...

They don't want any union "benefits". They want a job without being forced to pay the union. They get paid the market rate for their job.
 
captainawesome said:
That is government dictating terms. Just like dictating wage terms.
Click to expand...

What? How is the government dictating terms to give employees the freedom to not have association with the union. If people don't want to belong to the union and therefore decide they are not going to pay union dues, then also let them have the freedom to represent themselves and not have the union be held liable to do that for them. Otherwise, they are nothing more than free loaders.
 
Anthony60 said:
Is that what they are doing? I think they are just trying to make themselves look like heros because they are standing up to the evil WalMart. They don't care that their voters are paying higher prices, don't have a job, or have to drive out of town if they want to go to Walmart. As long as they get their low information vote,
Click to expand...

Um, voters vote them in, right? If they don't want Walmart around and they want to look good to the voters then so be it.
 
Anthony60 said:
They don't want any union "benefits". They want a job without being forced to pay the union. They get paid the market rate for their job.
Click to expand...

In reality, they are getting a job with wages and benefits negotiated by the union and paid for by their peers. Now it is also expected of unions to represent these free loaders who may need the union to represent them if management does something against union contract. It's the definition of "free loader".
 
Moon said:
I understand you completely. You're only concerned about freedom as it pertains ro unions, so please stop pretending otherwise.
Click to expand...

I am for freedom for all. You are for corporate oligarchy.
 
Moon said:
I understand you completely. You're only concerned about freedom as it pertains ro unions, so please stop pretending otherwise.
Click to expand...

Unions are a positive influence on our society, and affect more than merely unionized workers, since union wages raise the prevailing wage in areas that are highly unionized.

And consider what brought them about: Industrialists had it all their own way; workers had zero influence in the competing interest equation that is wage-setting. So a lot of ideas were bandied about: worker states/communism; state controlled wage minimums / earning maximums; and of course the most free-market solution ever with collective bargaining, giving labor equal weight in the competing interest equation that is wage-setting. Thankfully, we chose that latter and have the world's greatest economy and most successful businesses to show for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom