• 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!

Wal-Mart Asks Workers To Donate Food To Its Needy Employees

haymarket said:
Actually it is not. Walmart takes advantage of the economic conditions and they do it extremely well. They are taking advantage of the reality that there is little place any longer for low skilled and low educated people in good paying factory jobs. They are taking advantage of the reality that those same people are struggling to get by as best they can and even a low paying WM job is better than nothing for many. They are taking advantage of China and other foreign manufacturers who in turn take advantage of their workers who are in an even worse situation and can be thoroughly and utterly exploited. They take advantage of manufacturers by dictating to them all manner of specifications on products or they will not stock them. They take advantage of communities who are eager to get any employer and taxpayer and will do cartwheels and anything else the company wants to get into their communities. They take advantage of government welfare programs and know they can pay employees substandard wages and they can still survive making up the difference in government welfare payments. And that in turn takes advantage of the American taxpayer. They take advantage of the blue collar lower working class consumer who only cares about one thing - immediate price and gives it to them despite those same people are losing the game in the long run.

Yup - lots of advantages at Wal Mart. :doh:roll:;)
Click to expand...

How does Wal-Mart differ from any other business? Why has Wal-Mart in particular been singled out for criticism? I noted in a previous post that the union has decided to withdraw their attempt to unionize Wal-Mart, and I wonder why that decision was made?

Greetings, haymarket. :2wave:
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, your source shows no such thing - it does indicate the the NLRB is getting back into the issue after the UFCW withdrew and declared it would no longer attempt to unionize Walmart stores. Perhaps a little birdie in the Obama administration tweeted in their ear.

Doesn't alter the content of what I posted or the facts behind it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does alter it because these are the tactics Walmart uses. At any rate, according to this source: Wal-Mart workers in Weyburn, Sask., vote to dump union - Saskatchewan - CBC News

"After a decertification drive was launched at the store and employees voted on that, the union argued the process was unfair and sought to block the votes from being counted.

But on Thursday, after the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the union's application to deal with the case, the way was cleared for the count to be held.

Supreme Court won't hear union's appeal of Wal-Mart case"

At that point the UFCW can't proceed.
 
polgara said:
How does Wal-Mart differ from any other business? Why has Wal-Mart in particular been singled out for criticism? I noted in a previous post that the union has decided to withdraw their attempt to unionize Wal-Mart, and I wonder why that decision was made?

Greetings, haymarket. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Probably no difference at all when you come down to it. Every business looks to maximize its advantages and WM is simply the biggest player in the game and has the power and clout to take that maximization of advantage way further than most others.

I had a friend who sat on a township board and WM came to them and wanted to build a superstore. They told me horror stories of "negotiating" with WM. I use the term "negotiating" loosely because you do not do that as much as bend over the table and hope you get a little KY to make it tolerable.

And greeting right back to you Polgara. :2wave:
 
haymarket said:
In the long run - that might be better for all as it would force the issues that need forcing instead of just allowing them to be swept under the rug or kicked down the road because they are inconvenient to talk about.

Of course, the problem of the 21st century is what do you do with tens or millions of people who really cannot function in a technologically based economy where high skills and high education is now necessary to good wages now that the factory and union jobs of the past are going bye bye?

I always thought it was ironic that Sam Walton used to wax poetically about small town America that he professed to love so much but is the single person responsible for destroying more small town Main Streets and downtowns than any person in American history. He created the monster and it came back to kill what he loved.
Click to expand...

Weird...wasn't the consumer complicit in this somehow?
 
CanadaJohn said:
You know nothing about me personally - actually, I can't remember the last time I entered a Walmart store let alone purchased "cheap goods" or any goods there. I don't believe Walmart owes me or anyone anything other than to give it's employees a decent and respectful work environment and the wages they agreed to when hired and it's customers a reason to shop there. Nothing more. Walmart is not responsible for the decay in American society and not responsible for correcting the evils of America's ever growing welfare state.
Click to expand...

Touche---you don't know me or any other poster on this forum personally either. Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

At any rate, they may not owe you anything but you still have to pay for their bad business model regardless if the workers accept the conditions are not.
 
haymarket said:
Probably no difference at all when you come down to it. Every business looks to maximize its advantages and WM is simply the biggest player in the game and has the power and clout to take that maximization of advantage way further than most others.

I had a friend who sat on a township board and WM came to them and wanted to build a superstore. They told me horror stories of "negotiating" with WM. I use the term "negotiating" loosely because you do not do that as much as bend over the table and hope you get a little KY to make it tolerable.

And greeting right back to you Polgara. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Couldn't the 'township board' have easily avoided the 'ky necessity' by merely saying no?
 
haymarket said:
Probably no difference at all when you come down to it. Every business looks to maximize its advantages and WM is simply the biggest player in the game and has the power and clout to take that maximization of advantage way further than most others.

I had a friend who sat on a township board and WM came to them and wanted to build a superstore. They told me horror stories of "negotiating" with WM. I use the term "negotiating" loosely because you do not do that as much as bend over the table and hope you get a little KY to make it tolerable.

And greeting right back to you Polgara. :2wave:
Click to expand...

The city I live in took a vote on whether or not to allow Wal-Mart to build here. The people voted no, because we have many small businesses run by people who live in our community. They support our sport teams, are active in our community, and are good neighbors. Loyalty is important! There is a Wal-Mart about 4 miles away in an adjoining community for those who like to shop there, so few were inconvenienced, and all worked out well.
 
Commie said:
Yes, but I'm not talking about migrations...which are still going on today if you haven't read the news; and migrations will intensify in the years to come as millions try to flee dry, overheating tropic zone regions that become virtually unlivable.

What's happening now, is that the masters of the universe, the people who work mostly behind the scenes and buy politicians rather than step up and engage directly in politics, thought they were engineering their way to a world where international corporations would make nation state governments obsolete and irrelevant....at least regarding their interests! But, instead, what has happened is that rising energy costs and resource prices, keep putting the brakes on economic growth when it rises too high. From what I've read in recent years, higher oil prices have put a crimp in China's plans for mass exporting of steel products to western and other foreign markets. Higher transportation costs start to outweigh the cheap prices of production by low wage earners. Steel is heavy and entails higher transportation costs for obvious reasons, so it's no surprise that international trade in steel would be first affected by the problem of Peak Oil. But, agribusiness is also getting whacked with the same stick, as growing fruits and vegetables in California and shipping them across the country, used to undercut the prices of locally produced produce....but, not anymore! Now, there has quietly been a revival in local, small scale agriculture again, and a lot of the reason is simply that it is once again cheaper to buy local produce when it's in season.

What many trend analysts see for the future is a winding down of large cities and more people moving back to small towns that were almost abandoned in recent decades, and starting up small farms or small businesses. This is a relocalization that is occurring, not by planning or design, but as a response to changing times. My point was that some of the changes to adapt to a future world of scarce resources is already starting to happen; but the question is still will change back to sustainable agriculture and relocalization be fast enough to avoid a crash?

To me, the silver lining here regarding corporate avarice by Walmart is that they will be big losers in the future, as there schemes of slave labour production of cheap products starts losing to high transportation costs, plus higher transport costs mean empty shelves in stores that are run using Just In Time inventory control systems. The mom and pop stores may be on the way back, while Walmart and similar edifices of globalization become empty warehouses!


The problem for coops is that they don't have the clout with government that the corporations who do, who already own most of the politicians. From some recent reports from Spain I've read, the Mondragon Cooperatives are in peril right now, because the government of recession-ravaged Spain is willing to sacrifice them in the interests of their corporate masters.

When it comes to living in communes....that's really stretching further off the topic, because, as previously mentioned, the levels of trust required to maintain a viable commune make it a living arrangement that won't work in the transient society we live in today. However, if we consider a relatively recent phenomena of younger people who have decided to divide up monster homes, that were designed as single family dwellings in the pre-recession days, maybe communal life is closer than we think!
Click to expand...

People arent going to live out farther from the cities in any great numbers. The energy (transport) costs wont support it. "Localization" still requires GOING to the FOOD and MOVING the food. And that is just one point. Living on ANY piece of property, even with a yard, requires WORK. Many people choose apts and condos to avoid that work, much less contribute any produce or other product to their community. Just one second point. How about land? Do we want to see MORE open space eaten up by human habitation? Ugh.

As as for communes, closed social groups, and private businesses run based on socialism...all those things are workable and even encouraged in our society...at least the socialized coops and medical groups,etc. They ALL work for the people that choose that. Anyone can do it. It's not workable on a scale where the *people* arent interested. And not from the govt-enforced standpoint either, which I'm completely against.

This conversation doesnt really apply to this thread anymore, if you want to continue it elsewhere, that's fine.
 
Verax said:
The big kids have rigged the economy so that the top players take home 99% of the pie and everyone else gets ****ed and then right-wingers spend 40 pages justifying it with whatever bs they can spin. You guys think you're part of the a-team but you're just patsies that are being taken for a ride with everyone else.
Click to expand...

That ride doesnt suck for everyone. Even us regular folks that arent rich.

How come?


(PS. I'm a Democrat and mostly liberal)
 
paddymcdougall said:
So no problem - let's just raise the minimum wage so that people who are making it and working over 32 hours a week don't qualify for food stamps and can pay for health insurance.

Problem solved. WalMart can keep paying minimum wage, but we are no longer subsidizing them.
Click to expand...

Hi there!


I still believe that a higher min wage will raise prices...esp basic consumer goods and services...and we'll be back to square one. No real gain. But I do agree that they should give more hours and provide more affordable benefits packages to employees. Places where I've worked, they've broken it down to show what the company paid per employee and how that figured into our overall 'income.'

But Walmart and big corps arent the only ones that do that....give workers fewer hrs so they dont have to give them full or any benefits. Most city/county/state govts do it too. And I know of some hospitals.

There is NO reason why a person that is physically or mentally capable has to remain at a minimum wage paying job for years. That is their choice....intentional or otherwise.
 
Dickieboy said:
Couldn't the 'township board' have easily avoided the 'ky necessity' by merely saying no?
Click to expand...

sure ..... just like the single mother of four can say NO to the jerk who asks to move in with her and will bring his 660 bucks a week with him.
 
polgara said:
The city I live in took a vote on whether or not to allow Wal-Mart to build here. The people voted no, because we have many small businesses run by people who live in our community. They support our sport teams, are active in our community, and are good neighbors. Loyalty is important! There is a Wal-Mart about 4 miles away in an adjoining community for those who like to shop there, so few were inconvenienced, and all worked out well.
Click to expand...

BRAVO!!!! Those are the stories I love to hear.
 
haymarket said:
Actually it is not. Walmart takes advantage of the economic conditions and they do it extremely well. They are taking advantage of the reality that there is little place any longer for low skilled and low educated people in good paying factory jobs.
Click to expand...

What we really need to look at is why we are producing so many people like this.


And then next, we need to make sure there are good jobs FOR skilled and educated workers. There is a shortage right now (altho that is not always the case). But IMO it's more important to produce the better workforce.
 
Lursa said:
What we really need to look at is why we are producing so many people like this.


And then next, we need to make sure there are good jobs FOR skilled and educated workers. There is a shortage right now (altho that is not always the case). But IMO it's more important to produce the better workforce.
Click to expand...

excellent question. Can we avoid reality?

Think about this: on the standard IQ scale, 100 is considered as average and the midpoint of the population. So what do we do with the scores of millions who are below that?
 
Dickieboy said:
Couldn't the 'township board' have easily avoided the 'ky necessity' by merely saying no?
Click to expand...

Just like any big developers coming into a town, commercial or residential, I'm sure plenty of 'wheels get greased.'
 
haymarket said:
sure ..... just like the single mother of four can say NO to the jerk who asks to move in with her and will bring his 660 bucks a week with him.
Click to expand...

There is no excuse for a woman to allow a 'jerk' around her children. That is worse than poverty. Even the right foster home would be better than that. And I grew up seeing the foster care system up pretty close through my church...by no means is it all bad.
 
Verax said:
I've wondered that myself many times, voting against their own best interests is so bizarre. If you look at the right-wingers on this site though they all complain about how others are mooching off of them. They're either all rich (doubt it) or they are delusional and think their failures can be attributed to welfare moochers. "If it just wasn't for THEM I'd be rich". They're too cowardly to go after those they worship, so they pick on the weakest people in society.

You can bet there are also significant paid networks that output their propaganda everywhere they can. They own thousands of radio stations across the country where the spew their crap, certainly they do it on the internet as well. There's several people on this forum and many other sites I frequent that I suspect. I wouldn't be surprised if this forum was owned and created as a result of such things as it is setup for it.
Click to expand...

At some point, after reading some of the history of conservatism - from Edmund Burke to modern times, I have to wonder if "conservativism" is just a form of identity politics, as it shape-shifts its way through a variety of different political stances over the years....trade and tariff regulations would be the most obvious shift over the ages, as conservative used to mean isolationism and protectionism, while now it means laissez-faire liberalism on trade, and even accepting internationally enforced trading rules. Same thing goes with banking! The only constant is that conservatives will always be on side of "god and country".
 
haymarket said:
excellent question. Can we avoid reality?

Think about this: on the standard IQ scale, 100 is considered as average and the midpoint of the population. So what do we do with the scores of millions who are below that?
Click to expand...

Anyone can learn a skill or trade....our education system isnt set up for that but it could be. Some schools are associated with vocational schools. Parents need to be more pro-active at an earlier age with their kids, as do school counselors.

Too many people just graduate high school (if, they even do) and just let life 'happen' to them. No wonder they dont get anywhere.
 
Lursa said:
There is no excuse for a woman to allow a 'jerk' around her children. That is worse than poverty. Even the right foster home would be better than that. And I grew up seeing the foster care system up pretty close through my church...by no means is it all bad.
Click to expand...

We are in total agreement. All I was attempting to do was to show that sometimes people are in tough situations with very limited options that pretty much doom them to lose.
 
Lursa said:
Anyone can learn a skill or trade....our education system isnt set up for that but it could be. Some schools are associated with vocational schools. Parents need to be more pro-active at an earlier age with their kids, as do school counselors.

Too many people just graduate high school (if, they even do) and just let life 'happen' to them. No wonder they dont get anywhere.
Click to expand...

You have hit the nail firmly upon its head. Yes, we need to encourage and assist more people with trade careers like plumbing, electrical and other skills where they can make a good living at.

Sadly, we no longer live in an agricultural economy which has a place for all. And when that turned into to a manufacturing or industrial economy, not only could we transfer everybody but we had to go around to world to supply all the extra land needed. We are fast becoming a nation where a good 25% of the people are no longer necessary in a technological economy.

That is the big problem of the 21st century. What do we do with those people who will not become plumbers?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Last time I checked, the UFCW union is an American entity, with afficiates in Canada - the UFCW said nothing about only stopping its unionization drives in Canada - secondly, last time I checked, the NLRB is an American entity with no jurisdication or authority in Canada so my references to them are not related to Canada.

Finally, as for Walmart's commercials, they are simply trying to put truth out to counter the media and liberal bias against them. If Walmart commercials insult you, you must feel awful about the propaganda pieces the Obama administration offers up.
Click to expand...


Lol. Ok, you've convinced me. Working at Walmart is sunshine, rainbows, and opportunity. I must have been brainwashed by the Obama propaganda machine, which placed false memories of my friends and family working at that ****hole. Thanks for clearing it up, and have a good one.
 
paddymcdougall said:
So no problem - let's just raise the minimum wage so that people who are making it and working over 32 hours a week don't qualify for food stamps and can pay for health insurance.

Problem solved. WalMart can keep paying minimum wage, but we are no longer subsidizing them.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Revenue – Costs = Profit/ Loss

If you raise wages (costs), then you have lower profits AND/OR higher prices.

The former (lowers profits) means you probably have to lay off people, which means more people have no job which defeats the purpose of raising the minimum wage.

The latter (higher prices) means that consumers can afford less products. And considering many shoppers at places like Walmart are on fixed incomes, that can really hurt them.


This idea that raising the minimum wage is the magic pill is simply false...you cannot raise costs (with no greater productivity) without lowering profits...not realistically possible.
 
Lursa said:
Just like any big developers coming into a town, commercial or residential, I'm sure plenty of 'wheels get greased.'
Click to expand...

The most disturbing thing I was told was after the town committed to certain things and well after infrastructure construction was under way - WM came back and insisted on other concessions. And this was after the town had put in a road, sewer line and other things at their expense. They basically said they would not break ground and simply walk away if they did not get what they wanted. They had a deal on the property which allowed them to do that at only the cost of some option money and a down payment. So the seller would have got screwed also.

And they did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom