• 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 Threatened Workers For Trying To Organize, Judge Rules

i never argued that it relied on public assistance to pay minimum ****ing wage.

Post 513

Helix said:
i want the nation's largest private employer to not rely on public assistance to supplement so many workers' incomes.

It sure ***ing looks like you ***ing did. :) Now, if you want to ***ing shift ***ing fire now, and agree that - in fact - Wal Mart doesn't ****ing rely on public ***ing assistance, well, that's fine. :)
 
i believe you give right to work status too much credit
it would seem that the right to work states are those having the least union participation

And, given the poor state of American unions, that's not terribly surprising. When you have a captive base, you tend to lose responsiveness.

and certainly when looking at germany's strong economy and strong unionization, unionization appears to be a positive aspect of that prosperity. something that is obviously diminished by right to work status

Odd, then, that they seem to be enjoying a stronger economy, stronger unionization, WITH right to work status, huh? :) It's almost as if forcing unions to provide services in return for dues results in unions providing services that are worth dues.... :thinking
 
Post 513



It sure ***ing looks like you ***ing did. :) Now, if you want to ***ing shift ***ing fire now, and agree that - in fact - Wal Mart doesn't ****ing rely on public ***ing assistance, well, that's fine. :)

they rely on food stamps and medicaid because a lot of their workers are broke. they guide their workers into these programs. that has nothing to do with supplementing the minimum wage. supplementing the minimum wage is what you do when you tip.
 
they rely on food stamps and medicaid because a lot of their workers are broke.

No, they don't. Wal-Mart does not rely upon their workers utilizing public assistance programs. There is zero dependence on those programs by Wal-Mart's HR department. If those programs were to cease overnight, Wal-Mart's wages would be completely unaffected.

they guide their workers into these programs.

:shrug: If Wal-Mart provides that additional support to their workforce, then good for them. Is it better than if they didn't provide that education to their employees?




You're probably going to reply "no they should pay them so much that they wouldn't need public assistance", and then I'm going to point out "if individual labor cost that much, then Wal-Mart couldn't afford to employ as many of them and they would instead be earning an income of nothing", and then I'm going to point out (again) that the reality is actually flipped from what you represent - that Wal-Mart is taking people who are on public assistance and offering them a way to work their way up and out of public assistance. That's a positive.



that has nothing to do with supplementing the minimum wage. supplementing the minimum wage is what you do when you tip.

:raises eyebrow: tipped jobs often do not make MW.
 
No, they don't. Wal-Mart does not rely upon their workers utilizing public assistance programs. There is zero dependence on those programs by Wal-Mart's HR department. If those programs were to cease overnight, Wal-Mart's wages would be completely unaffected.



:shrug: If Wal-Mart provides that additional support to their workforce, then good for them. Is it better than if they didn't provide that education to their employees?




You're probably going to reply "no they should pay them so much that they wouldn't need public assistance", and then I'm going to point out "if individual labor cost that much, then Wal-Mart couldn't afford to employ as many of them and they would instead be earning an income of nothing", and then I'm going to point out (again) that the reality is actually flipped from what you represent - that Wal-Mart is taking people who are on public assistance and offering them a way to work their way up and out of public assistance. That's a positive.





:raises eyebrow: tipped jobs often do not make MW.

believe whatever you like. live in whatever version of reality that you choose. shop at walmart, work at walmart, tithe ten percent of your income to walmart, and sleep in a tent in a walmart parking lot.

i.
don't.
care.
 
believe whatever you like. live in whatever version of reality that you choose. shop at walmart, work at walmart, tithe ten percent of your income to walmart, and sleep in a tent in a walmart parking lot.

i.
don't.
care.

:roll: strawman much? You're mirror-imaging here, and assuming that people who don't hate walmart must feel as passionately about it as those who do.


But the fact remains that low-skill, low-wage jobs are how we get our most economically vulnerable populaces into the workforce so that they can begin to build the skills and experience that they will need to move up the economic ladder. Taking away the bottom rungs because we find it offensive how low they are doesn't help those trying to climb.
 
The problem is people that don't want to better themselves blaming a company for paying them what they are worth in the open market.
 
Back
Top Bottom