• 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

well, i guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree. walmart is going to come to a point where they will have to deal with labor organization, and the reason for this will be that they don't give their workers enough opportunities to climb the ladder. if they deal with this by closing stores, then they will be closing a lot of them. it would be much better for them to just raise prices a bit, but i don't think that this is likely. so i guess that they can just deal with the unions that are pretty much inevitable at this point.

you still don't understand it even though it has been explained to you. so I will go over it in detail then maybe then you will understand it.

we are walmart and we have 10 departments. Cashiers, bakery, electronics, men's clothing, Women's clothing, sporting goods, toys, outdoors, kids Clothing, deli
so we need 20 people for cashiers, 10 people in the bakery, 6 people in electronics, etc etc. that fills the normal workers.
now I need 2 shift supervisors so that is 20 positions right there.
I need at least 10 department managers
there is 2 assistant managers
and the store manager.

you can't just promote people willy nilly without having the position open.
also not all people want to be promoted. if I don't need 21 supervisors I won't hire 21.

it won't raise their prices by a bit. average pay at walmart is 10-12 dollars an hour. you are looking at doubling that to 20 if a union is involve.
at least they will be asking for that then again the company doesn't have to comply with it.

if they get it then there will be more than a small price increase.
walmart already offers a better health insurance plan than obamacare does so that will be pretty hard to neogiate on.

how much do you think a person stocking shelves should make exactly?
how does that compare to the guy that sweeps the floor?
what about the cashier?

then there are professionals like me. how much of a raise should I get then? not that I work for walmart but my job is way more complicated then stocking shelves.
you are basically saying my job isn't worth as much as it use to be yet I have way more qualifications to do my job.
 
eh, i think that capitalism is more than just profit or growth. it is the best way to encourage people to work their way up the socioeconomic ladder. it is the only system in which a person can be born into poverty and achieve a good standard of living through hard work. i think that we should encourage that, and at this point, it requires organized labor to make sure that the rungs of the ladder aren't too far apart.

You keep insisting that unions make the ladder rungs further apart but have yet to provide any real life examples of that "fact".

Even though the UFCW is asking Walmart to pay $15 an hour, my examination of UFCW contracts with the Kroger Company show that entry-level workers represented by the UFCW are paid close to the current minimum wage, never reaching $15 an hour. Even senior workers do not earn $15 an hour. Consider meat or bakery clerks at Kroger's union shop in Dayton, Ohio. They earn a maximum rate of $14.25, even after over half a decade on the job. Those working in the salad bar, drug counter, or floral shop can earn a maximum of $10.95 after gaining years of experience. This amount is 27 percent below the $15.00 an hour "living wage" that the UFCW claims Walmart employees should be paid.

OUR Walmart Is 100% Union, 0% WMT | RealClearMarkets

Simply becuase Walmart is a big (actually huge) employer des not make their cashiers "special" or deserving of much higher than typical pay for a job at requiring that level of skill.

On average, The Kroger Company employees receive $10.29 per hour...

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=The_Kroger_Company/Hourly_Rate
 
Last edited:
you still don't understand it even though it has been explained to you. so I will go over it in detail then maybe then you will understand it.

we are walmart and we have 10 departments. Cashiers, bakery, electronics, men's clothing, Women's clothing, sporting goods, toys, outdoors, kids Clothing, deli
so we need 20 people for cashiers, 10 people in the bakery, 6 people in electronics, etc etc. that fills the normal workers.
now I need 2 shift supervisors so that is 20 positions right there.
I need at least 10 department managers
there is 2 assistant managers
and the store manager.

you can't just promote people willy nilly without having the position open.
also not all people want to be promoted. if I don't need 21 supervisors I won't hire 21.

it won't raise their prices by a bit. average pay at walmart is 10-12 dollars an hour. you are looking at doubling that to 20 if a union is involve.
at least they will be asking for that then again the company doesn't have to comply with it.

if they get it then there will be more than a small price increase.
walmart already offers a better health insurance plan than obamacare does so that will be pretty hard to neogiate on.

how much do you think a person stocking shelves should make exactly?
how does that compare to the guy that sweeps the floor?
what about the cashier?

then there are professionals like me. how much of a raise should I get then? not that I work for walmart but my job is way more complicated then stocking shelves.
you are basically saying my job isn't worth as much as it use to be yet I have way more qualifications to do my job.

ok.

i'm a loyal employee. make a tree of positions for me to climb, where i earn a bit a bit more at each branch. and if i continue to be a loyal and hard working employee, help me to escape poverty through my hard work. hell, go hog wild and even encourage me to attend school through partnerships with colleges. to pay for this, charge five bucks for the damned tide instead of four.

seriously. we can either give people a chance to pull themselves out of poverty, or we can keep our four dollar tide and pour a bunch of money into public assistance. we all would prefer that the person working at walmart should have a chance to work his or her way up the ladder. just pay a little more for **** there, and we can probably get that done.

but i'm sure that this post pisses you off somehow. waiting for your long response, arguing that your four dollar instead of five dollar tide is precious to you, and that we're better off letting walmart workers be poor and uneducated, or that walmart has already addressed and completely solved these problems, and that their workers are just too lazy to take advantage of the opportunities.
 
You keep insisting that unions make the ladder rungs further apart but have yet to provide any real life examples of that "fact".



OUR Walmart Is 100% Union, 0% WMT | RealClearMarkets

since unions have lost most of their teeth, wages have stagnated. you're not going to convince me that the average worker is going to get ahead purely on merit and the generosity of his or her employer.

****, you don't even believe that yourself, i'd bet.

o-UNIONS-MIDDLE-CLASS-facebook.jpg
 
since unions have lost most of their teeth, wages have stagnated. you're not going to convince me that the average worker is going to get ahead purely on merit and the generosity of his or her employer.

****, you don't even believe that yourself, i'd bet.

View attachment 67177245

That has ZERO to do with union cashier pay and you know it. You made the assertion that union cashiers (or other retail sales positions) would benefit from union membership. Further you claimed that union membership makes the "ladder rungs" (hourly pay rates?) farther apart. All your graph shows is that income inequality (the separation of the ladder rungs?) increased as union membership decreased - the exact opposite of your initial claim.

Instead of changing the subject, why not provided real life examples of union retail sales worker's wages being farther apart than non-union retail sales worker's wages? When confronted with actual evidence (the truth?) by cited links, you then immediately abandoned that "ladder rung" argument and tried another tact.

At least be honest and admit that unions tend to make those "ladder rungs" (aka hourly pay rates) closer together rather than farther apart. The first rung may be higher, under a union contract, but the top rung is not any farther from the bottom rung. The big push for (appeal of?) unions is that those joining the "brotherhood" are to be treated more "fairly" and that all will make about the same pay for doing the same job - differences in pay will be "fairly" based on time of service (how long you have been in the union) not on which individual works harder.
 
That has ZERO to do with union cashier pay and you know it. You made the assertion that union cashiers (or other retail sales positions) would benefit from union membership. Further you claimed that union membership makes the "ladder rungs" (hourly pay rates?) farther apart. All your graph shows is that income inequality (the separation of the ladder rungs?) increased as union membership decreased - the exact opposite of your initial claim.

Instead of changing the subject, why not provided real life examples of union retail sales worker's wages being farther apart than non-union retail sales worker's wages? When confronted with actual evidence (the truth?) by cited links, you then immediately abandoned that "ladder rung" argument and tried another tact.

At least be honest and admit that unions tend to make those "ladder rungs" (aka hourly pay rates) closer together rather than farther apart. The first rung may be higher, under a union contract, but the top rung is not any farther from the bottom rung. The big push for (appeal of?) unions is that those joining the "brotherhood" are to be treated more "fairly" and that all will make about the same pay for doing the same job - differences in pay will be "fairly" based on time of service (how long you have been in the union) not on which individual works harder.

****, how much dancing do you have to do to argue that organized workers don't negotiate better working conditions than unorganized workers? come on. under your system, we had ****ing company towns in which workers were essentially slaves. i'm familiar with the "unions had their day" crowd, and all of the bull**** arguments that they like to spew. the fact of the matter is that unions might not be necessary if employers treated their workers like human beings voluntarily, but that just isn't the case for lower tier retail jobs. i'm not arguing to destroy walmart, but they are the nations's largest employer, and we're all paying a lot of taxes to support their artificially low salaries. just give the ****ing workers a better chance to climb out of poverty, and charge a bit more for the goods. that would be in the best interest of all of us, regardless of political lean.
 
No trouble. I think that sometimes perhaps people's prejudices run away with them. I can tell you from direct experience that organized companies have more productive and happier work forces: being in a union removes a lot of stress from a person and they don;t have to be so vigilant because management has some bad apples. They show up for work more consistently, they feel on an equal level with management. Management's labor costs, insurance costs and usual overtime are predetermined and stable. The work force in particular is more stable. Non union companies have notoriously high turnover rates because they don't pay well, they work part time and have their schedules shifted all the time and people want more stability. That's a big problem for walmart and these fast food companies and that's why the organizing drives are getting bigger and bigger: I've been telling conservatives for years now that this would start to happen, and low and behold!

What brings it on is the draconian hubris of companies like walmart and Mcdonald's: happens every time.

You some like an very intelligent person. However, you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to Wal-Mart.

The "organizing drives" are not getting bigger. They are getting more coverage and they only happen in certain areas of the country, primarily left leaning and lower income areas such as Southern California and the DC area. They pop up every Christmas season because the Thanksgiving week sales provide good media attention and Wal*Mart is a favorite target of unions because of the large number of employees.

As for the time off work question, Wal-Mart has a very reasonable attendance policy and I think it is fair. Many people call out for many reasons and are not required to bring any documentation for missing a day. In fact you can miss up to three consecutive days for the same reason and unless you desire sick pay you don't have to provide documentation to "verify" your "illness". People are allowed 3 unexcused absences in a rolling 90 day period before they receive a "personal discussion" and if they have another absence while still in the 90 day period they will receive a "coaching", if you get beyond a third coaching in a one year period you are subject to termination.

So unless you call out every payday Friday or every other Saturday and Sunday, missing some time from work is not going to get you fired from Wal*Mart.

and yes, I do work for Wal*Mart, but I am not a Salaried Manager, I am simply an Hourly Associate who is tired of all this ruckus about wages and treatment of employees.
 
****, how much dancing do you have to do to argue that organized workers don't negotiate better working conditions than unorganized workers? come on. under your system, we had ****ing company towns in which workers were essentially slaves. i'm familiar with the "unions had their day" crowd, and all of the bull**** arguments that they like to spew. the fact of the matter is that unions might not be necessary if employers treated their workers like human beings voluntarily, but that just isn't the case for lower tier retail jobs. i'm not arguing to destroy walmart, but they are the nations's largest employer, and we're all paying a lot of taxes to support their artificially low salaries. just give the ****ing workers a better chance to climb out of poverty, and charge a bit more for the goods. that would be in the best interest of all of us, regardless of political lean.

Again you run away from your wider "ladder rung" BS and are back to wanting Walmart to pay ENTRY LEVEL cashiers more so that those with lower household incomes will not require so much taxpayer assistance from the "safety net". What you refuse to accept is that will simply shift the Walmart cashier's subsidy from the taxpayers (the rich?), who are now forced to increase the pay of low wage workers only if they have dependents, to the poor (since Walmart shoppers are not 1%ers) who then must pay higher retail prices at Walmart by raising the pay of even those workers that have no dependents and are not poor now.

You are basically now into that "living wage" camp that sees unions as a non-governmental way of raising the minimum wage one industry/company at a time - the if you are a bigger company then you should pay a bigger wage for the same job nonsense. Entry level jobs have never paid enough to support a family of four on one full-time income and certainly not with all of the luxury items (cable TV, internet, air conditioning and video games) that are now deemed to be essential.
 
You are basically now into that "living wage" camp that sees unions as a non-governmental way of raising the minimum wage one industry/company at a time - the if you are a bigger company then you should pay a bigger wage for the same job nonsense. Entry level jobs have never paid enough to support a family of four on one full-time income and certainly not with all of the luxury items (cable TV, internet, air conditioning and video games) that are now deemed to be essential.

It always comes back to the blame game, discussing how poor folk have things they don't need anymore. Meanwhile, you're defending a system that is designed to keep them there.

And can we cut the **** with blaming TV and video games? I remember when I was poor - yeah, a video game was a Christmas present maybe or a special treat. And guess what, you didn't get to tell me I didn't deserve it then, and you don't now.

What hurt when I was poor was my brakes going out, needing to fix something in my apartment, a doctor's bill, and other unexpected big ticket items that can pop up when you are broke. FYI, big ticket items when you work at a place like Walmart is $200+ - so it doesn't require much to **** all over your month. But hey, it's great to be judgmental and pretend like you're better than them, right?
 
Again you run away from your wider "ladder rung" BS and are back to wanting Walmart to pay ENTRY LEVEL cashiers more so that those with lower household incomes will not require so much taxpayer assistance from the "safety net". What you refuse to accept is that will simply shift the Walmart cashier's subsidy from the taxpayers (the rich?), who are now forced to increase the pay of low wage workers only if they have dependents, to the poor (since Walmart shoppers are not 1%ers) who then must pay higher retail prices at Walmart by raising the pay of even those workers that have no dependents and are not poor now.

You are basically now into that "living wage" camp that sees unions as a non-governmental way of raising the minimum wage one industry/company at a time - the if you are a bigger company then you should pay a bigger wage for the same job nonsense. Entry level jobs have never paid enough to support a family of four on one full-time income and certainly not with all of the luxury items (cable TV, internet, air conditioning and video games) that are now deemed to be essential.

nice strawman. not once in this thread have i argued for an increased minimum wage for retail employees. i argued for more opportunities for promotion so that they wouldn't have to draw ****ing public assistance.

you have a problem with that? really? well, then, i guess, enjoy paying for public assistance, because that's something you'll be doing long term. myself, i'd prefer to help the poor to work their way out of poverty.
 
Again you run away from your wider "ladder rung" BS and are back to wanting Walmart to pay ENTRY LEVEL cashiers more so that those with lower household incomes will not require so much taxpayer assistance from the "safety net". What you refuse to accept is that will simply shift the Walmart cashier's subsidy from the taxpayers (the rich?), who are now forced to increase the pay of low wage workers only if they have dependents, to the poor (since Walmart shoppers are not 1%ers) who then must pay higher retail prices at Walmart by raising the pay of even those workers that have no dependents and are not poor now.

You are basically now into that "living wage" camp that sees unions as a non-governmental way of raising the minimum wage one industry/company at a time - the if you are a bigger company then you should pay a bigger wage for the same job nonsense. Entry level jobs have never paid enough to support a family of four on one full-time income and certainly not with all of the luxury items (cable TV, internet, air conditioning and video games) that are now deemed to be essential.

Liberal solutions always, always, always cause the most harm to those they pretend to care about. "Just charge five bucks for the Tide instead of four". Except that the Tide is already seven or eight bucks, and will likely need to be 10 or 12 bucks to pay everyone "top rung" wages. Even if charging a buck more for each item was plausible, how much more money is that for the average poor person to pay on each trip to the store? $50? $75? $100? Libs never really think these things through.
 
People sometimes confuse threats with information. I remember when the warehouse workers of a company for which I worked decided to unionize, thereby doubling imployee costs in the warehouse. I remember explaining to them that doubling the cost of warehouse payroll would motivate the company to move the function to a third party warehousing company simply because it would be less expensive. It wasn't a threat. It was an explanation that they were in competition with third party services. They unionized and we moved the merchandise to a third party warehouse, causing all of them to lose their jobs. It wasn't a vindicitve measure. It was a cost saving measure. Saving costs was part of my job.

Walmart imployees face the same reality. It isn't so much a matter of what a job is worth or not worth. It is a matter of competition. Because Walmart can find effective employees at the wages they pay, there is no motivation to increase the wages. If they had to increase the wages in order to attract effective employees, that is what they would do. If we can improve the economy and business growth exactly that will happen. Competition is what drives capitalism and capitalism is what drives our entire wealth as a nation.
 
nice strawman. not once in this thread have i argued for an increased minimum wage for retail employees. i argued for more opportunities for promotion so that they wouldn't have to draw ****ing public assistance.

you have a problem with that? really? well, then, i guess, enjoy paying for public assistance, because that's something you'll be doing long term. myself, i'd prefer to help the poor to work their way out of poverty.

I thought I had explained to you (and others) that climbing the ladder at WalMart was very possible and opportunities were all over the place for pay raises and increased responsibilities. Furthermore this notion that everyone who works at WalMart or McDonalds is on public assistance is nonsense. I am not saying there are none, but I would wager that there are a few folks who word at more "acceptable" places that are on some form of public assistance also. I would also add that many WalMart Associates are younger (18-22) who are still living with their parents and their parents are drawing assistance not the Associate.
 
It always comes back to the blame game, discussing how poor folk have things they don't need anymore. Meanwhile, you're defending a system that is designed to keep them there.

And can we cut the **** with blaming TV and video games? I remember when I was poor - yeah, a video game was a Christmas present maybe or a special treat. And guess what, you didn't get to tell me I didn't deserve it then, and you don't now.

What hurt when I was poor was my brakes going out, needing to fix something in my apartment, a doctor's bill, and other unexpected big ticket items that can pop up when you are broke. FYI, big ticket items when you work at a place like Walmart is $200+ - so it doesn't require much to **** all over your month. But hey, it's great to be judgmental and pretend like you're better than them, right?

I am "them" and live on an income below the federal poverty line. Although I make about $15/hour when I do work, I do not work anywhere near 40 hours in a typical week. Demanding that the bigger employers pay bigger wages is simply silly, as is making the argument that one's pay should increase as their expenses do regardless of the value of their labor - the basic idea behind the "safety net" programs.
 
I am "them" and live on an income below the federal poverty line. Although I make about $15/hour when I do work, I do not work anywhere near 40 hours in a typical week. Demanding that the bigger employers pay bigger wages is simply silly, as is making the argument that one's pay should increase as their expenses do regardless of the value of their labor - the basic idea behind the "safety net" programs.

Clearly the value of labor is subjective. Walk around your typical office building and you'll see a large percentage of jerk-offs thinking they are important because they spend 90% of their day on conference calls pretending like they're doing something. The best part is how they think no one else can do their job.

Anyway, do you have some other supplemental form of income or are you just a glutton for punishment?
 
I thought I had explained to you (and others) that climbing the ladder at WalMart was very possible and opportunities were all over the place for pay raises and increased responsibilities. Furthermore this notion that everyone who works at WalMart or McDonalds is on public assistance is nonsense. I am not saying there are none, but I would wager that there are a few folks who word at more "acceptable" places that are on some form of public assistance also. I would also add that many WalMart Associates are younger (18-22) who are still living with their parents and their parents are drawing assistance not the Associate.

yeah, i'm sure that they are all kids who want to live with the rents and make a little pocket money.

come on, man. let's pay a couple bucks more and help people make their way into the middle class. the status quo isn't working.
 
yeah, i'm sure that they are all kids who want to live with the rents and make a little pocket money.

come on, man. let's pay a couple bucks more and help people make their way into the middle class. the status quo isn't working.

Here's an idea, why don't you start a company and pay people as much as you want. And stop trying to dictate to others what to do. Just a thought.
 
Here's an idea, why don't you start a company and pay people as much as you want. And stop trying to dictate to others what to do. Just a thought.

i'm not trying to dictate anything. i'm advocating for letting laborers organize if they feel that their employer is treating them poorly.
 
i'm not trying to dictate anything. i'm advocating for letting laborers organize if they feel that their employer is treating them poorly.

Bull****.
 
Bull****.

this is the part where i'm supposed to ask you what you think i'm arguing for. the thing is, i don't care what you think. i want people who work for the nation's largest employer to have better opportunities to climb the ladder so that they don''t have to draw public assistance.

don't believe me? i don't give a ****.
 
this is the part where i'm supposed to ask you what you think i'm arguing for. the thing is, i don't care what you think. i want people who work for the nation's largest employer to have better opportunities to climb the ladder so that they don''t have to draw public assistance.

don't believe me? i don't give a ****.
And it's already been pointed out to you that the opportunities already exist at Walmart, and artificially enhancing them will hurt more than it helps. This has nothing to do with helping anyone, it is about control. The face of modern liberalism.

No need to point out that you don't give a ****, it is readily apparent in your postings.
 
And it's already been pointed out to you that the opportunities already exist at Walmart, and artificially enhancing them will hurt more than it helps. This has nothing to do with helping anyone, it is about control. The face of modern liberalism.

No need to point out that you don't give a ****, it is readily apparent in your postings.

i give a **** about helping people to work their way out of public assistance. there is no possible way that helping them to do that will hurt more than it helps. paint me however you want if it appeals to your monochromatic worldview, but you're dead wrong. i want people to have better opportunities through hard work, and i think that this is something that we should encourage. and no, we're not currently doing enough to make sure that happens.
 
It's funny, in a pathetically disgusting sort of way that in almost every other country Wal Mart is located all of their employees are unionized. It was stipulation for letting them do business in their country. Here in the US? Nope. They find justification that 18 million should live off 17K a year(33 billion) while 5 beneficiaries be worth almost 100 billion.

I avoid Wal Mart like the plague rather go to their slightly less egregious and mildly more expensive cousin Target. When forced into Wal Mart, I don't marvel at the cheap prices I'm disgusted by the degradation of both clientele and workers.

I say burn every one of them stores down and teach the people to live again.
 
i give a **** about helping people to work their way out of public assistance. there is no possible way that helping them to do that will hurt more than it helps. paint me however you want if it appeals to your monochromatic worldview, but you're dead wrong. i want people to have better opportunities through hard work, and i think that this is something that we should encourage. and no, we're not currently doing enough to make sure that happens.
I can't know your heart, that is true. If you say you do care, then I will give that the benefit of the doubt. But just as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to modern liberalism is constructed in much the same way.

Tell me again how higher prices at the grocery store helps people.
 
It's funny, in a pathetically disgusting sort of way that in almost every other country Wal Mart is located all of their employees are unionized. It was stipulation for letting them do business in their country. Here in the US? Nope. They find justification that 18 million should live off 17K a year(33 billion) while 5 beneficiaries be worth almost 100 billion.

I avoid Wal Mart like the plague rather go to their slightly less egregious and mildly more expensive cousin Target. When forced into Wal Mart, I don't marvel at the cheap prices I'm disgusted by the degradation of both clientele and workers.

I say burn every one of them stores down and teach the people to live again.

Lol, I pointed this out earlier in the thread. And this is what it basically boils down to for many of the Walmart haters, jealousy of the heirs. Thank you for illustrating my point. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom