• 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

cpwill said:
Being low-income appears to have broadly negative correlation with unionization, actually. Corporatism in the labor sector seems to broadly be how the middle class benefits itself at the expense of the lower-income.

As for bang for their buck - labor laws in this country continue to favor unionization over the individual worker or business. The WORKERS aren't getting much bang for their buck, agreeably.
Click to expand...

move to my state. the Republicans forced through "right to work" nonsense, gutting the unions.

meh, anyway, most anti-union people have secure, legacy jobs. "i've got mine, **** you," basically. what they don't consider is that their kids are going to have to work in that union-free dream world. that's the part that really sucks.
 
Helix said:
you're already paying for it. make the investment at the beginning, and you won't have as many people on aid.
Click to expand...

nope I don't pay for everyone else's college you don't know what you are talking about.
there will always be people on aid.

college or job training is just the first step in a long mile. it helps get a job but it doesn't mandate one will get a job.

again you want to pay for it go ahead. you can give out college money to as many people as you want to. I have my own kids to try and put through college.
 
ludin said:
nope I don't pay for everyone else's college you don't know what you are talking about.
there will always be people on aid.

college or job training is just the first step in a long mile. it helps get a job but it doesn't mandate one will get a job.

again you want to pay for it go ahead. you can give out college money to as many people as you want to. I have my own kids to try and put through college.
Click to expand...

ok, i'm only going to explain this to you one more time.

you're already paying for it (and you're probably paying more) in the form of long term entitlements for those who don't get an education or job training. if we guarantee access to college and job training, there will be fewer people drawing public assistance, and we'll all benefit from having one of the most educated populations in the world. this is the smart way to address the problem.

do you understand?
 
Helix said:
ok, i'm only going to explain this to you one more time.

you're already paying for it (and you're probably paying more) in the form of long term entitlements for those who don't get an education or job training. if we guarantee access to college and job training, there will be fewer people drawing public assistance, and we'll all benefit from having one of the most educated populations in the world. this is the smart way to address the problem.

do you understand?
Click to expand...

you just don't get it. they can do all of that stuff now and they refuse or don't want to go. some are actually working there as they are in college. you can't force them to get a college education.
you are still going to be paying long term entitlements on top of now having pay for every kid to go to college for free.

what you are saying is just logically not possible in reality. if we lived in a eutopia then maybe.

why do you not understand this?
 
ludin said:
you just don't get it. they can do all of that stuff now and they refuse or don't want to go. some are actually working there as they are in college. you can't force them to get a college education.
you are still going to be paying long term entitlements on top of now having pay for every kid to go to college for free.

what you are saying is just logically not possible in reality. if we lived in a eutopia then maybe.

why do you not understand this?
Click to expand...

because you're just flat out wrong. education and training is the best thing we can do for our population and for our nation.

however, i'm done with this nonsense. enjoy paying for the entitlements, i guess. peace.
 
Helix said:
because you're just flat out wrong. education and training is the best thing we can do for our population and for our nation.

however, i'm done with this nonsense. enjoy paying for the entitlements, i guess. peace.
Click to expand...

prove then every kids will attend college or job training. once you prove it I will be flat out wrong.
they can easily do that now and they don't. so no I am not flat out wrong.

you want to pay for entitlements + free college for everyone. please tell me where you are going to get the money.
the only nonsense is you thinking every person will go to college or get job training and entitlements will just disappear.

just like the nonsense you think that everyone should be a supervisor or manager just because they work for a company for X period of time.
even though you were shown that isn't possible.

the only nonsense is that you ignore reality for some eutopia dream.
 
ludin said:
prove then every kids will attend college or job training. once you prove it I will be flat out wrong.
they can easily do that now and they don't. so no I am not flat out wrong.

you want to pay for entitlements + free college for everyone. please tell me where you are going to get the money.
Click to expand...

by taxing you. nobody else. just you.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Fact Checker: Do Koch brothers spend more than unions? New Conservative Meme That Unions Outspend Koch Brothers On Elections Is Patently False
Click to expand...

So your comment was not only inflated but as inaccurate as you claim the Opensecrets site. Ironic to say the least... Let's flashback to your assertion:

HenryChinaski said:
Gimmie a break, the Koch Brothers spend more than double of the top ten unions combined.
Click to expand...
Double the top 10 unions COMBINED.

You're links do not support that. In fact, fact checker makes no such assertion and identifies the difficulty in even making the claim the Koch's and the Unions were even in their donations and say nothing about double the top 10. Your second link is not a credible link but a liberal circle jerk site.
 
Helix said:
move to my state. the Republicans forced through "right to work" nonsense, gutting the unions.
Click to expand...

If giving individual employees the choice on whether or not to join a union has the effect of gutting a union, then clearly the union wasn't producing results that the individual employee felt was worth the dues paid.

meh, anyway, most anti-union people have secure, legacy jobs. "i've got mine, **** you," basically. what they don't consider is that their kids are going to have to work in that union-free dream world. that's the part that really sucks.
Click to expand...

I think there are actually very few "anti-union" people out there. I think there are a lot of pro-individual-choice folks out there who get labeled anti-union because that's an easier trope to attack than the "darn you and you wanting to give individual American workers the right to choose whether or not they wish to belong to a union" line of argumentation. That being said, do you have any evidence to back your claim that most of those who are pro-right-to-work have secure legacy jobs? That is the form of employment (ironically) most associated with the unionized workforces. To fire me, for example, my boss has to say "you're fired", and then he has to let HR know. He doesn't even have to give me a good accounting of the reasons. To fire a teacher is a very different ball of wax.
 
Deuce said:
Uh, no. Ad hominem would be attacking you.

I was attacking what you posted.
Click to expand...

Yeah, name-calling/degredation as opposed to the presentation of any kind of countering logic or data is indeed ad hominem. However, if you wish to make the case that labor is not impacted by basic laws of supply and demand, I would be more than willing to spend a post or two discrediting that claim, if you are willing to attempt to actually defend it beyond trolling. :)
 
cpwill said:
If giving individual employees the choice on whether or not to join a union has the effect of gutting a union, then clearly the union wasn't producing results that the individual employee felt was worth the dues paid.
Click to expand...

they destroyed collective bargaining. that guts the union.

cpwill said:
I think there are actually very few "anti-union" people out there.
Click to expand...

:lamo


cpwill said:
I think there are a lot of pro-individual-choice folks out there who get labeled anti-union because that's an easier trope to attack than the "darn you and you wanting to give individual American workers the right to choose whether or not they wish to belong to a union" line of argumentation. That being said, do you have any evidence to back your claim that most of those who are pro-right-to-work have secure legacy jobs? That is the form of employment (ironically) most associated with the unionized workforces. To fire me, for example, my boss has to say "you're fired", and then he has to let HR know. He doesn't even have to give me a good accounting of the reasons. To fire a teacher is a very different ball of wax.
Click to expand...

people in good paying, secure jobs are a lot more likely to have an "i've got mine, **** you" attitude. their primary motivation is to pay as little in taxes as possible, and for goods to be as cheap as possible. hence, they often don't support unions.

anyway, this thread has taken up enough of my life. i can't believe i spent like fifty pages having to argue for helping people go to college instead of paying them entitlements for life, but there it is. believe whatever you want, and if you don't like unions, i can send you a PM telling you where to move.
 
cpwill said:
If giving individual employees the choice on whether or not to join a union has the effect of gutting a union, then clearly the union wasn't producing results that the individual employee felt was worth the dues paid.



I think there are actually very few "anti-union" people out there. I think there are a lot of pro-individual-choice folks out there who get labeled anti-union because that's an easier trope to attack than the "darn you and you wanting to give individual American workers the right to choose whether or not they wish to belong to a union" line of argumentation. That being said, do you have any evidence to back your claim that most of those who are pro-right-to-work have secure legacy jobs? That is the form of employment (ironically) most associated with the unionized workforces. To fire me, for example, my boss has to say "you're fired", and then he has to let HR know. He doesn't even have to give me a good accounting of the reasons. To fire a teacher is a very different ball of wax.
Click to expand...

These right to work pro-individual-choice people you mention are nothing but barnacles: they take all of the advantages but offer non of the support.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah, name-calling/degredation as opposed to the presentation of any kind of countering logic or data is indeed ad hominem. However, if you wish to make the case that labor is not impacted by basic laws of supply and demand, I would be more than willing to spend a post or two discrediting that claim, if you are willing to attempt to actually defend it beyond trolling. :)
Click to expand...

I made no such claim. That is a straw man.

What I was really saying is that the world is far more complicated than your 3 sentence dismissal of labor ever being more valuable than what we currently pay.

Of course supply and demand exist and have an effect. You just seem to be under the impression that those are the only things that affect the price of labor. "If they were worth more, they'd be paid more!" is a child's way of thinking. The real world is far more complicated.
 
Helix said:
they destroyed collective bargaining. that guts the union.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't. It destroyed the ability of a union to force people to pay it dues against its will. Those people are still free to engage in collective bargaining, and many of them still do. Unions only get "gutted" by RTW to the extent that they were already not serving the workers they claimed to represent.

That is why RTW is (ironically) actually good for unions long-term; it will force them to adapt and become customer (read: worker) oriented, to provide actual benefit for their charge.

:lamo
Click to expand...

:) Okay. I think because you claim to be "pro union" that you are actually "anti freedom". Does that sound like it's an accurate depiction of your stance?

...In the meantime, those with intellectual capacity and willingness to appreciate the fact that others are capable of looking at the same set of facts and coming to differing conclusions realize that seeking demagogic handles may provide easy bumper stickers, but rarely results in an accurate depiction of ones' opposition.

people in good paying, secure jobs are a lot more likely to have an "i've got mine, **** you" attitude
Click to expand...

What, you mean like union members?

anyway, this thread has taken up enough of my life. i can't believe i spent like fifty pages having to argue for helping people go to college instead of paying them entitlements for life, but there it is. believe whatever you want, and if you don't like unions, i can send you a PM telling you where to move.
Click to expand...

:shrug: unions have their place. And that place is activity when and where the workers perceive that they are being benefited by using them.
 
Deuce said:
I made no such claim. That is a straw man.
Click to expand...

:shrug: you claimed that the point that the basic laws of supply and demand applied to labor was economically illiterate. If you now wish to walk that back, that's fine.

What I was really saying is that the world is far more complicated than your 3 sentence dismissal of labor ever being more valuable than what we currently pay.
Click to expand...

Oh. Then your response was as accidentally stupid as it was intended to be insulting, because you failed to even suggest a depiction of complexity. :)

Of course supply and demand exist and have an effect.
Click to expand...

O wow, no kidding?

You just seem to be under the impression that those are the only things that affect the price of labor.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, labor has relative elasticity questions, wages are famously "sticky", and law has steering power by creating disparate costs, artificial floors, and (sometimes) ceilings. For example, the decision to legalize 5 million "undocumented" workers will have the effect of increasing the available supply of low-end labor, reducing demand for the more expensive U.S. citizenry that come with all kinds of tax and regulatory cost burdens.

"If they were worth more, they'd be paid more!" is a child's way of thinking. The real world is far more complicated.
Click to expand...

:shrug: it is nonetheless correct. IT Security managers don't get paid minimum wage. Know why? Their value added is far greater.
 
Deuce said:
I made no such claim. That is a straw man.

What I was really saying is that the world is far more complicated than your 3 sentence dismissal of labor ever being more valuable than what we currently pay.

Of course supply and demand exist and have an effect. You just seem to be under the impression that those are the only things that affect the price of labor. "If they were worth more, they'd be paid more!" is a child's way of thinking. The real world is far more complicated.
Click to expand...

Just curious, you don't think that jobs each have a definitive and virtually quantifiable worth to whomever is paying the salaries, and that the higher valued workers don't get paid more? I've worked in Corporate America since 1984, and every place I've ever worked, that was and still is exactly the mentality. It isn't a child's way of thinking....big adults think it too.
 
cpwill said:
No, it didn't. It destroyed the ability of a union to force people to pay it dues against its will. Those people are still free to engage in collective bargaining, and many of them still do. Unions only get "gutted" by RTW to the extent that they were already not serving the workers they claimed to represent.

That is why RTW is (ironically) actually good for unions long-term; it will force them to adapt and become customer (read: worker) oriented, to provide actual benefit for their charge.



:) Okay. I think because you claim to be "pro union" that you are actually "anti freedom". Does that sound like it's an accurate depiction of your stance?

...In the meantime, those with intellectual capacity and willingness to appreciate the fact that others are capable of looking at the same set of facts and coming to differing conclusions realize that seeking demagogic handles may provide easy bumper stickers, but rarely results in an accurate depiction of ones' opposition.



What, you mean like union members?



:shrug: unions have their place. And that place is activity when and where the workers perceive that they are being benefited by using them.
Click to expand...

state workers lost their collective bargaining rights in 2005 by executive fiat in; teachers in 2012. yeah, yeah, i know, those evil teachers and their union. don't even bother, because i don't care.

workers are getting treated like **** because they aren't organized, and now in some places, it wouldn't matter much if they did organize. about the only thing we can do now is to vote against every anti-labor candidate on the ticket. i don't want my kids to have to go broke in college and then get treated like cattle by their employer. and yeah, that **** is happening already.
 
jet57 said:
These right to work pro-individual-choice people you mention are nothing but barnacles: they take all of the advantages but offer non of the support.
Click to expand...

:yawn

I can do it to:

Unions are nothing but parasites, sucking the lifeblood from the unwilling backs of the worker, taking dues to support high leadership wages and political activity rather than actually work in the interests of their membership.

:roll:

Unions are better under RTW conditions because they have to perform. That's why they are so pervasive (for example) in Germany, which has a national RTW law, and also widespread unionization.
 
Last edited:
So your comment was not only inflated but as inaccurate as you claim the Opensecrets site. Ironic to say the least... Let's flashback to your assertion:
Click to expand...


Double the top 10 unions COMBINED.

You're links do not support that. In fact, fact checker makes no such assertion and identifies the difficulty in even making the claim the Koch's and the Unions were even in their donations and say
CHART: Koch Spends More Than Double Top Ten Unions Combined |
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
state workers lost their collective bargaining rights in 2005 by executive fiat in; teachers in 2012.
Click to expand...

That is fascinating. I had no idea that we had a national RTW law for public sector employees. Could you link that for me? I would love to read about it.

yeah, yeah, i know, those evil teachers and their union. don't even bother, because i don't care.
Click to expand...

:shrug: about a third of my family is a member of a teachers union. My main problem with them is the same problem I have with all public sector employees - "Government" should not be an interest group; it is dangerous to government of the people by the people to have groups with the power to instead ensure that we have government by the government for the government.

workers are getting treated like **** because they aren't organized, and now in some places, it wouldn't matter much if they did organize
Click to expand...

:shrug: in some places, possibly. In lots of others, there would simply be fewer of them. Who in your workplace are you willing to kick out in the street in order to divert a larger portion of your employers' revenue stream to yourself?

i don't want my kids to have to go broke in college
Click to expand...

Me neither. That's why I'm actually saving for their expenses, and intend to educate them to approach college wisely, rather than spending $30K a year to get a degree in feminist basketweaving.

and then get treated like cattle by their employer.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't get treated by cattle by my employer. That is partly due to the fact that I selected a place to work at where I had a good idea of the people, and partly because they know for a fact that I could walk out of here and secure employment elsewhere - they got me here by offering me a raise from my previous employer, who offered me a promotion and a raise in order to stay. By and large, employers that treat good employees like cattle lose those employees to their competition, who then turns around and forces them out of business.

and yeah, that **** is happening already.
Click to expand...

yeah, it is happening already.
 
cpwill said:
That is fascinating. I had no idea that we had a national RTW law for public sector employees. Could you link that for me? I would love to read about it.
Click to expand...

Helix said:
state workers lost their collective bargaining rights in 2005 by executive fiat in; teachers in 2012.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
:shrug: about a third of my family is a member of a teachers union. My main problem with them is the same problem I have with all public sector employees - "Government" should not be an interest group; it is dangerous to government of the people by the people to have groups with the power to instead ensure that we have government by the government for the government.
Click to expand...

they're teaching your ****ing kids. they deserve to not be treated like dog ****.

cpwill said:
:shrug: in some places, possibly. In lots of others, there would simply be fewer of them. Who in your workplace are you willing to kick out in the street in order to divert a larger portion of your employers' revenue stream to yourself?
Click to expand...

raise the ****ing price of goods a little. i'm not arguing for a fifty thousand dollar a year base pay at ****ing walmart, i'm arguing for better control over schedules and more access to promotion. for myself, i'd ask for a little better job security. in my industry, everything is fixed duration and independent contract work now. that ****ing sucks. you can't get yourself established in a particular place, and they fire you on the end date even if you do a good job. it sucks, man. it really sucks. i'm likely to lose this job in July. it's only because i kick ass at what i do that i got a year extension.

cpwill said:
Me neither. That's why I'm actually saving for their expenses, and intend to educate them to approach college wisely, rather than spending $30K a year to get a degree in feminist basketweaving.
Click to expand...

i've already commented extensively on why i think the education paywall is really bad for the country. refer to earlier posts.

cpwill said:
:shrug: I don't get treated by cattle by my employer. That is because they know for a fact that I could walk out of here and secure employment elsewhere - they got me here by offering me a raise from my previous employer, who offered me a promotion and a raise in order to stay. By and large, employers that treat good employees like cattle lose those employees to their competition, who then turns around and forces them out of business.
Click to expand...

yeah, but a lot of people do get treated that way, and it's going to keep getting worse.
 
cpwill said:
:yawn

I can do it to:

Unions are nothing but parasites, sucking the lifeblood from the unwilling backs of the worker, taking dues to support high leadership wages and political activity rather than actually work in the interests of their membership.

:roll:

Unions are better under RTW conditions because they have to perform. That's why they are so pervasive (for example) in Germany, which has a national RTW law, and also widespread unionization.
Click to expand...

More ignorant thinking. The barnacles have to work harder because they have no protections from management thuggery. Union members work at a reasonable pace and don't have to worry about management thuggery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom