• 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 workers demand better wages

Unions still have there place int he workplace and still evolve there demands and are still very much needed, and workers still choose to be in unions, may be a smaller amount but they sill are very relevant in the system today.

What did the unions do for the hostess workers? put them out of work---great job union bosses! Now those workers have no income and the union bosses are vacationing in the Cayman islands with their union dues.
 
So, what should they have done? Raise the prices of twinkees and ding dongs in order to pay wages higher than the jobs being performed were worth? Decided to forego profit and just break even? What exactly do you want?

That's always possible. But I'd start by getting CEO pay back where it used to be. But the point is, a company that can pay as much as they do to CEOs, should a least hold them responsible for making sure the company thrives.
 
Yea.... Ok... Just enjoy your weekend, and enjoy those safe working conditions because we all know that without these regulations the work place would be real safe, and enjoy no child labor, enjoy your overtime pay, enjoy your worker comp. I mean based off your string of knowledge these were all brought about by "whiners".

Unions stopped being about fair regulations and started being about maximizing profit a long time ago.
 
Uhh,, NO. they don't. They are leeches, bribers, and criminals. The most slimey of the slimey. lower than gator s**t at the bottom of the bayou.
uhhhh...YES they do....unions are a good thing.
 
That hardly rises to the level of a hearty endorsement now does it? You make it sound like somebody describing a root canal.

I've already posted a few times in this thread what my experiance at Wal-Mart was like. Why continue to repeat the same things over and over?
 
That's always possible. But I'd start by getting CEO pay back where it used to be. But the point is, a company that can pay as much as they do to CEOs, should a least hold them responsible for making sure the company thrives.

Do you want the govt to set a cap on CEO pay? CEOs sole function is making the company survive and make money for the shareholders. In the Hostess case they decided it was better to close the doors than to have a company losing money due to union demands. Thats exactly what would have happened to GM if obozo had not bailed them and the UAW out with OUR money.
 
That has been answered before ...

Musta missed it. What post was that?

BTW, is that why German industry is doing so horribly right now?

I've no idea what the German industry is like. I'm not German, I don't live in Germany so I don't really care what thier industry is like.
 
opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one. yours just happens to be wrong.
yes, you are wrong, i'm glad you have decided to admit the error of your ways....
 
Last I heard Texas was part of the United States where you were free to leave your employer for one that you liked and respected. I hope you told your mother to quit immediately so someone that wouldn't mind working for that poor management could have the job?


This would help to explain the customer service. My mother has worked at a WalMart in Texas for about 5 years. She says that have the worst management she's ever worked with.
 
But the point is, a company that can pay as much as they do to CEOs, should a least hold them responsible for making sure the company thrives.

Thats an entirely different argument then "SCREW THE CEO, its so unfair!" I don't have a problem with CEO's making a lot of money, but I do have a problem with CEO's making it rich while they drive a company into the ground. Honestly, perhaps corporations need to be redone to act more like a normal business, where those who own the business are responsible for its management. CEOs need a personal stake in the companies success/failure if we expect them to be well behaved.
 
Many Wal-Mart employees qualify for food stamps. You and I are subsidizing their employees.
You mention "medical" but strangely left out the details. Details like how the company will strategically schedule employees to fall just below the threshold of being eligible, or the fact that you're not eligible at all for the first two years of employment. Or the premiums.

Only about half of Wal-Mart's employees get healthcare through the company. You and I pay for the other half.

I would imagine that almost everyone working in retail that is not management and not commission would qualify for food stamps, so what's your point? :)

Oh I know what it was, but you clearly didn't think it through before posting. Maybe we're all subsidizing the retail industry?..


Tim-
 
Thats an entirely different argument then "SCREW THE CEO, its so unfair!" I don't have a problem with CEO's making a lot of money, but I do have a problem with CEO's making it rich while they drive a company into the ground. Honestly, perhaps corporations need to be redone to act more like a normal business, where those who own the business are responsible for its management. CEOs need a personal stake in the companies success/failure if we expect them to be well behaved.

the shareholders own the business, the CEO reports to the board of directors, the board of directors give the CEO growth and profit targets and reward him if he meets or exceeds them, because when that happens the stock value goes up and the shareholders make money. most CEOs are also shareholders, so they do have a stake in the business.

you really have no idea how corporations work, do you?
 
I would imagine that almost everyone working in retail that is not management and not commission would qualify for food stamps, so what's your point? :)

Oh I know what it was, but you clearly didn't think it through before posting. Maybe we're all subsidizing the retail industry?..


Tim-

would you prefet to pay for those things through higher prices for everything you buy? thats the only other alternative.
 
1. Really tell that to Mandrigan and all the other majorly successfull cooperateives.

Mandrigan? I binged it but all I got was "did you mean mondrian" and a bunch of hotels named Mondrian. Must not be that successfull if they don't show up in a simple one word search.

2. THey close up shop because they still want to make money.

I'm going to assume that you meant to put the word "don't" in there because otherwise it doesn't make sense. If that is what you meant then I agree. But it does prove a point doesn't it? If they closed up shop then 1.4 million people would be without a job and making NOTHING. So obviously they're more important than you think.

If however you actually meant that the way you worded it, please expand.

Also I would like you to answer a question that you did not answer before. If the Walkers jobs are so unimportant and anybody here on these forums could do them...why don't you have a similar buisness making the same amount?
 
You may be misunderstanding my comparison. In my context, China would be a perfect example to support me. We could go that low. We could go third world.

Not with a minimum wage we couldn't. Not to mention we have government entitlements up the wazoo.
 
Do you want the govt to set a cap on CEO pay? CEOs sole function is making the company survive and make money for the shareholders. In the Hostess case they decided it was better to close the doors than to have a company losing money due to union demands. Thats exactly what would have happened to GM if obozo had not bailed them and the UAW out with OUR money.

Nope. But with a stronger worker voice, they might see one isn't any good without the other.

And what Hostess did was poor management. They decided to pay high CEO pay, likely with a good golden parachute, and not tie it to results. This guy made a fortune and saw the doors close. Odd how some see bad workers and not bad management.
 
Not with a minimum wage we couldn't. Not to mention we have government entitlements up the wazoo.

Oh, but many fight the idea of minimum wage. Rush does a great job on this. And absent what you call entitlements, and if we were actually socialist, or communist, or whatever buzz word Obama haters are using this week, we could have low wages and no regulations in a heart beat.
 
Many Wal-Mart employees qualify for food stamps. You and I are subsidizing their employees.
You mention "medical" but strangely left out the details. Details like how the company will strategically schedule employees to fall just below the threshold of being eligible, or the fact that you're not eligible at all for the first two years of employment. Or the premiums.

Only about half of Wal-Mart's employees get healthcare through the company. You and I pay for the other half.

Bold: This never happened with me (not saying it doesn't happen...just that it doesn't happen with every employee)...which brings me to the red...

Red: That is straight up false. They offer both medical benefits and stock options after having worked there for 3 months. I declined the medical benefits and took the stock option. I worked there for 6 months.
 
Oh, but many fight the idea of minimum wage. Rush does a great job on this. And absent what you call entitlements, and if we were actually socialist, or communist, or whatever buzz word Obama haters are using this week, we could have low wages and no regulations in a heart beat.

Rush is an idiot. Don't listen to him myself.
 
Nope. But with a stronger worker voice, they might see one isn't any good without the other.

And what Hostess did was poor management. They decided to pay high CEO pay, likely with a good golden parachute, and not tie it to results. This guy made a fortune and saw the doors close. Odd how some see bad workers and not bad management.

Its also odd how some don't see the Union bosses fault in what happened with Hostess.
 
Nope. But with a stronger worker voice, they might see one isn't any good without the other.

And what Hostess did was poor management. They decided to pay high CEO pay, likely with a good golden parachute, and not tie it to results. This guy made a fortune and saw the doors close. Odd how some see bad workers and not bad management.

Bad management, unions have been losing membership for decades, I call that bad management of unions.

Tie the golden parachute to results, I like that idea of ting pay to results, such as teachers and any worker for that matter. And further being able to fire a bad teacher. Interesting how you want to hold CEO's feet to the fire, but a bad sucking union teacher can't be fired. Even teachers who are molesters can't be fired.
 
Its also odd how some don't see the Union bosses fault in what happened with Hostess.

No because it's always the business owner, the CEO, the rich bastard, can't be because of that stupid union manager that doesn't know dick about economics. And they wonder why they have been losing membership for decades. Union manager stupidity.
 
would you prefet to pay for those things through higher prices for everything you buy? thats the only other alternative.

So what you're saying is that by government (you and me tax payer) subsidizing retail, we have an distorted view of capitalism by way of maniuplation. Good intentions or not, capitalism, and free markets correct themselves when left alone. When muddled with, complexities arise causing myopia in every direction.


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom