Walmart workers demand better wages

Boo Radley said:

Agreed. Something I've been saying (though some companies work well with a more egalitarian approach).

Click to expand...

At least we agree on something.

Boo Radley said:

Which is when they are negotiating. Unions don't negotiate daily. They do that at regular intervals. We'renot union here persay, but we negotiate a new contract yearly. And while a new employee may be starting at the time, they do get the benefit of whatever is negotiated. But, there is nothing midway through the job that anyone is advocating.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And this is part of the problem. Even the new employee that has not proven that they deserve more gets the same benefits that someone who's worked somewhere for 20 years gets. Or the crappy employee gets the same benefits as the hard working employee. The union negotiates for the whole regardless of ability of the individual workers. If 1/4 of those people that are negotiated for are hard workers and the rest are crap workers why should the company pay 3/4 of its employees the same amount as the 1/4 gets? Those crap employees can hurt the companies profits. And we all know that its rather hard for a company to fire crappy workers when unions are around.

Boo Radley said:

Nor is anyone saying they have to pay anyone anything. Merely saying that barganinig collectively is worhtwhile and valid. And that any company that has such a disparity between the CEO pay and the average worker, more than historcial, and more than the rest of the world, has their priorities out of wack. No law against being stupid to be sure, but calling stupid stupid is appropriate.

Click to expand...

But thats the thing, people are saying that they have to pay. That is what strikes are all about. Making the company pay what they think they should be paid, regardless if it is deserved or not, through extortion no less. Even in this thread I see people basically saying that the CEO should have to pay the workers more and give them more benefits. "Because the workers have the right to it". (paraphrasing) My last post was responding to just such a poster.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate unions. They do have thier pro's. But unions also have thier con's. And lately those con's have been outweighing the benefits of the pro's. When unions first start out they are great. But eventually, just like corporations, they grow too big and start to become a burden. Causing everything attached to them to fail.

IMO the very thing that is argued for employee's should be argued for companies also. Yeah yeah, thats what "negotiating" is suppose to do. But that "negotiating" table is very one sided and favors unions. Look what happened with Boeing when they tried to open up a plant in a RTW state. The unions forced them to not do it via the courts. No amount of employee's should be able to stop a company from building a factory elsewhere...no matter the reason. Even if Boeing was doing it to get away from unions they had that right. Because no one has a right to work. Or more precisely they have a right to work, but not a right to work at a specific company if that company does not want them.

LaMidRighter said:

That's when it's time to tell those folks to go ahead and pay the difference.

Click to expand...

I've said that all along, but those folks just don't seem to see it that way...when it's their money. :rofl

Boo Radley said:

There is more than one union, thus no monopoly. For many, the union employees take all the risks so others can benefit. No one I know of has ever turned down a raise earned by the union, or better benefits. Can't balme union members for wanting equal sharing of the burden.

Click to expand...

I can when unions abet laziness and substandard service.

DVSentinel said:

Actually, they have dropped the greeter program, I was confused about it a first also, but greeters are gone. Damn, and there went my desired second career.

Click to expand...

Possibly at some walmarts, but not ours. They have an older individual planted at each entrances to greet people and help direct people if they need help. One looks like an old biker. I'm jealous of his beard.

buck said:

Possibly at some walmarts, but not ours. They have an older individual planted at each entrances to greet people and help direct people if they need help. One looks like an old biker. I'm jealous of his beard.

Click to expand...

Nor at my wal-mart. There are of course times when there is no greeter. But those are either when the incoming customer count is real low consistantly or when the greeter is off helping another customer.

Harry Guerrilla said:

So when a union has a monopoly on labor for 1 employer, I'm supposed to coo with happiness?
It is a monopoly.

Sure, if someone handed me a $100 bill, for no reason, I'd take it to.

Click to expand...

Not a monopoly. And yes, of course you'd take it. But understand where it came from and why.

Kal'Stang said:

Exactly. And this is part of the problem. Even the new employee that has not proven that they deserve more gets the same benefits that someone who's worked somewhere for 20 years gets. Or the crappy employee gets the same benefits as the hard working employee. The union negotiates for the whole regardless of ability of the individual workers. If 1/4 of those people that are negotiated for are hard workers and the rest are crap workers why should the company pay 3/4 of its employees the same amount as the 1/4 gets? Those crap employees can hurt the companies profits. And we all know that its rather hard for a company to fire crappy workers when unions are around.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, there is always a process to deal with poor employees. Always. Some harder than others, but the process is there. And largely no not much different in good companies that are not unionized. What there is a myth that you can't fire poor employees. It really isn't true.

But thats the thing, people are saying that they have to pay. That is what strikes are all about. Making the company pay what they think they should be paid, regardless if it is deserved or not, through extortion no less. Even in this thread I see people basically saying that the CEO should have to pay the workers more and give them more benefits. "Because the workers have the right to it". (paraphrasing) My last post was responding to just such a poster.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate unions. They do have thier pro's. But unions also have thier con's. And lately those con's have been outweighing the benefits of the pro's. When unions first start out they are great. But eventually, just like corporations, they grow too big and start to become a burden. Causing everything attached to them to fail.

IMO the very thing that is argued for employee's should be argued for companies also. Yeah yeah, thats what "negotiating" is suppose to do. But that "negotiating" table is very one sided and favors unions. Look what happened with Boeing when they tried to open up a plant in a RTW state. The unions forced them to not do it via the courts. No amount of employee's should be able to stop a company from building a factory elsewhere...no matter the reason. Even if Boeing was doing it to get away from unions they had that right. Because no one has a right to work. Or more precisely they have a right to work, but not a right to work at a specific company if that company does not want them.

Click to expand...

A strike is part of the process. They fail sometimes. But it is a tool, hopefully only used when there is just cause to use it. And the table isn't one sided. Ever see the NFL lock out? See replacement employees hired? See people fired? Of the tools each side has, the union is really not the one with a dominate hand. Both sides use tools.

apdst said:

I can when unions abet laziness and substandard service.

Click to expand...

Wlamart isn't union, and I bet I can find lazy and substandard service.


That's the thing, it is really only a myth that unions bred these things. You can find what you complain about in non-union businessess. And some of them even have processess that have to be followed to fire someone. An honest discussion avoids such nonsense as you present here my friend.

Boo Radley said:

Walmart isn't union, and I bet I can find lazy and substandard service.


That's the thing, it is really only a myth that unions bred these things. You can find what you complain about in non-union businesses. And some of them even have processes that have to be followed to fire someone. An honest discussion avoids such nonsense as you present here my friend.

Click to expand...

You seem at least somewhat knowledgeable about this area...

Question: I’ve heard from various locations (most if not all “conservatives”) that one thing unions want is “open ballots”, or some such, probably to do with whether or not a given facility wants to become unionized…

Basically the idea presented is that this will allow pro-union people to intimidate those employees who might not want a union into voting for it.

And thus it is bad.
Ergo, unions (and democrats, who support them, of course) are bad.


I digress.
My question is, do you or for that matter anyone know of a union which actually supports this idea? Because to me it’s obviously bad, but I’m not sure whether it’s BS made up by these conservative talk radio people or reality.

Boo Radley said:

Wlamart isn't union, and I bet I can find lazy and substandard service.


That's the thing, it is really only a myth that unions bred these things. You can find what you complain about in non-union businessess. And some of them even have processess that have to be followed to fire someone. An honest discussion avoids such nonsense as you present here my friend.

Click to expand...

No it's not. It's a fact.

Kal'Stang said:

In any case I am not argueing that Wal-Mart or other companies shouldn't pay more. I am argueing that they do not HAVE to pay more. Employee's do not have a right to more. Yet many argue that they have a right to more. They demand that the companies give them more. That is wrong. It is not thier company even if they do work there. They have no rights to more than minimum wage.

Actually they can find work someplace else. I know of several jobs not only in my area but also in other states that offer better pay even with the same experiance and ability that most Wal-Mart workers have. Though the jobs are harder physically. Some of those companies are even so desperate for employees that they are even offering to pay the employee to move over to thier state. Providing gas money to get there, and housing. There is no lack of jobs available. It is whether those people are willing to do the kind of work that is available or not. The ONLY reason that I don't take advantage of some of those jobs is due to my wife not wanting to move.

Click to expand...

There is a lack of jobs available. Health Care coverage has been increasing in the United States, college tuition has been increasing, and high level jobs are not available. This whole "they don't have to do anything" mindset is ridiculous. I don't know if posters in this thread have gone off the deep end or if middle and lower class Americans are so used to getting the short end of the stick that they have developed some kind of capitalistic Stockholm Syndrome.

Let me make my viewpoint as simple as it can possibly be. Walmart moves into a community, takes business away from local and independent commerce, takes on the displaced employees and then pays them minimum wage for high stress, undesirable positions with bare bones benefits because they know they can take advantage of these people. They are making an incredibly large amount of profit and their employees are barely getting by. Missing a day of work isn't the difference between a 46 inch HDTV and a 50 inch HDTV, it is the difference between their family having dinner every night of the week and their family having dinner 6 times that week. Nobody should be speaking up for Walmart because they don't HAVE to give their employees paid time off. They should make sure that their employees are compensated fairly, and if they don't want to give them promotions or raises, they should give them health care and other benefits.

The attitude expressed by so many here seems to me like pilgrims settling in Jamestown, forcing the Native Americans to convert to Christianity, attend their schools, and pay taxes to their local government, and then telling them that if they don't want to do it they can leave. Because you see they didn't have to let the Native Americans stay, they could have forced them to march west to Oklahoma, but the Pilgrims were so wonderful and kind they allowed the Native Americans to stay and even have a 10% discount on non-grocery items as long as they weren't on sale (after they had lived there for at least 2 years as a full time resident).

Boo Radley said:

Doesn't matter, there is always a process to deal with poor employees. Always. Some harder than others, but the process is there. And largely no not much different in good companies that are not unionized. What there is a myth that you can't fire poor employees. It really isn't true.

Click to expand...

You should note that I did say that it was rather hard to fire crappy employee's. Not that it can't happen. But thats the point. It shouldn't be hard to fire a crappy employee. It should be as simple as saying "You're Fired!". The fact that it is hard to get rid of them shows that unions have more power than they should have.

Boo Radley said:

A strike is part of the process. They fail sometimes. But it is a tool, hopefully only used when there is just cause to use it. And the table isn't one sided. Ever see the NFL lock out? See replacement employees hired? See people fired? Of the tools each side has, the union is really not the one with a dominate hand. Both sides use tools.

Click to expand...

A club is a tool also, doesn't mean it should be used for its intended purpose does it? Yeah, it may fail sometimes. But that is mainly dependent on when and where the strike is held. That NFL strike iirc was done when it didn't really matter that there was a strike. Imagine if they had had the strike on the day of the Super Bowl. How fast do you think that the CEO's of NFL would have capitulated then? Generally though it does not fail. That is to say that it succeeds far more than it fails. Don't get me wrong. I agree that there are times when a strike is necessary. However that is rarely the case any more. Strikes should be used only when there are health hazards or sub par equipment being used. (thinking of schools for that one) But it should never be used for pay raises when the pay is more than minimum wage.

I am also curious as to why you didn't comment on my comment about what happened with Boeing....

The Mark said:

You seem at least somewhat knowledgeable about this area...

Question: I’ve heard from various locations (most if not all “conservatives”) that one thing unions want is “open ballots”, or some such, probably to do with whether or not a given facility wants to become unionized…

Basically the idea presented is that this will allow pro-union people to intimidate those employees who might not want a union into voting for it.

And thus it is bad.
Ergo, unions (and democrats, who support them, of course) are bad.


I digress.
My question is, do you or for that matter anyone know of a union which actually supports this idea? Because to me it’s obviously bad, but I’m not sure whether it’s BS made up by these conservative talk radio people or reality.

Click to expand...

Randel may better answer your question.

apdst said:

No it's not. It's a fact.

Click to expand...

Nope. A myth. Like many, you just believe it because it sounds good. But feel free to present any objective evidence from a credible source.

Kal'Stang said:

You should note that I did say that it was rather hard to fire crappy employee's. Not that it can't happen. But thats the point. It shouldn't be hard to fire a crappy employee. It should be as simple as saying "You're Fired!". The fact that it is hard to get rid of them shows that unions have more power than they should have.



A club is a tool also, doesn't mean it should be used for its intended purpose does it? Yeah, it may fail sometimes. But that is mainly dependent on when and where the strike is held. That NFL strike iirc was done when it didn't really matter that there was a strike. Imagine if they had had the strike on the day of the Super Bowl. How fast do you think that the CEO's of NFL would have capitulated then? Generally though it does not fail. That is to say that it succeeds far more than it fails. Don't get me wrong. I agree that there are times when a strike is necessary. However that is rarely the case any more. Strikes should be used only when there are health hazards or sub par equipment being used. (thinking of schools for that one) But it should never be used for pay raises when the pay is more than minimum wage.

I am also curious as to why you didn't comment on my comment about what happened with Boeing....

Click to expand...

The reason it is hard is because you have to prove they are crappy employees. Merely being told they are crappy isn't the same as being proven crappy.

There's a reason the. Interact doesn't end during Super Bowl week. Best to schedule negotiations well. Like I said, being smart is a two way street.

But the point is both have tools. Both use them. Even using the media to present a message favorable to your side is a tool. But it is rare that either side is completely in Lala land.

I'll return and try to address the Boring issue soon. As I don't fully recall it, I likely didn't think it the major point. When I'm moving back and forth, I try to hit the main points.

Mustachio said:

There is a lack of jobs available.

Click to expand...

Perhaps there are too many people available? Or maybe technology is improving too fast and should be slowed down?

Walmart moves into a community, takes business away from local and independent commerce,

Click to expand...

Shoppers take their business away from local and independent stores.

takes on the displaced employees and then pays them minimum wage for high stress,

Click to expand...

Residents take minimum wage jobs. Willfully. And "high stress?" Haha.

They should make sure that their employees are compensated fairly,

Click to expand...

Employees should make sure they are compensated fairly. Why would anyone willingly do something that is unfair? They signed a contract to work there, and can stop at any time.

and if they don't want to give them promotions or raises, they should give them health care and other benefits.

Click to expand...

It has already been said elsewhere in this discussion: no business compensates their employees out of charity or to guarantee some sort of lifestyle outcome to an employee. They offer to pay what the work is worth to the company. The more they want or need their employees to stick around and not quit on a whim (as they do constantly), the more it benefits them to compensate at a higher rate. But when there is a virtually endless supply of expendable labor (new rounds of 16-year olds every year who live at home and just spend the cash they make on dates and video games), and the work to be done requires no skill, virtually no training, and no specialized knowledge, there is no business sense whatsoever in pumping up those wages.

The attitude expressed by so many here seems to me like pilgrims settling in Jamestown, forcing the Native Americans to convert to Christianity, attend their schools, and pay taxes to their local government, and then telling them that if they don't want to do it they can leave.

Click to expand...

That's an extremely terrible comparison (on multiple levels).

Kal'Stang said:

You should note that I did say that it was rather hard to fire crappy employee's. Not that it can't happen. But thats the point. It shouldn't be hard to fire a crappy employee. It should be as simple as saying "You're Fired!". The fact that it is hard to get rid of them shows that unions have more power than they should have.



A club is a tool also, doesn't mean it should be used for its intended purpose does it? Yeah, it may fail sometimes. But that is mainly dependent on when and where the strike is held. That NFL strike iirc was done when it didn't really matter that there was a strike. Imagine if they had had the strike on the day of the Super Bowl. How fast do you think that the CEO's of NFL would have capitulated then? Generally though it does not fail. That is to say that it succeeds far more than it fails. Don't get me wrong. I agree that there are times when a strike is necessary. However that is rarely the case any more. Strikes should be used only when there are health hazards or sub par equipment being used. (thinking of schools for that one) But it should never be used for pay raises when the pay is more than minimum wage.

I am also curious as to why you didn't comment on my comment about what happened with Boeing....

Click to expand...

Ok I remember now. I didn't know they reason they won in court. It matters. If a court ruled that way, I'd like to know why before commenting.

Neomalthusian said:

Perhaps there are too many people available? Or maybe technology is improving too fast and should be slowed down?

Click to expand...

It's a combo of not enough jobs due to economic issues and too many people looking for jobs. Probably.

Neomalthusian said:

Shoppers take their business away from local and independent stores.

Click to expand...

This is true. If Wal-Mart didn't provide a service people needed or thought they needed, the customers wouldn't go there.

Neomalthusian said:

Residents take minimum wage jobs. Willfully. And "high stress?" Haha.

Click to expand...

Agree first. Second is relative. What you or I consider high-stress probably differs, only makes sense that it's different for everyone.

Neomalthusian said:

Employees should make sure they are compensated fairly. Why would anyone willingly do something that is unfair? They signed a contract to work there, and can stop at any time.

Click to expand...

Tied in with the real or imagined low number of jobs available, many people might take a job at pay they don’t really consider fair just to stay afloat financially. But you are correct, in part.

Neomalthusian said:

It has already been said elsewhere in this discussion: no business compensates their employees out of charity or to guarantee some sort of lifestyle outcome to an employee. They offer to pay what the work is worth to the company. The more they want or need their employees to stick around and not quit on a whim (as they do constantly), the more it benefits them to compensate at a higher rate. But when there is a virtually endless supply of expendable labor (new rounds of 16-year olds every year who live at home and just spend the cash they make on dates and video games), and the work to be done requires no skill, virtually no training, and no specialized knowledge, there is no business sense whatsoever in pumping up those wages.

Click to expand...

Not all wal-mart jobs are such. But some are, very likely.

Neomalthusian said:

That's an extremely terrible comparison (on multiple levels).

Click to expand...

Agree.

TheDemSocialist said:

They are demanding better treatment and wages from one of the most profitable, and most rich companies in the world.

Click to expand...

the success of walmart is irrelevant. low skill labor that any chimpanzee can perform does not warrant higher wages.

Mustachio said:

There is a lack of jobs available. Health Care coverage has been increasing in the United States, college tuition has been increasing, and high level jobs are not available. This whole "they don't have to do anything" mindset is ridiculous. I don't know if posters in this thread have gone off the deep end or if middle and lower class Americans are so used to getting the short end of the stick that they have developed some kind of capitalistic Stockholm Syndrome.

Click to expand...

Sorry but there are plenty of jobs available. Companies in N. Dakota are paying people to come over and work. Alabama is begging for employees. There are jobs available in my area. And I could go on. The question that you should ask is why won't these people get those jobs? In N. Dakota McDonalds pays its employee's a little over $10/hr starting out. Oilfield workers average pay is $19/hr. Yeah that may not be 100k/year job...but it IS a job. One that easily pays the bills and puts food on the table.

Mustachio said:

Let me make my viewpoint as simple as it can possibly be. Walmart moves into a community, takes business away from local and independent commerce, takes on the displaced employees and then pays them minimum wage for high stress, undesirable positions with bare bones benefits because they know they can take advantage of these people. They are making an incredibly large amount of profit and their employees are barely getting by. Missing a day of work isn't the difference between a 46 inch HDTV and a 50 inch HDTV, it is the difference between their family having dinner every night of the week and their family having dinner 6 times that week. Nobody should be speaking up for Walmart because they don't HAVE to give their employees paid time off. They should make sure that their employees are compensated fairly, and if they don't want to give them promotions or raises, they should give them health care and other benefits.

Click to expand...

Tell you what. You answer me the following 2 questions and I'll respond to this. I have a friend that does taxidermy. He pays a total of $15 to make a piece out of a deer hide. Yet he can (and has) sell that piece for $1500. Why does his price for that piece go for so much more than what it took to make it?

Next when Sam Walton started his very first store he slightly under cut his competitors....even the big ones. Why can't, or why don't, stores do that now...only to Wal-Mart?

Boo Radley said:

Ok I remember now. I didn't know they reason they won in court. It matters. If a court ruled that way, I'd like to know why before commenting.

Click to expand...

Union claimed that Boeing was Union Busting due to some comments made by one of the higher ups. Court agreed.

Mustachio said:

...takes on the displaced employees and then pays them minimum wage for high stress...

Click to expand...

There is not a single high-stress job inside a Wall-Mart. Not one. Please stop lying.

If Wall-Mart is such a terrible place to work, the pro-union should rejoice when Wall-Mart replaces a human cashier with a self check-out.

Can't we all just admit this is part of Obama's move to socialize every industry?

Jerry said:

There is not a single high-stress job inside a Wall-Mart. Not one. Please stop lying.

Click to expand...

I've got great news, you can go get a job there right now! I know, it seems too good to be true, but you can finally live the good life, turn in your application today! And what makes it even less stressful is that after a nice, calm and relaxing evening helping several thousand people demand that you lift their televisions into their carts faster so that they can go fart out their turkey while watching Honey Boo Boo you get to go home and try to think up ways to spend your $300 paycheck! I know, you're thinking "that must be how much they get paid in a MONTH" but no, that's only two weeks!

See you at the customer service center, I can't wait to see how quickly you can solve my many problems!

Mustachio said:

I've got great news, you can go get a job there right now! I know, it seems too good to be true, but you can finally live the good life, turn in your application today! And what makes it even less stressful is that after a nice, calm and relaxing evening helping several thousand people demand that you lift their televisions into their carts faster so that they can go fart out their turkey while watching Honey Boo Boo you get to go home and try to think up ways to spend your $300 paycheck! I know, you're thinking "that must be how much they get paid in a MONTH" but no, that's only two weeks!

See you at the customer service center, I can't wait to see how quickly you can solve my many problems!

Click to expand...

I worked for Wall-Mart for 3 years. I did cashiering, cart collecting (which are the people who do carry-outs, aka fit the TV into the car), I've unloaded deliveries, worked in the backroom warehouse, layaway, sold guns and fishing/hunting licenses and bag-tags at sporting goods, and my fav job: outside lawn&guarded during the summer.

I've also been shot at and mortared in Afghanistan.

Losing a child is stressful. Divorce is stressful. Combat is stressful. Preparing to take in 2 small nieces because my sister had a very good chance of dying in brain surgery a couple years ago was stressful.

Only whiny little bitches with no life experience think helping some customers, pushing some carts and stocking shelves is stressful.

Ever been a "lead Tank" in a 40-man raid in World of Warcraft? Even that is more stressful than any job at Wall-Mart.