• 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

iliveonramen said:
Sure you are right. Not everyone is on assistance but working at Wal-mart 30 hours or 40 hours a week means you're qualified for assistance.

I'm not saying Wal-Mart is the great Satan. I'm saying that workers able to bargain for their salaries is a good thing and I don't understand how individuals are so anti-union.
Click to expand...

Because, there is a difference between arguing for more wages, and having lawyers collectively bargain. Businesses shouldn't be paying wages based on a arbitrator....
 
ReformCollege said:
Then why would anyone work at Walmart?.....
Walmart only pays enough to ensure the positions it needs filled.... are filled. And it really shouldn't pay more. Don't like your pay? Get a promotion, or find a job that pays (even slightly) more.
Click to expand...

The debate is labor organization. Your stating what one individuals could/should do if he's a low skilled laborer. The other is to legally unionize and try to impact wages for all including him/herself.
 
ReformCollege said:
Because, there is a difference between arguing for more wages, and having lawyers collectively bargain. Businesses shouldn't be paying wages based on a arbitrator....
Click to expand...

Sure...the difference being the power dynamic between management and low skilled labor when labor acts as individuals compared to when it organizes.

As for lawyers collectively bargain on their behalf. This lowers the gap in information as well.
 
ReformCollege said:
The pay "gap" between men and woman is generally overstated. Adjusted, its only 4.8%-7.1%
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf
Click to expand...

Sure...if you were paid less due to something non-related to your performance like the color of your skin or your gender I'm sure you' would be find since it's only 4.8%-7.1%...but that is a different topic.

You were making some assumption that it either doesn't exist in non-unionized workforces and would if unionized or that it would increase due to unionization. Some pretty large unbased insinuations.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure...the difference being the power dynamic between management and low skilled labor when labor acts as individuals compared to when it organizes.

As for lawyers collectively bargain on their behalf. This lowers the gap in information as well.
Click to expand...

No.... the fact is labor unions will use the entire labor force, to bargain for the interests of maybe only 20% of its worker's. Walmart workers should be allowed to organize, but it should still be a worker's right to work without union intervention. And union's shouldn't be able to protect unproductive workers from being fired, simply because they pay into the union. If Walmart's workers are treated bad enough to where more workers are leaving the company than they can hire back, and workers are allowed to publically voice their opinions so other people can make more informed decisions about Walmart.... that's really the only bargaining power they need. Low-wage (low-skill) workers hold a very powerful weapon against their employers, which is the ability to cause negative PR.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure...if you were paid less due to something non-related to your performance like the color of your skin or your gender I'm sure you' would be find since it's only 4.8%-7.1%...but that is a different topic.

You were making some assumption that it either doesn't exist in non-unionized workforces and would if unionized or that it would increase due to unionization. Some pretty large unbased insinuations.
Click to expand...

I thought you were talking about individuals bargaining for their individual wages... my bad.

Not defending the 5% difference, its just a lot less then the completely overstated 20%, which is simply bad statistics because it doesn't take other observable variables into account.

But someone's performance is purely subjective. What you consider to be good hard work, I might consider being lazy and just doing the bare minimum. Or vise-versa. Depends on your standards.

But as for that 4.8-7.1% remaining difference... I do wonder if the reason its unexplainable is because its the fallout of the other 15% due to explainable variables; I.E. more seniors in a business are men rather than women. As the population of women workers starts to age, and more women continue to move up in the work force... and more of the male senior workers start to retire.. women will start to be more represented in all levels of a business, and 4.8-7.1% actual discrimination will also decrease.
 
Last edited:
ReformCollege said:
Not defending the 5% difference, its just a lot less then the completely overstated 20%, which is simply bad statistics because it doesn't take other observable variables into account.

.
Click to expand...

Sure...I'm not a fan of bad statistics either.

But someone's performance is purely subjective. What you consider to be good hard work, I might consider being lazy and just doing the bare minimum. Or vise-versa. Depends on your standards.
Click to expand...
Of course, that's definately true, but generally there are some sort of output measures tracked for employees that management agrees are important and a viable measure of perfomance.

But as for that 4.8-7.1% remaining difference... I do wonder if the reason its unexplainable is because its the fallout of the other 15% due to explainable variables; I.E. more seniors in a business are men rather than women. As the population of women workers starts to age, and more women continue to move up in the work force... and more of the male senior workers start to retire.. women will start to be more represented in all levels of a business, and 4.8-7.1% actual discrimination will also decrease.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's explainable without individuals being devious and wanting to hurt minorities and woman financially. I'm actually pretty sure it has more to do with basic human psychology and who maybe the partner or manager takes a liking to that's more culturally like him with the same interest.
 
ReformCollege said:
No.... the fact is labor unions will use the entire labor force, to bargain for the interests of maybe only 20% of its worker's. Walmart workers should be allowed to organize, but it should still be a worker's right to work without union intervention. And union's shouldn't be able to protect unproductive workers from being fired, simply because they pay into the union. If Walmart's workers are treated bad enough to where more workers are leaving the company than they can hire back, and workers are allowed to publically voice their opinions so other people can make more informed decisions about Walmart.... that's really the only bargaining power they need. Low-wage (low-skill) workers hold a very powerful weapon against their employers, which is the ability to cause negative PR.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that individuals should be able to work if not in the union. The whole free rider principle definately is the reason.
Unionized workers have better benefits and pay compared to non-union workers. There's a benefit in working in business that bargains for a union. Generally the bargaining is for all workers not just union workers.

As for the protection of unproductive workers. Sure...I think that's a bad practice. I think honestly individual workers are the first to realize when someone doesn't carry their weight. Sure...union protections are good. Managers shouldn't be able to live as tyrants and hire and fire on a whim. I'm pretty sure that's the reasoning for contracts that have those protections. I do think overall it's not for the benefit of the managers or workers to protect unproductive workers.

If Walmart's workers are treated bad enough to where more workers are leaving the company than they can hire back, and workers are allowed to publically voice their opinions so other people can make more informed decisions about Walmart.... that's really the only bargaining power they need. Low-wage (low-skill) workers hold a very powerful weapon against their employers, which is the ability to cause negative PR.
Click to expand...
Wal-Mart has had negative PR for decades. That's exactly what a union does. The workers organize and with one voice state they will leave and publicly voice their opinions.

A job is much more important to a worker than a worker is to a boss. That's just truth. A worker is feeding his family with the paycheck. The worker is just replacable unskilled labor. That power imbalance and the dying of unionized labor in this country is a big reson (in my view) of stagnant long term wages.
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't agree that individuals should be able to work if not in the union. The whole free rider principle definately is the reason.
Unionized workers have better benefits and pay compared to non-union workers. There's a benefit in working in business that bargains for a union. Generally the bargaining is for all workers not just union workers.
Click to expand...

This is far from the truth, first unions take out of the employee's pocket money, called union dues. Second unions have been losing membership for decades. The only place left for unions is in government employ, and that because liberal legislators purchased their vote by giving the union what they wanted in exchange for their vote.

As for the protection of unproductive workers. Sure...I think that's a bad practice. I think honestly individual workers are the first to realize when someone doesn't carry their weight. Sure...union protections are good. Managers shouldn't be able to live as tyrants and hire and fire on a whim. I'm pretty sure that's the reasoning for contracts that have those protections. I do think overall it's not for the benefit of the managers or workers to protect unproductive workers.
Click to expand...

Unions are extremely protective of your members, look at the teachers union, you cannot fire an incompetent, no good for nothing teacher. period. This was again all agreed to by liberals giving the unions what they wanted in exchange for their vote.

Wal-Mart has had negative PR for decades. That's exactly what a union does. The workers organize and with one voice state they will leave and publicly voice their opinions.
Click to expand...

Walmart has not had negative PR. Walmart employees have not wanted a union, as a union will steal some of their money in union dues. There are people in line waiting for a job at Walmart and if it's employees are so abused they would try to unionize, but they don't want a union.

A job is much more important to a worker than a worker is to a boss. That's just truth. A worker is feeding his family with the paycheck. The worker is just replacable unskilled labor.
Click to expand...

Here I agree with you. And why do they work at Walmart? It's because that's all Walmart needs is unskilled labor. Unskilled labor is all over the US, they are uneducated, unskilled, unreliable, many are elderly that can't get any other job, some mentally disabled that could not find a job other than Walmart, and many have no work ethic. Thus unskilled labor is glad to be hired by Walmart and have a job, and for the unreliable ones when they show up.

That power imbalance and the dying of unionized labor in this country is a big reson (in my view) of stagnant long term wages.
Click to expand...

The power is in the individual and his/her skills they bring to the market place. You want to remain unskilled that is your individual choice, you want to drop out of school and not be educated, your choice. You don't like getting up and showing for work 5 days a week, you choice. You want to be a lazy bum at work, your choice. There's a reason there is unskilled labor in this country. The individual that develops his/her skills will advance, even at Walmart.
Click to expand...
 
iliveonramen said:
We're discussing the wage increase on the cost to consumers here so we're assuming that profit remains equal.
If the full brunt of a wage increase (which isn't likely) is a hit to consumers the price increase will equal like 40 cents an average shoppers visit to Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...

I don't get the impression you understand what we're talking about.

Their sales (about $447B) is what is known as gross income. That is basically what they take in at the register before they pay cost of goods, labor, taxes, maintenance, etc. Net income, what is left over when everything has been paid for, is what you want to look at when you're determining if something can be afforded. Walmart operates with thin profit margins so while they have taken in $447B they are left with $16B after all expenses. A company's net income isn't the property of the CEO or any other executives to do as they please. This is money that is either re-invested or returned to shareholders through a dividend.

I'm not really sure what kind of wage increase you're looking for. A $2/hour raise for Walmart's 1.4M employees works out to about $6B which is about 38% of their net income! They just couldn't absorb losing 38% of their net income.

I don't know where you're getting $0.40 a visit from. I'm just not sure how you can calculate it accurately. There are about 115M households in the United States. Not all of them shop in Walmart and the ones that do tend to be from the lower income brackets but if you divide the $6B cost between 115M households evenly it comes out to about $52. That's not a tremendous amount of money but that's just Walmart.

If every single retail store, fast food chain, etc. gave their employees a $2 raise it would add up very significantly.
 
iliveonramen said:
That power imbalance and the dying of unionized labor in this country is a big reson (in my view) of stagnant long term wages.
Click to expand...

Wages have been stagnant overall because other forms of compensation are going up; healthcare being the clearest example. Labor is losing ground faster because they're just far less valuable than everyone else and unions won't change this. It's easier and cheaper to automate or outsource when labor pushes too hard.
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't agree that individuals should be able to work if not in the union. The whole free rider principle definately is the reason.
Unionized workers have better benefits and pay compared to non-union workers. There's a benefit in working in business that bargains for a union. Generally the bargaining is for all workers not just union workers.
Click to expand...
This also gives the union the power to protect current employees at the expense of new employees, and use the entire union's bargining power on behalf of the interests of a minority of the union... etc. etc.

If you want to force people to pay into the union fine, but only under two conditions 1. Unions cannot make campaign contributions and 2. Unions cannot force workers to participate in strikes.

iliveonramen said:
As for the protection of unproductive workers. Sure...I think that's a bad practice. I think honestly individual workers are the first to realize when someone doesn't carry their weight. Sure...union protections are good. Managers shouldn't be able to live as tyrants and hire and fire on a whim. I'm pretty sure that's the reasoning for contracts that have those protections. I do think overall it's not for the benefit of the managers or workers to protect unproductive workers.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what they are paid to do? Manage? If they are hiring/firing on a whim, it'll hurt their overall productivity and performance.
iliveonramen said:
Wal-Mart has had negative PR for decades. That's exactly what a union does. The workers organize and with one voice state they will leave and publicly voice their opinions.
Click to expand...
Which is fine, but they still shouldn't be able to force all their workers to strike, if they don't agree with what the union is striking about.
iliveonramen said:
A job is much more important to a worker than a worker is to a boss. That's just truth. A worker is feeding his family with the paycheck. The worker is just replacable unskilled labor. That power imbalance and the dying of unionized labor in this country is a big reson (in my view) of stagnant long term wages.
Click to expand...
The big reason... is the remainder of way too much replaceable unskilled labor during a time where our country needs skilled, un-replaceable labor.

Besides, I have to wonder why is it anyone but the worker's fault that they are unskilled? That doesn't sound like something a labor union can solve.
 
iliveonramen said:
Yes...it should definately be their choice.

Wal-Mart has a pretty long history of fighting union effort. I agree though...they should be able to organize and discuss organizing without any sort of retribution by their employer. If that's the case and they would prefer not to unionize then so be it.
Click to expand...


Wal Mart then should have an equal right to oppose the union right? So, from what I see, the union is making a big show, and saying things like 'the employees want to unionize' when they don't. So, it isn't the workers demanding the union, but rather the union trying to force themselves in....It's a lie.
 
RGacky3 said:
I've lived in both the United States and Norway ... running a buisiness isn't the only measure of freedom and infact applies to very few people, one of the most liberating things is not having my healthcare tied to an insurance company.
Click to expand...

I agree, we should eliminate health insurance all together and let patients pay doctors directly.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I suppose my point is that - a lawyer is qualified to work at Walmart but a Walmart employee is not qualified to be a lawyer...

Working at Walmart takes no skill, no talent - no nothing! Working at Walmart isn't a career - it's an opportunity for teenagers and those in college to make a few bucks while they study and learn another skill (their eventual profession)...

BTW, no I'm not a lawyer...... I do have a soul, lawyers generally don't have souls.
Click to expand...

Ha, I liked the last line. Everybody should be required to end their posts with a lighthearted joke.

I don't think I really ever got to what I wanted to say in that last post. What I was trying to illustrate was that it shouldn't matter what profession a person picks. Anybody who works hard and is dedicated and responsible should be able to make a living wage in this country. You said Wal-Mart requires no skill. While I disagree with that, I'm sure there are plenty of other jobs that require as much or less skill than cashiers and shelf stockers.

How about landscaping? Or secretary? Or the people who work at toll booths and parking lots? These jobs all pay much better than any position at Wal-Mart. And there are millions of people out there who would easily able to do those jobs and they can be replaced in an instant. So why does the guy mowing your lawn make so much more money that the guy ringing you up at Wal-Mart? In my opinion, the reason is that Wal-Mart is so massive and jobs there are so (relatively) easy to get, they don't mind mistreating their employees. They can save money by hiring people who will do whatever they're told and will surely quit or be fired before they can get a raise or a promotion.

I think we all agree that it's not ok for a company to pay their employees $2 an hour. It's not ok for a company to make their employees work when they are sick. So we all agree that there need to be regulations to ensure that there is at least some degree of fairness and respect. I think that what Wal-Mart is doing should not be permissible. Like I said, anybody who works hard and is dedicated and responsible should be able to earn a decent living.

Also, Wal-Mart does take skill, and I haven't worked there but I know it does take skill. It's very difficult to deal with rude and intolerable shoppers constantly. The job requires consistency as well. They have to have proficient people skills (it's not hard to talk to customers, but when those customers are aggressive and demanding, it is very hard and it is definitely a learned skill) and they have to be able to stand for long periods of time without breaks. A lot of Wal-Mart employees don't have these skills. They are among the 70% that quit within a year. But those who have the skills and get to know the store and the customers and the management, those people deserve more than $8 dollars an hour and bottom of the barrel benefits.

They bad employees who get fired should have to work in a toll booth, where they will have to somehow find a way to cope with having to sit down for long periods of time. That's why it's called a toll booth, because when you work at one, it really takes a toll on you.
 
DVSentinel said:
Power discrepancies will always exist. Sure, socialist theory attempts to eliminate them, but that is idealistic thinking and as mankind is not idealistic, it cannot happen. Human nature is for us to be competitive, we will always be competitive and since socialist ideals eliminate competitiveness, they go against basic human nature.

What evidence do you have to present that supports your statements about class mobility and opportunities?

How do the rich hurt society? If they kept all their wealth in liquid assets, then yes, it would be hurtful, but since they invest in capital assets which creates and upholds companies, which employee society, how is that hurtful?
Click to expand...

That's the same arguments the gave to defend monarchy and slavery ... Human nature is to adapt to the situation and the institutions, so obviously, people will be competative in a society that demands competativeness ... human nature is also cooperative ... it depends on the institutions.

class mobility The "American Dream" Is Now A Myth - Business Insider, I can also find data showing its much better in social democratic countries

Also socialism doesn't eliminate competativeness, it evens the playing feild, so you have to compete on your own merits not just through controling capital.

More and more the rich don't invest capital assets, mroe and more they are just using their money to participate in what is called primitive accumulation in marxian terms, i.e. skimming off the top, financial investment, also "investing" is just using money to make money, its using you're capital to profit from economic activity which would happen whether or not they controlled teh capital or the community did.
 
OpportunityCost said:
1. No they should not. Russia and China are both defined as socialist. Sorry you dont see it that way or like it but they are. Socialist totalitarian regimes, but hey, I warned you thats where socialism goes.

2. Your entire stance is contradictary jargon. Capitalists are the ones that take the risks to make business happen. Without risk takers, there is no business. You want a capitalist system run for the benefit of the unions and workers---ok, whose money will you steal to create businesses and whats to stop government from taking it and making slaves of the workers if they feel like it? Once government can grant that sort of power, they most certainly can take away whatever they like.

3. No. They are happening because they are not financially viable social spending. You run out of other people's money. If people open a business and work at it and make it successful, they then control more money and resources. If 4 workers get together and open a business, guess what? They are then capitalists. Your stance is demonization and rationalization of taking from others to satisfy some need you seem to have to take from those you see as rich.

From where this conversation is going you seem to be one of those dreamer socialists that just think government can start confiscating and keep the businesses running. Government doesnt run much of anything very well for very long.

Capitalists cant forcibly take anything from someone else, they have to earn it. They are not elected officials, they are not Kings, they earned their command of resources and money--they did not forcibly take it. You seem to see business owners as evil entities that never earn anything. They arent angels but if there is no incentive to make a business successful there wont be any businesses to confiscate anything from.
Click to expand...

1. Not as defined by actual socailists ... and thats from the begining, the system is by definition not socialist, since the workers have control over the means of production and the public doesn't have a say over the economy.

2. Without the risk takers the capital would be available for the people to invest. Who's money will I steal? No one's money. Whats to stop government from making people slaves? Democracy ... i.e. what stops the government from doing it now. Also who said I want to governmetn to have th power to make people slaves?

3. Ok so ... under social democratic policies things were ok ... then they change to policies that neo-liberals push .. and it collapses ... yet its the social democrats faults???? Nonsense.

If for workers get together and open a buisienss they are not capitalists, because their compensation comes from labor not capital control, infact the worker/capitalist distinction isn't even valid in that situation, but if we are going to just get in a definition war, then its pointless ... you can call stuff whatever you want, its not important.

Unions don't take from others ... but if you believe that they do ... then you have to accept that capitalists are also theives.

Who said I want government to start confiscating stuff??? You're making strawmen.

Capitalists do forcible take stuff ... through property, if I go on an estate and pick and apple I can get beaten up by a cop, just because some guy has a piece of paper. And if you look at the history of Capitalism, almost all of it began through violence ... so you're wrong there.

I don't look at anyone as evil, stop making strawmen, I'm talking systemic problems, I'm not talking personal morality here ... stop making strawmen.
 
ReformCollege said:
Greece has been running 3%+ budget deficits since 1981.

Greece only handed things over to Goldman Sachs to COVER UP the fact that their level of spending had been ridiculous for a long period of time.
Click to expand...

And the US has been runnign deficits too ... the problem came from.

1. Goldman Sachs basically using Greece as a toxic asset dumping ground.
2. joining the EU, which it had no buisiness doing.
3. Failing to collect taxes.
 
ReformCollege said:
I agree, we should eliminate health insurance all together and let patients pay doctors directly.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that, I'm suggesting a single payer system.

Also how could you eliminate health insurance without government intervention? Btw ... you have that option now, just don't buy health insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom