• 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

Harry Guerrilla said:
This is plainly just an attempt of the union trying to get more due paying members.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they will be successful in this endeavor. The only real hope these workers have is to organize a union.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sorry, but that's ludicrous.
Walmart is employing and paying people based on their individual value.

That's why their wages are lowish.
Click to expand...

No, what you say is ludicrous. They are not paying people based on their individual value. They are utilizing certain "market forces" to put downward pressure on wages.
 
Dezaad said:
How incredibly funny!! You say I am trying to have it both ways??? The corporations foist upon us this myth of voluntary corporate responsibility. Liberals try to cajole corporations to live by the principles of corporate responsibility and conservatives say that corporate responsibility is a myth. I acknowledge that it is indeed a myth and state that we ought to therefore institute involuntary corporate responsibility. Then you accuse ME of wanting to have it both ways? That is rich.
Click to expand...

It's true, though. You want to blame the corporations for trying to minimize the "corporate responsibility" meme you foist upon them...and then you want to force them to abide by your meme.

As I said...you can't have it both ways. I suggest you just stick with advocating for a dictatorial government. You'd be more honest that way.
 
Dezaad said:
No, what you say is ludicrous. They are not paying people based on their individual value. They are utilizing certain "market forces" to put downward pressure on wages.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
Entry level Walmart workers do not need any special skills or training.
It's one of the bottom of the barrel job positions in retail.

They have no leverage in negotiating wages, because they have nothing to hold over the employer.
They're easily replaced and position training costs are marginal, at best.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A job, is not an "a la carte" menu at a restaurant.
You want work, you need to fill the hours they have open.
Click to expand...

you find it unreasonable for an employee to have some control over his / her regular shift and number of hours? having some expectation of when and how many hours one will be working is hardly "a la carte." I think letting employees have a little control over their schedules is a pretty minimal concession, and would do a lot to improve the experience of working there.



Harry Guerrilla said:
This is probably one of the dumbest arguments ever presented, that keeps getting repeated.
What about all the employers before Walmart, who practiced this very same thing, sans public bennies.
Click to expand...

put simply, they weren't the largest employer in the nation, and they didn't have the clout walmart has at every point of production.
 
Mycroft said:
It's true, though. You want to blame the corporations for trying to minimize the "corporate responsibility" meme you foist upon them...and then you want to force them to abide by your meme.

As I said...you can't have it both ways. I suggest you just stick with advocating for a dictatorial government. You'd be more honest that way.
Click to expand...

Blaming corporations for trying to minimize "corporate responsibility" and at the same time wanting to force them to live "corporate responsibly" is not wanting to have it both ways.

An analogous situation would be having voluntary speed limits and then when people didn't obey them, wanting to force people to live by involuntary speed limits.

As for dictatorial government: I could meet you ridiculous characterization for ridiculous characterization, but it is far too tiresome. Best to just dismiss you.
 
Last edited:
I have heard that the wages of Walmart are at the same level as they were in the 1980s... newsflash food and goods are not a the same level as in 1980s... hence the Walmart employees have gotten poorer and poorer over the years... which is rather pathetic considering the massive profits the company has.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There is no reason for them to unionize other than exploitation.
Click to expand...

Organizing into a union so that you cannot be exploited is an excellent reason for unionization. Thank you for recognizing that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Baloney.
Entry level Walmart workers do not need any special skills or training.
It's one of the bottom of the barrel job positions in retail.

They have no leverage in negotiating wages, because they have nothing to hold over the employer.
They're easily replaced and position training costs are marginal, at best.
Click to expand...

Baloney to you.

While I don't disagree with anything else you've said in the above post, Walmart makes those worker's bad market circumstance even worse, through the mechanisms I have asserted. There is no excuse for that kind of exploitation.
 
Helix said:
you find it unreasonable for an employee to have some control over his / her regular shift and number of hours? having some expectation of when and how many hours one will be working is hardly "a la carte." I think letting employees have a little control over their schedules is a pretty minimal concession, and would do a lot to improve the experience of working there.
Click to expand...

Workers have ultimate control over their hours. If they don't like their hours, they can find a new job. Retail hours are brutal. If people don't want retail hours, then they shouldn't work for a retail business.

These jobs should be viewed as stepping stones...not thirty-year careers, for God's sake. What is wrong with people???
 
Mycroft said:
As I have with other posters, I reject your contention that Walmart has any responsibility or mandate to improve the general state of our economy or to reduce the number of people who take government benefits. Their only responsibility it toward maximizing the profits of their stockholders.
Click to expand...
Seeing that proponents of tax cuts talk that tax cuts for the wealthy are needed for an improved, strong economy, I can only be lead to believe that what the proponents of those tax cuts say for the wealthy are incorrect.

It is neither my or the public's responsibility to allow a rich person to get even more financially empowered by enjoying the privilege of getting that way through the removal of that person's public debt responsibility. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
you find it unreasonable for an employee to have some control over his / her regular shift and number of hours? having some expectation of when and how many hours one will be working is hardly "a la carte." I think letting employees have a little control over their schedules is a pretty minimal concession, and would do a lot to improve the experience of working there.
Click to expand...

It is "a la carte" when you have nothing to negotiate with.
Retail is an on demand, variable industry.


Helix said:
put simply, they weren't the largest employer in the nation, and they didn't have the clout walmart has at every point of production.
Click to expand...

That, in no way, proves your point.
 
RLN said:
Seeing that proponents of tax cuts talk that tax cuts for the wealthy are needed for an improved, strong economy, I can only be lead to believe that what the proponents of those tax cuts for the wealthy are incorrect.

It is neither my or the public's responsibility to allow a rich person to get even more financially empowered by enjoying the privilege of getting that way through the removal of that person's public debt responsibility. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, that's something new. What is a person's "public debt responsibility"?
 
Dezaad said:
No, what you say is ludicrous. They are not paying people based on their individual value. They are utilizing certain "market forces" to put downward pressure on wages.
Click to expand...

What? Minimum wage is set by the gov't not Walmart or McDonalds. When did these entry level, low/semi-skilled positions pay more? What has changed, IMHO, is the ability to imply that now any job should allow a comfortable, independent existance. When I worked a single, full time job, at the minimum wage I knew, full well, that I would not be able to afford renting without a roommate, driving a "good" car and certainly did not expect to be able to support any dependents on that pay. What many now seem to expect is that these same entry level jobs will somehow allow us to live comfortably by either forcing their pay rates up or to supplement that meager income with gov't assistance making a single "McJob" become sufficient for independent living, or even raising a family.
 
Dezaad said:
Baloney to you.

While I don't disagree with anything else you've said in the above post, Walmart makes those worker's bad market circumstance even worse, through the mechanisms I have asserted. There is no excuse for that kind of exploitation.
Click to expand...

You haven't proven this.
You have just merely stated it as fact.
 
Texmex said:
Hopefully they will be successful in this endeavor. The only real hope these workers have is to organize a union.
Click to expand...

but only because in their younger years they made so little effort at preparing themselves to be part of the highly skilled workforce.....
There will always be low skill jobs, and there will always be people to take those jobs. If Walmart pays more, their prices will go up and they will lose some of their competitive lead....that being said, though, they could probably give out a 10% raise to their lower tiered employees and still have a substantial lead over Target, Kmart, and their other competitors...
 
RLN said:
Seeing that proponents of tax cuts talk that tax cuts for the wealthy are needed for an improved, strong economy, I can only be lead to believe that what the proponents of those tax cuts for the wealthy are incorrect.

It is neither my or the public's responsibility to allow a rich person to get even more financially empowered by enjoying the privilege of getting that way through the removal of that person's public debt responsibility. :roll:
Click to expand...

Do you really think a corporation such as Walmart got rich by avoiding taxes?
 
Dezaad said:
Blaming corporations for trying to minimize "corporate responsibility" and at the same time wanting to force them to live "corporate responsibly" is not wanting to have it both ways.

An analogous situation would be having voluntary speed limits and then when people didn't obey them, wanting to force people to live by involuntary speed limits.

As for dictatorial government: I could meet you ridiculous characterization for ridiculous characterization, but it is far too tiresome. Best to just dismiss you.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. You contend that it's their fault that they partially bought into the "corporate responsibility" meme. I remind you of your words: "It is corporations that have allowed this view to develop that somehow they can be responsive to other imperatives."
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You haven't proven this.
You have just merely stated it as fact.
Click to expand...

You haven't proven your assertions either. Very few of us ever do here, actually. We state our opinions and give indications as to the basis on which we formed them, but vanishingly rarely does anyone here ever make an explicit and sound logical argument. What is your point?
 
UtahBill said:
[/B]
but only because in their younger years they made so little effort at preparing themselves to be part of the highly skilled workforce.....
There will always be low skill jobs, and there will always be people to take those jobs. If Walmart pays more, their prices will go up and they will lose some of their competitive lead....that being said, though, they could probably give out a 10% raise to their lower tiered employees and still have a substantial lead over Target, Kmart, and their other competitors...
Click to expand...

If I were WalMart management, I wouldn't pay them any more than market forces required at this particular time. With all the pressure to form a union there, and knowing that if that happens, they will negotiate to pay more per hour, I'd keep it exactly where it is until they unionized, figuring it's inevitable.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They organize into a union, in order to exploit.
Creating a labor monopoly, to artificially drive up wages, is exploitation.
Click to expand...
yes, but it is leftist exploitation, the good kind....:2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom