• 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

Well, then I just don't know what to say to someone who truly thinks that....It is stunningly ignorant.

Not really ... Either way my origional point stands.

Andway ... as was said before, if these workers want to get better conditions, they have to do industrial action.
 
That's fine, don't have any regard for them and you don't have to sympathize with them or empathize with them. But the very least you can do is understand what's going on. We're talking about Walmart employees who protest their jobs yet keep them, in case you've forgotten. People are motivated by fear - fear of the unknown, fear of losing their money or their friends or their house. Walmart will hire you if you don't have a solid education or proficient skills, they'll still hire you when a lot of other companies won't. And it's NOT because they think you'd make a great employee, it's because they hire people who can be paid minimum wage and get the shaft in every aspect of their employment and still not quit or even demand a raise. Most don't stick around too long but many of them do and of those that do are afraid of what I mentioned before: loss and discomfort. That's human, dawg. That's what we all do.

When a woman can't bring herself to leave her abusive husband, do you say you have little regard for her and that if she was really abused she would have divorced him? Yes, that's a long way away from working at Walmart, but the important thing is that many (or arguably most) people find it impossible to make big changes in their lives, even when that change would greatly benefit them in the long run. And just because they are afraid to change doesn't mean that they should be exploited for that inability.



I used to work at Whole Foods and it's pretty close to how I described it. And no, I am not saying that Walmart employees are a lower class of people. I would say that the average Walmart employee is a lot more down to earth and the average Whole Foods employee is a lot more open minded. Those personality traits are irrelevant to the discussion except to provide an answer to your question.

But what I was getting at was what I wrote in response to the Harry Guerilla. And as to your last sentence, Walmart's board of directors have a responsibility as a group of human beings to treat their employees reasonably well and make sure they have opportunities to improve their lives whether that means a wage increase, benefits, time off, education, or just compassion and the willingness to assist the individuals they employ and the community in which they exist. Somebody who works at a group home may have a job that consists entirely of feeding and clothing a disabled individual. But when that disabled individual is approaching the end of their life, the responsibility we all have as a human being is to help that individual in any way we can (again, within reason) no matter what our job description says. If corporations are people, they sure don't know how to show their feelings.

As has been shown to you, it seems Walmart does meet this "responsibility"...however, I disagree that any such responsibility exists. Now, it's evident that Walmart provides some of these things you desire, but when you really get down to it, the only thing Walmart is responsible to do is provide an agreed upon wage for an agreed upon portion of work. Everything else is gravy and there is no social or legal requirement that Walmart provide any of those things...regardless the desires that arise from your liberal mindset...except, of course, such things liberals have managed to get the government to enact...such as Obamacare.
 
Not really ... Either way my origional point stands.

Andway ... as was said before, if these workers want to get better conditions, they have to do industrial action.

What "conditions" are you babbling about? Walmart employees generally work in a fixed location, environmentally controlled (indoors) and under the same "conditions" as its customers endure to shop. If they feel that they have job skills that merit more pay/better benefits, or desire a different work schedule, then they are free to accept job offers elsewhere.
 
What "conditions" are you babbling about? Walmart employees generally work in a fixed location, environmentally controlled (indoors) and under the same "conditions" as its customers endure to shop. If they feel that they have job skills that merit more pay/better benefits, or desire a different work schedule, then they are free to accept job offers elsewhere.

Better pay, healthcare benefits and so on. Sure they can apply for work elsewhere, but they have to see if there ARE jobs first, and then if they just want to give up on their job now.

What would probably be better in the long run, is organizing to take control of you're workplace.
 
Better pay, healthcare benefits and so on. Sure they can apply for work elsewhere, but they have to see if there ARE jobs first, and then if they just want to give up on their job now.

What would probably be better in the long run, is organizing to take control of you're workplace.

Name one direct competitor of Walmart (e.g. Target, Kmart and etc.) that has gone this union labor route or offers significantly better pay/benefits. Remember that Walmart is a high volume, discount store, not a high end outlet that has a huge mark-up or profit margin.
 
Name one direct competitor of Walmart (e.g. Target, Kmart and etc.) that has gone this union labor route or offers significantly better pay/benefits. Remember that Walmart is a high volume, discount store, not a high end outlet that has a huge mark-up or profit margin.

The competitor dosen't go the union route, the workers do, and the examples I would give are retail workers in europe, that are more Unionized.

Also Walmart, as I said before, could raise everyones wages 30%, and change nothing else and still be profitable.
 
The competitor dosen't go the union route, the workers do, and the examples I would give are retail workers in europe, that are more Unionized.

Also Walmart, as I said before, could raise everyones wages 30%, and change nothing else and still be profitable.

Nonsense. Walmart cannot unilaterally raise its wages by 30% and remain competitive within its market. You obviously misunderstand what constitutes a discount retail outlet. Walmart's net profit margin is now about 3.5%, and I am sure that labor costs are more than 10% of its operating expenses.

See link: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) | Profitability
 
I know this isn't a direct competitor, but how about Costco? I hear they pay better.... If they have a different philosophy that works for them and for the employees, certainly that is their choice.
From what I see of WalMart employees, there are a lot of them who would never get hired anywhere else based on age alone. They need a job, Walmart gave them a job, but in no way is Walmart supposed to create a parallel nanny state to do what the government is already doing and that probably shouldn't be done anyway. The more you take care of people, the less motivated they are.
I can see that in my younger brother, the proverbial baby of the family, and I know several people who have the same baby in their families.
God help the USA if we were to substantially increase our percentage of "babies" further than it is already.
Those who can't take care of themselves, we should help.
Those who just don't want to take care of themselves, need to be kicked in the butt.
 
The competitor dosen't go the union route, the workers do, and the examples I would give are retail workers in europe, that are more Unionized.

Also Walmart, as I said before, could raise everyones wages 30%, and change nothing else and still be profitable.

The competitor does go the union route if the employees force the issue, it just isn't by management's choice.
The only thing I see some of these stores doing that seems unfair is the minimizing of full time workers by hiring so many part time workers.
If a person comes in looking for part time, wants part time, fine for everybody.
Health care and retirement benefits should not be provided by the employer. They should pay the employee what those benefits cost the company, and let the employee decide where he gets his or her health care and retirement plans...that way the employee owns the plan, instead of the company owning the plans....
 
Actually they don't need "you". They just need someone to do the job. And there is always someone willing to work that job at the pay they offer. If there wasn't then they would just increase the pay rate until someone did take the job. That's how the market works.

Sure, you can create a situation where people will work for low, low wages. See the rest of the world. But again, is that desirable? We enjoy a high standard of living. We can lower that. Sure. But that too has consequences.
 
Easy to say since jobs today are so ****ing plentiful :roll:

Indeed. It would seem that labor at current is more expensive than it is often worth. So our solution to this is to make it more expensive?


Didn't anyone else notice that Wal-Mart and everyone else started adding in all those self-check-out lines after Congress last raised the minimum wage?
 
Sure, you can create a situation where people will work for low, low wages. See the rest of the world. But again, is that desirable?
Since the option is not to work at all, absolutely.
 
Indeed. It would seem that labor at current is more expensive than it is often worth. So our solution to this is to make it more expensive?


Didn't anyone else notice that Wal-Mart and everyone else started adding in all those self-check-out lines after Congress last raised the minimum wage?
i don't use them personally if i can avoid it.
 
i don't use them personally if i can avoid it.

I'm sure that's nice for you. But for lower-income families like mine, Wal-Mart was a huge saver.
 
Sure, you can create a situation where people will work for low, low wages. See the rest of the world. But again, is that desirable? We enjoy a high standard of living. We can lower that. Sure. But that too has consequences.
the consequences will be people will only be able to afford the basics(if that)...there will be no ependable income, businesses will go belly up because people have no income to spend on 'extras'....more people on the dole, more bitching by those on the right about 'entitlements', more bitching about unemployment benefits...oh joy.....
 
I'm sure that's nice for you. But for lower-income families like mine, Wal-Mart was a huge saver.
it is, as i know that those machines cost someone a job....if given the choice, i will always pick a human to scan my merchandise.
 
it is, as i know that those machines cost someone a job....if given the choice, i will always pick a human to scan my merchandise.

That argument is as false now as it was when it was originally made in the Industrial Revolution. Machines do not net cost jobs - by increasing relative productivity they increase net jobs. In this particular case, it was government that cost jobs by causing machines to suddenly have greater relative productivity than workers.
 
That argument is as false now as it was when it was originally made in the Industrial Revolution. Machines do not net cost jobs - by increasing relative productivity they increase net jobs. In this particular case, it was government that cost jobs by causing machines to suddenly have greater relative productivity than workers.
disagree, that machine produces no product, nor does it 'provide' a service, it allows the company to either not hire someone to man that aisle, or not schedule someone to run it. hence, costing someone a job or income.
 
I'm sure that's nice for you. But for lower-income families like mine, Wal-Mart was a huge saver.

that is a point that so many miss....WalMart prices are not just lower, they are a LOT lower.
If you are living on low wages from where-ever, WalMart is the place to go. They are consistently cheaper, on the same items that the other stores carry. The difference is so much that it makes you wonder how the other stores can charge so much and still call themselves Discount stores...
 
the consequences will be people will only be able to afford the basics(if that)...there will be no ependable income, businesses will go belly up because people have no income to spend on 'extras'....more people on the dole, more bitching by those on the right about 'entitlements', more bitching about unemployment benefits...oh joy.....

What is wrong with that? That is exactly what the minimum wage is all about. The idea is to allow those with little or no job skills to survive, yet to encourage people to acquire more education/skills/job experience and increase their productivity/wages. If every McJob paid a "middle class" or "living wage" then there is far less incentive to accel. Working at a minimum wage, entry level position is designed to be a beginning, not an end.
 
Since the option is not to work at all, absolutely.

Yes, that is how the power is used. But that does not address if we really want to lower our standard of living. Do we really want to be closer to a third world country?
 
disagree, that machine produces no product, nor does it 'provide' a service, it allows the company to either not hire someone to man that aisle, or not schedule someone to run it. hence, costing someone a job or income.
Not to be a Luddite, but I can agree on this particular issue. I have Parkinson's, and it impacts my manual dexterity quite a bit. I drop things, so I want THEM to bag my groceries.....
 
disagree, that machine produces no product, nor does it 'provide' a service, it allows the company to either not hire someone to man that aisle, or not schedule someone to run it. hence, costing someone a job or income.

No, it frees up that labor to do other, more valuable things. What is the value added by having a person replace a machine? Does it help to have a housewife spend time doing the dishes by hand, or is it better to have a dishwashing machine, allowing that person to dedicate more time to other tasks, such as helping their children learn or play more safely?
 
the consequences will be people will only be able to afford the basics(if that)...there will be no ependable income, businesses will go belly up because people have no income to spend on 'extras'....more people on the dole, more bitching by those on the right about 'entitlements', more bitching about unemployment benefits...oh joy.....
Retail has always been low paying, part time entry level work, and always will be, so you can drop the drama. The sky will not fall if WalMart employees only make $10 per hour.
 
No, it frees up that labor to do other, more valuable things. What is the value added by having a person replace a machine? Does it help to have a housewife spend time doing the dishes by hand, or is it better to have a dishwashing machine allowing that person to dedicate more time to other tasks, such as helping their children learn or play more safely?
doesnt work that way, that 'labor', that 'person' who would have been there to run that aisle, isnt utilized...they don't work, and whatever duties they would have had, are added on to those who do work that day.
 
Back
Top Bottom