• 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

The Union may or may not make more money depending on the costs .. the Union bosses ... probably not, unless the workers elected them to have a higher pay, and as for the customers, not necessarily, although walmart unionizing would put upward pressure on wages all around.

Unions don't infate prices higher than the wages they gain.

Your assuming
A: people are not saving any money
B: consumption for necessary goods are unlimited (they arn't you can only eat so much food, a middle class household won't buy extra houses if they have some extra cash)
C: Your assuming That supply won't meet demand (of coarse it will move in that direction)
D: Your also leaving out tons of other factors, for example people with disposable income and more time can shop around more, thus putting a downward pressure, or the fact that they don't spend extra money on things like food or electricity, but rather more luxury goods, or say the fact that higher wages may mean you only need one person working rather than 2 and so on and so forth."

And when people have money to spend you have an incentive for investment to meet that demand, thus all teh excess capacity gets put to use ... thats where the production comes from ... We HAVE excess capacity, get that through your head, the capital is there, but without demand there is no incentive to put people to work.

ridiculous--unions have no "costs". strike funds etc are funded by the members, the more members, the more money for the bosses. Why do you support making union bosses very rich? I thought you guys hated rich people.
 
Oh, I see!!! Now I understand!!! Companies don't create jobs!!! Jesus. Get a clue.

Some companies do, on net, create jobs. Some don't. Some even reduce the number of jobs... In fact, you already know this, so your derision toward me should now feel very hollow to you.

The assumption that just because a company is successful it creates jobs is just stupidly wrong.
 
ridiculous--unions have no "costs". strike funds etc are funded by the members, the more members, the more money for the bosses. Why do you support making union bosses very rich? I thought you guys hated rich people.

Yes they do, paying out union funds are costs ... also all the revenue comes from the members too, legal costs, logistics and so on.

Also what part of democtratically determined compensation don't you get.

Also no we don't hate rich people.
 
Well, since that's a very poor answer, I'll help you: Unions have been spreading misinformation about WalMart for years. They salivate at the thought of 1.5 million union members paying their $15-$20 a month into their organizations. They will say anything, do anything, lie, misinform and go to the ends of the earth to enroll them as dues' paying members. They hope that by getting that cork out of the bottle? They will be restored to greatness. I guess we'll see.
do you deny that walmart has screwed people out of overtime? do you deny the fact that walmart has been fined(a mere pittance to them) many, many times for being in violation of their employees right to unionize? misinformation? hardly
 
ridiculous--unions have no "costs". strike funds etc are funded by the members, the more members, the more money for the bosses. Why do you support making union bosses very rich? I thought you guys hated rich people.
your ignorance on this subject continues to show
 
So it just so happened that that "realization" came after Reagen stopped enforcing labor laws?

Also polls show that many many workers would LIKE to join a union but don't have that option.

Then why are the workers at non union car factories in the south getting good pay, good benefits, and good working conditions? why have they consistently rejected unions? Check into Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, BMW, Kia, Hyundai---all non union. Then look at GM and how the UAW is now part owner thanks to obama and in exchange for its money and support.
 
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.

Just what IS a low wage? Since you're comparing the US to other countries should we go by China where they get pennies on the dollar? Mexico? Iran? Our minimum wage alone easily tops thiers which by itself puts our poor people in a higher standard of living than those countries. So...whats your point again?
 
Most of your ideas are nothing more than business decisions, and the market should get to decide whether or not those decisions are correct or not. Walmart seems to have little problem filling their available employment spots, and there is no such thing as an employee that is not there of their own choosing.. Each employee voluntarily came came to the store and filled out the application form fully knowing the terms and conditions of their employment. As other have pointed out, you are not wed to a contract, and you have ample time to search elswhere where your services may be of more value. In addition, Walmart, like many other corportions, tend to promote from within where possibe, so your starting salary need not be your ending salary. In addition, I have heard that there are more millionaire employees at Walmart than any other American corporation. You just have to ride with the company to success.

I have no clue what corporate social responsibility is. If you mean that the corporation is somehow responsible for the welfare of their employees, then I would disagree. Everyone should be responsible for their own social and economic situations.

I would agree that whatever the customer perceives as value will be reflected in the success of the company. The fact is that the company is the largest and one of the most profitable companies in the country, and if the market chooses to go elsewhere, then the company will of necessity either adapt or fail.

Lastly, if you believe in your corporate model, you are free to start a competing retailer, and if your model more reflects the desires of the customer, then you should be proud to have been the one that brought Walmart. If you think that government intervention is the answer, then you will lose that right

If you dont know what CSR is, why on earth are you trying to talk about it with authority? Its not the idea that companies are responsible for the well being of the employees. Wal-Mart is getting bad PR from the wage issue. Wage compression (where all employees approach the same wage due to the minimum wage increases erasing wage increases that were earned) is something every company needs to have an HR department looking at to avoid exactly what Wal-Mart is having issues with right now.

Being largest means less adaptability. Means the best economies of scale but the least amount of agility to effect change and make significant shifts in company policy because of the sheer amount of size involved.

I dont believe in either corporatism or government intervention. I believe in free markets. Corportism is something Wal-Mart excels and they extract competitive advantages from communities all the time. They are now getting community pushback, it happens when you use the community to get what you want, eventually the community will use you to get what they want. Minimum wage, labor and union laws are all part of that. Im not saying whether I agree or disagree with any of that, but we dont have anything resembling free markets right now.
 
Then why are the workers at non union car factories in the south getting good pay, good benefits, and good working conditions? why have they consistently rejected unions? Check into Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, BMW, Kia, Hyundai---all non union. Then look at GM and how the UAW is now part owner thanks to obama and in exchange for its money and support.

ALl of those shops are Union in Japan and Germany, infact in Germany those companies actually vote in half of the board of directors.

Btw, which part do you disagree with about the 80s and 90s and outsourcing?
 
Yes they do, paying out union funds are costs ... also all the revenue comes from the members too, legal costs, logistics and so on.

Also what part of democtratically determined compensation don't you get.

Also no we don't hate rich people.



Right, you only hate conservative rich people, you love rich hollywood types and rappers---and of course union bosses. you left wingers are hypocrisy in action.
 
Exactly how is the government subsidizing walmart? before you answer look up the word "subsidy"
I didnt say they were. I was just responding to anothers posters claim.
 
Right, you only hate conservative rich people, you love rich hollywood types and rappers---and of course union bosses. you left wingers are hypocrisy in action.

... I don't HATE any of them ...
 
ALl of those shops are Union in Japan and Germany, infact in Germany those companies actually vote in half of the board of directors.

Btw, which part do you disagree with about the 80s and 90s and outsourcing?

Reagan did not fail to enforce labor laws, the only possible exception was when he fired the air traffic controllers for an illegal strike of a government employee union.
 
Reagan did not fail to enforce labor laws, the only possible exception was when he fired the air traffic controllers for an illegal strike of a government employee union.

When you're denying plain facts I don't know what to argue ... Reagens department of labor basically allowed companies to do whatever they want ...
 
I think it's because I see it not being "the people" who are asking for better working conditions. I see it as "the union" pushing from the top down...instead of the workers pulling from the bottom up.

Websites paid for by unions are continually reporting mis-information . . . tried to disrupt the company's business this last weekend . . . conducting a huge media blitz against WalMart . . . busing in what I must assume are "bought-and-paid-for demonstrators" . . . why? Because they are salivating at the thought of 1.5 million unionized WalMart workers paying $20-$25 a month in union dues. They have no altruistic intent. As usual? It's all about the money.

Ultimately it would be the Wal-Mart workers who decide whether to unionize or not. Greed and money are also the motivator for Wal-Mart and their long held anti-union stance.
 
Ok, you just want to punish them for their success.

No, I want to have an institutional framework for the economy that works for everyone.
 
Well, since that's a very poor answer, I'll help you: Unions have been spreading misinformation about WalMart for years. They salivate at the thought of 1.5 million union members paying their $15-$20 a month into their organizations. They will say anything, do anything, lie, misinform and go to the ends of the earth to enroll them as dues' paying members. They hope that by getting that cork out of the bottle? They will be restored to greatness. I guess we'll see.

For your penance say ten Hail Mary's and ten Our Fathers and please try to avoid these sins again.
 
For your penance say ten Hail Mary's and ten Our Fathers and please try to avoid these sins again.

I always had to stop at the "and lead a snot into temptation...."

Never did understand that. Didn't like it then. Don't like it now.

(Don't mind me, I'm checking the Edit Feature for a thread in Feedback.)
 
When you're denying plain facts I don't know what to argue ... Reagens department of labor basically allowed companies to do whatever they want ...

Exactly...people always talk about actual legislation but one of the biggest ways the Executive branch wields power is who it puts in charge of different agencies and boards. The NLRB was stacked with corporate heads and the backlog of cases grew exponentially as they not only sided with management on the majority of cases but just didn't hear very many cases.

If you're a worker fired because you tried to organize your workplace how long exactly do you have to wait before your case is heard? It doesn't take long for people to realize that if you get fired due to illegal activity it doesn't mean jack if you have to wait years or never get your date in front of the board.
 
You have absolutely nothing to base this on, but you "must assume" all of it anyway.

Get a job at WalMart. Then tell me how peachy you think they have it. You've concocted this whole conspiracy theory from... what, exactly? What actual evidence do you have to support any of this?

I have worked at Wal-Mart and I can tell you that it isn't near as bad as its detractors say.
 
Yes, and the employer has no option but to raise prices to account for the higher labor cost---then he loses sales, and has to lay off workers----so who wins?

Have you followed what the unions did to Hostess?

Unions are just a part of any free market. Blaming unions for a firm's failure is like blaming gravity for massive items being heavy.

Hostess failed because it had lousy management that, for some strange reason, decided to hire union workers for jobs that anyone w/1/8 of a mind could do, and also created raunchy, low-quality uncompetitive products backed by poor marketing.
 
And wages go up overall when workers organize.

And then thier wages drop dramatically when that buisness goes out of buisness due to Union bullying. Just ask Hostess and the thousands of people that lost thier jobs due to union bosses.
 
Here's the downside. Unionizing Walmart will make prices go up somewhat. They can't let them go too high or other chains (Target, Costco, K-Mart, Online) will get the business. Employees will get lazier and over confident of not losing employment. Shareholders are paid lower dividends hurting investments and growth.

The upside could be that better paid employees are happier therefore work harder and make shopping at Walmart a more pleasant experience. The higher paid employees spend more helping stimulate economic growth and cause other chains to have to pay better salaries. Ultimately the company improves overall because of increased production.

Are both scenarios possible at the same time one offsetting the other, more or less?

Now Walmart claims they keep prices low so we can have more for better lives. Anybody really buying that line?

And how much more cheap toxic Chinese plastic inferior products do we need in our homes? Has Walmart finally peaked?
 
Back
Top Bottom