Walmart workers demand better wages

Kal'Stang said:

Nothing new here. Any buisness, big or small, would do the same thing.

1: How many other private companies do you know offers thier employee's scholarships?
2: Wal-Mart doesn't even have to offer any scholarships. There is no reason that they should have to offer it at all.

Considering that Wal-Mart doesn't have to pay an employee sick time at all I'd say that this is pretty generous. Nor does Wal-Mart have to pay vacation time. I do not get paid vacation time, nor do I get 2 weeks off for vacation in my first year. I do after 2 years but I still don't get paid for that time off. What's the difference between me and those that work at Wal-Mart?

Are you under the assumption that people have a right to get paid for thier sick days when they are not providing any service to the company? Or during vacation time? See thats the difference between my position and yours. You want them to get paid for them doing nothing. I want to get paid for doing something and have nor problem for not getting paid when I don't do something.

That 2 days is personal days. It does not include sick time or vacation time. And if its by the year then that would be 4 days, not 2.

If those people want to make that much per year then perhaps they should start thier own buisness?

Click to expand...

Have I crossed over into the Twilight Zone? Every company I have ever worked for offered paid time off to full time employees. And the company I work for now offers assistance for higher education to its employees (not scholarships, it's a benefit extended to all full time employees), and long ago when I went to college, the company my mother worked for automatically gave me $1000 for enrolling, and it would have paid a percentage of the costs if she wanted to go.

The reason I'm saying Walmart should do these things, though, is not because I think all companies should offer sick pay and scholarships, it's because of the one part of my message that you failed to quote or respond to. The part about the average employee there making under $9 dollars per hour, which barely pays the rent for these people.

Regardless of what you want to claim, not all these people can go work somewhere else. They should extend the benefits I have at my job to their employees because they are barely getting by. I don't want them to "get paid for nothing." I want them to have opportunity and some manner of comfort if they are working every bit as hard as their other Americans yet making $8 dollars an hour at the largest retail corporation in the United States, a business who has seen their revenues increase every single year.

randel said:

like i said, everything in my post is correct....the employees in the shop ARE THE UNION.

Click to expand...

And when they compile their demands not on what is best for the long term outlook on their own jobs, but rather what goodies they can force the company to cede to them, whether or not it would hurt the company in the long run, they take the very ignorant, short sighted view, and later end up without what they bargained for....Ask Hostess, Ask Bethlehem Steel, Ask any of the former union members now on the line with nothing but a $50 stipend from the union, and a "gee we're sorry".... Suckers.

Mustachio said:

Have I crossed over into the Twilight Zone? Every company I have ever worked for offered paid time off to full time employees. And the company I work for now offers assistance for higher education to its employees (not scholarships, it's a benefit extended to all full time employees), and long ago when I went to college, the company my mother worked for automatically gave me $1000 for enrolling, and it would have paid a percentage of the costs if she wanted to go.

The reason I'm saying Walmart should do these things, though, is not because I think all companies should offer sick pay and scholarships, it's because of the one part of my message that you failed to quote or respond to. The part about the average employee there making under $9 dollars per hour, which barely pays the rent for these people.

Regardless of what you want to claim, not all these people can go work somewhere else. They should extend the benefits I have at my job to their employees because they are barely getting by. I don't want them to "get paid for nothing." I want them to have opportunity and some manner of comfort if they are working every bit as hard as their other Americans yet making $8 dollars an hour at the largest retail corporation in the United States, a business who has seen their revenues increase every single year.

Click to expand...

If people stopped applying for jobs at walmart they would be forced to raise pay and/or benefits. Supply and demand are not always nice to the unskilled----thats just life, if you don't like it increase your skills or get some education, work harder than the next guy and move into management.

your argument makes all people sound like incompetent dufusses.

This whole thread makes me question how old RGacky is. Anyone can do what the Walton family does?

Anyone can do what the Walton family does? Usually it's the 15 year old "basement socialists" who violently masturbate to Das Kapital that think CEOs are do-nothings that take 3 hour lunches and have 10am tee times at the country club. How anyone can have this mentality and reserve enough brain activity to use small tools and walk in a straight line is beyond me.

Mustachio said:

Have I crossed over into the Twilight Zone? Every company I have ever worked for offered paid time off to full time employees. And the company I work for now offers assistance for higher education to its employees (not scholarships, it's a benefit extended to all full time employees), and long ago when I went to college, the company my mother worked for automatically gave me $1000 for enrolling, and it would have paid a percentage of the costs if she wanted to go.

The reason I'm saying Walmart should do these things, though, is not because I think all companies should offer sick pay and scholarships, it's because of the one part of my message that you failed to quote or respond to. The part about the average employee there making under $9 dollars per hour, which barely pays the rent for these people.

Regardless of what you want to claim, not all these people can go work somewhere else. They should extend the benefits I have at my job to their employees because they are barely getting by. I don't want them to "get paid for nothing." I want them to have opportunity and some manner of comfort if they are working every bit as hard as their other Americans yet making $8 dollars an hour at the largest retail corporation in the United States, a business who has seen their revenues increase every single year.

Click to expand...

Businesses don't compensate people the way they do in order to be charitable, to make their lives more fair, or for any other such altruistic reason.

They do so solely out of their own self-interest. If offering generous extra benefits like scholarships or whatever makes people more devoted to the company and want to stick around and tolerate the undesirable aspects of the work, and if having low turnover is important to the type of work that it is, then in that case it would be in businesses' own best interests to compensate that work generously.

But for other businesses or other types of work, it might not make any difference to the company if their employees are devoted or not (i.e. if turnover is low or high), and therefore it makes no business sense whatsoever to generously compensate those folks with various altruistic, humanistic, peace-and-love types of benefits. A cart-pusher at Walmart has to be able-bodied and that's it. And there is a new round of 16-year olds coming through every year who don't need a living wage (they live with their parents, all bills paid), who can do the job just as adequately, as the older kids graduate and head off to college or whatever. There is an endless supply of expendable labor to do jobs that require virtually no training, skills or intelligence, and so almost NOTHING is lost to the company when that person quits, because there are countless more in line to do that mindless stuff.

Think about it as though you are paying a person out of your own wallet to carry your groceries inside for you. That poor bag carrier needs to pay his rent too, but it does not benefit you sufficiently to have your groceries carried inside by someone else to have to compensate him a "living wage."

Think about it like you're pulling the cash out of your own wallet.

Bobcat said:

Supply and demand are not always nice to the unskilled----thats just life, if you don't like it increase your skills or get some education, work harder than the next guy and move into management.

.

Click to expand...

bolded: and there you have it. there is an abundant supply of unskilled, uneducated people out there, way more than enough to meet the demand. If you want high wages...do something to elevate yourself out of the ranks of unskilled and uneducated. like I said earlier...if you are 40 years old and still stocking shelves at walmart...you need to take a hard look at yourself and determine why...instead of crying that walmart should pay you more for doing a job any 17 y/o HS dropout can perform equally well.

Boo Radley said:

This I fundamentally don't buy. A company is more than the owner. In fact the companies success depends as much or more on the employees than ti does the owner. The larger the company the more this is true.

Click to expand...

Its actually a bit more simpler than this. You've heard of the "Circle of Life" right? The same principle applies to any company unless that company is run by one person. You cannot have one with out the other. No matter how big the company is. Someone is always at the top and someone is always at the bottom. The one at the top always gets to dictate what the one at the bottom does and gets. Thats just simple life and applies to more than just buisnesses.

Boo Radley said:

And it's not half way through the job. Instead, there are scheduled times when they negotiate, which would be like the next time I took the car in. The mechanic, as happens, would inform me of the need to raise prices, and I would weight that against my needs and begin a negotiation (and yes, it is possible to negotiate).

Click to expand...

But it is half way through the job that we are talking about. The time to negotiate is when you have leverage. That is at the begining just before you are hired and when you have proven that you deserve more due to <insert valid reason here> while already employed. We are currently talking about the latter.

Let me consolidate my arguement here.

I have no problem with people asking for raises or more benefits, particularly when they actually deserve it. What I am highly against is any employee DEMANDING that they get more. The kind of thing that the OP showed was just that, a group of employee's demanding that they get more for no other reason than that they think they deserve more. Even going so far as to try and impact Wal-Marts profits by going on strike. That to me is nothing more than a form of extortion.

No company, no matter how big or how small, HAS to pay thier employee's more than minimum wage or give any benefits what so ever. Employee's have no right to more than what they negotiate for. What the company is willing to pay. Yes there is a lot of rhetoric about how companies should do this and should do that, but that is the thing, whether they should do something and whether they have to do something is two totally different things. And when people demand more than what the company is giving them as if they deserve it and as if they have a right to it there is something fundementally wrong with thier thinking. They are thinking as if without them the company could not go on, but that is wrong. Because someone will always be willing to do that job for the same amount, or less, than what that person is being paid/given by the company. Not to mention it is not thier company. If they really think that they can run that company just as "easy" as the owner then they should go out and make thier own buisness.

Do I think that Wal-Mart or other similar companies should pay thier employee's more? Yes I do. But that does not mean that I or they have a right to more...no matter how much the owner does or doesn't make. The owners of the company have a right to pay what they want to pay so long as it meets the federally mandated minimum wage. If they do not pay a certain amount then employee's will find other jobs or no one will want to work for them. That is the way the market works.

In summary, employee's have no right to more than what the employer is willing to pay. Demanding more as if they have a right to more is wrong. Asking for more is OK.

Mustachio said:

Have I crossed over into the Twilight Zone? Every company I have ever worked for offered paid time off to full time employees. And the company I work for now offers assistance for higher education to its employees (not scholarships, it's a benefit extended to all full time employees), and long ago when I went to college, the company my mother worked for automatically gave me $1000 for enrolling, and it would have paid a percentage of the costs if she wanted to go.

Click to expand...

You must not have worked for very many companies...or have been really lucky. There are literally hundreds of companies in the areas that I have worked that do not offer paid vacation time...even less that offer paid sick time and only 1 that has offered any sort of advanced education opportunities. This has nothing to do with the Twighlight Zone and everything to do with reality of living at the low end of the 47%. Hell, I just learned today that the company I work for is going to start hiring part time workers to avoid having to offer them insurance when Obamacare kicks in. And the reason for that is simple, the owner simply cannot afford to pay for it. And I have no gauruntee that my hours won't be cut to go along with. In order to survive I and my wife will have to find two jobs in order to keep up with the amount we are getting now.

Mustachio said:

The reason I'm saying Walmart should do these things, though, is not because I think all companies should offer sick pay and scholarships, it's because of the one part of my message that you failed to quote or respond to. The part about the average employee there making under $9 dollars per hour, which barely pays the rent for these people.

Click to expand...

I make 9.25/hr. Yet every year I pay my rent a year in advance. How do I do that? Tax returns....just saying.

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.

Mustachio said:

Regardless of what you want to claim, not all these people can go work somewhere else. They should extend the benefits I have at my job to their employees because they are barely getting by. I don't want them to "get paid for nothing." I want them to have opportunity and some manner of comfort if they are working every bit as hard as their other Americans yet making $8 dollars an hour at the largest retail corporation in the United States, a business who has seen their revenues increase every single year.

Click to expand...

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.

solletica said:

Never. If he wants to get a better waiting job, he needs to get to know the manager/employees of a better restaurant or their (Facebook) friends on a personal level.

Click to expand...

From my experience waiting tables in college, it did not work like this.

One thing that I've grown to be pissed off about is the term "liveable wage". Is there a more subjective economic term out there?

Apparently people are upset that a minimum wage job doesn't necessarily allow them a house, a new car in the driveway, and vacations every year.

Boo Radley said:

Yes, we. If the work force wanted trained individuals, they'd make sure they had them. As a nation, if we valued education of this sort, people would be educated so. While you're trying to suggest I'm taking individual responsibility away, you're wrong. We all hold individual responsibility. And nothing takes that away. But we also hold communal responsibility. As a community, we can make it easier or harder. Left up to nothing but the individual, fewer will get there. We know that. It's how the bell curve works. So, when we have not enough, as you suggest, all of us, including business can throw up our hands and say, too bad. Or we can act to help increase the number. It's not socialism. It's not removing personal responsibility. And it is kind of silly to suggest either, Instead it is merely problem solving. Something good CEOs do.

Click to expand...

Actually, many business and professions do want trained individuals. There are shortages of Nurses, Engineers in some fields, Doctors in some specialties and in many other fields. However they don't go out to a high school and hand out scholarships to kids that say they want to pursue a profession. Instead, they wait for the individuals with the drive and discipline to achieve a basic skill set before they fess up the cash for schooling. Companies hire Engineers and scientist from schools every year and pay for their education up to Doctorate levels. Some healthcare companies/hospitals pay all or some of the student loan debt to attract desirable skilled nurses and doctors. Car Companies spend Billions sending technicians to specialized and advanced training. But in almost each and ever case, except the military, those individuals are the top performers in their chosen field during school and put forth the effort to achieve basic skills first. Many, Many companies offer educational opportunities for those who wish to move up in a company. But, the individuals must show potential, loyalty and good work habits first. They must choose as individuals to build the foundation upon which more can be built.

By "communal responsibility" I can only assume you are referring to basic schooling K-12. That is a whole topic in and of itself and generally, making things easier does not return the best results. But since the decline of that institution, Public Schools, is directly caused by policies pursued and implemented by your Liberals, we need to change liberal thinking about education before we can actually fix education.

Bobcat said:

the union decline in the textile and shipbuilding industires was because those jobs no longer existed---the union destroyed those jobs by making those industries unprofitable in the USA.

Click to expand...

No ... the Union decline happened AND THEN those jobs moved ....

Kal'Stang said:

They are democratically accountable here in the states too. The union bosses get elected. Problem being is that people are too stupid or too partisan to actually look at the truth. So the same union bosses keep getting elected over and over and over. Just like politicians.

And yes they are greedy. This was evidence by the fact that 18,000 employees lost thier jobs while them union bosses still have thier jobs. After all, a Union often covers more than just one company. If they had actually cared about the employees then they would have allowed them to go back to work before the deadline. They may not get the billions that Wal-Mart or the like get, but they still get more than their average worker.
.

Click to expand...

There are many problems that exist in many unions democratic process yeah ...

As far as them being greedy because they were not fired .... Union bosses are not employed by the people that fired those workers ... they are elected, the Union bosses didn't fire those workers.

As far as them getting more than the average worker, as I said ... that doesn't equate greed and its democratically acountable. As far as going to work beforethe deadline, thats industrial action strategy, its difficult, and they didn't win in that situation.

Kal'Stang said:

Of course you don't want to talk about thier father. It would quite easily show that your position was wrong if you did.

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't, that would be a different discussion.

And there are different types of work. There's the kind of work that uses your back and arms every day. There's the mental kind of work that may not drain you physically but certainly drains you mentally...and can even be more dangerous than physical work. I doubt very seriously that you could handle a corporation like Wal-Mart.

Click to expand...

Sure ... but they arn't being paid for mental labor, they are being paid for just controling capital, if they do management work, its fine to get compensation for that, but just owning capital isn't labor, and most of their money comes from just controlling capital.

And no vote is needed. They are not a democracy. And besides, mob rule should NEVER be followed. Mob rule tramples peoples individual rights. Which is far more important than collective rights.

Click to expand...

Thats bull****, it's not individual rights vrs collective rights ... Corporations are not individual entities, the are social entities and economics is a social activity, also its not mob rule, unless all democracy is mob rule, the difference is monarchy, i.e. either everyone in the corporation has a say or it's just the boss, i.e. democracy vrs dictatorship, this has nothing to do with individual rights, that's a strawman.

What about the individual right of the worker to have a say about what happens to the wealth he helps produce ... The point is a boss will pay himself the most amount possible and the workers the LEAST amount possible, thats not a meritocracy, a democracy is much of a meritocracy.

They why don't those managers chose thier own compensation? There is nothing saying that they have to work were they get payed less. All they have to do is ASK for more or find another job. Just like any other employee.

Click to expand...

Because the work in a cooperative ... I don't get you're point?

Not always. Not to mention you don't have to move to quit a job and find another.

Click to expand...

You have to move from the place where you spend most of the day ... yeah.

j-mac said:

And when they compile their demands not on what is best for the long term outlook on their own jobs, but rather what goodies they can force the company to cede to them, whether or not it would hurt the company in the long run, they take the very ignorant, short sighted view, and later end up without what they bargained for....Ask Hostess, Ask Bethlehem Steel, Ask any of the former union members now on the line with nothing but a $50 stipend from the union, and a "gee we're sorry".... Suckers.

Click to expand...

You know what I find more funny than anything else, employers don't complain when their benefits package becomes inefficient, they simply price the market for better options for their employees, they don't piss and moan when it comes time to sign the paycheck for their employees, but yet the employees always gripe about work hours, their paycheck, benefits, etc.

Seems to me in this economy employees should be happy with employment right now. In fact, last thing, the employers suffer most when the market is down.......rarely does the pay reflect in that, rarely are there pay cuts but rather less employees and less hours per........that's life, and it's life in a down market especially.

Gipper said:

One thing that I've grown to be pissed off about is the term "liveable wage". Is there a more subjective economic term out there?

Apparently people are upset that a minimum wage job doesn't necessarily allow them a house, a new car in the driveway, and vacations every year.

Click to expand...

apparently some people are upset that a janitor doesn't have the same standard of living as a brain surgeon

Neomalthusian said:

No one is forced to ignore any externalities. Man your arguments sure do require some hard spin.

Click to expand...

You are not literally forced, but it's kind of game theory, its only a negative to pick up the externality for yourself unless everyone else does it as well, which takes massaive collective effort.

If people are stupid and hypocritical enough to lambaste Walmart for cost-minimizing at the same time as they SHOP AT WALMART to cost-minimize, then I could give a **** what they vote in some imagined poll about unionizing Walmart.

Click to expand...

Here is the mind of a conservative ... can't put 2 and 2 together and figure out. They see something they don't directly understand and they assume its just peoples personal failings.

Workers do not go for the cheapest just because of their dwindling disposable income. They go for the cheapest because it is rational. Raise their minimum wage and they will still deal-seek. It is in everyone's rational best interests to maximize benefit while minimizing cost. So yeah, let the morons think that unionizing Walmart will make the country better. At the very best it would result in no gain. All their prices for "the cheapest" will rise, so they will be paying directly for that idea, and will be no better off. In fact they'll be worse off because they can buy less Asian-made plastic ****.

Click to expand...

It is rational .... but it leads to externalities that ruin the economy, externalities that no one wants, but it is irrational to take into account unless everyone else does. Also its been shown over and over again that the prices would not rise significantly and that the wage increases would outweigh ANY price increase (a price increase that probably won't happen), and we have empirical evidence for unions raising living standards.

OscarB63 said:

apparently some people are upset that a janitor doesn't have the same standard of living as a brain surgeon

Click to expand...

And we get back to the supply and demand of labor. I can always find a janitor, brain surgeons are few and far between. The brain surgeon has a much better chance at being a good janitor than the other way around in a job switch.

VanceMack said:

They are whining because they are working a low skilled job for decent wages, given an opportunity to advance where they would NEVER had such opportunities, and now want more. they think they are 'entitled' to more. Sorry...no dice. Low skilled retail jobs universally pay about the same whether you work for Dans Dime Store, Maverick, or WalMart. You dont get to bleat on for higher pay because the owner of the store is successful.

YOU on the other hand are free to hire as many of them as you like and pay them whatever the **** you want. And you should. Now. Go and do.

Click to expand...

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

LaMidRighter said:

You know what I find more funny than anything else, employers don't complain when their benefits package becomes inefficient, they simply price the market for better options for their employees, they don't piss and moan when it comes time to sign the paycheck for their employees, but yet the employees always gripe about work hours, their paycheck, benefits, etc.

Seems to me in this economy employees should be happy with employment right now. In fact, last thing, the employers suffer most when the market is down.......rarely does the pay reflect in that, rarely are there pay cuts but rather less employees and less hours per........that's life, and it's life in a down market especially.

Click to expand...

My Father ran his own business my entire life (RIP).....I never heard him complain about paying his employees even when times were tough. In fact it was in those times that he fretted more about their welfare.

j-mac said:

My Father ran his own business my entire life (RIP).....I never heard him complain about paying his employees even when times were tough. In fact it was in those times that he fretted more about their welfare.

Click to expand...

Exactly, employees come first, I've known many businessmen who dipped into their own savings without the ability to pay themselves. They didn't once short an employee on pay, it's ethics. People confuse business best practices and market principle with "fairness" and it shows a severe lack of knowledge of both business and economics.

Bobcat said:

What did the unions do for the hostess workers? put them out of work---great job union bosses! Now those workers have no income and the union bosses are vacationing in the Cayman islands with their union dues.

Click to expand...

:roll:
Jesus, still playing the card that unions made Hostess fall?

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...

Riiiiight. So they should make more than a convenience store or fast food employee simply because the company does better. Sorry...non to low skilled jobs should get paid based on what the job deserves, not how successful the owners business model is. You on the other hand are free to start a business and pay employees whatever the **** you want. Let us all know how that works out.

VanceMack said:

Riiiiight. So they should make more than a convenience store or fast food employee simply because the company does better. Sorry...non to low skilled jobs should get paid based on what the job deserves, not how successful the owners business model is. You on the other hand are free to start a business and pay employees whatever the **** you want. Let us all know how that works out.

Click to expand...

What they "deserve"?
These people are the people that make Walmart function without them there would be no Walmart.

j-mac said:

And when they compile their demands not on what is best for the long term outlook on their own jobs, but rather what goodies they can force the company to cede to them, whether or not it would hurt the company in the long run, they take the very ignorant, short sighted view, and later end up without what they bargained for....Ask Hostess, Ask Bethlehem Steel, Ask any of the former union members now on the line with nothing but a $50 stipend from the union, and a "gee we're sorry".... Suckers.

Click to expand...

you speak on a subject you know little about.