• 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

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...


No, "they" are not. 50 employees out of 1.4 million is nothing. I would say it is the union wanting in so that they can stave off disappearing from the US landscape.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps you can list your credentials to tell us all what qualifies you to judge who may or may not speak about a Wal Mart job let alone attack me for daring to comment about them?
Click to expand...

Having the prudent judgement to call over top, whiny hyperbole for what it is and discount the opinions of the person uttering as being without merit because they are not able to look at the problem realistically. Which would be you.

Quit whining about attacks, hit the triangle or shut it.
 
randel said:
no rebuttal needed, you are ignorant on the subject, and a waste of time to debate.
Click to expand...

:lamo We've started this discussion before, and usually you get mad and stomp off....I know plenty about unions, even was in one for about 4 years, so, all you show here randel, greenie, or what ever you wish to be called, is your own fear of taking on the subject.

go find someone more like minded, you'll be more comfortable there.
 
RGacky3 said:
There are many problems that exist in many unions democratic process yeah ...
Click to expand...

Common ground. ;)

RGacky3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats not what I was talking about. I was talking about the union bosses not losing thier jobs because they didn't work for Hostess even though thier employee's did. The union bosses have nothing to lose in situations like what happened with Hostess. Especially when they just do what you have done in this post. Put the blame somewhere else for those employee's losing thier jobs.

RGacky3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are only democratically accountable if the ones that elect them hold them accountable. But how can they hold them accountable when they are lied to? When they are so blind?

Bold: Do I detect a hint of acknowledgement that the union bosses lost those 18,000 people thier jobs?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What they "deserve"?
These people are the people that make Walmart function without them there would be no Walmart.
Click to expand...
And they are no to low skilled employees
that didnt prepare themselves for careers and should receive market value for their employment. In that WalMart you probably have a McDonalds or other fast food joint. They should get paid what fast food employees get paid. Right next door there is probably a video game store. They too should get paid about the same. You dont have some inane right to get paid better because the boss is successful. As to your comment that the employees make them successful...thats just mindless twaddle. You can say it about anyone that has a job in ANY market or field. It is irrelevant. You could fire every WalMart store employee tomorrow and be fully staffed and operational by Friday with another crop of unskilled candidates.

You on the other hand are free to start your own business and pay them GRAND wages. You should do that.
 
RGacky3 said:
They don't control the board ... they have HALF of the representation. If you don't think that makes a major difference on how the company is run I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

Amazing. Ok, German boards have a two tier determination system. The advisory tier has half representation from employees and half from the board of directors. On the other tier, where decisions are made, unions have representation but its not half, it varies from 10% to 40%, depending on the company.

If you are going to present information, please know what you are talking about before you double down on wrong.
 
VanceMack said:
...You dont have some inane right to get paid better because the boss is successful. As to your comment that the employees make them successful...thats just mindless twaddle....
Click to expand...


Quoted specifically for accuracy! Tell it brother! :clap:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What they "deserve"?
These people are the people that make Walmart function without them there would be no Walmart.
Click to expand...

Yes, what they deserve. That is what the labor market dictates must be paid to fill the position. In the case of those you wish to champion, that means that there are available, lets see, 25 Million plus welfarist also, so an unknown actual number but lets take the 25 million unemployed and divide it by the number of "associate" positions at WalMart, lets use the 1.4 million number of employees, I don't have a figure for just the associates. If Walmart Fired ever single one of them, there are still 18 unemployed people for each position opened, in such a labor market, minimum wage would suffice to draw in the needed employees and they currently pay more than minimum wage, guess the CEO should be fired for wasting profits by over paying those low level employees.

And they do not "make walmart" function. They are the least important and easiest replaced cogs in the works. Yes, they are, in their way essential to opperations, however, since there are actually millions of Americans that will work at any available job instead of staying on just welfare (something to do with Pride and selfrespect, I know that as a socialist you don't really understand those concepts, but they really do exist), thus, there is no fear of those positions being unfilled.
 
VanceMack said:
And they are no to low skilled employees
that didnt prepare themselves for careers and should receive market value for their employment. In that WalMart you probably have a McDonalds or other fast food joint. They should get paid what fast food employees get paid. Right next door there is probably a video game store. They too should get paid about the same. You dont have some inane right to get paid better because the boss is successful. As to your comment that the employees make them successful...thats just mindless twaddle. You can say it about anyone that has a job in ANY market or field. It is irrelevant. You could fire every WalMart store employee tomorrow and be fully staffed and operational by Friday with another crop of unskilled candidates.

You on the other hand are free to start your own business and pay them GRAND wages. You should do that.
Click to expand...

And what's the responsibility for the American corporations taking good paying jobs overseas when they were NOT losing a profit in this nation and GET lower tariffs to charge us over a 500% markup of what it cost them to manufacture? What are the responsibilities to corporations for this? Continued no to low tax rates here?
 
j-mac said:
:lamo We've started this discussion before, and usually you get mad and stomp off....I know plenty about unions, even was in one for about 4 years, so, all you show here randel, greenie, or what ever you wish to be called, is your own fear of taking on the subject.

go find someone more like minded, you'll be more comfortable there.
Click to expand...
funny, i seem to remember that you tend to get all pissy when facts are presented that don't agree with your world view....much as with any organization, you can be a 'member' for years and years , and still know nothing about it....this describes you perfectly...you may have been a 'member' of a union, but you know squat about them....now move along, this will be my last reply to you.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What they "deserve"?
These people are the people that make Walmart function without them there would be no Walmart.
Click to expand...
Oh no! Walmart would absolutely fail without greeters, cart pushers, and register workers. Upon further analysis, that fails horribly. Without carters a manager simply would have to do it, or customers could just park the cart in the little place for them and others could just grab one, Walmart has automated registers, even someone who manages the section, and half the time the greeters don't greet.........I can walk into a store without being greeted thankyouverymuch.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Oh no! Walmart would absolutely fail without greeters, cart pushers, and register workers. Upon further analysis, that fails horribly. Without carters a manager simply would have to do it, or customers could just park the cart in the little place for them and others could just grab one, Walmart has automated registers, even someone who manages the section, and half the time the greeters don't greet.........I can walk into a store without being greeted thankyouverymuch.
Click to expand...

Actually, they have dropped the greeter program, I was confused about it a first also, but greeters are gone. Damn, and there went my desired second career.
 
DVSentinel said:
Actually, they have dropped the greeter program, I was confused about it a first also, but greeters are gone. Damn, and there went my desired second career.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I had to bite the bullet and go to Walmart for something, there was a little old guy in the greeter uniform. Maybe a reciept checker?
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Something I've been saying (though some companies work well with a more egalitarian approach).

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.
Click to expand...

Which is when they are negotiating. Unions don't negotiate daily. They do that at regular intervals. We'renot union here persay, but we negotiate a new contract yearly. And while a new employee may be starting at the time, they do get the benefit of whatever is negotiated. But, there is nothing midway through the job that anyone is advocating.

Nor is anyone saying they have to pay anyone anything. Merely saying that barganinig collectively is worhtwhile and valid. And that any company that has such a disparity between the CEO pay and the average worker, more than historcial, and more than the rest of the world, has their priorities out of wack. No law against being stupid to be sure, but calling stupid stupid is appropriate.
 
randel said:
no rebuttal needed, you are ignorant on the subject, and a waste of time to debate.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, we end a lot of debate here if anyone debating had to know anything about the subject matter. It's the nature of this type of forum. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Well to be fair, we end a lot of debate here if anyone debating had to know anything about the subject matter. It's the nature of this type of forum. ;)
Click to expand...
true enough........
 
Muddy Creek said:
And what's the responsibility for the American corporations taking good paying jobs overseas when they were NOT losing a profit in this nation and GET lower tariffs to charge us over a 500% markup of what it cost them to manufacture? What are the responsibilities to corporations for this? Continued no to low tax rates here?
Click to expand...
Why cant I find a decent mustard from street vendors in Philadelphia?

Or...you can NOT try to divert one argument with another. WALMART is not exporting jobs and thats NOT what we are talking about. Now...we can talk all day long about reinvigorating the manufacturing base in this country (are ya ready to force labor and management to the table or simply kill off unions?), but thats a different conversation.
 
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. yes, there are some shortages, but business has from time to time reached out. At varies times when shorties have been bad, hosptials have apid tution to get people trained. They give money to schoold to build training centers. There's a nice one in Western Iowa, cost a fortune to build (unsure how it will be maintianed), but hospitals in two states help fund it, as well as giving money to train people.

More could be done by others.

And I should also note in our conversations with local business, some did express that they want more untrained workers, to pay low wages to, and not have them hope to grow or leave that low wage post. That distrubed me, but it was expressed (personal thought: I think this fuels lack of movement on illegal immigrantions).

And no, not just K-12. Business does parter with schools of all levels. Much in research and R&D comes through Universities. Business has been quite open to communal efforts that benefit them. In reality, only ideologues see a gaint split between the personal and the communal. Civics used to be required course and our children were taught to be part of the community, and not gated away. I don't think we've improved sinced those days, but maybe I'm just remembering it better than it was. In any case, the public and private does and always has overlapped.
 
Muddy Creek said:
And what's the responsibility for the American corporations taking good paying jobs overseas when they were NOT losing a profit in this nation and GET lower tariffs to charge us over a 500% markup of what it cost them to manufacture? What are the responsibilities to corporations for this? Continued no to low tax rates here?
Click to expand...

The primary responsibility of an company is to make a profit. First rule of economics.(ok, my first rule, never actually took an economics class). Profit is fount that makes all else possible.

If I run a company, why would I pay Americans to do simple, low skill labor at first world labor costs instead of hiring someone like Indians or Chinese to do it for Less than 10% of an American laborer, (What is shipping costs, maybe another 10% or so?) so in total I can get the same product made for less than 20% the cost of the American worker, and that doesn't even add in cost associated with OSHA, EPA and management of their programs. Why should I hire that American worker, especially in non right to work states where I also have to deal with unions, work stoppages, strikes and reduced ability to rid myself of ineffectual workers? To make matters worse, the defect rate from those 3rd world countries will still be less than 10% over that high cost American labor.

So if American workers want those jobs, then they should do them at a compatible labor rate or with a high enough quality difference to make the product worth the extra costs.

As to moving good paying jobs overseas, what good paying jobs are you talking about? Maybe you are talking about jobs like in the steal industry or auto industry where unions have forced low-skill labor to cost more than skilled labor elsewhere and in other industries. It would help to keep some of those jobs in America if those companies were allowed to relocate Union jobs to Right to work states and lower their costs by cutting out the Unions. But the National Labor Board is not about to let that happen so the only other choice is outsourcing.

What company that was not experiencing reduced sales and profits have moved work overseas? Microsoft maybe. But even then, it is mainly low skill labor that was moved, not higher skill, higher educated jobs. But then again, in my opinion, anyone stupid enough to still be using Microsoft software deserves ever virus, piece of maleware and spyware they receive.
 
randel said:
funny, i seem to remember that you tend to get all pissy when facts are presented that don't agree with your world view....much as with any organization, you can be a 'member' for years and years , and still know nothing about it....this describes you perfectly...you may have been a 'member' of a union, but you know squat about them....now move along, this will be my last reply to you.
Click to expand...


I understand. You can't win the argument so run away....Better for the board anyway that you do.
 
VanceMack said:
Why cant I find a decent mustard from street vendors in Philadelphia?

Or...you can NOT try to divert one argument with another. WALMART is not exporting jobs and thats NOT what we are talking about. Now...we can talk all day long about reinvigorating the manufacturing base in this country (are ya ready to force labor and management to the table or simply kill off unions?), but thats a different conversation.
Click to expand...


Wal-Mart SUPPORTS the outsourcing of jobs with what they sell. They made $3.6 billion dollars and the Waltons did NOTHING to contribute to that. We DON'T have jobs in this nation which support families. THAT'S a fact which makes OUTSOURCING the center of this argument. Unionize Wal-Mart for liveable wages and full-time employment with the offering of affordable health care and STOP wal-Mart draining the food stamps and Medicaid from states.
 
DVSentinel said:
The primary responsibility of an company is to make a profit. First rule of economics.(ok, my first rule, never actually took an economics class). Profit is fount that makes all else possible.

If I run a company, why would I pay Americans to do simple, low skill labor at first world labor costs instead of hiring someone like Indians or Chinese to do it for Less than 10% of an American laborer, (What is shipping costs, maybe another 10% or so?) so in total I can get the same product made for less than 20% the cost of the American worker, and that doesn't even add in cost associated with OSHA, EPA and management of their programs. Why should I hire that American worker, especially in non right to work states where I also have to deal with unions, work stoppages, strikes and reduced ability to rid myself of ineffectual workers? To make matters worse, the defect rate from those 3rd world countries will still be less than 10% over that high cost American labor.

So if American workers want those jobs, then they should do them at a compatible labor rate or with a high enough quality difference to make the product worth the extra costs.

As to moving good paying jobs overseas, what good paying jobs are you talking about? Maybe you are talking about jobs like in the steal industry or auto industry where unions have forced low-skill labor to cost more than skilled labor elsewhere and in other industries. It would help to keep some of those jobs in America if those companies were allowed to relocate Union jobs to Right to work states and lower their costs by cutting out the Unions. But the National Labor Board is not about to let that happen so the only other choice is outsourcing.

What company that was not experiencing reduced sales and profits have moved work overseas? Microsoft maybe. But even then, it is mainly low skill labor that was moved, not higher skill, higher educated jobs. But then again, in my opinion, anyone stupid enough to still be using Microsoft software deserves ever virus, piece of maleware and spyware they receive.
Click to expand...

This has ONLY been the rule of law since the republicans have destroyed many labor laws in this nation.

The first rule of capitalism is COMPETITION. This was removed by republcians under Reagan and all we have are price fixing and gouging from monopolies. Wal-Mart REMOVES competition from the market place and then has free reign as sole employer in towns and has the republicans to help them with right to work laws and low wages.

You see, the "free market" is a buzz word for the upper 1% controlling more and it's failed this nation miserably. We have more poverty from these monopolies and anti-labor laws like we did in the 1880's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom