• 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

Kal'Stang said:
If the law is wrong I have no problem with that. People have the right to associate with whoever they want. If a law is made that makes it to where you no longer have that right then yes, it should be ignored.
Click to expand...

The question is: What is the law?
 
j-mac said:
Who said I have to be objective? I notice you don't dispute it...
Click to expand...

J, it is never profitable to dance with silliness. I've tried to tell you that before. When you say something that means something, that has a real and honest point, I'd love to have a debate with you.

:coffeepap
 
Cilogy said:
What baffles me is that people still try to find work there despite Walmart's pretty terrible reputation with employment and employee benefits.
Click to expand...

Not very baffling at all. People with even a modicum of self-respect and self-worth will seek employment instead of living off of welfare. Not to mention that after Welfare Reforms, people were required to seek employment at times in order to keep their welfare, at least they were until Obama illegally suspended welfare reform. Welfare reform and mandated benefits, along with many other factors, killed off the hiring and advancement to full-time positions.

Also if you are limited to low-skill, low-wage jobs, Walmart actually pays better than many other companies that hire from the same labor market. If you are a welfarist just doing the minimum to restart you welfare, then walmarts turnover rate indicates it is a good place to seek your mandated work time as you will likely spend less time having to work instead of being on welfare than at some other jobs. If you are seeking to move up, walmart really doesn't do that bad of a job of advancing valued employees. Through Family and on my own, I have come into contact or know of several people with walmart that started out at the bottom and worked their way up.

Some of it's reputation may be deserved, but a lot of it is there because it rises from the lowest tier of labor. It is very hard for any company to wade through the chaff of the dregs of society mixed in with those who are naturally at the entry level and try to pull the valuable out of the morass. Sometimes, because there is a limit to how many they can advance, so valuable workers get lost in the mess and don't rise because there are no available positions to rise to. Walmart is not really any different than other companies that draw from the bottom of the labor pool, they are just the largest, so they get drug out for public condemnation.
 
RGacky3 said:
... No they arn't ... infact when unions are stronger job security is better.
Click to expand...

In the case of Hostess...yes they are responsible. They KNEW that if those workers did not get back to work then Hostess would have to liquidate. Yet they didn't let thier workers go back to work and because of that they lost thier job. So yeah, those union bosses were responsible for 18,000 employee's losing thier jobs.

I will agree that there is more job security for people with a union. Including for those that are crappy workers and should be fired. But the hassle of getting them fired is so damn onerous that it takes a lot to do it. Meanwhile that crappy worker is costing the company money.

Oh and btw, working hard is a form of job security also as they are much less likely to fire you than a crappy worker. Especially during rough times. Indeed if you are a hard worker and follow company guidelines you will never get fired.

RGacky3 said:
Yeah ... and kings can be voted out ... all you need is be be pope :roll:, If you're saying its a plutocracy then fine.
Click to expand...

This shows just how little you know of our system. Stocks are not just imaginary things. They are investments in a company. The more you have invested in a company the more you are able to have a say in what goes on in that company. If you own 51% of the shares of a company you can literally shut that company down and liquidate it. Doing this is often called a "corporate hostile takeover" because the person that was in charge gets ousted.

RGacky3 said:
I didn't say that .... You're claiming that all they do is lie ... give me a specific lie and I'll give you 10 that Walmart gives to its workers to avoid unionization.
Click to expand...

No, I claimed that they lie like politicians. Even politicians tell the truth when it suits them to. I've also never said that the CEO of Wal-Mart never lies.

Now...no comment on anything else I said in that post?
 
RGacky3 said:
... No they arn't ... infact when unions are stronger job security is better.
Click to expand...

Better for whom? The union worker? Sometimes. Society, never.

How good of job security is there for the Hostess employees now that the company has been forced into receivership and is being sold off due to the failure of unions to work with the company? How much job security is there for the union employees in various industry when their jobs are outsourced because labor costs are too high and quality of product too low?

Is it better for society that job security for a steal worker causes us not to adopt lighter weight, more efficient materials for construction, such as carbon fibers, carbon nano-tubes and ceramics which requires a higher skill set than those working with steal? Is it better for society that "job security" in existing technologies stops the advancement to newer technologies?

My cousin drives for a large company. His current truck has over a million miles on it and the company wants to by newer trucks. However, his union demands that the company buy from only a union manufacturer. Is it more cost effective for the company to continue maintaining that old truck instead of buying a new one from a Union shop? The company is going to do what is most cost effective for it. From an environmental or safety standpoint, the a new truck would be better, but by forcing the company to pay higher costs for a truck built by a union, it cannot replace the older trucks at a very high rate. This may be great for the guys and gals at the union plant building the truck, but what is the cost to the rest of us because of the policy?
 
Boo Radley said:
J, it is never profitable to dance with silliness. I've tried to tell you that before.
Click to expand...

I'm not here for your confessions, maybe you should try honest conversation instead of the silliness...

When you say something that means something, that has a real and honest point, I'd love to have a debate with you.
Click to expand...

Tell me where you think the analogy is wrong and we can start there....
 
j-mac said:
I'm not here for your confessions, maybe you should try honest conversation instead of the silliness...



Tell me where you think the analogy is wrong and we can start there....
Click to expand...

J, I not calling people thugs. I don't fight strawmen and battle with fascist conservatives.

Negotiating is not thuggery. Striking is not thuggery. When business used to send people to break legs of those trying to start a union that was thuggery. Don't be so hyperbolic. Just state clearly you think management should hold all the power. That's a fair stance. Some won't agree of course, but they can do without calling you a name.
 
Boo Radley said:
J, I not calling people thugs. I don't fight strawmen and battle with fascist conservatives.

Negotiating is not thuggery. Striking is not thuggery. When business used to send people to break legs of those trying to start a union that was thuggery. Don't be so hyperbolic. Just state clearly you think management should hold all the power. That's a fair stance. Some won't agree of course, but they can do without calling you a name.
Click to expand...

Striking may not be thuggery. But it IS extortion. It uses the threat of force and actual force and costs the company money and those that strike won't quit striking unless they get what they want. The very definition of extortion. Only this extortion is legal if you go by the law.

As far as pay goes, yes, the company SHOULD have all the power. It is thier money. The only part of it that is the employee's is the amount that they agreed to when they were hired.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Striking may not be thuggery. But it IS extortion. It uses the threat of force and actual force and costs the company money and those that strike won't quit striking unless they get what they want. The very definition of extortion. Only this extortion is legal if you go by the law.

As far as pay goes, yes, the company SHOULD have all the power. It is thier money. The only part of it that is the employee's is the amount that they agreed to when they were hired.
Click to expand...

No, it's a time honored practice of negotiation. Just as are lock outs and other ways in which both sides put pressure on the other.

And it is the worker's labor. They strike a deal, a negotiation. An employer will most always pay less than he should if he can get away with. And a employee will always want more than he should if he can get away with. It is better for both if they negotiate in good faith, and be less adversarial and more as partners. They need each other.
 
Boo Radley said:
J, I not calling people thugs. I don't fight strawmen and battle with fascist conservatives.
Click to expand...

Oh, so I am a 'fascist conservative' eh? Weak Joe, real weak.

Negotiating is not thuggery. Striking is not thuggery. When business used to send people to break legs of those trying to start a union that was thuggery. Don't be so hyperbolic.
Click to expand...

That is purely laughable Joe...You have to go all the way back 100 + years to come up with your hyperbole, and then blame me as being hyperbolic....Unions use strikes as threat toward business, and in the modern times we live in safety, and other concerns that made unions necessary in the beginning have given way to basically extortion for more and more pay, and pensions that they know full well could never be sustained. That is a mobster tactic all the way.

Just state clearly you think management should hold all the power. That's a fair stance. Some won't agree of course, but they can do without calling you a name.
Click to expand...

Why? You couldn't in this very post. Anyway, I don't think that Unions couldn't serve a purpose in today's world, maybe not in the US, but surely in other parts of the world. But the problem is that they get greedy, and couldn't care less if the business lasts for the long run.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it's a time honored practice of negotiation. Just as are lock outs and other ways in which both sides put pressure on the other.
Click to expand...

Nuclear missiles and Nuclear armed stealth bombers have been a good negotiating tool also, still doesn't make it a good way to go.

Boo Radley said:
And it is the worker's labor. They strike a deal, a negotiation. An employer will most always pay less than he should if he can get away with. And a employee will always want more than he should if he can get away with. It is better for both if they negotiate in good faith, and be less adversarial and more as partners. They need each other.
Click to expand...

It is only the "worker's labor" if the company feels like paying the worker for that labor, otherwise, it's the workers time in the unemployment line and the person that accepts what is offered by the company has a job.

A company never pays less than it "should". It should only have to pay the amount necessary to get and keep a quality worker, and only to quality workers, based upon skill level needed, skill availability in the labor market, training required to attain the needed skill and the economic needs/desires of the company.

Labor is a competitive market. Each person is their own product they are trying to sell. The company, just like individuals do, shops for the best deal available for their needs/wants. If worker A is too expensive, then they hire worker applicant b, etc. If the price for worker applicant B is acceptable but quality of the applicant, then they move on to worker applicant C. Just like a company has to balance the cost and the quality of it's products to compete in a market, a potential worker also has to do so. It is incumbent upon the individual applying and seeking employment to meet the requirements to be employed, they company does not have change it's requirements unless it is unable to meet it's needs.

Unions are like a third party stepping in as saying that all products must have a minimum price to be purchased. How would you like it someone made it so that all food items must cost $5 minimum, regardless of quality? Wouldn't work for a product, doesn't work for labor because labor IS a product being marketed.

Frankly, companies should be able to fire striking workers. They were hired to do a job, they are not doing it, so fire them and hire someone else. Besides making labor cost more, Unions and a lot of Labor protection laws force companies into retaining extra, costly and non/low productive labor.

And all of those costs are passed on to consumers. In the end, a Union forces higher labor costs in one segment thus raising the cost of product A, workers needing or wanting to by product A must now make more money to afford that product, so the workers that make product B and C now want a raise also, so they force an increase in their labor cost, thus raising the cost for products B and C. Since the labor producing product A wanted the raise to afford more or better products B and C, even though they got the raise, they still cannot afford more or better products B and C because those laborers also got a raise. And so the cycle begins again, except for labor producing product X who was satisfied with their pay and benefits but products A, B and C now cost them more. Eventually, those producing product X will also have to have a raise or they cannot purchase the desired/needed levels of products A, B and C. If products A, B and C are necessities and product X is a luxury, eventually, product X will disappear because it is no longer affordable to the laborers making products A, B and C and the workers producing it now become unemployed.

How is this constant cycle of inflation good?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it's a time honored practice of negotiation. Just as are lock outs and other ways in which both sides put pressure on the other.
Click to expand...

It is not negotiation. Negotian means a give and take. Where one party offers something and the other side either agree's or comes up with a counter offer. That does not happen in a strike. Ever. Its whole purpose is to cause the company money until they give into a demand. Go look up the definition of of the words "strike" (as applied to a company), negotiation, and extortion. The definition of extortion will apply far more than negotiation.

Boo Radley said:
And it is the worker's labor. They strike a deal, a negotiation. An employer will most always pay less than he should if he can get away with. And a employee will always want more than he should if he can get away with. It is better for both if they negotiate in good faith, and be less adversarial and more as partners. They need each other.
Click to expand...

Bold: Yes it is the workers labor. But it is the owners company. And the company has a right to hire who they want and set the price that he/she is willing to pay for the labor involved. If the worker doesn't like it then there are other jobs out there. May not be the jobs that they want...but that is not the companies problem.

Underlined: If this were true then why doesn't Wal-Mart pay $7.25 an hour? They are not unionized so have no pressure to pay more than minimum wage from a union. So what keeps them paying more than minimum wage? Why doesn't my company pay minimum wage? All I do is take messages over a phone. Yet both companies pay at least 2 dollars above minimum wage. Indeed why don't all companies that are not unionized pay minimum wage? Now I'm not saying that companies won't pay the minimum that they can get away with. But it is not near as bad as your statement leads it to be.

Red: This is the truth.

Blue: A better phrasing perhaps would be that the companies and the workers should be more human and less greedy to each other.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, so I am a 'fascist conservative' eh? Weak Joe, real weak.
Click to expand...

If that is what you took away, you're having issue I likely can't help with here. No where do I say that. :rolls:

That is purely laughable Joe...You have to go all the way back 100 + years to come up with your hyperbole, and then blame me as being hyperbolic....Unions use strikes as threat toward business, and in the modern times we live in safety, and other concerns that made unions necessary in the beginning have given way to basically extortion for more and more pay, and pensions that they know full well could never be sustained. That is a mobster tactic all the way.
Click to expand...

Again, a compehrension issue. No where am I claiming anything like is goign on today. I see no thuggery anywhere. I merely wanted to show you want it looks like.

Why? You couldn't in this very post. Anyway, I don't think that Unions couldn't serve a purpose in today's world, maybe not in the US, but surely in other parts of the world. But the problem is that they get greedy, and couldn't care less if the business lasts for the long run.
Click to expand...

J, I've called no one a name. You seemed to have read something in that isn't there.
 
DVSentinel said:
Nuclear missiles and Nuclear armed stealth bombers have been a good negotiating tool also, still doesn't make it a good way to go.
Click to expand...

SOme ways are better than others, but we callthem what they are not what we want to paint them as.


It is only the "worker's labor" if the company feels like paying the worker for that labor, otherwise, it's the workers time in the unemployment line and the person that accepts what is offered by the company has a job.

A company never pays less than it "should". It should only have to pay the amount necessary to get and keep a quality worker, and only to quality workers, based upon skill level needed, skill availability in the labor market, training required to attain the needed skill and the economic needs/desires of the company.

Labor is a competitive market. Each person is their own product they are trying to sell. The company, just like individuals do, shops for the best deal available for their needs/wants. If worker A is too expensive, then they hire worker applicant b, etc. If the price for worker applicant B is acceptable but quality of the applicant, then they move on to worker applicant C. Just like a company has to balance the cost and the quality of it's products to compete in a market, a potential worker also has to do so. It is incumbent upon the individual applying and seeking employment to meet the requirements to be employed, they company does not have change it's requirements unless it is unable to meet it's needs.

Unions are like a third party stepping in as saying that all products must have a minimum price to be purchased. How would you like it someone made it so that all food items must cost $5 minimum, regardless of quality? Wouldn't work for a product, doesn't work for labor because labor IS a product being marketed.

Frankly, companies should be able to fire striking workers. They were hired to do a job, they are not doing it, so fire them and hire someone else. Besides making labor cost more, Unions and a lot of Labor protection laws force companies into retaining extra, costly and non/low productive labor.

And all of those costs are passed on to consumers. In the end, a Union forces higher labor costs in one segment thus raising the cost of product A, workers needing or wanting to by product A must now make more money to afford that product, so the workers that make product B and C now want a raise also, so they force an increase in their labor cost, thus raising the cost for products B and C. Since the labor producing product A wanted the raise to afford more or better products B and C, even though they got the raise, they still cannot afford more or better products B and C because those laborers also got a raise. And so the cycle begins again, except for labor producing product X who was satisfied with their pay and benefits but products A, B and C now cost them more. Eventually, those producing product X will also have to have a raise or they cannot purchase the desired/needed levels of products A, B and C. If products A, B and C are necessities and product X is a luxury, eventually, product X will disappear because it is no longer affordable to the laborers making products A, B and C and the workers producing it now become unemployed.

How is this constant cycle of inflation good?
Click to expand...

Whoever does thelabor is who the labor belongs to. And all the union does is help negotiate. This is and has always been a fair way to address these types of concerns.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It is not negotiation. Negotian means a give and take. Where one party offers something and the other side either agree's or comes up with a counter offer. That does not happen in a strike. Ever. Its whole purpose is to cause the company money until they give into a demand. Go look up the definition of of the words "strike" (as applied to a company), negotiation, and extortion. The definition of extortion will apply far more than negotiation.
Click to expand...

Theres aways a give and take. No one gets everything they want. it is a negotiation, even if they strike. Rarely have strikes end with getting everything, if ever. They merely reach a point they both can live with.


Bold: Yes it is the workers labor. But it is the owners company. And the company has a right to hire who they want and set the price that he/she is willing to pay for the labor involved. If the worker doesn't like it then there are other jobs out there. May not be the jobs that they want...but that is not the companies problem.

Underlined: If this were true then why doesn't Wal-Mart pay $7.25 an hour? They are not unionized so have no pressure to pay more than minimum wage from a union. So what keeps them paying more than minimum wage? Why doesn't my company pay minimum wage? All I do is take messages over a phone. Yet both companies pay at least 2 dollars above minimum wage. Indeed why don't all companies that are not unionized pay minimum wage? Now I'm not saying that companies won't pay the minimum that they can get away with. But it is not near as bad as your statement leads it to be.
Click to expand...

It is merely missing the word want. It was in my head but didn't make it to the page. My bad.

Red: This is the truth.

Blue: A better phrasing perhaps would be that the companies and the workers should be more human and less greedy to each other.
Click to expand...

It would be if that is what I meant. I don't disagree with you, but knowing your a team and looking out for the best interest all around is better than being adversaries. Some unions have mastered this, as have some other employee groups. But the ones we hear the most about haven't, and nor have their employers.
 
PirateMk1 said:
No Jerry you are very much wrong, you get what you negotiate. Most people ask how much the job pays, very few let potential employers know their salery requirements. Most people get what they are given, not what they negotiate. Most people are paid MUCH less than they are worth and a few people are paid far more than they are worth. Most people dont know what their worth. If they did they would either work for themselves or, they would be payed much more and wouldnt need a union. I own a business Jerry and hire business men and women who are a) learning how to negotiate or b) can hold their own at the table. I dont deal with those who ask what I pay. They arent ready to be in business and would make lousy parteners. Employees are business people selling their services whether they admit that or not. You dont get what you earn, only what you negotiated. You CAN earn the right to continue to do business. If you take my lesson to heart, you will go far in business and as an employee, because you will take care to know what your market value is and how to articulate it in a concise effective fashion, and negotiate to get as much of that value as possible. I have just given you some very valuable and expensive advise that cost me several hundred thousand dollors to learn, for free. I give this advise to all my contractors, and now to you Jerry and to the good people of the Debate Politcs forum. You should thank me. :cool:

PS This was the free version of my contractor speech.
Click to expand...
You're speaking my mind but you word your post as though we disagree or something :confused:

I'm telling the protesters to STFU and go to their employer and negotiate....with their employer....not through a union rep.
 
Jerry said:
You're speaking my mind but you word your post as though we disagree or something :confused:

I'm telling the protesters to STFU and go to their employer and negotiate....with their employer....not through a union rep.
Click to expand...

They should if they want no negotiating at all. That places 95% of the power in the hands of the employer and 5% with the employee. Another pro management.
 
Boo Radley said:
They should if they want no negotiating at all. That places 95% of the power in the hands of the employer and 5% with the employee. Another pro management.
Click to expand...
Source that number.
 
Jerry said:
You're speaking my mind but you word your post as though we disagree or something :confused:

I'm telling the protesters to STFU and go to their employer and negotiate....with their employer....not through a union rep.
Click to expand...

I was reacting to the phrase "You get paid what you are worth, not a penny more. If you want more earn it." in and of itself. IMO that is not really true. Which is why I did my rif, "You get what you negotiate.". How they negotiate is really kinda of inmaterial, because whether though themselves or through a proffesional negotiator they fail to recognize how weak their position is as a group and what they need to do to strenghten it.
 
I'm not sure if there exists a good middle ground/compromise in the whole union vs. non-union discussion…

I mean on the one hand there is the point that without some form of representation for the worker (apart from the individual worker representing themselves, which is kinda a david vs. goliath situation, to use a bible metaphor :2razz: ), there ARE employers out there who will pay as little to their employees as they possibly can.
Now, I know some people will say this is as it should be, but IMO there needs to be some form of performance reward system in any business, otherwise the employee will do the minimum possible to stay employed and then you have disgruntled employees doing crappy work for a crappy company.

The problem is that, as I understand it, the “union solution” to this has its own negatives.
A plus is that the union can provide stronger representation for the worker.
A negative is that the union (depending on the setup) also represents the BAD workers, essentially rewarding bad qualities and not rewarding good qualities (this of course depends on the specifics of that union, I suppose).


I suppose what I’m saying here is that, in my mind, the ideal situation would be something like this:
Business/company needs employees to do X, and will pay Y for such. They will also pay Y+5 for X+5 (or something like that).
Of course as a friend of mine has noted, if you are one of the people willing to do X+5, the people who are unwilling to do so will bitch to management about unrelated issues to try and drag you down, and depending on how the company is set up, that could cause you problems…

But I’m digressing.

If you work for a company which is not willing to pay a good percentage of what the work is worth (and by that I mean not the minimum the employee will accept, but what the work is ACTUALLY worth in terms of the money it makes the company), then you can either negotiate on an individual basis (not everyone is capable/willing to do this) or join/form a union which will do so on your behalf…

Actually I’ve kinda gotten myself lost in my own post…

**** it.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I was reacting to the phrase "You get paid what you are worth, not a penny more. If you want more earn it." in and of itself. IMO that is not really true. Which is why I did my rif, "You get what you negotiate.". How they negotiate is really kinda of inmaterial, because whether though themselves or through a proffesional negotiator they fail to recognize how weak their position is as a group and what they need to do to strenghten it.
Click to expand...
Well to me it sounds like you're splitting hairs because I didn't use the exact right word you would have preferred. I don't care. Have a good evening.
 
The Mark said:
I'm not sure if there exists a good middle ground/compromise in the whole union vs. non-union discussion.
Click to expand...

Trade clubs, such as:

An employer is a member just as an employee is a member, not corporation vs labor pool. Everyone wants to belong because every member is held to a higher standard. Employers can expect better trained, safer and more motivated applicants. Employees can expect fair compensation and workplace policy according to the industry standard. This is all hosted in a positive and (pardon the pun) constructive frame of reference.

Of course, this assumes that you have a skill-set, ie "have a trade", and Wall Mart cashiering is unskilled labor. So, I guess if they won't get off their lazy asses and get an education, all they have are unions to fight for a hand-out.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Trade clubs, such as:

An employer is a member just as an employee is a member, not corporation vs labor pool. Everyone wants to belong because every member is held to a higher standard. Employers can expect better trained, safer and more motivated applicants. Employees can expect fair compensation and workplace policy according to the industry standard. This is all hosted in a positive and (pardon the pun) constructive frame of reference.

Of course, this assumes that you have a skill-set, ie "have a trade", and Wall Mart cashiering is unskilled labor. So, I guess if they won't get off their lazy asses and get an education, all they have are unions to fight for a hand-out.
Click to expand...
So no such organization exists for "unskilled" labor?

Actually, I’m kinda wondering if “unskilled labor” is a valid description…I mean any job requires SOME level of skill…You’re better at shoveling gravel than that guy over there, you have better shoveling skill…granted the difference in output may be less significant than that between a competent vs. a brilliant computer programmer, but I’d think that someone looking for 10 gravel shovelers for a construction job might still want the 10 best gravel shovelers they could find. :2razz:

Then again maybe not…
 
Boo Radley said:
J, I not calling people thugs. I don't fight strawmen and battle with fascist conservatives.
Click to expand...

No apparently you arent calling people thugs, you are calling them fascists instead--thats much better. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom