• 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

This would help to explain the customer service. My mother has worked at a WalMart in Texas for about 5 years. She says that have the worst management she's ever worked with.
 
This would help to explain the customer service. My mother has worked at a WalMart in Texas for about 5 years. She says that have the worst management she's ever worked with.

Then tell her to get the **** out of there. She shouldn't work for such a rotten company.
 
Then tell her to get the **** out of there. She shouldn't work for such a rotten company.

Easy to say since jobs today are so ****ing plentiful :roll:
 
Easy to say since jobs today are so ****ing plentiful :roll:

The way I look at it is...while those people are out there protesting, they are not getting paid.

If I worked for Walmart...and didn't like how much I was earning...I think I would be better served by continuing to work while, at the same time, trying to find better employment.

(of course, some number of those protesters probably don't even work for Walmart)
 
If they want better pay, they should seek employment elsewhere. Walmart is notorious for its crappy conditions, and why anyone would ever seek employment there is baffling.

There are a few reasons for that. First is that walmart is one of the biggest employers in the US and some people need those things called jobs. Also Walmart would be a company that can employ people from the least skilled up to the skilled people who handle the higher up functions of the company. Just because Walmart pays their retail employees like dung does not mean that they do not employ skilled workers nationwide for a number of purposes at reasonable salaries. Still, many of the people who find retail work in Walmart simply need the job.

This leads to why Walmart is able to be such a crappy employer, and there is little the employees can do about it. Simply most employees in a specific walmart store are unable to walk out and strike. They live from paycheck to paycheck or less, and cannot afford to lose that crappy paycheck. Despite what republicans claim the government does not provide the poor with living for nothing. The other way Walmart prevents problems for themselves is because a large portion of their customers cannot go anywhere else either. Walmart is simply cheap, and many poor people shop there. So even if the customers wanted to back the employees through their own boycotts it just won't work because many of their customers simply cannot just start shopping somewhere else because they cannot afford it.

Retail work at Walmart is an active and hard job. These are not lazy people trying to live off the government dime. Republicans love to claim that they are for the worer who chooses a job over welfare, but the reality is that Walmart doesn't pay their hard working employees enough to put them above the poverty levels for public assistance. walmart is a prime example that the free market simply does not take care of the workers. Because of that we all pick up the slack for Walmart's rich owners and investors. We end up having to give Walmart employees public assistance. These are working people, not some deadbeat hanging out at home on the public dime. These are not the "victims" Romney spoke of. These people took a job to have a job even though it does not pay all their bills. Sure they are probably looking for better, but better is not always out there for you.

Should a person do an important job for a company and still not have enough money to get by on even when sacrificing and buying as cheap as possible? Without the employees walmart would not run. The owner of walmart does not stock shelves, run checkout, or even manage a single walmart. Those jobs are done by other people, and that allows him to do whatever it is he does during the day. They should up the pay for their employees. Not only would it benefit them, but it would help us taxpayers out also. Giving the Walmart employee the ability to consume would drive up the economy everywhere. We would save on taxes because we would not have to help the employed stay above water. On top of that the increased consumption would provide more tax revenue. Instead Walmart Owners get rich while underpaying their employees and we pic up the tab for them. By we i mean those of us who pay taxes.

This is one of those times where collective bargaining is not just important to the walmart employee who wants to survive on their employment, but it is also going to help us out in passing the responsibility for their employees back to the people who hired them. If you want the market to handle these things then we have to start pushing on places like Walmart and forcing an actual living wage for their employees.
 
There are a few reasons for that. First is that walmart is one of the biggest employers in the US and some people need those things called jobs. Also Walmart would be a company that can employ people from the least skilled up to the skilled people who handle the higher up functions of the company. Just because Walmart pays their retail employees like dung does not mean that they do not employ skilled workers nationwide for a number of purposes at reasonable salaries. Still, many of the people who find retail work in Walmart simply need the job.

This leads to why Walmart is able to be such a crappy employer, and there is little the employees can do about it. Simply most employees in a specific walmart store are unable to walk out and strike. They live from paycheck to paycheck or less, and cannot afford to lose that crappy paycheck. Despite what republicans claim the government does not provide the poor with living for nothing. The other way Walmart prevents problems for themselves is because a large portion of their customers cannot go anywhere else either. Walmart is simply cheap, and many poor people shop there. So even if the customers wanted to back the employees through their own boycotts it just won't work because many of their customers simply cannot just start shopping somewhere else because they cannot afford it.

Retail work at Walmart is an active and hard job. These are not lazy people trying to live off the government dime. Republicans love to claim that they are for the worer who chooses a job over welfare, but the reality is that Walmart doesn't pay their hard working employees enough to put them above the poverty levels for public assistance. walmart is a prime example that the free market simply does not take care of the workers. Because of that we all pick up the slack for Walmart's rich owners and investors. We end up having to give Walmart employees public assistance. These are working people, not some deadbeat hanging out at home on the public dime. These are not the "victims" Romney spoke of. These people took a job to have a job even though it does not pay all their bills. Sure they are probably looking for better, but better is not always out there for you.

Should a person do an important job for a company and still not have enough money to get by on even when sacrificing and buying as cheap as possible? Without the employees walmart would not run. The owner of walmart does not stock shelves, run checkout, or even manage a single walmart. Those jobs are done by other people, and that allows him to do whatever it is he does during the day. They should up the pay for their employees. Not only would it benefit them, but it would help us taxpayers out also. Giving the Walmart employee the ability to consume would drive up the economy everywhere. We would save on taxes because we would not have to help the employed stay above water. On top of that the increased consumption would provide more tax revenue. Instead Walmart Owners get rich while underpaying their employees and we pic up the tab for them. By we i mean those of us who pay taxes.

This is one of those times where collective bargaining is not just important to the walmart employee who wants to survive on their employment, but it is also going to help us out in passing the responsibility for their employees back to the people who hired them. If you want the market to handle these things then we have to start pushing on places like Walmart and forcing an actual living wage for their employees.

As I have with other posters, I reject your contention that Walmart has any responsibility or mandate to improve the general state of our economy or to reduce the number of people who take government benefits. Their only responsibility it toward maximizing the profits of their stockholders.
 
It doesnt matter if you dont even have so much as a GED or a degree in engineering. If you work at an 8 dollar an hour job, your pay is still 8 dollars an hour.
 
As I have with other posters, I reject your contention that Walmart has any responsibility or mandate to improve the general state of our economy or to reduce the number of people who take government benefits. Their only responsibility it toward maximizing the profits of their stockholders.

Respectfully disagree. Corporate social responsibility dictates that eventually any policy that is viewed neagtively by the public will cost sales and profit. I would say it has reached that point with Wal-Mart. They could engage in a pay step scale that doesnt leave employees in danger of losing raises faster than the minimum wage is raised in states. Wage compression is a very real issue in Wal-Mart and they ought to address it.

Better employee wages also tend to make for better employee customers---something to consider.

Last note: Wal-Mart is not the same company it was under Sam Walton and any employee that has been there since he was the boss will say as much. The company has changed considerably and while it is the largest employer in the US, its days are numbered---internet sales are going to dent Wal-Mart just as hard as they are other retail outlets. The reasons why someone shops will have as much to do with service and environment as they do with convenience and price in as little as 10 to 15 years. Wal-Mart would do well to examine their employment model closely, it wont last as it is forever.
 
Thoughts anyone?

Don't think you are getting paid what your labor is worth? Find someone that will pay you what you want.

Can't find someone that will? Bummer. Must be you aren't worth what you want to believe you are worth. Move along.
 
There are a few reasons for that. First is that walmart is one of the biggest employers in the US and some people need those things called jobs. Also Walmart would be a company that can employ people from the least skilled up to the skilled people who handle the higher up functions of the company. Just because Walmart pays their retail employees like dung does not mean that they do not employ skilled workers nationwide for a number of purposes at reasonable salaries. Still, many of the people who find retail work in Walmart simply need the job.
Yes, I remembered the last time I needed a job, it was brutal. It took me about a month to even get a call, even with speaking to managers face to face. I was never rejected, just ignored and passed over. It really sucked. However, the final result of simple perseverance was a bigger pay off than I ever would have received at walmart. This was also back when I had no degree, no applicable job skills, and no real experience. It can be done. It's more difficult, but it's worth it.

This leads to why Walmart is able to be such a crappy employer, and there is little the employees can do about it. Simply most employees in a specific walmart store are unable to walk out and strike. They live from paycheck to paycheck or less, and cannot afford to lose that crappy paycheck. Despite what republicans claim the government does not provide the poor with living for nothing. The other way Walmart prevents problems for themselves is because a large portion of their customers cannot go anywhere else either. Walmart is simply cheap, and many poor people shop there. So even if the customers wanted to back the employees through their own boycotts it just won't work because many of their customers simply cannot just start shopping somewhere else because they cannot afford it.
Of course there is. While accepting the crappy conditions and pay, you look for better work on your off time. When you finally get the new job, you tell walmart to suck it, and live much happier than before under a real employer. I understand how walmart operates. It's a parasite, an infection that ruins small towns. Without employees they cannot succeed, which is why I highly recommend that people avoid that ****hole like the plague it is. Sure, they offer an immediate position and a regular check, but it isn't worth it.

Retail work at Walmart is an active and hard job. These are not lazy people trying to live off the government dime. Republicans love to claim that they are for the worer who chooses a job over welfare, but the reality is that Walmart doesn't pay their hard working employees enough to put them above the poverty levels for public assistance. walmart is a prime example that the free market simply does not take care of the workers. Because of that we all pick up the slack for Walmart's rich owners and investors. We end up having to give Walmart employees public assistance. These are working people, not some deadbeat hanging out at home on the public dime. These are not the "victims" Romney spoke of. These people took a job to have a job even though it does not pay all their bills. Sure they are probably looking for better, but better is not always out there for you.
I'm not saying they're bad people, they're just people who made a bad choice and took the first offer by a company who profits off of that desperation and misery. There is always better. It just takes faith and persistence. The outlook that things will be better, and that you are worth more than some floor sweep at America's equivalent to a sweatshop.

Should a person do an important job for a company and still not have enough money to get by on even when sacrificing and buying as cheap as possible? Without the employees walmart would not run. The owner of walmart does not stock shelves, run checkout, or even manage a single walmart. Those jobs are done by other people, and that allows him to do whatever it is he does during the day. They should up the pay for their employees. Not only would it benefit them, but it would help us taxpayers out also. Giving the Walmart employee the ability to consume would drive up the economy everywhere. We would save on taxes because we would not have to help the employed stay above water. On top of that the increased consumption would provide more tax revenue. Instead Walmart Owners get rich while underpaying their employees and we pic up the tab for them. By we i mean those of us who pay taxes.
I know how a corporation works. It's a publicly traded company, which means their particular focus is on the shareholder. Walmart is the perfect example of business ethics done wrong. The problem with walmart is that they have created an environment where they don't have to give a ****. They don't need customer service, or employee benefits, because the attitude is that they're the only option for the destitute. That's not true, people just think it is. The reality of the situation is that it's just more convenient. Walmart offers no real advantage to anyone except for the people who profit from it. It's one of those rare occasions where I would love to see a company fail.

This is one of those times where collective bargaining is not just important to the walmart employee who wants to survive on their employment, but it is also going to help us out in passing the responsibility for their employees back to the people who hired them. If you want the market to handle these things then we have to start pushing on places like Walmart and forcing an actual living wage for their employees.

Maybe a strike would work, maybe walmart just pays off the union reps to shut up and go back to work. The only real way to affect walmart is to boycott. If you don't give them money, they have to do something about it. Unfortunately, people choose convenience over ethics.
 
Respectfully disagree. Corporate social responsibility dictates that eventually any policy that is viewed neagtively by the public will cost sales and profit.

Yeah, every time those with an agenda go out and protest somewhere, sales soar. Oh wait, that's not the results you say exist...
 
Yeah, every time those with an agenda go out and protest somewhere, sales soar. Oh wait, that's not the results you say exist...

I dont have their internals. I dont know what a particular policy costs them in negatve PR or ill will. I do know it has kept them out of some markets and cost them store locations in others. Everything has a trade off cost. Dont be confusing the new opening time and date with this decision. The new doorbusters at 8pm on Thanksgiving had a lot more to do with sales than this particular incident. All Im saying is that CSR is a real thing and it has company image implications. Im not on the bandwagon hating or liking Wal-mart, Im trying to look at it from a pure business standpoint.
 
Then tell her to get the **** out of there. She shouldn't work for such a rotten company.

That's a fabulous idea. However, the problem with that is it's a town of about 16,000 (per 2010 consensus) and WalMart is the 5th largest employer in that town behind the school district, hospital, a poultry processing plant and a mining company. The nearest larger town is one hour away.

In the part of Texas that I'm from, there's almost a WalMart in every wet spot on the road with a red light and a post office. So, WalMart can pretty much do what they want when there is such a small job market.
 
Yeah, but she should stand by her principles.

People cannot eat principles. And they do not pay the rent either.

edit: I see tererun said the same thing at the top of this page....... great minds think alike. ;)
 
I dont have their internals. I dont know what a particular policy costs them in negatve PR or ill will. I do know it has kept them out of some markets and cost them store locations in others. Everything has a trade off cost. Dont be confusing the new opening time and date with this decision. The new doorbusters at 8pm on Thanksgiving had a lot more to do with sales than this particular incident. All Im saying is that CSR is a real thing and it has company image implications. Im not on the bandwagon hating or liking Wal-mart, Im trying to look at it from a pure business standpoint.

What has cost them locations is dumb protestors that didn't want 'those jobs' in their area.... so those jobs not only went 15 minutes down the street, the tax revenue went to a different county....
 


Most of the Walmart protests are what was popularly coined as "astroturf."
From the reports I've seen, the majority of those protesting are on the payroll of "OUR Walmart."

Walmart's average wage is around $10.50 an hour and benefits like 401k with a 6% match, profit sharing, medical, in store discount card, ESPP, etc.
This is plainly just an attempt of the union trying to get more due paying members.
 
The video was typical left wing media. They never mentioned that protesters were bussed in, you don't bus in people who actually work at the store.Just because someone claims to be a Walmart employee does not mean they really are.
 
You want better wages then you got to earn it. Increase your productivity.
 
You want better wages then you got to earn it. Increase your productivity.

Do you honestly believe that working harder would make Wal-Mart employees get paid more? :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom