• 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!

Target employees upset about working on Thanksgiving…

I work for a professional firm and the Friday after Thanksgiving is not a holiday. We have one floating holiday, so I usually take it on that Friday.

I work for a govt contractor. my govt customer gets the friday after TG as a holiday. For me it just depends on our plans for that year, some years I take a days vacation if we have family plans. other years I simply go and sit in my office with nothing to do because everyone else has taken the day off and I get a head start on my internet X-mas shopping ;)
 
um yeah...what's more likely to happen is that, instead of absorbing the cost, Wal-mart is going to raise their prices to compensate for having to pay its unskilled, uneducated employees more. and any rise in income for these employees is going to be offset by having to pay more for the crap they buy at walmart. all that you will have accomplished is to make people who don't work for walmart pay higher prices.

But you also just gave millions of people a raise, and now they have more money to spend at Wal-Mart.

You can't sustain an economy, or workers, if you keep paying people less and less. It's a race to the bottom.
 
The stores were shut down on Thanksgiving. They opened at midnight the day AFTER which is NOT a holiday.

Some stores opened on Thanksgiving Day afternoon.
 
That's debatable.

That's fine and different than your original outright dismissal.

Suppose Wal-Mart unionized first. The largest civilian employer now has union employees. Is it really going to lay off thousands? Because it has to pay them a little bit more? They are much more likely to absorb the cost and keep on doing what they do, which is sell alot of stuff and make money on it.

Do you think the unions would settle for "a little more"?

And then Target employees would start going to work at Wal-Mart. Then Target would have to pay as much to its employees to keep them....

Yes, I agreee, times are really tough and this isn't the best time to demand wage increases, union or not. But in the long run, if the economy is going to get rolling enough so that retailers want people working on Thanksgiving afternoon, a union, and wage increases or overtime pay, would be appropriate.

People have done it for decades. They will continue to. Anyway, this was not about working a Thanksgiving afternoon.
 
um yeah...what's more likely to happen is that, instead of absorbing the cost, Wal-mart is going to raise their prices to compensate for having to pay its unskilled, uneducated employees more. and any rise in income for these employees is going to be offset by having to pay more for the crap they buy at walmart. all that you will have accomplished is to make people who don't work for walmart pay higher prices.

This is what so many do not seem to understand at the lower end of the wage scale. There are no "real" gains. Now, I do understand where we have indeed caused a problem with the massive printing of money. Prices go up but the wages do not.
 
Do you think the unions would settle for "a little more"?

Yes. Unions negotiate. They are fully aware that demanding too much could cost them jobs, especially in a bad economy. They sometimes give concessions - pay cuts - for that reason. And unions can't just get whatever they want - it is negotiated with management.

People have done it for decades. They will continue to.

That's not an answer.

People worked for a pittance 14 hours a day, six days a week in dangerous factories once - until they demanded better.

Anyway, this was not about working a Thanksgiving afternoon.

Yes, for some it was. I bet you'd complain about that too.
 
This is what so many do not seem to understand at the lower end of the wage scale. There are no "real" gains. Now, I do understand where we have indeed caused a problem with the massive printing of money. Prices go up but the wages do not.

1. Yes, wages do go up, even for the lower end. We have already talked about this.

2. Saying that things have always been a certain way isn't a justification for why they should continue to be that way.
 
Not the one that's the subject of this thread.

Yes it is. Well, 11 pm is mentioned. Some other stores opened earlier.
 
Last edited:
But you also just gave millions of people a raise, and now they have more money to spend at Wal-Mart.

You can't sustain an economy, or workers, if you keep paying people less and less. It's a race to the bottom.

Let me get this straight.............

if a worker that is paid $8./hour is paying 10% of his salary for groceries at Wal-Mart, but gets a raise of $4./hour causing Wal-Mart to raise their prices correspondingly. The worker is still paying 10% of his salary for groceries, so who comes out ahead ??
 
This is what so many do not seem to understand at the lower end of the wage scale. There are no "real" gains. Now, I do understand where we have indeed caused a problem with the massive printing of money. Prices go up but the wages do not.

Do you have any evidence for any of that? And if wages do not rise for the lowest wage workers, is that not an indictment on the current state of business in the US?
 
But you also just gave millions of people a raise, and now they have more money to spend at Wal-Mart.

but it is a wash. they aren't buying more stuff, they are just paying more for the stuff they were already buying. walmart isn't buying more product from its suppliers. the only thing that has changed is that the people who didn't get the raise because they don't work at wallyworld get screwed into paying higher prices. that doesn't help the economy.

You can't sustain an economy, or workers, if you keep paying people less and less. It's a race to the bottom.

who said anything about paying people less? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Yes. Unions negotiate. They are fully aware that demanding too much could cost them jobs, especially in a bad economy. They sometimes give concessions - pay cuts - for that reason. And unions can't just get whatever they want - it is negotiated with management.

Sorry, I never see them taking this position. See American Airlines. They refused to address the real problem with GM. Legacy costs. In the case of Target they would have to negotiate a fairly substantial wage. Enough to give the employee's more to spend and cover their union dues.

That's not an answer.

Of course it is.

People worked for a pittance 14 hours a day, six days a week in dangerous factories once - until they demanded better.

Working the day after Thanksgiving is not anywhere comparable.



Yes, for some it was. I bet you'd complain about that too.[/QUOTE]
 
Yes it is. Well, 11 pm is mentioned. Some other stores opened earlier.

From the OP:

Some Target employees are hoping the giant retailer will rethink its plan to open stores at midnight on Black Friday.

The thread is about Target opening at midnight on the Friday AFTER Thanksgiving.
 
1. Yes, wages do go up, even for the lower end. We have already talked about this.

That's not what I said.

2. Saying that things have always been a certain way isn't a justification for why they should continue to be that way.

I don't think you read my post very closely.
 
but it is a wash. they aren't buying more stuff, they are just paying more for the stuff they were already buying. walmart isn't buying more product from its suppliers. the only thing that has changed is that the people who didn't get the raise because they don't work at wallyworld get screwed into paying higher prices. that doesn't help the economy.

That's a simplistic way to view things and I suggest that you probably can't prove that any increase in menial wages would result in price hikes.
 
Let me get this straight.............

if a worker that is paid $8./hour is paying 10% of his salary for groceries at Wal-Mart, but gets a raise of $4./hour causing Wal-Mart to raise their prices correspondingly. The worker is still paying 10% of his salary for groceries, so who comes out ahead ??

How much is the price increase? Sounds like 10% of 12/hour, minus the increase in expenses equal to 10% of income, would come out ahead. And that's ignoring the fact that the worker will have more of the other 90% to spend in the economy, which is also good for everyone.
 
Let me get this straight.............

if a worker that is paid $8./hour is paying 10% of his salary for groceries at Wal-Mart, but gets a raise of $4./hour causing Wal-Mart to raise their prices correspondingly. The worker is still paying 10% of his salary for groceries, so who comes out ahead ??

give it up, liberals, apparently, are incapable of understanding this concept. they think that the company is just going to lower its profit margin in order to pay the higher wages instead of passing that cost along to the consumers
 
give it up, liberals, apparently, are incapable of understanding this concept. they think that the company is just going to lower its profit margin in order to pay the higher wages instead of passing that cost along to the consumers

You also weren't an Economics major, were you? :lol:
 
That's a simplistic way to view things and I suggest that you probably can't prove that any increase in menial wages would result in price hikes.

oh yeah :roll: I'm sure the company is just going to absorb the cost and decrease their profit margin :roll: in case you haven't noticed...companies are in business to make money for their owners...NOT to provide a "living wage" for their workers.
 
give it up, liberals, apparently, are incapable of understanding this concept. they think that the company is just going to lower its profit margin in order to pay the higher wages instead of passing that cost along to the consumers

Can you demonstrate your theory empirically in any way? I would love to see it since I have not to date.

oh yeah :roll: I'm sure the company is just going to absorb the cost and decrease their profit margin :roll: in case you haven't noticed...companies are in business to make money for their owners...NOT to provide a "living wage" for their workers.

Is this your proof? A sarcastic response with no evidence? Awesome.
 
Do you have any evidence for any of that? And if wages do not rise for the lowest wage workers, is that not an indictment on the current state of business in the US?

Business? No, I do not think so. Businesses will always pay low skilled workers on the lower end of the pay scale. This is pretty basic stuff. The problem is the government artificially creating inflation.

You'll note that I say that there is a problem right now because it's been the governments policy to create inflation but it's not fundementally adding anything to the economy. Costs rise. Prices rise but margins do not as a percentage so employee's don't get to benefit.
 
Last edited:
You also weren't an Economics major, were you? :lol:

it doesn't take an economics major to realize that companies are in business to make as much money as they possibly can.
 
Sorry, I never see them taking this position. See American Airlines.

American Airlines' unions gave $1.6 billion in concessions a few years ago.

You were saying?
 
Back
Top Bottom