• 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!

Corporations Aren't People

buck said:
Tell it to the grocery market analysts that have reviewed the market and made those determinations. I can't speak to what is occurring in TN in your area, but I suspect there is more then what you are saying.
Click to expand...

I lived there for 5 years. The irony is I live in MA now with plentiful grocery stores in the area (a mix of union and nonunion) with much lower prices. You are not looking at all the factors.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I lived there for 5 years. The irony is I live in MA now with plentiful grocery stores in the area (a mix of union and nonunion) with much lower prices. You are not looking at all the factors.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure that the people that are experts on the market and make their livelihood by taking into account all factors, just don't know as much as you do. I have been following the grocery market pretty closely, as my wife does work there. A union store is going to have a hard time competing when they are paying more then double the wages of a non-union store.

I don't know the specifics in MA or TN, but, again, I suspect there is a lot going on that you are not mentioning.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I lived there for 5 years. The irony is I live in MA now with plentiful grocery stores in the area (a mix of union and nonunion) with much lower prices. You are not looking at all the factors.
Click to expand...

It's called "choice AND competition". It's why liberals...um, I mean people - still try to stand tall againt powerful corporations like Walmart coming into their community trying to take over. Of course, I can also understand the position of the non-union types, too. My position is this: if corporations are unwilling to live up to the tenants of Conservative, which includes paying fair wages that meet cost of living standards, then the people have every right to stand against them. Moreover, if corporations are unwilling to make changes as both the marketplace and society requires, government has no choice but to step in and try to fill the void.

This is where we are today.

The simple truth: corporations are not people. Man created them. Therefore, man can control them through proper legislation if necessary or the power of the purse if the collective will of the people decide to take such action. There is where you bent the power of "collectism" to "the will of the people"
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Yes, I'm sure that the people that are experts on the market and make their livelihood by taking into account all factors, just don't know as much as you do. I have been following the grocery market pretty closely, as my wife does work there. A union store is going to have a hard time competing when they are paying more then double the wages of a non-union store.

I don't know the specifics in MA or TN, but, again, I suspect there is a lot going on that you are not mentioning.
Click to expand...
I think people put too much blame on unions when the reasons for a company's problems my reat more in management than anything else. Of course, the counter argument could be that union demands placed undue pressure on the company to put the interests of the employee ahead of their own self-interest. Both are to blame, but instead of corporations seeing where they can strike a balance in fair wages and benefits, many pursue aspirations of greed Instead. That's what stokes the anger of the people.
 
As to the thread title, I agree completely. :)
 
Objective Voice said:
I think people put too much blame on unions when the reasons for a company's problems my reat more in management than anything else. Of course, the counter argument could be that union demands placed undue pressure on the company to put the interests of the employee ahead of their own self-interest. Both are to blame, but instead of corporations seeing where they can strike a balance in fair wages and benefits, many pursue aspirations of greed Instead. That's what stokes the anger of the people.
Click to expand...


I keep hearing that. While I am sure management can contribute and, as you say, the unions do put undue pressure on management to make decisions not in the best interest of the company and end up delaying/preventing changes or eating up too much capital preventing other investments... but it strikes me as a bit odd that when an industry is very successful then begins to have major issues (auto, airlines, retail, etc, etc), it's never unions and their wage/benefit/workplace demands but always the fault of management.

I don't buy it in 90% of the cases. It's very difficult for Jewel to compete with Walmart when Jewel has to pay $20.00/hour + benefits and has the standard union limits on how their labor is used while Walmart pays $9.00/hour and does not have such limitations or (for the most part) benefit costs. Walmart didn't always have the scale they have now, and they managed to become very successful - I would argue in no small part due to the amount of control they have on their labor.
 
buck said:
I keep hearing that. While I am sure management can contribute and, as you say, the unions do put undue pressure on management to make decisions not in the best interest of the company and end up delaying/preventing changes or eating up too much capital preventing other investments... but it strikes me as a bit odd that when an industry is very successful then begins to have major issues (auto, airlines, retail, etc, etc), it's never unions and their wage/benefit/workplace demands but always the fault of management.

I don't buy it in 90% of the cases. It's very difficult for Jewel to compete with Walmart when Jewel has to pay $20.00/hour + benefits and has the standard union limits on how their labor is used while Walmart pays $9.00/hour and does not have such limitations or (for the most part) benefit costs. Walmart didn't always have the scale they have now, and they managed to become very successful - I would argue in no small part due to the amount of control they have on their labor.
Click to expand...

Cutting wages does not mean lower prices. People living in the community still foot the bill for those low prices. They just pay them in the form of subsidies for the workers. That is not the way any business model should operate.
 
Henrin said:
I find it bizarre how liberals believe the first amendment excludes business. How does that work exactly?
Click to expand...

How exactly does a corporation give his heart to Jesus? I don't see how a corporation can exercise it's right to religious freedom. Can a corporation convert to an exhaustive religion with rigid standards by dividing the rituals amongst several employees?

I can see both sides of this argument but I really have to side with the liberals on this one. A corporation has a different civic responsibility than the individual citizen.

A corporation can enter into agreements and own property at the young age of 0. Individuals must wait until they are 18 to take on such agreements. 120 year old corporations can take on long term debt of 40 years. An 120 year old individual might not be considered capable of fulfilling a 40 year long agreement.

An individual can die from cancer. A corporation is immune from illnesses that individuals must deal with. An individual must wear clothes, have a house, must consume water and must consume food to survive. Corporations can survive indifinetly without these hassles.

A corporation and an individual are very different entities. To treat them equal in the context of the law is not possible. They are way different in nature.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Cutting wages does not mean lower prices. People living in the community still foot the bill for those low prices. They just pay them in the form of subsidies for the workers. That is not the way any business model should operate.
Click to expand...

No better example can be found than in the number of Walmart employees on Medicaid or food stamps. No fair wages to keep up w/flation/cost of livi g, society then begins to flip the bill.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Cutting wages does not mean lower prices. People living in the community still foot the bill for those low prices. They just pay them in the form of subsidies for the workers. That is not the way any business model should operate.
Click to expand...

Cutting wages does mean lower prices. But for food stamps, medicare, and welfare, reduce them and/or put additional requirements around them. I find it funny that the very people that insist we pay all these welfare programs and keep the requirements low are, for the most part, the very ones that complain that people have to use them and won't let the requirements be increased or payouts reduced. Walmart shouldn't have to pay some unskilled position $20.00 an hour just because some people want to make welfare programs available to more then we can afford.
 
The current welfare system is unsustainable. Fact
 
Phil_Osophy said:
The current welfare system is unsustainable. Fact
Click to expand...

It is a fact.

If not for the welfare state, employees would probably not take the jobs that pay less, forcing the employee to raise their prices to compete for the labor. (Mainly) Democrats have decided to subsidize lower wage employers by offering such benefits. If that's what people want, great, but then don't complain and act surprised when people or businesses take advantage of it.
 
iguanaman said:
Corporations outspent Unions by 10 to 1 in the last election. That seems equal to you?
Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates, Parties Super PACs and Outside Spending Groups | OpenSecrets
Click to expand...

It isn't always about direct contributions to politicians. Unions spend far more money on a wider range of political activities, including supporting state and local candidates and deploying what has long been seen as the unions' most potent political weapon: persuading members to vote as unions want them to. The new figures come from a little-known set of annual reports to the Labor Department in which local unions, their national parents and labor federations have been required to detail their spending on politics and lobbying since 2005.

Political Spending by Unions
 
buck said:
Cutting wages does mean lower prices. But for food stamps, medicare, and welfare, reduce them and/or put additional requirements around them. I find it funny that the very people that insist we pay all these welfare programs and keep the requirements low are, for the most part, the very ones that complain that people have to use them and won't let the requirements be increased or payouts reduced. Walmart shouldn't have to pay some unskilled position $20.00 an hour just because some people want to make welfare programs available to more then we can afford.
Click to expand...
Lower wages does not automatically translate to lower consumer prices. It simple means lower operating cost for the employer/corporation. They shift the savings to other areas, I.e., pension funds, taxes, insurance, etc. But rarely do those cost savings go directly to merchandising. Corporations do what they always do when it comes to lowering the cost of goods - combine savings across the board with renegotiated contracts to buy best quality at lower prices at term. Either that or they do things the old fashioned way - buy the small business OR jump into that particular marketplace themselves, I.e., Walmart's lower prices for produce = they contract w/local farmers OR they buy the farm.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
It is a fact.

If not for the welfare state, employees would probably not take the jobs that pay less, forcing the employee to raise their prices to compete for the labor. (Mainly) Democrats have decided to subsidize lower wage employers by offering such benefits. If that's what people want, great, but then don't complain and act surprised when people or businesses take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim unions force higher wages then place the blame on competition for low wage jobs on social programs footing the bill for said employees basic health and survival needs, I.e., supplemental food cost (welfare/WIC) and health care (Medicai). Either it's unions that are causing the problems you claim exists or it's market demand forcing employers to raise wages to compete for the services of said "unskilled workers".
 
Hamster Buddha said:
It isn't always about direct contributions to politicians. Unions spend far more money on a wider range of political activities, including supporting state and local candidates and deploying what has long been seen as the unions' most potent political weapon: persuading members to vote as unions want them to. The new figures come from a little-known set of annual reports to the Labor Department in which local unions, their national parents and labor federations have been required to detail their spending on politics and lobbying since 2005.

Political Spending by Unions
Click to expand...

So, it's really not about employee unions in the marketplace that bothers you. It's their political influence you worry about.

Hmmmmm....interesting.
 
Objective Voice said:
So, it's really not about employee unions in the marketplace that bothers you. It's their political influence you worry about.

Hmmmmm....interesting.
Click to expand...

Unions typically work in two ways, from the bottom up (as they should) and from the top down (as they should not). Bargaining in good faith. on behalf of union workers, is one thing but getting special (anti competition) laws passed that favor unions, like the Davis-Bacon act, is quite another.
 
Henrin said:
Are the people that run the corporation people? Do they not have the right to use their property in the way they see fit, to associate with who they desire, and provide services in the way they see fit? Oh right, for some reason they are lesser beings. Funny how that works. I find liberals are entirely missing the point. In order to protect the rights of people businesses can not be the slaves of the population as a whole.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that your not more republican than libertarian?

The people that run corporations are people. The corporation itself isn't. HUGE difference. Contributions to a political campaign should not be done under the name of a corporation. But by the people themselves.

You're allowing for foreign corporations, that have manufacturing/services in the USA, to dictate who gets elected in this country. Do we really want China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Germany or any other to be picking our elected officials with their money? Money already corrupts politician campaigns. Just look at what Romney's money did to the 2012 election? And he was American.
 
Objective Voice said:
So, it's really not about employee unions in the marketplace that bothers you. It's their political influence you worry about.

Hmmmmm....interesting.
Click to expand...

As anyone should worry about. It's one thing to bargain (or even demand) for better wages and/or benefits. It's another to force it upon the company with the government backing them. The government should remain neutral between the government, the people and the companies. Reagan opened this can of worms. And for some reason, still is praised (by republicans) for doing so. Forcing union employees to "return to work" was something he should've never done. It should've stayed between the air traffic controllers and their bosses.

And BTW, the government should have very little to do with aviation. Except where our military is involved.
 
danarhea said:
Wrong. A court does condemn the inmate, but the execution cannot take place until the governor signs the order, and of course, the governor can pardon a condemned criminal instead of signing the order too.

Fact remains that I will believe that corporations are people only when Perry executes one.
Click to expand...



the Governor does NOT sign execution orders (that would be the judge), nor does he set execution dates.... his only role , basically, is to pardon, or not to pardon.... and to oversee the branch who carries out the judges order.

that aside, there are already many many "corporate executions" that go on....corporations are killed off frequently, for many reasons ( failure to file reviving documents are the top reason in some states, ceasing business operations is probably the top reason overall)
the thing is, they are killed off by paper pushing bureaucrats, not judges or Governors.
 
buck said:
The two largest chains in my area are Jewel (where my wife works) and Dominicks. Dominicks is going out of business (I think December is the end date), largely because their prices were so high - thanks in large part to their unions. A few years back Dominicks tried renegotiating with their unions to try to get a reasonable contract. They failed and tried to sell the business. No one was interested due to their labor costs. I live across the street from one, and used to stop in there to pick up an item or two - due to convenience - and almost always walked out with nothing due to their prices.

Jewel is in trouble too.. Again due mainly to their union payroll. Their long time union work force makes their expenses so high, that they can't compete with Walmart and the other non-union stores up here and not high enough quality to compete with the Marianos and Whole Foods. I guess that happens when you are forced to pay your longer term cashiers $20.00 per hour ($30.00 on Sundays) plus benefits to grab an item and swipe it across a scanner.
Click to expand...

20 and 30 bucks an hour? For a grocery store? Are you BSing me?
 
This country began on a protest againts taxation without representation. In the end the Citizens United case reaffirmed a long standing understanding that if you can tax it it has a voice. If you don't want an organization to have a voice then stop taxing it. Churches aren't taxed but that comes with a requirement that the Church not engage in political activity.
 
Phil_Osophy said:
If employees dont like what a corporation does, they can just decide not to work for them. If the people dont like what they do, we can just decide not to buy anything from them. Thats how a free market works.
Click to expand...

That would be a gross oversimplification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom