• 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 Launch Black Friday Strike

bg85 said:
they she said "they can't back out of it." the word "can't" implies to me that they should should not be allowed to back out of it.

if we FORCE workers to show up, then we're not really living in a free country are we? by saying they should be forced to work, she essentially is expressing her displeasure with the free market.

that may not have been what she intended to say but it's the message that was delivered.
Click to expand...

bg85 said:
then we agree wholeheartedly! i, however, do not choose to make any judgments on the employees who are simply just trying to get the best deal they can, which is what everyone does in a free market.

from your post, it certainly sounded like you were NOT in favor of someone's right to strike by saying "they can't back out of it."
Click to expand...

OK. Let me spell it out for you, because obviously nuances of the English language are lost on you.

When I say they "can't back out," I don't mean they "can't back out." I don't mean that some big-ass security guard is going to come knocking on their door at 2am if they fail to show up for their shift.

When I say they "can't back out," I mean that their job requires them to work. If they back out, they should (and probably will) be terminated.

When I tell you that you can't drop trou and piss behind the ficus plant in the office, you do realize that, if you actually do drop trou and piss behind the ficus plant, you aren't going to be physically manhandled, don't you? You have a job, you do it. If you do it wrong, or don't do it at all, you get fired. Nothing more to it than that.
 
bg85 said:
that is a really interesting question isn't it? should the public be allowed to tell its emergency workers that they have to come to work?

i'm not a labor lawyer but i do know there have been many famous cases throughout history that have explored this question. i know that with the air traffic controllers strike a few decades ago, reagan set the precedent that they were NOT allowed to strike because it put the public safety in jeopardy.

that is an entirely different question though, since walmart employees showing up to work does not have an effect on public safety.
Click to expand...

Yes its a different question and deals with public safety.

However, even the private sector if they told the person when hired you would be working holidays, the person has the choice of accepting the job or not.

Besides. How many people today really celibate understand why the Thanksgiving holiday was established. Much like many of our other holidays.
 
bg85 said:
most of my labor law knowledge is specific to wv and colorado, but if someone blatantly violates an attendance policy, i know of no state where the employer would not be legally allowed to fire them on the spot.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer nor expert on labor laws, but suspect we are looking at this the wrong way. I would argue even though you could be right on that absolute, it would be more difficult in Free Barganing States vs. Right to Work States. Still though, the prior point stands on motivations of the employer. They may not all look at this the same way, and since Walmart has shown a prior attitide of glossing over the concern I do not see much to suggest they will not do the same this year as well.
 
Superfly said:
OK. Let me spell it out for you, because obviously nuances of the English language are lost on you.

When I say they "can't back out," I don't mean they "can't back out." I don't mean that some big-ass security guard is going to come knocking on their door at 2am if they fail to show up for their shift.

When I say they "can't back out," I mean that their job requires them to work. If they back out, they should (and probably will) be terminated.

When I tell you that you can't drop trou and piss behind the ficus plant in the office, you do realize that, if you actually do drop trou and piss behind the ficus plant, you aren't going to be physically manhandled, don't you? You have a job, you do it. If you do it wrong, or don't do it at all, you get fired. Nothing more to it than that.
Click to expand...

maybe you should say what you mean then
 
disneydude said:
and it must be brutal having a major lack of reading comprehension....because if you had it you would know that I said just a few posts ago that I do not shop any of these sales. Try reading before responding.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's your claim that everyone else is a spineless idiot unable to control their impulses and need to shop, but not you. How very Gruber of you to have such a high opinion of your fellow Americans.
 
mike2810 said:
Yes its a different question and deals with public safety.

However, even the private sector if they told the person when hired you would be working holidays, the person has the choice of accepting the job or not.

Besides. How many people today really celibate understand why the Thanksgiving holiday was established. Much like many of our other holidays.
Click to expand...

i guess i don't understand what you're saying then. are you saying that retail workers should be legally required to show up to work because emergency workers do too?
 
OrphanSlug said:
I am not a lawyer nor expert on labor laws, but suspect we are looking at this the wrong way. I would argue even though you could be right on that absolute, it would be more difficult in Free Barganing States vs. Right to Work States. Still though, the prior point stands on motivations of the employer. They may not all look at this the same way, and since Walmart has shown a prior attitide of glossing over the concern I do not see much to suggest they will not do the same this year as well.
Click to expand...

i agree. the most likely outcome in this scenario is that some workers will strike, some of the workers who strike will be let go or disciplined, walmart will stay open and make a ton of money, and we won't hear about it again until next year. that's the most likely outcome.
 
bg85 said:
maybe you should say what you mean then
Click to expand...

Maybe you should get a better grasp of the English language.

*ps* that doesn't mean that you have to physically take hold, and "grasp" the English language, just in case you were confused.
 
Superfly said:
Maybe you should get a better grasp of the English language.

*ps* that doesn't mean that you have to physically take hold, and "grasp" the English language, just in case you were confused.
Click to expand...

His posts are making my hangover even worse.
 
Superfly said:
OK. Let me spell it out for you, because obviously nuances of the English language are lost on you.

When I say they "can't back out," I don't mean they "can't back out." I don't mean that some big-ass security guard is going to come knocking on their door at 2am if they fail to show up for their shift.

When I say they "can't back out," I mean that their job requires them to work. If they back out, they should (and probably will) be terminated.

When I tell you that you can't drop trou and piss behind the ficus plant in the office, you do realize that, if you actually do drop trou and piss behind the ficus plant, you aren't going to be physically manhandled, don't you? You have a job, you do it. If you do it wrong, or don't do it at all, you get fired. Nothing more to it than that.
Click to expand...

whether they "should" be fired is a tough question to answer. they "should" be fired if the company feels like they can find a replacement who will provide the same value. if the company feels that they will gain more value by keeping the employee, the company "should" keep them because it's in their best interest to do so.
 
Superfly said:
Maybe you should get a better grasp of the English language.

*ps* that doesn't mean that you have to physically take hold, and "grasp" the English language, just in case you were confused.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry that my point went over your head. in future discussions i'll try to be more clear.
 
tres borrachos said:
His posts are making my hangover even worse.
Click to expand...

again, i'm sorry that you can't comprehend my point. i promise i haven't said anything controversial unless you think that "employees have the right to strike in a free market" and "employers have the right to fire employees in a free market" are controversial statements.
 
disneydude said:
I'm not saying that anyone is forcing people to participate, but the mere fact that people used to respond en masse to the early morning Friday sales should tell you that it isn't the public that is demanding the change. They are simply responding to the corporation desires to shift the sales to Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

That really is just so much bull****.

I'll give you an example. Here in Toronto, for the longest time, we had no stores open on Sundays - it goes back a long way to when we didn't have sports on Sundays, etc. - Sunday was truly a day of rest, a family day, blah blah blah. Then one store opened, against the law, and was fined for it - it was a furrier, of all places. His store was swamped with buyers and he made far more money than the fines and the government kept trying to close him down and the shoppers kept coming. Then other stores wanted in on the action because this guy was making a good profit, providing access to customers who wanted to shop.

Over time, the push came FROM THE CUSTOMER PUBLIC to allow stores to open on Sundays. A lot of stores didn't want to open, they wanted one day of rest a week, particularly the smaller stores with little hired staff. But the customers were demanding it and politicians started to listen. Two of the biggest reasons why customers wanted stores open on Sundays was 1) they work all week and having a second day on the weekend to shop made it more convenient for them and 2) lots of people worked shifts and couldn't get to stores at their usual hours and Sundays gave them that extra choice.

Stores didn't want to open because they reasoned that their sales wouldn't increase and their overhead would. They'd have the same number of customers from 6 days spread over 7 days and they'd have to pay the fixed costs of opening plus additional sales staff costs for that extra day. So the store owners didn't really want it, but the customers did. And guess what - over time, sales increased because people had more opportunity to shop and they wanted to. And it also increased part time employment opportunities for students and seniors who wanted to work on Sundays.

Over the more recent years, that customer push has moved to wanting stores open on statutory holidays too.

Go figure - a lot of people like spending their spare time shopping.

Bottom line, businesses are meeting customer demand and that's what capitalism is all about.
 
bg85 said:
i guess i don't understand what you're saying then. are you saying that retail workers should be legally required to show up to work because emergency workers do too?
Click to expand...

No, not because of emergency workers, because the walmart workers new they may have to work holidays. I also believe if the consumer would not shop on Thanksgiving Day, the stores would not be open or would close early. Holidays have become way to commercialized.

I also eluded that many people don't know what Thanksgiving is about, could care less, for some its just an excuse for a day off.
 
mike2810 said:
No, not because of emergency workers, because the walmart workers new they may have to work holidays. I also believe if the consumer would not shop on Thanksgiving Day, the stores would not be open or would close early. Holidays have become way to commercialized.

I also eluded that many people don't know what Thanksgiving is about, could care less, for some its just an excuse for a day off.
Click to expand...

<emphasis mine> so you do think they should be legally required to work? i disagree. strongly.
 
bg85 said:
<emphasis mine> so you do think they should be legally required to work? i disagree. strongly.
Click to expand...

Then don't take a job where you will have to work on Thanksgiving. You don't speak for everyone, so just worry about yourself, and the rest will take care of itself - without your help.
 
I think that the very nature of Black Friday is going to change. 'Bout time too. We don't need it.
 
Superfly said:
Then don't take a job where you will have to work on Thanksgiving. You don't speak for everyone, so just worry about yourself, and the rest will take care of itself - without your help.
Click to expand...

whoa, you also think someone should be legally required to work? really?
 
mike2810 said:
then we disagree.
Click to expand...

and that's cool. i just wanted to make sure i understood what you were saying.

don't you think that a law requiring folks to show up to work would be unconstitutional? these people didn't sign a contract or anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom