• 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

Wow, that sure was successful.

Communists, one blunder after another....

Speaking of communists, where do you think most of the non-food items that Walmarts (and many others) sell? Those cheap items are made in a country that put thousands of political prisoners in work camps and people can be imprisoned for organizing workers, or criticizing the government.
 
What about people who do not have these options. I've already asked you: What is your solution for them? Say you have a single mother of 3 who lives 10 minutes from a town whose only real stable employment is Walmart. Is she supposed to quit her job, and go somewhere else for a job? What if she simply can't risk going 2 weeks without a paycheck?

No country can make effective policy based on imagining a person so desperate that they have no other option in the world but to voluntarily accept a trade that they don't actually want to accept.

Somewhere in the country there is a person who only has a dollar in hand, who is hungry to the point of passing out, and there is a sandwich vendor within a short walking distance who sells sandwiches for $10. Should the government pass a law requiring the vendor to sell sandwiches for no more than a dollar?

No. Governments should not intervene in markets where free people are voluntarily trading one thing for another, forcibly changing what one party or another is allowed to offer or accept, and basing those laws on imagining a particularly desperate person.
 
Enemies, not political opponents.

I always appreciate dead enemies for Christmas. Especially those who want to take Christ out of Christmas and use terms like Xmas and Happy Holidays. Fortunately, many of those also are leftist vermin. Double win.

People celebrated the winter solstice for a long time before Christianity even existed. Start your own holiday instead of getting on our bandwagon. Jesus wasn't even born in December.
 
No country can make effective policy based on imagining a person so desperate that they have no other option in the world but to voluntarily accept a trade that they don't actually want to accept.

That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for certain rights to be recognized. For example, a worker should not be made to choose between working extra hours without pay or getting fired. Do you believe that is unreasonable?

Somewhere in the country there is a person who only has a dollar in hand, who is hungry to the point of passing out, and there is a sandwich vendor within a short walking distance who sells sandwiches for $10. Should the government pass a law requiring the vendor to sell sandwiches for no more than a dollar?

No. Governments should not intervene in markets where free people are voluntarily trading one thing for another, forcibly changing what one party or another is allowed to offer or accept, and basing those laws on imagining a particularly desperate person.

Nobody is asking the government to pass a law. What is being asked is that a worker's rights be protected. Furthermore, what is being asked is that corporations do not get away with demanding more than what their employees are legally contracted to do. Do you believe these are unreasonable conditions for companies to abide by?
 
Still unable to answer my question? Fine. I'll make it simpler for you: If a person does not have the means to move on to another job, should they resign themselves to mistreatment?
Define mistreatment. And if you are so concerned about your fictional woman, put your money where your mouth is and open a Hatuey Mart and pay her $50 per hour for her unskilled labor and quit your complaining.
 
Nobody questioned whether they're illegal now. Well.. technically, they're illegal in the United States. They're still very much legal in some countries as the UN Declaration of HRs didn't actually make it illegal. Only national legislation can do that. I asked you whether treating them badly was justified because they signed their contracts. Yes or no answer.

Low pay or part time hours is not being treated badly. They agreed to the pay and hours upon accepting employment. If they feel they are being treated badly because of it (as it is not illegal) then they should not have accepted the position.

Still ad-homin'? Doesn't change the facts yo.

I don't think you know what an ad-hominem is, let alone that I made one. At no time did I attack you or your character. It is NOT an ad-hominem to attack someones post.

Still unable to answer my question? Fine. I'll make it simpler for you: If a person does not have the means to move on to another job, should they resign themselves to mistreatment?

They are not again being mistreated. If they were, they would have a law suit... they don't so no mistreatment.

Your argument is as silly as ever and getting worse.
 
Define mistreatment.

I already have. Search the thread. :shrug:

And if you are so concerned about your fictional woman, put your money where your mouth is and open a Hatuey Mart and pay her $50 per hour for her unskilled labor and quit your complaining.

Still providing unreasonable responses? Hm. How unlikely of you Fletch.
 
I already have. Search the thread. :shrug:



Still providing unreasonable responses? Hm. How unlikely of you Fletch.
Why is that unreasonable? Because you cant do it? Because it is easier to impose your will through the physical force of the state? If you are concerned about the plight of your fictional woman, you help her. i
 
here's one:

http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/33811/1/541733907.pdf

"The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.2 million, or 1.3 percent. Of course, these effects occurred against a backdrop of rising retail employment, and only imply lower retail employment growth than would have occurred absent the effects of Wal-Mart."

looks like this one was written by a some a german dude and some non-german dudes.

Did you really read this paper? All it sounds like you did was read the last paragraph.
 
I have been all over the USA, portions of Canada and Mexico and a good chunk of Europe. At least 95% of the people I saw working in retail were adults. I remember when most of the larger stores were unionized as were most other blue collar jobs for larger companies. Back then, taxpayers didn't have to subsidize the pay of people who worked full-time, the workers could afford basic food, shelter, transportation and clothing on their wages.

Where is this place where only teens worked in retail?

When I was growing up, most adolescent worked in retail. In the UK, anyways. I'm assuming the same is true in the states, but that was before the time when you could get alot of good jobs without a college degree.
 
Low pay or part time hours is not being treated badly. They agreed to the pay and hours upon accepting employment. If they feel they are being treated badly because of it (as it is not illegal) then they should not have accepted the position.

That's not what is question here. Do you know what is in question here at all? It's people being forced to do the same things which Wal-Mart has been sued over a few times.

I don't think you know what an ad-hominem is, let alone that I made one. At no time did I attack you or your character. It is NOT an ad-hominem to attack someones post.

They are not again being mistreated. If they were, they would have a law suit... they don't so no mistreatment.

Your argument is as silly as ever and getting worse.

What? So mistreatment is only reliant on a lawsuit? OKAY THEN!

Employees Sue Wal-Mart for Overtime - ABC News

A former Wal-Mart employee has filed a class-action suit against the retail giant for forcing employees to work without pay — sometimes by locking them into the stores — after their shifts had ended.

Maria Gamble of Farmingville, N.Y., is filing suit on behalf of 20,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees in New York state who claim that they were denied pay for overtime hours worked.

Walmart workers sue for unpaid wages » peoplesworld

The other shoe - the legal one - has dropped in Wal-Mart's constant low pay and bad benefits for its workers: 20 temp workers in a Chicago-area store sued in federal court for unpaid wages.

The Wal-Mart Litigation Project -- The Internet Resource For Wal-Mart Litigation.

Plaintiff was verbally and physically harassed by other employees after Wal-Mart transferred her from cashier to night stocker. Plaintiff reported the harassment to her supervisor and the store's manager, but the store failed to investigate the accusations. Instead, plaintiff was chastised, suspended from her night stocker position, and reassigned as a cashier. The change decreased her work hours and wages.

Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart for wrongful termination when the store fired her after she filed a worker's compensation claim. The jury awarded her $630,000.

There have been over 99 verdicts against Wal-mart. Many of those for lawsuits involving lost wages, company mistreatment and retaliatory action taken by Wal-Mart when employees file complaints. Do you believe that this is not mistreatment still?
 
Why is that unreasonable? Because you cant do it?

It's unreasonable because not everyone's situation is the same. Example: Wal-Mart that employs most of the people in town X. Where do the people who rely on Wal-Mart go if Wal-Mart engages in mistreatment and the option for them to work elsewhere is not available?

Because it is easier to impose your will through the physical force of the state? If you are concerned about the plight of your fictional woman, you help her. i

Don't like the government taxing you? Move to another country or quit complaining. See where your unreasonable demands get you?
 
Last edited:
When I was growing up, most adolescent worked in retail. In the UK, anyways. I'm assuming the same is true in the states, but that was before the time when you could get alot of good jobs without a college degree.

Did most adolescents work in retail or were most retail workers adolescents? If the latter, did that include the supervisors and managers? Was it during WWII when many men were fighting the war?
 
That's not what is question here. Do you know what is in question here at all? It's people being forced to do the same things which Wal-Mart has been sued over a few times.

What? So mistreatment is only reliant on a lawsuit? OKAY THEN!

Employees Sue Wal-Mart for Overtime - ABC News

Walmart workers sue for unpaid wages » peoplesworld
The Wal-Mart Litigation Project -- The Internet Resource For Wal-Mart Litigation.

There have been over 99 verdicts against Wal-mart. Many of those for lawsuits involving lost wages, company mistreatment and retaliatory action taken by Wal-Mart when employees file complaints. Do you believe that this is not mistreatment still?

And in the end they do exactly what I said they should do. :doh

As for what this is about...

No more relevant than saying the treatment of indentured servants wasn't abuse because they decided to take those jobs. Would you say the treatment of indentured servants wasn't abuse because they decided to take those jobs? Or are we going to start playing the age old conservative game of real vs fake _____________? - Hatuey

This is the comment I replied to. Since you know it is an absurd argument, you now try to shift it and still come out on the wrong end.
 
It's unreasonable because not everyone's situation is the same. Example: Wal-Mart that employs most of the people in town X. Where do the people who rely on Wal-Mart go if Wal-Mart engages in mistreatment and the option for them to work elsewhere is not available?
And the town in the US where Wal-Mart is the big, bad, oppressive employer and the poor townspeople have nowhere else to turn is....? I think there were like B-movies in the 80's with that sort of premise and someone like Steven Seagal came in to kick some CEO ass.



Don't like the government taxing you? Move to another country or quit complaining. See where your unreasonable demands get you?
I hardly think it unreasonable to expect a government Constitutionally bound to protect my rights and my property to not steal my property and violate my rights. But I don't expect liberals to go along with that sort of thing.
 
Did most adolescents work in retail or were most retail workers adolescents? If the latter, did that include the supervisors and managers? Was it during WWII when many men were fighting the war?

I'm not that old, but mostly adolescents worked in retail as associates. These were the jobs that were mostly geared for them.
 
And the town in the US where Wal-Mart is the big, bad, oppressive employer and the poor townspeople have nowhere else to turn is....? I think there were like B-movies in the 80's with that sort of premise and someone like Steven Seagal came in to kick some CEO ass.

Who said anything about it being the only employer in town? You're doing everything you can to duck the questions I ask. It's not really that subtle. :shrug:

I hardly think it unreasonable to expect a government Constitutionally bound to protect my rights and my property to not steal my property and violate my rights. But I don't expect liberals to go along with that sort of thing.

That's irrelevant. If you don't like it, you can leave. That's the premise of your response isn't it? What's the matter? You can't leave? You don't have 150 bucks for a flight to Mexico? Who cares? You have the option.

However, your unreasonable suggestion to why I support this movement aside: Is it unreasonable to expect an employer to respect the rights of a worker? If it isn't, then fine, don't expect the government to respect your silly beliefs in what you feel they should do either. :shrug:
 
And in the end they do exactly what I said they should do. :doh

So it is abuse or isn't it? A lawsuit was brought.

As for what this is about...

No more relevant than saying the treatment of indentured servants wasn't abuse because they decided to take those jobs. Would you say the treatment of indentured servants wasn't abuse because they decided to take those jobs? Or are we going to start playing the age old conservative game of real vs fake _____________? - Hatuey

This is the comment I replied to. Since you know it is an absurd argument, you now try to shift it and still come out on the wrong end.

You just stated that if they brought a lawsuit it's abuse, I just showed you an example of a class action suit involving 20,000 people vs Wal-Mart all whom allege mistreatment. They brought a lawsuit for the same reason these people are striking. That you feel one is abuse and the other is not is just laughable.
 
So it is abuse or isn't it? A lawsuit was brought.



You just stated that if they brought a lawsuit it's abuse, I just showed you an example of a class action suit involving 20,000 people vs Wal-Mart all whom allege mistreatment. They brought a lawsuit for the same reason these people are striking. That you feel one is abuse and the other is not is just laughable.

Other copanies get sued for the same abuses but we never hear of people bad mouthing them the way Walmart gets it. When called on it, the best people can come up with is "Walmart is a metaphor for all those who do like them" which is BS. Perhaps if people were to call to abuses everywhere instead of just at Walmart, society would not be so inclined to tune the labor issues in the US out.
 
Who said anything about it being the only employer in town? You're doing everything you can to duck the questions I ask. It's not really that subtle. :shrug:
No, if there are other employers then the woman can go work elsewhere.



That's irrelevant. If you don't like it, you can leave. That's the premise of your response isn't it? What's the matter? You can't leave? You don't have 150 bucks for a flight to Mexico? Who cares? You have the option.

However, your unreasonable suggestion to why I support this movement aside: Is it unreasonable to expect an employer to respect the rights of a worker? If it isn't, then fine, don't expect the government to respect your silly beliefs in what you feel they should do either. :shrug:
Wal-Mart isn't violating anyones rights. No one has a 'right' to earn a wage that you think is fair.
 
Other copanies get sued for the same abuses but we never hear of people bad mouthing them the way Walmart gets it. When called on it, the best people can come up with is "Walmart is a metaphor for all those who do like them" which is BS. Perhaps if people were to call to abuses everywhere instead of just at Walmart, society would not be so inclined to tune the labor issues in the US out.

Wal-Mart gets mentioned more often because they continue to do it often and they're a big company. It's the same reason Comcast gets bad publicity. It doesn't make companies mistreating other workers any less important. If you want, I could point you to some courses in media relations so you understand why Wal-Mart would get more publicity than a little mom and pop store in Albuquerque doing the same thing. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
No, if there are other employers then the woman can go work elsewhere.

Seems like nonsense. What if the other employers don't provide enough hours for that woman to earn enough to feed her family? I know, hard to believe in America, but say they do - what is she supposed to do? Again, your ridiculous suggestion doesn't take in the role that Walmart has in many small communities where it's really the only serious employer. These communities aren't as rare as you'd like to believe. There are entire documentaries showing how Wal-Mart shows up in small communities which few jobs and then uses that community to serve the others around it. Employees who complain about their treatment? Threatened with firings.

Wal-Mart isn't violating anyones rights. No one has a 'right' to earn a wage that you think is fair.

That's not the only thing Wal-Mart is doing. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They've been sued in various states for threatening employees with firing if they don't work extra hours for no pay. However, if you're still following this ridiculous argument: The government has a right (as per the constitution) to tax you. If you don't like it? Leave.
 
Wal-Mart gets mentioned more often because they continue to doing often and they're a big company. It's the same reason Comcast gets bad publicity. It doesn't make companies mistreating other workers any less important. If you want, I could point you to some courses in media relations so you understand why Wal-Mart would get more publicity than a little mom and pop store in Albuquerque doing the same thing. :shrug:

I already know why Walmart gets more attention. They have more employees and offer a bigger potential number of dues payers for the unions than say Nestle USA, which was making employees do their mandatory hygiene routines before they officially punched in so they wouldn't have to pay them for it. Don't kid yourself. It isn't that Walmart is so much worse. It is because they are the fattest heifer for the union wolves.
 
I already know why Walmart gets more attention. They have more employees and offer a bigger potential number of dues payers for the unions than say Nestle USA, which was making employees do their mandatory hygiene routines before they officially punched in so they wouldn't have to pay them for it.

Oooooh supasecret conspiracy. Not everyone who sues Wal-Mart wants to start an union. :shrug:

Don't kid yourself. It isn't that Walmart is so much worse. It is because they are the fattest heifer for the union wolves.

I don't kid myself, I just don't believe in conspiracy theories. :shrug:
 
That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for certain rights to be recognized. For example, a worker should not be made to choose between working extra hours without pay or getting fired. Do you believe that is unreasonable?

Not necessarily, unless salaried, but I get the impression this line of thinking will be carried away by those seeking to impose more and more government mandates on employers regarding compensation.

Nobody is asking the government to pass a law. What is being asked is that a worker's rights be protected. Furthermore, what is being asked is that corporations do not get away with demanding more than what their employees are legally contracted to do. Do you believe these are unreasonable conditions for companies to abide by?

Not necessarily, same response as above.
 
Back
Top Bottom