If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Crooks & Liars)   Wal-mart workers are planning the company's first ever walk-out. On Black Friday   (occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com) divider line 709
    More: Followup, unfair labor practice, Center for Independent Media  
•       •       •

20628 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 8:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



709 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-16 12:24:18 AM

Howlin Mad Murphy: How do you assholes want it? You biatch and moan about a lot of these same people being on welfare, then you want to put them down for standing up for themselves and demanding livable wages. Oooh, please someone save the multi-billion dollar corporation! They shouldn't have to pay their employees anymore because they are worthless pieces of shiat that knew what they were getting into. Give me a farking break.


Hmmm. Okay. Let's do this.

Nobody forced anybody to hire on at a low wage and with not-the-best benefits. If it was not good enough when they all hired on (and the terms were made very clear to everybody at the time of hiring) what made all these people take the jobs? Seriously, why did they scramble for these jobs?

In the minds of the applicants, getting hired at Wal*Mart was a great deal. It had to be the best opportunity they thought that they could achieve, having made little effort earlier in life to acquire a useful skill or education. They happily accepted the terms, conditions, pay rates and benefits and acted grateful at the time they hired on. Nobody made them go work at Wal*Mart and nobody forced them to stay on over the long haul.

I am not a Wal*Mart employee, or particularly a huge fan, and I am not a conservative if that matters to you. I am just a person who understand that if you agree to a contract, you should have the honor and dignity to live by it or to cancel it and walk away from it. It is a contract, just a contract, and even when you enter into a bad contract, it was your choice, just as leaving and voiding a contract is a choice.

Note: Lawful marriage is a shiatty contract by design, but folks enter into that one all the time, and the people with integrity make the best of it.
 
2012-11-16 12:24:33 AM

Zebulon: Testiclaw: TiiiMMMaHHH: The workers are demanding the following from Walmart:

We should be demanding similar requirements for every human on this Earth.

Good for the WM employees for getting together to do this.

So you think the federal minimum wage should be raised up to a little over $12 an hour? Because that is how much it takes to equal $25 k a year. Have fun paying all the extra money that companies would charge for *everything* to pay for that shiat.


Funny thing about about raising prices...if the public can't/won't pay it, you find a way to cut back (executive bonuses), or you die a very capitalistic death.
 
2012-11-16 12:24:44 AM

Mikey1969: jayphat: Any retail store where the door locks on the inside require a key to unlock them is a fire marshals wet farking dream!

And any store where nothing is required to unlock the doors but pushing a handle is a burglar's farking wet dream.

Besides, the fire doors can still be opened. If you'd read TFA, you would have found out that the workers were threatened with their jobs if they went out the fire door, and there wasn't a fire, even if that person was seriously injured.


I don't think you understand. You see, if a key is required for the main entrance ON BOTH SIDES, that's a usually a pretty serious violation of the fire code. It's not like you have the thumb lock on the outside FFS. Reason being, most entrances/exits in retail also double as the emergency exit in the planning, hence, they need to be able to be unlocked at a moments notice, without special tools like a key. As I said, a fire marshals wet dream.
 
2012-11-16 12:25:09 AM

Lehk: Benjimin_Dover: I'm sure they would be happy to allow a co-worker to not be a part of their union if they chose.

many states require all union contracts to allow opt-out.

i know i could decide to do so, but then i would not be entitled to union representation if there were a dispute, and i would have no say in union leadership because i would not be a member.

but i can fill out a little slip of paper and do so if i wanted to.

but even the woman who listens to el rushbo every day does not fill out the slip. because the union is worth it


You would still have to grease their goddam palms.
 
2012-11-16 12:27:31 AM

Mikey1969: Sergeant Grumbles: Fade2black: I just explained why.

No, you didn't.
You just stated your opinion, and now you've followed up with a second one, an unfounded assumption, and an ad hominem attack.

I'll put it you again:

Is there some reason working for Wal-Mart need not be gainful employment besides your opinion of what counts as work?

Especially since all of the definitions I see for "gainfully employed" just say that you are working for a wage. He needs a new catchphrase, because by definition, every person who works at WalMart is "gainfully employed".


Isn't the answer "the market has determined their skillset is not worth 'gainful' employment"? That isn't an opinion about what counts as work (working at Wal Mart definitely counts as hard work to me, that job would suck). But it is just a fact, Wal Mart can pay what it does and still attract enough employees to make money. The services those employees provide are only worth that to Wal Mart. Maybe they're worth more to a different company, but Wal Mart is apparently satisfied with the workers they can get for the wage they offer.

The good news is if the supply of people willing to work for the wages Wal Mart pays drops enough, they'll have no choice but to pay more (or close I guess). But until it does, the reason working at Wal Mart is not gainful employment is because the skillset required to work there isn't worth enough money to be "gainfully employed".

/that's my final answer
//I agree the employees have the right to organize to try to get higher wages and better working conditions
///I don't expect them to be successful unless the supply of people willing to work for the current wages has dropped
////I also dislike Wal Mart
 
2012-11-16 12:27:40 AM

EVERYBODY PANIC: Nobody made them go work at Wal*Mart and nobody forced them to stay on over the long haul.


Hunger may not be a person, but it does make a very convincing argument.
 
2012-11-16 12:28:17 AM

Nerdhurter: Watching "progressives" swallow their puke trying to defend Wal Mart workers is worth the price of admission. "Do you know someone who'll do that job?" "It will take time for Wal Mart to train another mouth breather to do the job." Disdain and self congratulatory pity forming a superstorm of liberal smugness, guess what pukes this is the real little man you purport to defend. Not alot of locally sourced craft beers being sipped amongst the dudes who stock shelves at 2 in the morning.


Maybe because nobody can afford to buy craft beer on a Wal-Mart salary?

I'm a libby lib liberal and I see what Wal-Mart does to not just my sister, but the other employees she works with. Don't walk in with that attitude and accuse others of "smugness".

It's like you are PROUD to sound ignorant.
 
2012-11-16 12:28:32 AM

Nutsac_Jim: timujin: And hence the strike... it has to start somewhere. It might not work out for these folks, though striking on Black Friday does seem like a position of at least some level of strength, there's no way Wal-mart is going to find enough people and have them trained in one week.

Really? All they would have to do it offer workers time and half from the neighboring wal-marts.
If it hurt, then pay double time and shuttle bus the workers in. Eventually you can staff the store.
You also can increase the pay of the workers that did not go on strike, and let them fill any slots open in the newly vacated dept manager slots.


After reading the linked article, it looks like it's not going to have that big an impact on the stores' ability to provide service to the customer, this is only 88 employees at 28 stores in 12 different states. It's not a localized event, but it's spread pretty thin.

So there will still be people working. But this could, could, have an impact on their sales on the most important day of the year if people support their strike and take their business elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if it has any effect.
 
2012-11-16 12:28:47 AM

ox45tallboy: Mikey1969: Myself, I totally feel for her entire family. Occasionally, when money has been tight, my wife has entertained the idea of working at WallyWorld for the holidays. So far, I've been able to talk her out of it, and we've always survived. I can only hope that trend will continue.

Her husband just got a breakthrough on his disability, so it looks like she can possibly quit. She's probably going to do so in solidarity with this bunch.

megalynn44: I think those people are spoiled little assholes who have no concept of how bad working conditions could be for them if millions of people in the past hadn't fought hard for workers rights. You stop fighting for them, you lose them. I think making sure everyone gets a certain level of respect as a human being is a very important part of society.

Thank you for that.

jayphat: I worked in 9, NINE, different Walmarts, 3 as a manager. Never once did I ever see or encourage anyone to fill out forms for social assistance. This situation actually baffels me.

How long ago was that? And when you were a manager, did you force your "part-time" employees to work 40 hours every week, but still call them "part-time" so that they didn't get benefits?

Nutsac_Jim: Hey, kind of like a union. You either join the union, or you don't work.

That always seemed to me like the Health Insurance Mandate of Obamacare. I see the rationale (all the workers benefit from the Union, so everyone needs to contribute) but I don't like it.


No. Part timers worked 28 or under. Based on a rolling 12 week average. If they worked more than that, congratulations, you just farked yourself. Reports printed, and 95% of the time we had to make them full time. On rare occasions, usually when there was serious people issues, a part timer would work up to 40 hours, but only for a week, maybe two.
 
2012-11-16 12:28:50 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Mikey1969: In short, "gainfully employed" means having a paying job.

Being paid so little as to have to go on public assistance is not gainfully employed by any definition.


Well, except by every definition available outside of this board.
 
2012-11-16 12:29:28 AM

Zebulon: HotIgneous Intruder: I'm sure walmart is really struggling in this economy.
What's that you say? No way. Really?
Ok.
I'll just leave this here:
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans
Well, goodness, it's true.
snip:
No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

That's a grand total of $102.7 billion for the whole family.

Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California-Berkeley, compared the Waltons' cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Survey of Consumer Finances. (She used the Waltons' wealth from 2010, which was valued at $89.5 billion.)

Allegretto found that in 2007, the wealth held by the six Waltons was equal to that of the bottom 30.5 percent of families in the U.S. In 2010, the Waltons' share equaled the entire bottom 41.5 percent of families.

Walmart can afford raises for everyone.

Those people who you are talking about have all their money from SHARES of STOCK in the company. They do not, in any way, impact how much money Walmart spends on payroll. You cannot take money away from them and somehow give it to the employees.


Let's see. If Walmart started paying higher wages then figured out what kind of stock dividend they could pay after raising those wages, I wonder what that family's reaction would be. Probably fire all the members of the board of directors and all executive officers.

They have plenty of effect on wages.
 
2012-11-16 12:30:38 AM

ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: There are jobs out there. No one has to settle for Walmart unless they want to.

Jeez, dude, that's not exactly a realistic attitude. Do you know how much upheaval a family (with one car!) goes through when Mom has to rearrange her schedule around a new job?

Quitting and taking another job is just not as easy as you seem to believe it is. And what about the next poor asshole that takes the Wal-Mart job? Are you okay with them being treated like sh*t?

Read my longer post about my sister about 50 posts upthread. Wal-Mart broke their promises to her. They treat her like sh*t. And there is not a whole lot that she can really do about it.


So, they treated her like shiat and she stayed. I've had employers do the same shiat to me. I found a new job each time. What's going to cause a bigger headache, the wife finding a new job, one that would pay and treat her better or her staying in a job that she hates and bringing home all that negativity.

My mom works a job she biatches about constantly. After five years of complaining about her job, her low pay, the people she works for to my dad. My dad would say "Quit and find another job!" She never did. My dad eventually left and divorced my mom for that reason. He couldn't take it anymore. He was tired of my mom coming home each day biatching at him for a job she refused to leave.

Now, now I get to take a weekly phone call from my mom who is biatching about the job she hates and has had for fifteen years now.
 
2012-11-16 12:30:39 AM

js34603: Isn't the answer "the market has determined their skillset is not worth 'gainful' employment"? That isn't an opinion about what counts as work (working at Wal Mart definitely counts as hard work to me, that job would suck). But it is just a fact, Wal Mart can pay what it does and still attract enough employees to make money. The services those employees provide are only worth that to Wal Mart. Maybe they're worth more to a different company, but Wal Mart is apparently satisfied with the workers they can get for the wage they offer.

The good news is if the supply of people willing to work for the wages Wal Mart pays drops enough, they'll have no choice but to pay more (or close I guess). But until it does, the reason working at Wal Mart is not gainful employment is because the skillset required to work there isn't worth enough money to be "gainfully employed".


Well, finally someone answers, and it's not even an asshole.
I was going to go one about the cost to society, workers in China, blah blah blah, but it's getting late and I doubt you'd disagree.
I will say that Wal-Mart has such an economy of scale as to be able to artificially undermine the value of labor.
 
2012-11-16 12:32:41 AM

ciberido: It's amazing how "liberal" people like Reagan and Nixon look when compared to today's Republican Party platform. Or at least what it was days before the election. I honestly have no idea what the Republican Party thinks it stands for now that Obama's been reëlected.


The same thing they have since Reagan.
An organization run by the rich, known for tricking racists and religious fundamentalists into voting for class warfare against themselves.
Maybe there is a slight change, since it seems that some actual racists and religious fundamentalists who believe their own bullshiat have their own caucus now, and seem to be farking things up for the rich Machiavellan side.
 
2012-11-16 12:32:43 AM

megalynn44: ox45tallboy: megalynn44: Where she gets to be stereotyped as a lazy, stupid loser who doesn't even deserve basic laborer protections for safety and health.

So what do you think of all these people in the thread saying "if she doesn't like it, then she should find herself another job"?

I think those people are spoiled little assholes who have no concept of how bad working conditions could be for them if millions of people in the past hadn't fought hard for workers rights. You stop fighting for them, you lose them. I think making sure everyone gets a certain level of respect as a human being is a very important part of society.


It is sort of sad, that folks don't understand what sacrifices were made, so that they could have the protections that they enjoy today. How many Wobblies got their heads stove in, exactly what price Joe Hill paid, what was endured to create the very conditions that they enjoy today.

In the words of Joe Hill: "Don't mourn, organize."

This fight has been going for over a hundred years, and fear of organized labor has fueled efforts to limit and crush our right to free speech, freedom of association, and freedom to assemble. It strikes against the very fabric of the concept of this nation, and has been a tool of those who fear their workers' freedom, and their power.
 
2012-11-16 12:33:42 AM

sethen320: Bucky Katt: Damn unions. Always standing up for the takers not the makers.

I enjoy a good laugh, but now is not the time for joking. :)


killjoy :P
 
2012-11-16 12:34:02 AM

ox45tallboy: Nerdhurter: Watching "progressives" swallow their puke trying to defend Wal Mart workers is worth the price of admission. "Do you know someone who'll do that job?" "It will take time for Wal Mart to train another mouth breather to do the job." Disdain and self congratulatory pity forming a superstorm of liberal smugness, guess what pukes this is the real little man you purport to defend. Not alot of locally sourced craft beers being sipped amongst the dudes who stock shelves at 2 in the morning.

Maybe because nobody can afford to buy craft beer on a Wal-Mart salary?

I'm a libby lib liberal and I see what Wal-Mart does to not just my sister, but the other employees she works with. Don't walk in with that attitude and accuse others of "smugness".

It's like you are PROUD to sound ignorant.


Thank you for saying this. I'm not even "liberal" or "progressive". I just do what I see as the right thing. I did not agree with the politics of Romney or Obama. I saw right or wrong. In the case of these workers, I choose to support them. I would do the same for anyone, regardless of their earnings/position. I take everyone on a case-by-case basis. We all should. If you're labelling yourself as liberal, conservative, progressive, moderate, or whatever...I don't care. Just do what is right. It's not rocket surgery.
 
2012-11-16 12:34:44 AM

EVERYBODY PANIC: I am not a Wal*Mart employee, or particularly a huge fan, and I am not a conservative if that matters to you. I am just a person who understand that if you agree to a contract, you should have the honor and dignity to live by it or to cancel it and walk away from it. It is a contract, just a contract, and even when you enter into a bad contract, it was your choice, just as leaving and voiding a contract is a choice.

Note: Lawful marriage is a shiatty contract by design, but folks enter into that one all the time, and the people with integrity make the best of it.


Okay, let's do this then.

Are you paying attention? Do you understand that my sister signed up for 4 days a week, not 5? Do you understand that if she works 40 hours a week, she is supposed to get insurance? Do you understand that she is required to come in on time on Friday nights, and then sit off the clock to cover any overtime? Do you really think for 2 seconds (obviously not) that she was told ANY of this before she took the job? Do you think it's just buried down in the fine print somewhere, and she should have read more?

Do you understand that this isn't about people who knew the conditions ahead of time now regretting having signed up to work at Wal-Mart? This is about Wal-Mart changing the rules, and habitually forcing employees to go along with things no one in their right mind would have ever agreed to had they known about it going in!

Please, try to keep up. When you go off on a sanctimonious, better-than-you rant like that, it helps if you have some idea of what you're talking about. Otherwise you just sound condescending.
 
2012-11-16 12:35:05 AM

Kittypie070: F*ck Wally World.


Kitty angry. KITTY SMASH!
 
2012-11-16 12:35:40 AM

hubiestubert: Bucky Katt: Damn unions. Always standing up for the takers not the makers.

Really? Because the National Writer's Union certainly stands up for intellectual property creators, as opposed to the folks who want access to said intellectual property to distribute it. Come to think of it, they also seem to represent a LOT of folks who have skilled trades as well.

Unions represent labor as opposed to those who suckle at the teat of said labor. Be that labor in a factory, in schools, in film, authors, artists, artisans, cooks, chefs, workers in a mill. Unions represent the folks whose labor enables executives to pad out their expense accounts and take their stock options.

Who is taking and who is making, again?


oops. didn't mean to troll you. i thought the handful of people who noticed my musings knew i was a smart ass.
 
2012-11-16 12:35:42 AM

ACallForPeace: Mikey1969: You don't understand how these things work, do you? You get the best results when you give the organization that you are protesting a chance to resolve the issue before D-Day. Also, it gets the word out, making it easier to get press coverage and find people familiar with the issue if the protest is carried out.

That's a good attitude for feel-good liberal reformism.
It's not a good attitude to take for an effective direct action though.
The powers that be don't respond when you ask nicely, at most you get an extra symbolic crumb. The best thing to do is act on your own and bypass their channels all together.
Kind of like the difference between a gathered circle of liberals kindly asking for change and getting pepper sprayed in the face for their kindness (UC Davis, I think?) , or instead having a group of people willing to throw back tear gas canisters and light fires to make sure people can breathe and play ball when the cops initiate violence, all the while causing economic damage to corporations who threatened to fire their employees if they made political statements (Oakland).


Yep. If they want to organize WallyWorld, they are going to have to go Wobbly and do it the old fashioned way - and they'd better be ready to play hardball. I wonder if it's worth it.
 
2012-11-16 12:36:03 AM

fredklein: Mikey1969: Here's another part:
Several Wal-Mart employees said that as recently as a few months ago they had been locked in on some nights without a manager who had a key. Robert Schuster said that until last October, when he left his job at a Sam's Club in Colorado Springs, workers were locked in every night, and on Friday and Saturday nights there was no one there with a key. One night, he recalled, a worker had been throwing up violently, and no one had a store key to let him out.

''They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire door and there's no fire,'' Mr. Schuster said. ''They gave us a big lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency like the place going up on fire.''

"a worker had been throwing up violently"
"if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency"

If an employee is that sick, then... it's an emergency. What's the problem??


Hey, where were you this summer? We lost a large portion of the cherries on the tree in our back yard, we really needed a skilled cherry picker like you.

Either that or you didn't read the actual linked article. Of course you still cherry picked my post, including the part about how they said 'emergency, like the place going up in fire.'.
 
2012-11-16 12:36:31 AM

Mikey1969: Well, except by every definition available outside of this board.


I'd always taken the definition to be that the "made money" was implicit with "employment" and the "gainful" necessitated being able to live on and improve yourself. If you're going to say "gainful employment" qualifies as getting a paycheck, there's really no point to the gainful, is there?

If it will make you happy, "living wage" works just as well.
 
2012-11-16 12:37:02 AM

ox45tallboy: Nerdhurter: Watching "progressives" swallow their puke trying to defend Wal Mart workers is worth the price of admission. "Do you know someone who'll do that job?" "It will take time for Wal Mart to train another mouth breather to do the job." Disdain and self congratulatory pity forming a superstorm of liberal smugness, guess what pukes this is the real little man you purport to defend. Not alot of locally sourced craft beers being sipped amongst the dudes who stock shelves at 2 in the morning.

Maybe because nobody can afford to buy craft beer on a Wal-Mart salary?

I'm a libby lib liberal and I see what Wal-Mart does to not just my sister, but the other employees she works with. Don't walk in with that attitude and accuse others of "smugness".

It's like you are PROUD to sound ignorant.


Yeah no shiat they can't afford craft beer that was an intentional inclusion.
Hey buddy read my post a little closer and you may notice I criticize Wal Mart along with self righteous individuals like yourself, in fact the whole point of my previous post was the condescending attitude the progressives take towards minimum wage employees.
 
2012-11-16 12:37:07 AM

daRog: Kittypie070: F*ck Wally World.

Kitty angry. KITTY SMASH!


i just finished watching an episode of the Incredible Hulk. Lou never says Hulk smash, though.
 
2012-11-16 12:37:10 AM
Great Janitor: That is no different than me handing someone a hammer and saying "Now, if you bash your hand with this it could break your hand." and then watch as they bash their hand with said hammer and then listen as a bone or two breaks. No sympathy.

moefuggenbrew: I guess that's what it comes down to, some people, including myself, would still have sympathy for our common man, even if he was dumb enough to hit himself with the hammer. Some people would lock them in a warehouse. You sir, are unsympathetic.


I have a couple of standard tags I assign to farkers to describe (what I perceive to be) their merits or shortcomings. Certain threads tend to result in certain tags being applied (or incremented). Speaking of sympathy, this thread has resulted in me bestowing a fair number of "heartless" and "compassionate" tags. I'm sure you could make a pretty good guess at some of the names getting each.
 
2012-11-16 12:37:23 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Sergeant Grumbles: Zebulon: So you think the federal minimum wage should be raised up to a little over $12 an hour? Because that is how much it takes to equal $25 k a year. Have fun paying all the extra money that companies would charge for *everything* to pay for that shiat.

Not sure what happened there...

Raising the pay of Wal-Mart's U.S. workers to a minimum of $12 an hour would lift many out of poverty, reduce their reliance on public assistance, and cost the average consumer, at most, $12.49 a year.

HOW WILL ANYONE BE ABLE TO AFFORD THAT?!


I don't know what sort of math they used to come up with those figures, but raising a company's payroll by roughly a third would have much more of an impact than the article claims. Plus, do you not care about Target employees? What about people who work at the local grocery store? They don't make $12 an hour either. Why does Walmart, and ONLY Walmart, have to start treating their employees better? Why not give the person who works behind the counter at McDonalds $12 an hour? How about your paper boy? Does he get $12 an hour for delivering newspapers? Does the guy who bags your groceries at the supermarket get $12 an hour? Why not? Lets make it so everyone in America gets $12 an hour, minimum. Oh, that would cause the economy to collapse? Whoops, my bad.
 
2012-11-16 12:37:26 AM

Mikey1969: Sergeant Grumbles: Mikey1969: In short, "gainfully employed" means having a paying job.

Being paid so little as to have to go on public assistance is not gainfully employed by any definition.

Well, except by every definition available outside of this board.


Ok, I never thought I would have to say this to anyone...

A dictionary is not a human being.

You have this thing encased within your skull. It's called a brain. Please consider using it during arguments such as the one you're currently engaged in.
 
2012-11-16 12:37:52 AM
While Walmart stores may impact the local businesses of the less densely populated areas of southeast TX, their fried chicken is the pits. Armpit in a bucket as I call it. Big box stores will never replicate the awsomeness of Brookshire Brothers totally awesome fried chicken.
 
2012-11-16 12:38:45 AM

hubiestubert: It is sort of sad, that folks don't understand what sacrifices were made, so that they could have the protections that they enjoy today. How many Wobblies got their heads stove in, exactly what price Joe Hill paid, what was endured to create the very conditions that they enjoy today.

In the words of Joe Hill: "Don't mourn, organize."

This fight has been going for over a hundred years, and fear of organized labor has fueled efforts to limit and crush our right to free speech, freedom of association, and freedom to assemble. It strikes against the very fabric of the concept of this nation, and has been a tool of those who fear their workers' freedom, and their power.


You know, I'd love to ask Jimmie Hoffa about that. Have you seen him around anywhere?

I don't think it will ever come to making Union organizers disappear again, like what used to happen. Nowadays they just use lawyers. And Wal-Mart does NOT lose in Court.

I think much popcorn would be enjoyed by all if Wal-Mart were sued by the Church of Scientology.
 
2012-11-16 12:38:56 AM

Great Janitor: ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: There are jobs out there. No one has to settle for Walmart unless they want to.

Jeez, dude, that's not exactly a realistic attitude. Do you know how much upheaval a family (with one car!) goes through when Mom has to rearrange her schedule around a new job?

Quitting and taking another job is just not as easy as you seem to believe it is. And what about the next poor asshole that takes the Wal-Mart job? Are you okay with them being treated like sh*t?

Read my longer post about my sister about 50 posts upthread. Wal-Mart broke their promises to her. They treat her like sh*t. And there is not a whole lot that she can really do about it.

So, they treated her like shiat and she stayed. I've had employers do the same shiat to me. I found a new job each time. What's going to cause a bigger headache, the wife finding a new job, one that would pay and treat her better or her staying in a job that she hates and bringing home all that negativity.

My mom works a job she biatches about constantly. After five years of complaining about her job, her low pay, the people she works for to my dad. My dad would say "Quit and find another job!" She never did. My dad eventually left and divorced my mom for that reason. He couldn't take it anymore. He was tired of my mom coming home each day biatching at him for a job she refused to leave.

Now, now I get to take a weekly phone call from my mom who is biatching about the job she hates and has had for fifteen years now.


So what you're saying is that if the workers aren't happy with the pay they should do something?
 
2012-11-16 12:39:09 AM

Bucky Katt: hubiestubert: Bucky Katt: Damn unions. Always standing up for the takers not the makers.

Really? Because the National Writer's Union certainly stands up for intellectual property creators, as opposed to the folks who want access to said intellectual property to distribute it. Come to think of it, they also seem to represent a LOT of folks who have skilled trades as well.

Unions represent labor as opposed to those who suckle at the teat of said labor. Be that labor in a factory, in schools, in film, authors, artists, artisans, cooks, chefs, workers in a mill. Unions represent the folks whose labor enables executives to pad out their expense accounts and take their stock options.

Who is taking and who is making, again?

oops. didn't mean to troll you. i thought the handful of people who noticed my musings knew i was a smart ass.


Long day, and my sarcasm detector is perhaps off kilter. No hoo hoo...
 
2012-11-16 12:40:44 AM

Bucky Katt: sethen320: Bucky Katt: Damn unions. Always standing up for the takers not the makers.

I enjoy a good laugh, but now is not the time for joking. :)

killjoy :P


Hey, u just made my fav list.
 
2012-11-16 12:42:03 AM

Klom Dark: BravadoGT: You know what kind of employee I want at my business? The kind that tries to hurt me on arguably the busiest day of the year. GTFO--and God help you if you put me down on your next application and they call me.

You're not thinking fourth dimensionally.


api.ning.com
You know who else's pattern indicated a failure to think fourth dimensionally?
 
2012-11-16 12:42:11 AM

EVERYBODY PANIC: Nobody made them go work at Wal*Mart and nobody forced them to stay on over the long haul.


Because the options are so plenty. I'll repeat:
It is clear that when a person who is mugged hands over their money to the mugger they do so because they prefer it to the "next best alternative." As such, it is correct that people agree to sell their liberty to a boss because their "next best alternative" is worse (utter poverty or starvation are not found that appealing for some reason). But so what? As anarchists have been pointing out over a century, the capitalists have systematically used the state to create a limit options for the many, to create buyers' market for labour by skewing the conditions under which workers can sell their labour in the bosses favour. To then merrily answer all criticisms of this set-up with the response that the workers "voluntarily agreed" to work on those terms is just hypocrisy. Does it really change things if the mugger (the state) is only the agent (hired thug) of another criminal (the owning class)?

With your love of contracts I'd assume if someone forced to sign a contract allowing someone to harvest one of their organs at gunpoint (or at the threat of denying them food and shelter) you'd insist that the only honorable way to end this is for that cheapskate poor bastards to give his organ away?
I guess economic contracts exist in this magical vacuum with no outside circumstances surrounding them.
 
2012-11-16 12:42:20 AM

Zebulon: Lets make it so everyone in America gets $12 an hour, minimum.


Okay, let's do it.

Zebulon: Oh, that would cause the economy to collapse? Whoops, my bad.


Wouldn't even come close. We'd see an economic boom as the people most likely to spend money, the poor, suddenly have more of it.
 
2012-11-16 12:42:30 AM

jso2897: ACallForPeace: Mikey1969: You don't understand how these things work, do you? You get the best results when you give the organization that you are protesting a chance to resolve the issue before D-Day. Also, it gets the word out, making it easier to get press coverage and find people familiar with the issue if the protest is carried out.

That's a good attitude for feel-good liberal reformism.
It's not a good attitude to take for an effective direct action though.
The powers that be don't respond when you ask nicely, at most you get an extra symbolic crumb. The best thing to do is act on your own and bypass their channels all together.
Kind of like the difference between a gathered circle of liberals kindly asking for change and getting pepper sprayed in the face for their kindness (UC Davis, I think?) , or instead having a group of people willing to throw back tear gas canisters and light fires to make sure people can breathe and play ball when the cops initiate violence, all the while causing economic damage to corporations who threatened to fire their employees if they made political statements (Oakland).

Yep. If they want to organize WallyWorld, they are going to have to go Wobbly and do it the old fashioned way - and they'd better be ready to play hardball. I wonder if it's worth it.


Um...OK.
 
2012-11-16 12:42:52 AM

Nerdhurter: Yeah no shiat they can't afford craft beer that was an intentional inclusion.
Hey buddy read my post a little closer and you may notice I criticize Wal Mart along with self righteous individuals like yourself, in fact the whole point of my previous post was the condescending attitude the progressives take towards minimum wage employees.


Okay, I've read it a little closer. If you say that's what you meant, then I will take your word for it. But your tone was rather smug and condescending against people that were crunching the numbers to understand the viability, and how much something like this might actually hurt Wal-Mart. And you weren't being very nice towards the workers that keep that beer stocked for YOU at 2 AM.
 
2012-11-16 12:47:18 AM

sethen320: Great Janitor: ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: There are jobs out there. No one has to settle for Walmart unless they want to.

Jeez, dude, that's not exactly a realistic attitude. Do you know how much upheaval a family (with one car!) goes through when Mom has to rearrange her schedule around a new job?

Quitting and taking another job is just not as easy as you seem to believe it is. And what about the next poor asshole that takes the Wal-Mart job? Are you okay with them being treated like sh*t?

Read my longer post about my sister about 50 posts upthread. Wal-Mart broke their promises to her. They treat her like sh*t. And there is not a whole lot that she can really do about it.

So, they treated her like shiat and she stayed. I've had employers do the same shiat to me. I found a new job each time. What's going to cause a bigger headache, the wife finding a new job, one that would pay and treat her better or her staying in a job that she hates and bringing home all that negativity.

My mom works a job she biatches about constantly. After five years of complaining about her job, her low pay, the people she works for to my dad. My dad would say "Quit and find another job!" She never did. My dad eventually left and divorced my mom for that reason. He couldn't take it anymore. He was tired of my mom coming home each day biatching at him for a job she refused to leave.

Now, now I get to take a weekly phone call from my mom who is biatching about the job she hates and has had for fifteen years now.

So what you're saying is that if the workers aren't happy with the pay they should do something?


Yes actually. Me, I started out in retail, unskilled and working a job that I hated that only paid minimum wage. I gained skills to change that fact. The business owners also have the right to listen to what the workers want and either agree or disagree with what they say. If the business owners say no to higher pay or better working conditions, then the workers are free to find new jobs.
 
2012-11-16 12:47:29 AM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Zebulon: HotIgneous Intruder: I'm sure walmart is really struggling in this economy.
What's that you say? No way. Really?
Ok.
I'll just leave this here:
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans
Well, goodness, it's true.
snip:
No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

That's a grand total of $102.7 billion for the whole family.

Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California-Berkeley, compared the Waltons' cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Survey of Consumer Finances. (She used the Waltons' wealth from 2010, which was valued at $89.5 billion.)

Allegretto found that in 2007, the wealth held by the six Waltons was equal to that of the bottom 30.5 percent of families in the U.S. In 2010, the Waltons' share equaled the entire bottom 41.5 percent of families.

Walmart can afford raises for everyone.

Those people who you are talking about have all their money from SHARES of STOCK in the company. They do not, in any way, impact how much money Walmart spends on payroll. You cannot take money away from them and somehow give it to the employees.

Let's see. If Walmart started paying higher wages then figured out what kind of stock dividend they could pay after raising those wages, I wonder what that family's reaction would be. Probably fire all the members of the board of directors and all executive officers.

They have plenty of effect on wages.


The Walmart family does NOT have the ability to simply fire managers at will. The *stockholders*, as a group, can hold elections once a year for the board of directors. The Walmart family does own a large chunk of shares, but they don't own a controlling percentage. Do you even understand how stock ownership works?
 
2012-11-16 12:47:48 AM

ox45tallboy: Nerdhurter: Yeah no shiat they can't afford craft beer that was an intentional inclusion.
Hey buddy read my post a little closer and you may notice I criticize Wal Mart along with self righteous individuals like yourself, in fact the whole point of my previous post was the condescending attitude the progressives take towards minimum wage employees.

Okay, I've read it a little closer. If you say that's what you meant, then I will take your word for it. But your tone was rather smug and condescending against people that were crunching the numbers to understand the viability, and how much something like this might actually hurt Wal-Mart. And you weren't being very nice towards the workers that keep that beer stocked for YOU at 2 AM.


I think you may have misinterpreted his original post, but then maybe I am too.
 
2012-11-16 12:48:28 AM

ACallForPeace: With your love of contracts I'd assume if someone forced to sign a contract allowing someone to harvest one of their organs at gunpoint (or at the threat of denying them food and shelter) you'd insist that the only honorable way to end this is for that cheapskate poor bastards to give his organ away?
I guess economic contracts exist in this magical vacuum with no outside circumstances surrounding them.


The worst part of it is that the Wal-Mart employees DID NOT AGREE TO BE TREATED LIKE THIS. This is what EVERYBODY PANIC (and many others in the thread) don't seem to understand. Wal-Mart does not tell people as part of the interview and hiring process that they will be scheduled for full-time hours but not allowed to have benefits becasue they are considered a "part time" employee. They tell people that if they work 28 hours, they are "full-time"! They don't tell people that they will be required to work overtime some days without notice, but the overtime will be deducted when their shift begins on Friday by forcing them to clock out and sit in the parking lot for a few hours, and then have to race to try to do their night's work in only 6 hours instead of 8.
 
2012-11-16 12:49:49 AM

ox45tallboy: Nerdhurter: Yeah no shiat they can't afford craft beer that was an intentional inclusion.
Hey buddy read my post a little closer and you may notice I criticize Wal Mart along with self righteous individuals like yourself, in fact the whole point of my previous post was the condescending attitude the progressives take towards minimum wage employees.

Okay, I've read it a little closer. If you say that's what you meant, then I will take your word for it. But your tone was rather smug and condescending against people that were crunching the numbers to understand the viability, and how much something like this might actually hurt Wal-Mart. And you weren't being very nice towards the workers that keep that beer stocked for YOU at 2 AM.


I love the guy that makes sure the brew is stocked at 2am, but lets be real, 8 hours of training and he or she could be replaced overnight, gotta have some leverage, and I just dont see what they have.
 
2012-11-16 12:50:32 AM

ciberido: WhyteRaven74: How about send WalMart a bill for all the food assistance and other assistance their employees get because they're not paid enough to make it without the assistance?

That is, roughly, part of the the argument Barbara Ehrenreich makes in her book Nickel and Dimed, that by not paying workers a living wage, businesses are essentially offloading the difference between what they pay and what their workers need to survive onto the taxpayers.


Paying them more will also offset the cost to the taxpayer as a consumer. However, it's my guess that the overall cost will be lower because the private business will be more efficient than any government agency providing assistance.

It comes down to do you want to pay higher taxes, or do you want to pay more for your cheap plastic junk from China?
 
2012-11-16 12:51:10 AM
ox45tallboy: I guess that's what it comes down to, some people, including myself, would still have sympathy for our common man, even if he was dumb enough to hit himself with the hammer. Some people would lock them in a warehouse. You sir, are unsympathetic.

Great Janitor: There are things that I do sympathize with. Someone gets rear ended in a car wreck by a drunk driver, yes I'm going to feel sympathy for the victims of that wreck. Someone does something of their own freewill and suffers, I'm not going to feel bad. My sister's mother in law died from emphysema and when my sister's husband told me, my response was to say "Pity she made the choice to smoke all those cigarettes."



Ah, yes. The dreaded just-world fallacy.

Lerner's inquiry was influenced by repeatedly witnessing the tendency of observers to blame victims for their suffering. During his clinical training as a psychologist, he observed treatment of mentally ill persons by the health care practitioners with whom he worked. Though he knew them to be kindhearted, educated people, they blamed patients for their own suffering. He also describes his surprise at hearing his students derogate the poor, seemingly oblivious to the structural forces that contribute to poverty. In a study he was doing on rewards, he observed that when one of two men was chosen at random to receive a reward for a task, observers' evaluations were more positive for the man who had been randomly rewarded than for the man who did not receive a reward. Existing social psychological theories, including cognitive dissonance, could not fully explain these phenomena. The desire to understand the processes that caused these observed phenomena led Lerner to conduct his first experiments on what is now called the just world hypothesis.

You can read up on it, but it basically boils down to "I don't want to live in a world where bad things happen to good people, so I'll refuse to believe that I do, in fact, live in such a world."
 
2012-11-16 12:51:16 AM

Great Janitor: Yes actually. Me, I started out in retail, unskilled and working a job that I hated that only paid minimum wage. I gained skills to change that fact. The business owners also have the right to listen to what the workers want and either agree or disagree with what they say. If the business owners say no to higher pay or better working conditions, then the workers are free to find new jobs.


So you are okay with the people who stock your groceries being treated like this? If they don't like it, it's their own fault, right?

I just don't understand this attitude. SOMEONE will be stocking those same groceries. A human being. A person. Someone's sister.

And you're okay with that person who for whatever reason CAN'T quit the job being treated like this?
 
2012-11-16 12:51:44 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Mikey1969: Well, except by every definition available outside of this board.

I'd always taken the definition to be that the "made money" was implicit with "employment" and the "gainful" necessitated being able to live on and improve yourself. If you're going to say "gainful employment" qualifies as getting a paycheck, there's really no point to the gainful, is there?

If it will make you happy, "living wage" works just as well.


Make me happy? I'm merely pointing out the available definitions on that new "internet" thing. One of them was from a tax website even, it's not my fault the definition isn't making you happy.

(Or maybe it is...)
 
2012-11-16 12:52:21 AM

Nerdhurter: I love the guy that makes sure the brew is stocked at 2am, but lets be real, 8 hours of training and he or she could be replaced overnight, gotta have some leverage, and I just dont see what they have.


The fact that they are human freaking beings is a start. Human beings do not deserve to be treated like this.
 
2012-11-16 12:53:28 AM

ox45tallboy: I don't think it will ever come to making Union organizers disappear again, like what used to happen.


Still does.
And it can still happen here.
Look at austerity. A policy intentionally used to drain the coffers of third world resources towards the first world and away from their own citizens through causing a perpetual debt cycle under the old contract morality and the same old "economic" "moral" justification for violence, debt. The IMF works like the mafia. If we can make onlookers/the victims feel that they owed you something, everybody goes "well they had it coming".
And now they're eating their own and touching traditionally untouched "Western" or "first world" places in Europe. The Zapatistas, Iceland, and Argentina were all somewhat successful in telling them to fark off, so they don't get much coverage.
But don't think for a second there aren't a bunch of neoliberals who wouldn't gladly turn us into Pinochet's Chile if they thought they could.
 
2012-11-16 12:53:35 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Zebulon: Lets make it so everyone in America gets $12 an hour, minimum.

Okay, let's do it.

Zebulon: Oh, that would cause the economy to collapse? Whoops, my bad.

Wouldn't even come close. We'd see an economic boom as the people most likely to spend money, the poor, suddenly have more of it.


Right now minimum wage is $7.25. So, if a person is making $11/hour, that person is making $3.75/hour more than minimum wage. Pretty good if they started out at minimum wage and worked their way to $11/hour. Now, if minimum wage is jacked up to $12/hour, that person who was making $11/hour is now making a dollar more an hour, but is back to making minimum wage. It doesn't matter what the minimum wage is, if you're making minimum wage you're still making the lowest amount that your employer is allowed to pay you.

If you want more money, find a better job, gain more marketable skills, start your own business. Don't expect the government to increase minimum wage or protest your employer into paying you more.
 
Displayed 50 of 709 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report