Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, unfair labor practice, Center for Independent Media  
•       •       •

20668 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 8:59 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 12:37:52 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 12:39:09 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 12:42:03 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 12:42:52 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 12:48:28 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.
 
2012-11-16 12:53:44 AM  

Fade2black: Sergeant Grumbles: Fade2black: Have you heard of entry level jobs to get your skills in order, so you can actually take some initiative to move on to a better paying job through school, training, or perseverance? Not everything is handed out on a silver platter (yet, the dems have 4 more years). If that was the case, high school kids would be basking in riches from Mcdonald's.

Retail and Fast Food is tradionally entry level jobs. They are used for job experience and training so you can move on to bigger and better. They are not jobs built around you deciding you're entitled to a pension and a petty cash fund.

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

I just explained why. You're just looping it around so that you don't have to counter the argument. If this were the politics tab you would've called me Hitler or used Correlation/Causation to shut me up because you couldn't come up with a retort.

Entry level is entry level for a reason. Not everybody needs an economics class to understand that if you jump up every single "no training required" job to "gainfully employed" that it would collapse the economy.

...or are you just angry and frustrated because divorced with 3 kids working at 34 1/2 hours in retail isn't paying the bills you brought on?


So...your idea here is that all the jobs in retail are entry level? And that once a person has enough experience, they should leave the company and move on? That would give a company like Walmart or McDonalds a 100% turnover rate every six months or so. Is that good for a company, to lose everyone every six or 8 months? Does that sound like a good business model to you?

Because if so, you're thinking like the douchebags at Walmart, and it explains why you don't understand why the employees are upset. Yeah, retail jobs like stocking and cashiering are entry level, for a while. Nobody thinks they're going to be stockboy their entire life and retire after 20 years. But they MIGHT think that after a year or two at stocking, they might be moving on to night warehouse clerk, or something like that. They might expect that after a year as part-time cashier, they have a shot at shift manager. They DON'T think that after five years they'll still have 30 hours stocking shelves in the underwear department and be told they should be glad to have that you worthless piece of replaceable garbage.

That's what's got Walmart and other retail employees upset, you see. Not that they have crappy jobs that don't pay much; but that after years of service they STILL have crappy jobs that don't pay much. Entry-level jobs is one thing, but Walmart is a huge corporation with (allegedly) lots of opportunity. Is it too much to expect that one should be able to move up within the company? Why should they have to quit to find a better job? Why can't Walmart be expected to take care of them by giving them some opportunity (assuming they're worth it)? But Walmart apparently feels like you do: What did you expect? Retail is for crappy entry level jobs, not for someone who wanted a chance to move up. (Never mind that there are lots of middle- and upper-management positions within Walmart itself) We don't move people up, we hire from outside!

But that's not a good way to keep employees around, wouldn't you agree?
 
2012-11-16 12:54:08 AM  

sethen320: 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.


No it isn't, but a definition is a definition. It tells you exactly what a word or phrase means. Having a brain means that you use words and phrases correctly, not that you make shiat up as you go along and then expect everyone else to know what YOUR special definition means.
 
2012-11-16 12:54:48 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.


A stock's value is basically tied to the profits the company generates and the stock dividends that will be paid as a result of those profits. Lowering payroll increases profits in the short term. In the long term, it can be argued that low wages will eventually impact profits due to high turnover. The stockholders do have a say in this with their vote. The Walton family owns enough of the company stock to be heard should they wish a change in policy. So the shiatty wages and poor treatment invariable rests on their shoulders.
 
2012-11-16 12:55:15 AM  

Bucky Katt: 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.


And I doubt Kittiepie070 is actually a large green mutant. But I could be wrong.
 
2012-11-16 12:55:19 AM  

ciberido: 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."


That's a very good post. Thank you for that.

I'm not quite sure why you attached me to the quote in your post, because I never said that, but it did bring your post to my attention. So it was a good thing.
 
2012-11-16 12:55:44 AM  

Thigvald the Big-Balled: FuryOfFirestorm: djkutch: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

This. I don't understand why employees shouldn't just be forced to live and work at the job. A little room with a hotplate, if you will. Share a shiater down the hall. I believe the president who should have been explored such policies in China.

Employees should have absolutely no voice. In return, said employees get no pay.

Share a shiatter? What, is a bucket too good for those worthless plebes? Toilets cost money, dammit!

And a hot plate? What is this - The Waldorf Astoria? Next they'll be expecting food that isn't made from old newspapers and ground up apple cores!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x572]


Old newspapers and ground up apple cores? Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!
 
2012-11-16 12:56:51 AM  

sethen320: Nutsac_Jim: sethen320: So are you saying that it's OK for an employer to ask for ALL of your timewhich is not occupied by eating, sleeping, or travelling to/from work and not pay you enough to actually live on? Even if we eliminate insurance? You're part of the problem if your answer is yes. This isn't a right vs. left or Obama vs Romney thing. It's not even about Wal-Mart specifically. This is about doing the right thing.

Odd indeed. I used to work at Wal-mart. I seemed to have enough to live on and stick money in the stock plan where the company matched part of my contributions.

Maybe the people you are talking about eat too much or something? I don't recall them asking for too much of my time.

Ok, I'm intrigued. You were an employee which received pay that you were able to live on and still had free time? I'm not being contrarian, I'm actually open to learning more. If I'm wrong I would definitely like to know about it. What kind of position did you hold? Were you ever forced to work holidays? Locked in?


I started out working nights so I could have some free time. My supervisor made a recommendation
to the store manager for a department manager job that was open, and that I was a hard worker.
I took that job and the pay bump, because I wasn't enjoying working with the tards on the night shift.

I regularly came in late to the manager meeting but it was never mentioned to me. Apparently, my doing the job well was appreciated by the manager more. It never was brought up at any review nor stopped me from getting raises that I know of.

I never had any issues working holidays, because our store was closed on those days. Nobody ever locked anyone in the warehouse. Maybe my store manager was different.

I would not say it was my dream job. I basically thought all day about how I could make things work better. I went from there to making a wad of cash in some other companies.

My girlfriend's brother, he decided that if I can do it, he can do it. He was fired from Walmart, because instead of thinking about how to make things better, he thought about how he could hide in various locations of the store so he wouldn't have to do any work.

With the stock plan, Walmart made you withhold it from your check for 2 months. I ate peanut butter sandwiches and ramen until they matched my contributions. I then simply cashed out my contributions and my 20% bonus. Other guys at the store.. they wanted their beer money now, dammit.

Some of the workers would be worth the 25,000 that is being passed around on this thread. Most of them, they would be grossly overpaid at 25k, and I would almost consider it stealing from the company to require they be paid the same.
 
2012-11-16 12:58:18 AM  
Silly Jesus (farkied: Jesus must indeed seem silly to this guy): Maybe it will shape up like the Hostess strike. Hostess told the workers that if they went on strike they would shutter the factories and fire them all. They went on strike...Hostess closed the factories...the workers went all WHARGARBLLL "yall took are jerbs!" It was beeeautiful.

YEEEEEE-HAW! That'll larn them uppity peasants! Score one more for the zillionaires!

Gold und Silber über alles,
Über alles in die Welt....

/Citation needed; here's mine.
 
2012-11-16 12:58:55 AM  

ox45tallboy: Do you understand that my sister signed up for 4 days a week, not 5?

Did she make it clear that her availability was only 4 days a week? Why does she show up for 5 days, if she's only available for 4?

Do you understand that if she works 40 hours a week, she is supposed to get insurance?

Has she asked for it?

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?

I've never heard of such nonsense as punching in late to avoid overtime. Punching out early, sure. Has she suggested she punch in on time, and leave early instead?

 
2012-11-16 01:01:58 AM  

Great Janitor: 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.


Pull themselves up by their bootstraps, eh?

But someone still has to stock the groceries. If EVERYONE did as you suggested, who would stock the groceries?
 
2012-11-16 01:02:05 AM  

sethen320: Nutsac_Jim: ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: If they want a better paying job, a better working environment no one is forcing them to work at Walmart, they are free to find new jobs.

And you're free to make sweet, sweet love to Christina Hendricks. However, that means getting her to cooperate, just like it means getting another employer to hire you.

Fact is, Wal-Mart runs the other businesses out when they put in a location. You either work there, or you don't work.

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

Yeah, I used to think that was true too. That's not actually how unions work, well not all of them anyway. I don't know everything.


I worked for UPS in MD while I was going to UMd. You HAD to join the union if you wanted to work there. No ifs, ands or buts.

I later worked at UPS in Va. You could join the union if you wanted to do so. I think unions are great. I don't like being forced to join in order to work.
 
2012-11-16 01:02:21 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.


*pats the little man on the head*

You really are precious.

/smugness off
 
2012-11-16 01:03:03 AM  

jayphat: 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.


A: If it doesn't require a key from the inside, it only requires a burglar to hang out until everyone has left.

B: Entry doors are required to be unlocked during business hours, period, so your little fantasy of the manager having to dig out a key while people are burning to death doesn't work. The door is open while the business is open.

C: It obviously doesn't matter that I post this, because you're part of the 'WalMart is a worker's paradise because people work there' crowd, so I'm done. Besides, you've missed the point so many times now that it's not worth pursuing at this point. Good night.
 
2012-11-16 01:03:49 AM  
Ok since we're big on democracy lets make sure the public knows about this, let people vote with their dollars. Or we can appoint an official to set wages, make sure everything's fair. Wait lets set minimum wage at 12 dollars an hour. Will alot of small businesses get farked while big business soaks it up, well yeah but...
 
2012-11-16 01:05:08 AM  

Mikey1969: Of course you still cherry picked my post, including the part about how they said 'emergency, like the place going up in fire.'.


An emergency LIKE the place going up in fire.

e·mer·gen·cy/i'm?rj?nse/
Noun:
A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.

like/lik/
Preposition:
Having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to: "they were like brothers".

So, substituting in the original sentence:

''They gave us a big lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's 'A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action' 'similar to' the place going up on fire.''

Sheesh.
 
2012-11-16 01:06:02 AM  

fredklein: I've never heard of such nonsense as punching in late to avoid overtime. Punching out early, sure. Has she suggested she punch in on time, and leave early instead?


Yes, it was absoltely clear, punched in by the General Manager herself, that she would work Monday thru Thursday nights. Period.

And as for leaving early, the problem is that payroll ends on Friday night at midnight, so the overtime has to come off before then. But don't you dare come in late!
 
2012-11-16 01:07:16 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.


Is it your assertion that Wal*Mart has never, ever gone back on their word or done anything that their contract or other official documents said they would not do, nor broken any laws? Despite the examples given in this thread and in the linked articles?

Because I think your argument kinda depends on the premise that Wal*Mart kept their end of the bargain.
 
2012-11-16 01:07:31 AM  

Great Janitor: Sliding Carp: $5.00 says the party of small government, individual freedom, and free market will find a way to claim the government should force them back to work.

Why should they? Just fire the ones who walk out and replace them. Odds are they won't be missed.

Or, here's how I look at it, if I were working at Walmart, I would, first of all, know that like it or not, working Black Friday was going to happen. All things considered, I'd rather work at the start of the sale on Thanksgiving than on Friday because at least on Thursday I'd get holiday pay. Secondly, knowing the kind of customers and the numbers of customers that show on Black Friday, I'd be a bit pissed that my coworkers decided to skip out on a major day at work instead of doing the job that they were hired to do.

In short, Walmart workers, you knew what you were getting into when you filled out the job application. If you don't like the situation of having to work Black Friday, quit your job and find a different one.


They aren't striking on Black Friday because they expect to not work Black Friday, they are striking on that day because Walmart might actually suffer because of it. It's a leverage thing. And no, you don't get holiday pay for working on holidays. There are a few holidays where everyone gets holiday pay depending on their average hours per week, regardless of whether or not they actually work the holiday.
 
2012-11-16 01:09:41 AM  

ILoveBurritos: I get that this is mainly a workers vs employers thread at this point, but I can't help but think that the real problem is the consumers (and excessive consumerism). No one wants to pay for decently made products anymore because the only thing consumers look at is the price tag. I'm not good at explaining myself, but it feels like we all assume we've given up on even thinking we can rehabilitate the public on shopping effectively. Like consumers are compelled to shop at Walmart, just open one and people will flock there unable to control themselves.
On a tangent though, I've read that companies that want to sell with Walmart have to meet certain price guidelines otherwise Walmart won't carry their products and since Walmart is such an important chain to sell through. Companies are basically forced to make cheaper products for these dumbass consumers.
What this really all comes down to is that I hadn't had to buy denim jeans for a decade, and now that I'm looking, all I can find anywhere is paper thin garbage that doesn't feel sturdy at all, anywhere. When I compare it to my old ones, the newer ones are obviously inferior. Why would I want to spend $30 on a cheap pair of jeans I'll end up replacing 5 times in the span that a $60 pair would have lasted me once?



[mews urgently]

Go here!! Go here!!

http://www.allamericanclothing.com/
 
2012-11-16 01:09:48 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.


O RLY?
 
2012-11-16 01:11:06 AM  

ciberido: 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."


I don't blame victims. Two years ago I was rear ended in a car wreck. The freeway was shut down for construction. My car was at a complete stand still because when you are forcing three lanes of freeway traffic onto a single lane access road with a stop light that doesn't favor the access road, there is not much forward movement. The car that came up behind me, the driver was texting while driving, hit me from the rear at (according the police report) approximately 50mph. I was the first of five cars in what instantly became a multicar crash. I broke seven ribs on my left side, my left shoulder blade was broken, my right shoulder was shattered and required surgery and I have lost both use and feeling in my right shoulder. I also had head and neck injuries. I was out of work for three months while I recovered from my injuries. So I know that blaming the victim of another person's actions is pointless. Though the only person who tried to blame me for the wreck was the woman who rear ended me. Or that's the story that lying biatch gave her insurance company.

Now, I have another friend who upon getting a bad review from his boss, punched a wall and broke his hand. First question I asked him when he told me the story was "Was the review false?" He said no, he admitted that everything mentioned was true, he just didn't realize that they knew about everything or that he was really that bad at his job. Do I blame him for his broken hand? Yeah, he was the dumbass who broke it. No one put a gun to his head and told him to do it.

And I have the same feelings towards my sister. Her husband beats her. Her reaction is "But I had it coming." I one time, ONE TIME tried to help her and got the cops involved. She lied to the cops to cover for her husband and insulted me to the police as part of the cover. So later that year when he back the car over her toe or blackened her eye I didn't care. She had her chance to tell the police the truth and instead she lied to protect that son of a biatch. So when he hits and kicks her I tell her that I don't care. I did my part she turned on me, and if he kills her she's to blame.

If a woman gets raped, I do sympathize and really want to punch anyone in the face who says that she was wanting it or asking for it because of the way she was dressed.
 
2012-11-16 01:12:42 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.


You apparently have no idea how most retail companies work. Do you know how much of every dollar you spend at a Walmart actually turns into profit? 3 cents. That's it. 3 pennies. So, to increase one Walmart associate's pay by $4 an hour would take an extra $133 or so in sales. Doesn't seem like much, right? Now, take into account that the average Walmart has about 200 employees, and lets say a third of them are there at any given time. That means that the store would need to cover 67 employees, which would mean they would need an extra $2211 in sales, *every hour*. For a 24 hr supercenter, that would mean a little over $53000 a day. The Walmart I work at usually only averages about $200000 in sales a day, so we would need to increase our sales by about 25% to cover those costs. Not going to happen.
 
2012-11-16 01:12:48 AM  

ciberido: Is it your assertion that Wal*Mart has never, ever gone back on their word or done anything that their contract or other official documents said they would not do, nor broken any laws? Despite the examples given in this thread and in the linked articles?

Because I think your argument kinda depends on the premise that Wal*Mart kept their end of the bargain.


Thank you for that. You put it rather more succinctly than I seem to have been able to.
 
2012-11-16 01:14:10 AM  

ciberido: 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.

*pats the little man on the head*

You really are precious.

/smugness off


Whoa... that is some serious smugness, I'm at a loss.
 
2012-11-16 01:15:28 AM  

phunkey_monkey: I hope they do unionize. After a year or so of paying extortionate union dues for nothing will teach them that unionizing is a bad idea.


You sound like the anti-union video Walmart made me watch when I was hired. "YOU"D JUST BE PAYING PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR YOU"
 
2012-11-16 01:19:35 AM  

Zebulon: 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.

You apparently have no idea how most retail companies work. Do you know how much of every dollar you spend at a Walmart actually turns into profit? 3 cents. That's it. 3 pennies. So, to increase one Walmart associate's pay by $4 an hour would take an extra $133 or so in sales. Doesn't seem like much, right? Now, take into account that the average Walmart has about 200 employees, and lets say a third of them are there at any given time. That means that the store would need to cover 67 employees, which would mean they would need an extra $2211 in sales, *every hour*. For a 24 hr supercenter, that would mean a little over $53000 a day. The Walmart I work at usually only averages about $200000 in sales a day, so we would need to increase our sales by about 25% to cover those costs. Not going to happen.


Hey Mr Fancy Pants!! Don't you go tossing around NUMBERS and LOGIC around here. This if FARK and it'll just confuse people.
 
2012-11-16 01:21:07 AM  

The Downfall: "YOU"D JUST BE PAYING PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR YOU"


It's funny because "profit" is essentially workers paying people to make decisions for them.
 
2012-11-16 01:21:36 AM  

ox45tallboy: Yes, it was absoltely clear, punched in by the General Manager herself, that she would work Monday thru Thursday nights. Period.

And as for leaving early, the problem is that payroll ends on Friday night at midnight, so the overtime has to come off before then. But don't you dare come in late!


If it was "absoltely clear", that she was not available Friday nights, why did she come in at all? If she's mistakenly scheduled for it, she can speak to a manager and get it taken off. And that would solve the whole 'overtime' thing, too.

Or, (assuming she wanted to work Fridays and has less than 2 hours OT) she could punch in at 10pm (on time, no tardys!), and immediately punch out for lunch. Wait the time needed, then punch in from lunch.

Or, she could carry a tape recorder and record management telling her to punch in late, then dinging her for being late. Present the evidence to the next level of management.

Or, you know, just do nothing.

/who the heck closes the payroll week at Friday midnight??
 
2012-11-16 01:22:20 AM  

sethen320: Great Janitor: 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.

There is no way you are serious. You've been at it all night. Are you really that excited about sucking the corporate cock, or is it just really important to you that someone be there on Thanksgiving to sell you that piece of shiat you're wanting? Please tell me it's the latter, because the former means that you're lost already, and frankly, humanity needs you.


It's not about sucking corporate dick, it's about fact. If you want to get paid more money it's up to you and no one else. How is that so hard to accept. There is a reason why it's called minimum wage. If you want to make more than minimum wage than it's up to you.

In November 2008 I had two friends who sought to make more money. One voted for Obama because he pledged to raise minimum wage. Another bought a house that same day on the court house steps and sold it less than a week later for a profit of more than the first friend will see in two years of income. One relied on the government, the other relied on himself. I started asking the guy who relied on himself for some advice.

As for Black Friday, believe it or not, I don't do those sales. I have decided that companies have the right to be open on what ever hours they wish to be open on during Black Friday, even if it starts on Thanksgiving. I have the right to not participate. Honestly, since that trampling death a few years ago, I actually look down on the Black Friday shoppers who line up and crowd the doors right before the store opens.
 
2012-11-16 01:26:39 AM  

Zebulon: 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.


You might be surprised at what some grocery store employees make. Many of them are unionized. I know that's not really your point, just sayin'.
 
Displayed 50 of 674 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report