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 (4 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 08:55:00 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: Put Its Promises in Writing
Agree to a global labor agreement guaranteeing the fundamental human right of freedom of association for all of its associates and instruct their suppliers to do the same, and recognize and negotiate with OUR Walmart. Since when is it a requirement that Walmart dictates other companies policies?

They do it all the time when they are cutting deals.


Not sure I agree with you on this.

Elevate Global Living Standards
Establish a legally binding global responsible contractor policy requiring contractors and subcontractors to provide living wages, worker safety protections, and respect basic human and labor rights, including freedom of association and freedom from racial and gender discrimination. Again, why is this Walmarts responsibility?

Because they're profiting from it.


And other similar companies arent profiting; Sears, Kohls, Target, H&M, etc? Why should a company have to "overpay" someone just because they demand it? Heard on the new last night one of the Hostess workers complaining about her making $12/hour. She said "I only make $12 an hour. I could go get another job making more." WELL WHY DONT YOU THEN????
 
2012-11-16 08:56:12 AM  

Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: Put Its Promises in Writing
Agree to a global labor agreement guaranteeing the fundamental human right of freedom of association for all of its associates and instruct their suppliers to do the same, and recognize and negotiate with OUR Walmart. Since when is it a requirement that Walmart dictates other companies policies?

They do it all the time when they are cutting deals.

Elevate Global Living Standards
Establish a legally binding global responsible contractor policy requiring contractors and subcontractors to provide living wages, worker safety protections, and respect basic human and labor rights, including freedom of association and freedom from racial and gender discrimination. Again, why is this Walmarts responsibility?

Because they're profiting from it.

And paying taxes on that profit that pay for your food stamps. Dont like it? Dont work there


Exactly!!!
 
2012-11-16 08:57:31 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Fade2black: Is there a reason why Wal-Mart should pay a wage to employees that would count as gainfully employed? You haven't explained the repercussions when wages go up dollars an hour, to the product they sell or the services they give. Wages go up, cost goes up. Nothing of value was gained except you might feel better about yourself when you go home after your shift.

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.

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


Why not pay them all $50,000 a year. That would only cost everyone $20 a year. Why not pay them all $100,000 a year? That would cost everyone less than $100 a year. How do you choose the appropriate pay?
 
2012-11-16 08:58:05 AM  

sethen320: Yes, I get that you've found a legal loophole but that still doesn't make it morally right. You do know what morals are, right? Should I post a definition for you?


It's not a loophole. That's how it's supposed to work.

The theory of a strike is to say "you need us, and if you don't treat us right, we won't work, and your business will fail." The employer is free to try to replace those employees, the striking workers are free to stand outside and picket, telling anyone who will listen why they are striking. If the strikers are right, and they truly are necessary (and their cause is just), people won't cross the picket lines, and the employer won't be able to function without the employees.

In practice, union strikes often try to squeeze blood from a turnip (uaw, etc.), and workers often way overvalue themselves. Skilled workers have a much better chance of success at striking than retail workers. If almost anyone can learn to do your job "well enough" in a week, you really don't have a whole lot of leverage.

That's not a loophole, that's a value proposition.
 
2012-11-16 08:59:05 AM  

Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: There's an endless supply of dimwits who need some extra walking around money for cigarettes and lottery tickets. I don't think that Wal-mart is at much risk of running out of a "qualified" applicant pool.

That's where you and I disagree, I think the supply is limited. Would you work there? I wouldn't. Have you ever met any dimwits that you wouldn't trust to know which end of a mop to use? I have. Once you eliminate those people, people who can't communicate, people who have other limiting factors such as a criminal record, you do have a finite available workforce. Now, there are obviously more people who would take the job than are currently employed by the company, but I still believe that those people, once they are employed, will reach the same level off discontent that the current employees have. Eventually you run out of people who are willing to take the shiatty job. Add to that the cost of on-boarding and training new employees and it can be less costly to meet the employees demands, or at least come to some sort of middle ground.

It's kind of like the people who pick vegetables going on strike. Sure, there are other people willing to take their jobs, but not many and once those people realize how difficult the work is and how shiatty the conditions are, they too get fed up and go on strike. Eventually the growers run out of available employees and are forced to make concessions.

Yep. That's how it works. If Wal-mart becomes unable to hire enough employees at current wages, the wages will increase. Until then, they have no reason to pay everyone more than the market deems that they are currently worth.


This is why Capitalism is dead. There are now more workers than work that can be done, and it's getting worse every day. The end result is an excess of labour supply, causing wages to plummet. Eventually they will hit 0. What then, genius?
 
2012-11-16 08:59:37 AM  
To all internet CEOs'.... if you can do it so much better start your own company and pay your employees as much as you want.
 
2012-11-16 09:03:16 AM  

Joe Blowme: And paying taxes on that profit


LOL U FUNNEE
 
2012-11-16 09:03:26 AM  

Joe Blowme: To all internet CEOs'.... if you can do it so much better start your own company and pay your employees as much as you want.


I did. I do. What's your point?
 
2012-11-16 09:05:10 AM  

Mikey1969: 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 don't know how THAT works, do you? Pretty much all that they get to ask you is if the person is considered eligible for rehire. You can't say more, or you're violating the very types of labor laws that WalMart has been ignoring requests to stop violating for YEARS. It's not like this is the first, or even the millionth, time this has come up.


Most jobs that I've had have asked me to sign a form that allows my previous employer to say whatever they want. I think that's fairly common.
 
2012-11-16 09:05:34 AM  

Silly Jesus: Sergeant Grumbles: Fade2black: Is there a reason why Wal-Mart should pay a wage to employees that would count as gainfully employed? You haven't explained the repercussions when wages go up dollars an hour, to the product they sell or the services they give. Wages go up, cost goes up. Nothing of value was gained except you might feel better about yourself when you go home after your shift.

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.

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

Why not pay them all $50,000 a year. That would only cost everyone $20 a year. Why not pay them all $100,000 a year? That would cost everyone less than $100 a year. How do you choose the appropriate pay?


Consider this. Walmart makes $15 billion in profit each year. Walmart employees consume $3 billion in government welfare each year.

How about they take a tiny hit off of profit to pay their employees enough to not need welfare, for a start? The employees are each contributing towards the GDP fraction that is being generated, but they are not receiving any of it. It's wage theft, plain and simple.
 
2012-11-16 09:06:54 AM  

hocho064: HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: Put Its Promises in Writing
Agree to a global labor agreement guaranteeing the fundamental human right of freedom of association for all of its associates and instruct their suppliers to do the same, and recognize and negotiate with OUR Walmart. Since when is it a requirement that Walmart dictates other companies policies?

They do it all the time when they are cutting deals.

Not sure I agree with you on this.


You don't think Walmart demands certain operational conditions from their suppliers? LOL

Elevate Global Living Standards
Establish a legally binding global responsible contractor policy requiring contractors and subcontractors to provide living wages, worker safety protections, and respect basic human and labor rights, including freedom of association and freedom from racial and gender discrimination. Again, why is this Walmarts responsibility?

Because they're profiting from it.

And other similar companies arent profiting; Sears, Kohls, Target, H&M, etc? Why should a company have to "overpay" someone just because they demand it?


What?

I get that you're a huge fan of overseas slave labor, but a lot of people aren't. As long as we're competing with Asian orphans on wages, nothing will get better here.
 
2012-11-16 09:08:29 AM  

BravadoGT: Mikey1969: 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 don't know how THAT works, do you? Pretty much all that they get to ask you is if the person is considered eligible for rehire. You can't say more, or you're violating the very types of labor laws that WalMart has been ignoring requests to stop violating for YEARS. It's not like this is the first, or even the millionth, time this has come up.

In fact--I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in this particular discussion that knows how it DOES work. First, in many states it is perfectly legal to reveal the reason for termination And, in the ones where it isn't--who do you think is actually worried about violating THAT law? How is your disgruntled ex-employee going to prove it? It's often little more than a single, friendly conversation on the phone--who exactly is going to reveal the contents of that conversation? Me? The grateful colleague who I just saved from unwittingly hiring on a cancerous employee? Good luck, buddy.

Not a whole lot of experience for you in the real workplace, I'm guessing...


Plenty, and to top it off, my wife has worked directly with HR people for about 10 years now, but thanks for whipping out the 'I'm a diuche who thinks he's King Shiat' golden oldie, we haven't heard that on Fark for at least 3 posts...
 
2012-11-16 09:09:02 AM  

mbillips: Errbody knows this is just a few Wal-Marts in California, right? The rest of the country's obese dunderheads can riot over discounted Christmas toys to their heart's content.


Yeehaw! Pull up the Hoveround; I know what I'm doing on Black Friday...working, sadly. Though, I am going to try shopping at Target on Thursday night, first time I've ever got to "enjoy" any Black Friday-like shopping activities due to working every Black Friday for the last ...12 years or so. Just going in, grabbing a PS3, and getting out of there.
 
2012-11-16 09:10:31 AM  

MithrandirBooga: Silly Jesus: Sergeant Grumbles: Fade2black: Is there a reason why Wal-Mart should pay a wage to employees that would count as gainfully employed? You haven't explained the repercussions when wages go up dollars an hour, to the product they sell or the services they give. Wages go up, cost goes up. Nothing of value was gained except you might feel better about yourself when you go home after your shift.

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.

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

Why not pay them all $50,000 a year. That would only cost everyone $20 a year. Why not pay them all $100,000 a year? That would cost everyone less than $100 a year. How do you choose the appropriate pay?

Consider this. Walmart makes $15 billion in profit each year. Walmart employees consume $3 billion in government welfare each year.

How about they take a tiny hit off of profit to pay their employees enough to not need welfare, for a start? The employees are each contributing towards the GDP fraction that is being generated, but they are not receiving any of it. It's wage theft, plain and simple.


So generous with other peoples money, nice. Maybe you should run for office
 
2012-11-16 09:12:37 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: Put Its Promises in Writing
Agree to a global labor agreement guaranteeing the fundamental human right of freedom of association for all of its associates and instruct their suppliers to do the same, and recognize and negotiate with OUR Walmart. Since when is it a requirement that Walmart dictates other companies policies?

They do it all the time when they are cutting deals.

Not sure I agree with you on this.

You don't think Walmart demands certain operational conditions from their suppliers? LOL


Yes but NOT for things like "you need to pay your employees a certain wage DUH

Elevate Global Living Standards
Establish a legally binding global responsible contractor policy requiring contractors and subcontractors to provide living wages, worker safety protections, and respect basic human and labor rights, including freedom of association and freedom from racial and gender discrimination. Again, why is this Walmarts responsibility?

Because they're profiting from it.

And other similar companies arent profiting; Sears, Kohls, Target, H&M, etc? Why should a company have to "overpay" someone just because they demand it?

What?

I get that you're a huge fan of overseas slave labor, but a lot of people aren't. As long as we're competing with Asian orphans on wages, nothing will get better here.


Companies leveraging overseas labor is nothing new. I'm 47 and as long as I can remember, we've seen "Made in China" tags on tons of products growing up.
 
2012-11-16 09:14:15 AM  

Silly Jesus: Mikey1969: 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 don't know how THAT works, do you? Pretty much all that they get to ask you is if the person is considered eligible for rehire. You can't say more, or you're violating the very types of labor laws that WalMart has been ignoring requests to stop violating for YEARS. It's not like this is the first, or even the millionth, time this has come up.

Most jobs that I've had have asked me to sign a form that allows my previous employer to say whatever they want. I think that's fairly common.


Depends on the state you live in. In some areas saying more is legally questionable so

Joe Blowme: MithrandirBooga: Silly Jesus: Sergeant Grumbles: Fade2black: Is there a reason why Wal-Mart should pay a wage to employees that would count as gainfully employed? You haven't explained the repercussions when wages go up dollars an hour, to the product they sell or the services they give. Wages go up, cost goes up. Nothing of value was gained except you might feel better about yourself when you go home after your shift.

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.

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

Why not pay them all $50,000 a year. That would only cost everyone $20 a year. Why not pay them all $100,000 a year? That would cost everyone less than $100 a year. How do you choose the appropriate pay?

Consider this. Walmart makes $15 billion in profit each year. Walmart employees consume $3 billion in government welfare each year.

How about they take a tiny hit off of profit to pay their employees enough to not need welfare, for a start? The employees are each contributing towards the GDP fraction that is being generated, but they are not receiving any of it. It's wage theft, plain and simple.

So generous with other peoples money, nice. Maybe you should run for office


More like he is selfish with his own money and wants Walmart to stop offloading 3 billion in liabilities to the tax payer. Running for office is still a good idea the GOP would support that plan.
 
2012-11-16 09:15:58 AM  

hocho064: HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: Put Its Promises in Writing
Agree to a global labor agreement guaranteeing the fundamental human right of freedom of association for all of its associates and instruct their suppliers to do the same, and recognize and negotiate with OUR Walmart. Since when is it a requirement that Walmart dictates other companies policies?

They do it all the time when they are cutting deals.

Not sure I agree with you on this.

You don't think Walmart demands certain operational conditions from their suppliers? LOL

Yes but NOT for things like "you need to pay your employees a certain wage DUH

Elevate Global Living Standards
Establish a legally binding global responsible contractor policy requiring contractors and subcontractors to provide living wages, worker safety protections, and respect basic human and labor rights, including freedom of association and freedom from racial and gender discrimination. Again, why is this Walmarts responsibility?

Because they're profiting from it.

And other similar companies arent profiting; Sears, Kohls, Target, H&M, etc? Why should a company have to "overpay" someone just because they demand it?

What?

I get that you're a huge fan of overseas slave labor, but a lot of people aren't. As long as we're competing with Asian orphans on wages, nothing will get better here.

Companies leveraging overseas labor is nothing new. I'm 47 and as long as I can remember, we've seen "Made in China" tags on tons of products growing up.


Yeah, and now people want to do something about it. You have a problem with this.
 
2012-11-16 09:17:04 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Yes but NOT for things like "you need to pay your employees a certain wage DUH


Oh and there is the problem. Walmart has the clout to demand better conditions for their slaves, but they don't. Which is, yanno, what the union is asking for.
 
2012-11-16 09:21:02 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: HotWingConspiracy: Yes but NOT for things like "you need to pay your employees a certain wage DUH

Oh and there is the problem. Walmart has the clout to demand better conditions for their slaves, but they don't. Which is, yanno, what the union is asking for.


Yea but do you hear those companies employees complaining?

Btw - the "DUH" comment I made wasnt called for so apologies.
 
2012-11-16 09:22:10 AM  

MithrandirBooga: Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: There's an endless supply of dimwits who need some extra walking around money for cigarettes and lottery tickets. I don't think that Wal-mart is at much risk of running out of a "qualified" applicant pool.

That's where you and I disagree, I think the supply is limited. Would you work there? I wouldn't. Have you ever met any dimwits that you wouldn't trust to know which end of a mop to use? I have. Once you eliminate those people, people who can't communicate, people who have other limiting factors such as a criminal record, you do have a finite available workforce. Now, there are obviously more people who would take the job than are currently employed by the company, but I still believe that those people, once they are employed, will reach the same level off discontent that the current employees have. Eventually you run out of people who are willing to take the shiatty job. Add to that the cost of on-boarding and training new employees and it can be less costly to meet the employees demands, or at least come to some sort of middle ground.

It's kind of like the people who pick vegetables going on strike. Sure, there are other people willing to take their jobs, but not many and once those people realize how difficult the work is and how shiatty the conditions are, they too get fed up and go on strike. Eventually the growers run out of available employees and are forced to make concessions.

Yep. That's how it works. If Wal-mart becomes unable to hire enough employees at current wages, the wages will increase. Until then, they have no reason to pay everyone more than the market deems that they are currently worth.

This is why Capitalism is dead. There are now more workers than work that can be done, and it's getting worse every day. The end result is an excess of labour supply, causing wages to plummet. Eventually they will hit 0. What then, genius?


Citation needed
 
2012-11-16 09:22:33 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: Put Its Promises in Writing
Agree to a global labor agreement guaranteeing the fundamental human right of freedom of association for all of its associates and instruct their suppliers to do the same, and recognize and negotiate with OUR Walmart. Since when is it a requirement that Walmart dictates other companies policies?

They do it all the time when they are cutting deals.

Not sure I agree with you on this.

You don't think Walmart demands certain operational conditions from their suppliers? LOL

Yes but NOT for things like "you need to pay your employees a certain wage DUH

Elevate Global Living Standards
Establish a legally binding global responsible contractor policy requiring contractors and subcontractors to provide living wages, worker safety protections, and respect basic human and labor rights, including freedom of association and freedom from racial and gender discrimination. Again, why is this Walmarts responsibility?

Because they're profiting from it.

And other similar companies arent profiting; Sears, Kohls, Target, H&M, etc? Why should a company have to "overpay" someone just because they demand it?

What?

I get that you're a huge fan of overseas slave labor, but a lot of people aren't. As long as we're competing with Asian orphans on wages, nothing will get better here.

Companies leveraging overseas labor is nothing new. I'm 47 and as long as I can remember, we've seen "Made in China" tags on tons of products growing up.

Yeah, and now people want to do something about it. You have a problem with this.


To a degree, yes. Call me crazy but Im not a fan of spending $50 for a t-shirt because Walmart or any other retailer has to overpay employees.
 
2012-11-16 09:23:12 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Silly Jesus: Lol. 0 skill jobs are still not worth $12 an hour no matter how much your heart bleeds.

Yes. You'll be there soon enough.
Enjoy the rapid devaluation of your accumulated life skills and experience and the near-instant decompression of your entire economic life.
Oh. Don't get sick or you'll get fired.


I ask this honestly: how much should no-skill labor be worth?
 
2012-11-16 09:23:51 AM  
OOH!

anyone have any links to some pro-strike, pro-fair-treatment, workers of the walmart unite, solidarity in sitting out black friday type propaganda that i could print out and pass around at the many walmarts i'll be driving past in the next week?
 
2012-11-16 09:28:41 AM  

hocho064: HotWingConspiracy: HotWingConspiracy: Yes but NOT for things like "you need to pay your employees a certain wage DUH

Oh and there is the problem. Walmart has the clout to demand better conditions for their slaves, but they don't. Which is, yanno, what the union is asking for.

Yea but do you hear those companies employees complaining?


Not for long, if the boss hears them.

Btw - the "DUH" comment I made wasnt called for so apologies.

No sweat, really.
 
2012-11-16 09:28:41 AM  

MithrandirBooga: Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: There's an endless supply of dimwits who need some extra walking around money for cigarettes and lottery tickets. I don't think that Wal-mart is at much risk of running out of a "qualified" applicant pool.

That's where you and I disagree, I think the supply is limited. Would you work there? I wouldn't. Have you ever met any dimwits that you wouldn't trust to know which end of a mop to use? I have. Once you eliminate those people, people who can't communicate, people who have other limiting factors such as a criminal record, you do have a finite available workforce. Now, there are obviously more people who would take the job than are currently employed by the company, but I still believe that those people, once they are employed, will reach the same level off discontent that the current employees have. Eventually you run out of people who are willing to take the shiatty job. Add to that the cost of on-boarding and training new employees and it can be less costly to meet the employees demands, or at least come to some sort of middle ground.

It's kind of like the people who pick vegetables going on strike. Sure, there are other people willing to take their jobs, but not many and once those people realize how difficult the work is and how shiatty the conditions are, they too get fed up and go on strike. Eventually the growers run out of available employees and are forced to make concessions.

Yep. That's how it works. If Wal-mart becomes unable to hire enough employees at current wages, the wages will increase. Until then, they have no reason to pay everyone more than the market deems that they are currently worth.

This is why Capitalism is dead. There are now more workers than work that can be done, and it's getting worse every day. The end result is an excess of labour supply, causing wages to plummet. Eventually they will hit 0. What then, genius?


Feudalism, of course. Then a plague to reduce the labor supply, then back to Enlightenment.

What should one expect when most service laborers can be replaced with a Perl/Python/Bash script?
 
2012-11-16 09:30:13 AM  

hocho064: HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: HotWingConspiracy: hocho064: Put Its Promises in Writing
Agree to a global labor agreement guaranteeing the fundamental human right of freedom of association for all of its associates and instruct their suppliers to do the same, and recognize and negotiate with OUR Walmart. Since when is it a requirement that Walmart dictates other companies policies?

They do it all the time when they are cutting deals.

Not sure I agree with you on this.

You don't think Walmart demands certain operational conditions from their suppliers? LOL

Yes but NOT for things like "you need to pay your employees a certain wage DUH

Elevate Global Living Standards
Establish a legally binding global responsible contractor policy requiring contractors and subcontractors to provide living wages, worker safety protections, and respect basic human and labor rights, including freedom of association and freedom from racial and gender discrimination. Again, why is this Walmarts responsibility?

Because they're profiting from it.

And other similar companies arent profiting; Sears, Kohls, Target, H&M, etc? Why should a company have to "overpay" someone just because they demand it?

What?

I get that you're a huge fan of overseas slave labor, but a lot of people aren't. As long as we're competing with Asian orphans on wages, nothing will get better here.

Companies leveraging overseas labor is nothing new. I'm 47 and as long as I can remember, we've seen "Made in China" tags on tons of products growing up.


Not until at least the '80s, since Nixon only opened her up in '72, and they didn't get WTO status for a while after that.
 
2012-11-16 09:31:01 AM  

wooden_badger: Joe Blowme: Because it worked out so well for the Hostess employees? 
[cdn.motinetwork.net image 640x694]

The typical American consumer seems to need cheap Chinese plastic crap just a little more than unhealthy food-like material.


Aren't Foxconn products at Target or Best Buy or MomAndPopCo the same same as Wallyworld?
 
2012-11-16 09:33:00 AM  

ox45tallboy: rtaylor92: Are you sitting down for this because I don't want you to hurt yourself....German and Japanese autoworkers are both unionized. U.S. Auto struggling the last few decades was simply because they designed and tried to sell awful awful cars.

Germany and Japan also have socialized medicine, so the cost of employee health care (current and future) is not included in the price of their cars.


Don't those companies have to figure the price of their taxes (which pay for the healthcare) into the cost of their products?
 
2012-11-16 09:33:49 AM  

BgJonson79: wooden_badger: Joe Blowme: Because it worked out so well for the Hostess employees? 
[cdn.motinetwork.net image 640x694]

The typical American consumer seems to need cheap Chinese plastic crap just a little more than unhealthy food-like material.

Aren't Foxconn products at Target or Best Buy or MomAndPopCo the same same as Wallyworld?


Poor dears working on Thanksgiving will have to suffer with holiday pay (1.5) as well
 
2012-11-16 09:33:50 AM  

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.


Actually, it's the other business' customers that run them out, when they stop shopping there and start shopping at Walmart.
 
2012-11-16 09:34:33 AM  

Joe Blowme: BgJonson79: wooden_badger: Joe Blowme: Because it worked out so well for the Hostess employees? 
[cdn.motinetwork.net image 640x694]

The typical American consumer seems to need cheap Chinese plastic crap just a little more than unhealthy food-like material.

Aren't Foxconn products at Target or Best Buy or MomAndPopCo the same same as Wallyworld?

Poor dears working on Thanksgiving will have to suffer with holiday pay (1.5) as well


I'd rather not have the money than work on Thanksgiving. I'm blessed I don't have to make such a choice.
 
2012-11-16 09:37:57 AM  

Silly Jesus: Mikey1969: 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 don't know how THAT works, do you? Pretty much all that they get to ask you is if the person is considered eligible for rehire. You can't say more, or you're violating the very types of labor laws that WalMart has been ignoring requests to stop violating for YEARS. It's not like this is the first, or even the millionth, time this has come up.

Most jobs that I've had have asked me to sign a form that allows my previous employer to say whatever they want. I think that's fairly common.


Not me. Not only that, but most applications I've filled out in the last 6 weeks have asked if they can contact my previous employer or give me the option for them to contact upon them making an offer to me.
 
2012-11-16 09:38:01 AM  

BgJonson79: Joe Blowme: BgJonson79: wooden_badger: Joe Blowme: Because it worked out so well for the Hostess employees? 
[cdn.motinetwork.net image 640x694]

The typical American consumer seems to need cheap Chinese plastic crap just a little more than unhealthy food-like material.

Aren't Foxconn products at Target or Best Buy or MomAndPopCo the same same as Wallyworld?

Poor dears working on Thanksgiving will have to suffer with holiday pay (1.5) as well

I'd rather not have the money than work on Thanksgiving. I'm blessed I don't have to make such a choice.


Mee to, thats why i got edumacated. Point is they are compensated, hell i used to voluteer for holidays for the extra cash when i worked in industries that are open thoses days.
 
2012-11-16 09:42:06 AM  

Joe Blowme: BgJonson79: Joe Blowme: BgJonson79: wooden_badger: Joe Blowme: Because it worked out so well for the Hostess employees? 
[cdn.motinetwork.net image 640x694]

The typical American consumer seems to need cheap Chinese plastic crap just a little more than unhealthy food-like material.

Aren't Foxconn products at Target or Best Buy or MomAndPopCo the same same as Wallyworld?

Poor dears working on Thanksgiving will have to suffer with holiday pay (1.5) as well

I'd rather not have the money than work on Thanksgiving. I'm blessed I don't have to make such a choice.

Mee to, thats why i got edumacated. Point is they are compensated, hell i used to voluteer for holidays for the extra cash when i worked in industries that are open thoses days.


I think I prefer it better when people volunteer and aren't forced, but yes, they will be paid time and a half.
 
2012-11-16 09:42:40 AM  
Well, they need to remember that there are now 18,000 former Hostess workers who wil be applying for those jobs.
 
2012-11-16 10:08:41 AM  

cman: What took them so damn long?


+100
 
2012-11-16 10:18:50 AM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: 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.

You mean, mean guy Testiclaw. We should demand, DEMAND! that everybody on earth be given, not a tolerable wage of perhaps $25,000 as you propose, but a fortune of, say, *puts pinkie to side of lip* ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Yes this proposal sounds crazy to some, and yes I'm just having fun with you over this, but please explain in your wisdom what makes my evil plan any different from yours, save by degree? And oh yes, also tell us EXACTLY WHO is to 'provide' all of this largess to the nonproductive people of the world.

This I gotta hear.


If everyone worked fo 25k a year, then 25k would be the new starvation wage. Raise wages without raising means and resouces, and it only serves to inflate the dollar.
 
2012-11-16 10:39:34 AM  
Most will be waddling out.
 
2012-11-16 11:01:07 AM  

Your Boss: Well, they need to remember that there are now 18,000 former Hostess workers who wil be applying for those jobs.


What the Walmart folks need to do is unionize then go on strike and see what happens.
 
2012-11-16 11:05:10 AM  

Therion: Done in two - both the humane and the asshole views have been spoken.


Wait. Which do you think is wich?

/this is fark after all, you never know...
 
2012-11-16 11:05:45 AM  
I Ludlow, but the strikers might Rouge the day they River decided to strike, given the WalMart corporate mentality.

www.neiu.edu
 
2012-11-16 11:11:07 AM  

ox45tallboy: People_are_Idiots: Whoa, a bigger idiot! Did I say FEDERAL law? I said CONSTITUTION. Constitution does not necessarily mean Federal. This is like saying Texas Law is valid in Arizona... next time, READ!

-10/10

Next time, figure out what the hell you are talking about. I called Great Janitor out for claiming that he had the right to fire anyone attempting to organize a Union. I pointed out an article discussing Constitutional Theory, as well as the Wagner Act. You butted in and called me "ignorant" and said I had no idea what I was talking about, and demanded a better reference. I linked straight to the Wagner Act, and now you're spouting off some nonsense about the Constitution and how Federal law Texas valid in Arizona... I have no idea what you think you are talking about, but I gave you the FEDERAL law which trumps any and all State laws. If that's not good enough for you, then fark off.

I rate you negative infinity/10. So there.


I know what I am talking about do you? The first thing you quoted was the Constitution in relation the union strikes. I pointed out the Constitution has no amendment or article saying a group of employees cannot leave work without risk of getting fired just to protest. A theory is at best an educated guess, but the Constitution does not protect you from loss of a job because you go outside when you're supposed to be working. At best you can complain in your off-time. THEN you decided to throw a Fed law at me. I'm not arguing on State or Fed law, I am arguing Constitutional law. You can argue Fed and State law til you're blue in the face, and I wouldn't disagree with you, but the subject matter is not such. Yes we have laws on the books, for those that want to put a union in a store (then again, there are ways around that). The Constitution however has no such article guaranteeing the right of striking.

That is what I'm concentrating on: The Constitution... wanna talk Fed law now, go on ahead.
 
2012-11-16 11:26:18 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: CujoQuarrel: HotIgneous Intruder: Silly Jesus: HotIgneous Intruder: In 2010, the Waltons' share [of wealth] equaled the entire bottom 41.5 percent of U.S. families.
Six people hold nearly 42 percent of the national wealth.
They are the Walton family.

Jealousy is a biatch.

No. Karma kills.
Sun Tzu - "If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by."
See ya!

Or you'll end up starving to death and falling in yourself. ...

Nope. Waiting works. It really does.
I've done it without knowing it.
Sun Tzu was a genius.


"So much for attacking a mountain"
 
2012-11-16 11:38:42 AM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: Back in the 1980's, the company I worked for hired HR consultants to provide some courses on preventing unionization by actually avoiding the pitfalls that lead to it, by actually treating people like human beings. Things like ensuring pay equity, LISTENING to your team's concerns, not only just avoiding unfairness but anything that would APPEAR to be unfair.

This, and that company was a bit far off. Instead of going all Hostess on the workers, listen to them and treat them like a well-valued asset - even if they're paid low amounts.

derp: Well, they need to remember that there are now 18,000 former Hostess workers who will be applying for those jobs.


That's what happens when you have a suicidal CEO. He should not only be given his wish, but in a form that blows up in his face - not the workers. Hostess management made the decision to be combative, not the workers or union leaders.

natas6.0: everyone is paid exactly what they deserve..everywhere in the U.S.
don't like it?
better yourself, move, get a different job


Not sure that you're being serious, but you might want to get out from under that rock and see the economy. About the only thing that quitting will do is affirm some industrialist's phrase about a constant line of workers being the best defense for the company.
 
2012-11-16 11:40:26 AM  

RedVentrue: EVERYBODY PANIC: 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.

You mean, mean guy Testiclaw. We should demand, DEMAND! that everybody on earth be given, not a tolerable wage of perhaps $25,000 as you propose, but a fortune of, say, *puts pinkie to side of lip* ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Yes this proposal sounds crazy to some, and yes I'm just having fun with you over this, but please explain in your wisdom what makes my evil plan any different from yours, save by degree? And oh yes, also tell us EXACTLY WHO is to 'provide' all of this largess to the nonproductive people of the world.

This I gotta hear.

If everyone worked fo 25k a year, then 25k would be the new starvation wage. Raise wages without raising means and resouces, and it only serves to inflate the dollar.


If only there was a country nearby that had a minimum wage of over $10 an hour, single payer health insurance and a dollar that was about at parity with the USD. Nope, that could never happen the US economy could never match the Canadian one.
 
2012-11-16 11:40:56 AM  

Kathrin: The theory of a strike is to say "you need us, and if you don't treat us right, we won't work, and your business will fail." The employer is free to try to replace those employees, the striking workers are free to stand outside and picket, telling anyone who will listen why they are striking. If the strikers are right, and they truly are necessary (and their cause is just), people won't cross the picket lines, and the employer won't be able to function without the employees.

In practice, union strikes often try to squeeze blood from a turnip (uaw, etc.), and workers often way overvalue themselves. Skilled workers have a much better chance of success at striking than retail workers. If almost anyone can learn to do your job "well enough" in a week, you really don't have a whole lot of leverage.



Yet those kind of jobs are precisely where workers would benefit from that leverage in the greatest possible manner.
 
2012-11-16 11:45:25 AM  

Kathrin: Option C (unionization of significant portions of single store):
Workers: "We demand a union!"
Feds: "Well, vote on it"
[Workers get a union]
[Wal-mart shuts down store for "renovation", transfers a few workers to other stores, conveniently doesn't have positions for the rest of the employees.] 

They take their anti-union stance seriously. Wal-mart has already done Option B. Option C was done by Target. It's not a coincidence the two largest retail stores are both extremely anti-union.


I suspect that a Wal-Mart nearby pulled Option #3. Just a little over a year ago, they renovated most of the store to add freezer units for frozen foods and beer to the middle of the store, while keeping it open for business. Then a few months later, they shut down completely and built a new WM a few miles down the road. Why go to the cost and trouble of renovating half the store, just to shut down a few months later and move a few miles away? Now the empty WM is being split into 3 stores, and none of them need freezer units, so they got torn out after less an year. Smells fishy to me...
 
2012-11-16 11:46:35 AM  

MithrandirBooga: Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: There's an endless supply of dimwits who need some extra walking around money for cigarettes and lottery tickets. I don't think that Wal-mart is at much risk of running out of a "qualified" applicant pool.

That's where you and I disagree, I think the supply is limited. Would you work there? I wouldn't. Have you ever met any dimwits that you wouldn't trust to know which end of a mop to use? I have. Once you eliminate those people, people who can't communicate, people who have other limiting factors such as a criminal record, you do have a finite available workforce. Now, there are obviously more people who would take the job than are currently employed by the company, but I still believe that those people, once they are employed, will reach the same level off discontent that the current employees have. Eventually you run out of people who are willing to take the shiatty job. Add to that the cost of on-boarding and training new employees and it can be less costly to meet the employees demands, or at least come to some sort of middle ground.

It's kind of like the people who pick vegetables going on strike. Sure, there are other people willing to take their jobs, but not many and once those people realize how difficult the work is and how shiatty the conditions are, they too get fed up and go on strike. Eventually the growers run out of available employees and are forced to make concessions.

Yep. That's how it works. If Wal-mart becomes unable to hire enough employees at current wages, the wages will increase. Until then, they have no reason to pay everyone more than the market deems that they are currently worth.

This is why Capitalism is dead. There are now more workers than work that can be done, and it's getting worse every day. The end result is an excess of labour supply, causing wages to plummet. Eventually they will hit 0. What then, genius?


I'm going to give you a 3/10 for this one. Sure, there are more workers than this type of work to be done, but there are 3,000,000 unfilled jobs in this country right now. Those are jobs that require certain types of training, though, and we're not doing what we can as a country to get people that training.
 
2012-11-16 11:53:16 AM  

Carth: If only there was a country nearby that had a minimum wage of over $10 an hour, single payer health insurance and a dollar that was about at parity with the USD. Nope, that could never happen the US economy could never match the Canadian one.


We have the added financial burden of maintaining carrier fleets in every ocean (or just about), numerous military bases on every continent, the debt from two wars, etc.

When you consider that, it's not a surprise that we can't afford things that other countries seem to have no problem paying for.

Before anyone tries to pin this ALL on the Republicans, remember that the wars were supported by Democrats too (John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry is but one example), the Dems show zero interest in closing overseas bases even in well established sovereign areas like the EUROPEAN UNION, nor do Dems ever suggest that maybe we should only have 3 or 4 carrier groups instead of the 11 or so that we maintain. Pissing away tens of trillions per decade on the military-industrial complex is a bipartisan affair and is an exceptionally large contributor to this nation's debt.

Imagine how much better off we could be if we retracted a little, stop patrolling every ocean and leave certain areas to the care and control of the sovereign nation(s) near them. Perhaps the Indian Ocean, the Eastern part of the Atlantic, and the Western part of the Pacific (to start) could be patrolled almost exclusively by the EU. Some countries will love this as they resent our 'interference' (as they see it and perhaps correctly) and others will hate it because it means they have to step up and start paying to do what we used to.
 
2012-11-16 11:54:05 AM  

sethstorm: Yet those kind of jobs are precisely where workers would benefit from that leverage in the greatest possible manner.


That's the thing - they don't have the leverage. When all you have to offer is a warm body, it's easy to replace you. That's part of why education and a strong economy is so important.
 
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
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  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