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

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

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



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-15 08:21:13 PM
What took them so damn long?

Good luck, btw
 
2012-11-15 08:25:06 PM
LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.
 
2012-11-15 08:29:41 PM
Hmmm... I wonder if I should apply for a job at Wal Mart.
 
2012-11-15 08:29:55 PM

Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.


Generally speaking, that is untrue. While working at Wal-mart is not a job that requires a particularly high skill level, the people who are skilled enough are also the people who like to be able to eat and who don't like to be told to do work that is in violation of labor laws. Now, I'm sure there are people that are willing to put up with that, but I believe Wal-mart will find the quality of those workers to be lacking.

Basically, you pay for what you get.

Which also happens to be true when you shop at Wal-mart.
 
2012-11-15 08:31:28 PM
I will gladly boycott Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

/just as I do on the other 364 days of the year
 
2012-11-15 08:35:44 PM

timujin: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

Generally speaking, that is untrue. While working at Wal-mart is not a job that requires a particularly high skill level, the people who are skilled enough are also the people who like to be able to eat and who don't like to be told to do work that is in violation of labor laws. Now, I'm sure there are people that are willing to put up with that, but I believe Wal-mart will find the quality of those workers to be lacking.

Basically, you pay for what you get.

Which also happens to be true when you shop at Wal-mart.


The few times that I have ventured into Wal-mart I haven't been very impressed by the quality of their employees. Yelling to each other and laughing about nonsense from one register to another one 10 rows away. Standing in your way everywhere talking on cell phones. Literally retarded greeters. Parking lot full of trash and discarded shopping carts. Sort of seems like they are already scraping the bottom of the barrel. I don't think that Wal-mart could possibly find the quality of anyone lacking. So, yeah, there is no shortage of mouth-breathers to fill the positions of the current employees if they don't like it enough to stick around.
 
2012-11-15 08:36:58 PM
Done in two - both the humane and the asshole views have been spoken.
 
2012-11-15 08:38:00 PM
What's cool about having someone on your ignore list is that you can put a note in there that will be displayed each time the ignored person posts something.

And it is filter-free.
 
2012-11-15 08:45:02 PM
I have a few friends who work for Wally World, and they were all notified on Monday that they have to be in Next Thursday no later than 5PM.

[Although apparently you can have until 8 if you blow your department manager... at least at one store]
 
2012-11-15 08:50:20 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 08:51:57 PM

Shadow Blasko: [Although apparently you can have until 8 if you blow your department manager... at least at one store]


Nice friends you have there.
 
2012-11-15 08:53:42 PM

Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

Generally speaking, that is untrue. While working at Wal-mart is not a job that requires a particularly high skill level, the people who are skilled enough are also the people who like to be able to eat and who don't like to be told to do work that is in violation of labor laws. Now, I'm sure there are people that are willing to put up with that, but I believe Wal-mart will find the quality of those workers to be lacking.

Basically, you pay for what you get.

Which also happens to be true when you shop at Wal-mart.

The few times that I have ventured into Wal-mart I haven't been very impressed by the quality of their employees. Yelling to each other and laughing about nonsense from one register to another one 10 rows away. Standing in your way everywhere talking on cell phones. Literally retarded greeters. Parking lot full of trash and discarded shopping carts. Sort of seems like they are already scraping the bottom of the barrel. I don't think that Wal-mart could possibly find the quality of anyone lacking. So, yeah, there is no shortage of mouth-breathers to fill the positions of the current employees if they don't like it enough to stick around.


That's why I'm trying to explain, though, those are the best they can currently get for the price. Those are the people not willing to put up with their shiat any longer. People willing to put up with it will either be even less qualified or, if they are equally qualified, will soon reach the same conclusions as the current employees.
 
2012-11-15 08:53:45 PM

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.


It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.
 
2012-11-15 08:55:13 PM

timujin: Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

Generally speaking, that is untrue. While working at Wal-mart is not a job that requires a particularly high skill level, the people who are skilled enough are also the people who like to be able to eat and who don't like to be told to do work that is in violation of labor laws. Now, I'm sure there are people that are willing to put up with that, but I believe Wal-mart will find the quality of those workers to be lacking.

Basically, you pay for what you get.

Which also happens to be true when you shop at Wal-mart.

The few times that I have ventured into Wal-mart I haven't been very impressed by the quality of their employees. Yelling to each other and laughing about nonsense from one register to another one 10 rows away. Standing in your way everywhere talking on cell phones. Literally retarded greeters. Parking lot full of trash and discarded shopping carts. Sort of seems like they are already scraping the bottom of the barrel. I don't think that Wal-mart could possibly find the quality of anyone lacking. So, yeah, there is no shortage of mouth-breathers to fill the positions of the current employees if they don't like it enough to stick around.

That's why I'm trying to explain, though, those are the best they can currently get for the price. Those are the people not willing to put up with their shiat any longer. People willing to put up with it will either be even less qualified or, if they are equally qualified, will soon reach the same conclusions as the current employees.


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.
 
2012-11-15 08:56:48 PM
www.threadbombing.com
 
2012-11-15 08:57:12 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.

It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.


Exactly! Thanks for articulating much better than I attempted. They accepted the job and should have no opinion whatsoever after.

If they want it different, they can quit and can start their own corporation selling products made in China.
 
2012-11-15 09:00:53 PM
Well....bye.
 
2012-11-15 09:01:42 PM

djkutch: Silly Jesus: 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.

It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.

Exactly! Thanks for articulating much better than I attempted. They accepted the job and should have no opinion whatsoever after.

If they want it different, they can quit and can start their own corporation selling products made in China.


They can ask for a raise, and the company can say no. They can ask for a unicorn and the company can say no. Not sure what you're missing here.
 
2012-11-15 09:01:50 PM
So part of their plan is to pre-announce the walk out?

/I don't think they thought this all the way through
 
2012-11-15 09:02:56 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I will gladly boycott Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

/just as I do on the other 364 days of the year


Indeed.
 
2012-11-15 09:03:20 PM

Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

Generally speaking, that is untrue. While working at Wal-mart is not a job that requires a particularly high skill level, the people who are skilled enough are also the people who like to be able to eat and who don't like to be told to do work that is in violation of labor laws. Now, I'm sure there are people that are willing to put up with that, but I believe Wal-mart will find the quality of those workers to be lacking.

Basically, you pay for what you get.

Which also happens to be true when you shop at Wal-mart.

The few times that I have ventured into Wal-mart I haven't been very impressed by the quality of their employees. Yelling to each other and laughing about nonsense from one register to another one 10 rows away. Standing in your way everywhere talking on cell phones. Literally retarded greeters. Parking lot full of trash and discarded shopping carts. Sort of seems like they are already scraping the bottom of the barrel. I don't think that Wal-mart could possibly find the quality of anyone lacking. So, yeah, there is no shortage of mouth-breathers to fill the positions of the current employees if they don't like it enough to stick around.


There is a reason for that. Your other points have merit though.
 
2012-11-15 09:03:46 PM
The peasants are revolting! Welcome to Obongo's Americas!!! SECEDE NOW! IMPEACH THE FART!
 
2012-11-15 09:04:36 PM
FTFA:

The workers are demanding the following from Walmart:

Improve Workers' Lives
Pay a minimum of $25,000/year and guarantee quality, affordable health coverage for all ...

Rebuild Communities
Sign on to a national community benefits agreement that ensures as Walmart expands into new markets, it strengthens communities, protects the environment ...

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...

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...



Is that all? Why exactly do they think ANY of that is going to happen because they refuse to work? Oh yeah, they're walmart employees. Clearly not the best at making important life decisions..
 
2012-11-15 09:04:43 PM

gingerjet: So part of their plan is to pre-announce the walk out?

/I don't think they thought this all the way through


It's for leverage. They think that Wal-mart is going to say "oh no, please come to work, how would we ever be able to find another group of morons with no discernible skills to replace you?" Might work, who knows. Guess we'll find out.
 
2012-11-15 09:04:46 PM
$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.
 
2012-11-15 09:05:03 PM

Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.


OK Mr. Romney...the election is over. You lost. Now go to the 1/12 of your homes...
 
2012-11-15 09:05:23 PM
Good on them.
 
2012-11-15 09:05:38 PM

Silly Jesus: djkutch: Silly Jesus: 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.

It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.

Exactly! Thanks for articulating much better than I attempted. They accepted the job and should have no opinion whatsoever after.

If they want it different, they can quit and can start their own corporation selling products made in China.

They can ask for a raise, and the company can say no. They can ask for a unicorn and the company can say no. Not sure what you're missing here.


The can ask for a union and the company legally has to say yes.
 
2012-11-15 09:06:21 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 09:06:37 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 09:06:46 PM

insertsnarkyusername: Silly Jesus: djkutch: Silly Jesus: 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.

It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.

Exactly! Thanks for articulating much better than I attempted. They accepted the job and should have no opinion whatsoever after.

If they want it different, they can quit and can start their own corporation selling products made in China.

They can ask for a raise, and the company can say no. They can ask for a unicorn and the company can say no. Not sure what you're missing here.

The can ask for a union and the company legally has to say yes.


And?
 
2012-11-15 09:09:20 PM

djkutch: the president who should have been


DERPA-HERPA-DERPA!
The butt hurt never stops.
 
2012-11-15 09:09:21 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 09:09:32 PM
Good luck... you're going to need it.

/Follow up article next week about these employees getting fired....
 
2012-11-15 09:09:52 PM

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.


At this level of employment, if Wally World runs piss tests, and I'm sure they do, I'm surprised they aren't forced to staff the store with robots due to lack of qualified applicants.

/there's only so many octegenarians left to fill these spots
 
2012-11-15 09:10:31 PM
This won't happen, the folks that work at WalMart NEED their job.
 
2012-11-15 09:11:28 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.

It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.


/I'm guessing you took Romey's side this election.
 
2012-11-15 09:12:08 PM

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.


Pay everyone on earth $25,000 / year to stand around with their finger up their ass? What color is the magical unicorn that will deliver this money from magical money land?
 
2012-11-15 09:12:09 PM
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.
 
2012-11-15 09:12:50 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Silly Jesus: 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.

It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.

/I'm guessing you took Romey's side this election.


Incorrect. Reluctant Obama voter.
 
2012-11-15 09:13:25 PM
I wonder what Labor's pitch to wal-mart's workers is?

"let us do for you, what we've done to the U.S. Auto and steel industries"

At least Wal-Mart got a free way to identify lazy, shiftless, braindead workers. They'll fire the dead wood, and the company will be better off.

//any defeat for organized Labor is a victory for the American Economy.
 
2012-11-15 09:14:19 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 09:15:15 PM
So, get in the lines at Target instead?
 
2012-11-15 09:15:33 PM

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.


The libertarians would NEVER try to do that. It goes against everything they stand for.
 
2012-11-15 09:16:04 PM

Hunter_Worthington: "let us do for you, what we've done to the U.S. Auto and steel industries"


hah you can't outsource those employees. you'll have to hire illegals .
 
2012-11-15 09:16:13 PM
I fully support the right of Walmart workers to decent wages, benefits and working conditions.

Except I have never set foot in their crummy stores and hope I never will.

/ True story
// Not sure what it means, feel free to explain
 
2012-11-15 09:16:21 PM

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.


And hence the strike... it has to start somewhere. It might not work out for these folks, though striking on Black Friday does seem like a position of at least some level of strength, there's no way Wal-mart is going to find enough people and have them trained in one week. But maybe they will, and maybe all of these people will get fired (depending on the laws of the state they strike in, I believe some make it illegal to fire striking workers, though not to hire scabs) But eventually, if they keep with their current practices, they will run out of people willing to put up with them and things will change.

That's my only point, you wrote "Plenty more people out there who would love their job" and I disagree. There might be more plenty of people out there willing to take their job, but I don't believe that they will love it or be willing to put up with Wal-mart's practices for indefinitely.
 
2012-11-15 09:16:33 PM

Silly Jesus: gingerjet: So part of their plan is to pre-announce the walk out?

/I don't think they thought this all the way through

It's for leverage. They think that Wal-mart is going to say "oh no, please come to work, how would we ever be able to find another group of morons with no discernible skills to replace you?" Might work, who knows. Guess we'll find out.


Or maybe they know it won't work and just want to punch WalMart in the wallet.
I think it might work better than you think. The sort of mouth-breathers that apply to WalMart will probably take longer than 2 weeks to figure out how to work a cash register. Even if they got a bunch of job applicants, considering the relatively short time frame the stores would not be running smoothly (even compared to normal) and would cost the store quite a bit of revenue.
 
2012-11-15 09:16:40 PM

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.


If you follow the link in the article, it appears that some employees at multiple Wal-marts across 12 states are already striking, and it's planning to expand. So not just California.
 
2012-11-15 09:17:32 PM
oh,I know. they'll bring the same high quality employees and world class output they bring to the U.S. Public Education system.

//if I wanted to sit around all day going nowhere, I'd be a public school teacher
//those that can do, those that can't teach
// -Hunter, what about those who can't teach?
//good question. They become lobbyists. See teachers, you're not at the bottom of the food chain after all.
 
2012-11-15 09:18:32 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Shadow Blasko: [Although apparently you can have until 8 if you blow your department manager... at least at one store]

Nice friends you have there.


What makes you think the friend is the department manager?

The hell is wrong with you.
 
2012-11-15 09:19:22 PM
good. american labor dead in the water until the take down of big-box schmucks like wally world

I won't shop there anyway but those people deserve better than the crumbs from arkansas.
 
2012-11-15 09:19:52 PM

real_headhoncho: Hmmm... I wonder if I should apply for a job at Wal Mart.


FTA: Pay a minimum of $25,000/year

11-12 bucks an hour for stocking shelves and counting change. I don't mean to be a dick but that's not worthy of $25k a year AND benefits. I know people taking those jobs that have college degrees. Stay around a couple years and then you can have that.

That said, apply at Costco. They pay much better than that. But you might be waiting a while for an interview.
 
2012-11-15 09:20:12 PM

Nick Nostril: 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.

At this level of employment, if Wally World runs piss tests, and I'm sure they do, I'm surprised they aren't forced to staff the store with robots due to lack of qualified applicants.

/there's only so many octegenarians left to fill these spots


I would have to be too stoned to move to be able to stand to be in a Wal Mart, much less interact with the shoppers.
 
2012-11-15 09:20:34 PM
I am not generally "pro-union" but it seems there are a ton of abuses there that are illegal, I hope this can get Wal-Mart to follow the law.
 
2012-11-15 09:21:04 PM
"I have a few friends who work for Wally World, and they were all notified on Monday that they have to be in Next Thursday no later than 5PM.

[Although apparently you can have until 8 if you blow your department manager... at least at one store]"


What an outrage! A good blowjob should be worth 4 hours of work, not three! Stand up for equal pay for women and gays! I would love to see a striker with this issue on a sign.
 
2012-11-15 09:21:21 PM
As a Wal-Mart employee through my college years, I say, PLEASE DO IT. The hilarity would be epic, and it would be nice to see these workers grow a spine. Many of the ones in the store I worked at literally feared their managers, who were complete idiots blessed only with an ability to fly into a rage over no reason.
 
2012-11-15 09:22:24 PM
I worked at Walmart while in college. Granted, a lot of my coworkers struggled with basic language arts, let alone what a second grader would consider kiddie math. I can honestly say that Walmart pays its employees just enough to shop at Walmart. Even if you make "manager", they're always p****ed off because they are moved around so much between stores that they are more worried about meeting corporate numbers than developing their subordinates.

Genius business plan; but has to fail at some point. Maybe this is that point?
 
2012-11-15 09:22:27 PM

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.


I stand corrected; that was the first "strike" (actually a brief walkout). They're claiming more than 1,000 protests of various types around the country.

This is fairly smart on the union's part. Wal-Mart is absolutely crazed about avoiding union organizing, and they are leaving themselves open to vast expense and potential liability under fair-labor laws because of their allegedly illegal tactics.

The union isn't forcing a flat-out strike that they would lose, because Wal-Mart has no union contract and can just hire replacements, But by constantly trolling Wal-Mart with small actions, the union can put pressure on them, and recruit enough workers to successfully unionize stores. Wal-Mart knows it's way more expensive to recruit and hire a new worker than to put up with one who takes the occasional "strike" day off.

Considering Wal-Mart is owned by a clan of over-entitled billionaires whose great achievement in life was being born the kids and grandkids of Sam Walton, I say screw 'em. I hope they drive themselves bankrupt trying to avoid treating their workers as well as other big retail chains do.
 
2012-11-15 09:22:51 PM
Good luck to them, although huge corporations like this generally don't give a rats ass about the workers, they just care about the bottom line. But i do wish them well. They should really unionize and actually have some bargaining power.
 
2012-11-15 09:23:29 PM
Does this mean there will be double the trampling at other big box stores?
 
2012-11-15 09:23:39 PM

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.


Unemployment is still high enough they can be replaced. Sucks, but true, especially since it doesn't look like this is a nationwide-coordinated effort. If they could get all the workers in all the stores to strike on the same day it would be very effective.
 
2012-11-15 09:23:57 PM
F*ck Wally World.
 
2012-11-15 09:24:03 PM
Doing it wrong! You're not supposed to say you're doing it. You just don't show up!
 
2012-11-15 09:24:18 PM
Good for them. I already don't shop there, but if I can support these folks in any other way, I'll try to.
 
2012-11-15 09:24:28 PM
Walmart isn't a store; it's an alternate dimension.

Think about it. Every Walmart you've ever been in, from Lickcock Idaho to Bahrain, has the same people. I don't mean they look the same, I mean they *are* the same.
The doors you pass through are a gateway to this dimension.

Think about it. You know I'm right.
 
2012-11-15 09:24:34 PM
This should be beautiful.
 
2012-11-15 09:25:15 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Good luck to them, although huge corporations like this generally don't give a rats ass about the workers, they just care about the bottom line. But i do wish them well. They should really unionize and actually have some bargaining power.


Wal-Mart has actively engaged in union-busting for years. They're trying to break the will and the backs of labor to bring them on wage parity with China.
 
2012-11-15 09:25:27 PM

insertsnarkyusername: The can ask for a union and the company legally has to say yes.


And then the union can violate one of the things that they are demanding from the company.

Demand FTA: guaranteeing the fundamental human right of freedom of association for all of its associates

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

/suuuure they would
 
2012-11-15 09:25:41 PM

Lsherm: 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.

Unemployment is still high enough they can be replaced. Sucks, but true, especially since it doesn't look like this is a nationwide-coordinated effort. If they could get all the workers in all the stores to strike on the same day it would be very effective.


And to follow up on that, the strike that started in October is currently being waged by a whopping 88 employees nationwide. Somehow, I think Wal-Mart can work around that.
 
2012-11-15 09:25:56 PM
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.
 
2012-11-15 09:26:15 PM

fanbladesaresharp: I don't mean to be a dick but that's not worthy of $25k a year AND benefits.


And why not?
Is there some reason working for Wal-Mart need not be gainful employment besides your opinion of what counts as work?
 
2012-11-15 09:26:33 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I will gladly boycott Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

/just as I do on the other 364 days of the year


Agreed. I avoid SocialistMart unless absolutely necessary.
 
2012-11-15 09:27:14 PM
I seem to recall some incidents of near riots at Wal*Marts on "black Friday" in recent years. This could get really messy when all those people show up and get turned away because of the strike. Not that it matters to me, because I think Wal*Mart sucks.
 
2012-11-15 09:27:21 PM

pxlboy: Bit'O'Gristle: Good luck to them, although huge corporations like this generally don't give a rats ass about the workers, they just care about the bottom line. But i do wish them well. They should really unionize and actually have some bargaining power.

Wal-Mart has actively engaged in union-busting for years. They're trying to break the will and the backs of labor to bring them on wage parity with China.


But not Target or Apple, right? Because we like them.
 
2012-11-15 09:27:21 PM

Hunter_Worthington: //good question. They become lobbyists. See teachers, you're not at the bottom of the food chain after all.


Plenty of room down there with you and the rest of the government-check cashing parasites, Hunter!
You get a check, you know you do.
 
2012-11-15 09:27:27 PM
Seeing as how Fark generally is 'liberal' I find it odd that there are so many many posts trashing WalMart workers potentially going on strike.
 
2012-11-15 09:27:37 PM

WhippingBoy: Walmart isn't a store; it's an alternate dimension.

Think about it. Every Walmart you've ever been in, from Lickcock Idaho to Bahrain, has the same people. I don't mean they look the same, I mean they *are* the same.
The doors you pass through are a gateway to this dimension.

Think about it. You know I'm right.


Maybe it's where dangerous criminals get TimeLooped, much like how Aornis Hades was left to spend the same eight minutes over and over in line at a T.J. Maxx.
 
2012-11-15 09:28:33 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.


And hilarious!
 
2012-11-15 09:28:37 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.


I am looking forward to Hostess going out of business. Good. One less crappy company making terrible products and screwing their employees. It's the free market; someone else will pop up and maybe do things right the next time.
 
2012-11-15 09:28:48 PM
I'm not a fan of the unions, but this... this is totally doing it right.
 
2012-11-15 09:29:53 PM
damienkatz.net
 
2012-11-15 09:30:11 PM

insertsnarkyusername: The can ask for a union and the company legally has to say yes.


The company can also legally shut down those stores. And re-open others in the next town where there is high unemployment of un- or marginally-skilled workers.

Unions aren't the be-all and end-all of employer-employee relationship management. And you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, ... at least metaphorically.
 
2012-11-15 09:30:13 PM

Hunter_Worthington: I wonder what Labor's pitch to wal-mart's workers is?

"let us do for you, what we've done to the U.S. Auto and steel industries"

At least Wal-Mart got a free way to identify lazy, shiftless, braindead workers. They'll fire the dead wood, and the company will be better off.

//any defeat for organized Labor is a victory for the American Economy.


Manufacturing and retail are different. You can't simply move all your stores to a country with lax labor laws to save money like you can with factories.
You can simply fire everyone and hire scabs, but that's only a temporary solution because eventually you run out of people willing to do shiatty work for low pay who are also qualified.
 
2012-11-15 09:30:39 PM

mbillips: 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.

I stand corrected; that was the first "strike" (actually a brief walkout). They're claiming more than 1,000 protests of various types around the country.

This is fairly smart on the union's part. Wal-Mart is absolutely crazed about avoiding union organizing, and they are leaving themselves open to vast expense and potential liability under fair-labor laws because of their allegedly illegal tactics.

The union isn't forcing a flat-out strike that they would lose, because Wal-Mart has no union contract and can just hire replacements, But by constantly trolling Wal-Mart with small actions, the union can put pressure on them, and recruit enough workers to successfully unionize stores. Wal-Mart knows it's way more expensive to recruit and hire a new worker than to put up with one who takes the occasional "strike" day off.

Considering Wal-Mart is owned by a clan of over-entitled billionaires whose great achievement in life was being born the kids and grandkids of Sam Walton, I say screw 'em. I hope they drive themselves bankrupt trying to avoid treating their workers as well as other big retail chains do.


If they fire the workers who do this and never hire them back (which is what they will do) how do you continually put pressure on them? Eventually you run out of semi-strikers.
 
2012-11-15 09:32:52 PM

liam76: I am not generally "pro-union" but it seems there are a ton of abuses there that are illegal, I hope this can get Wal-Mart to follow the law.


Laws are for poors.
 
2012-11-15 09:32:53 PM

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


If he's responsible for the paychecks going out... yes. But not in any other situation.
 
2012-11-15 09:33:25 PM
How do you assholes want it? You biatch and moan about a lot of these same people being on welfare, then you want to put them down for standing up for themselves and demanding livable wages. Oooh, please someone save the multi-billion dollar corporation! They shouldn't have to pay their employees anymore because they are worthless pieces of shiat that knew what they were getting into. Give me a farking break.
 
2012-11-15 09:33:33 PM

rolladuck: insertsnarkyusername: The can ask for a union and the company legally has to say yes.

The company can also legally shut down those stores. And re-open others in the next town where there is high unemployment of un- or marginally-skilled workers.

Unions aren't the be-all and end-all of employer-employee relationship management. And you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, ... at least metaphorically.


How do you suggest employees sweetly get WM to stop locking them in to work 'off the clock', pay them enough that how to apply for welfare directions are not part of the pre-employment package, and to promote female and minority employees fairly?
 
2012-11-15 09:34:24 PM

Smelly McUgly: Silly Jesus: 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.

I am looking forward to Hostess going out of business. Good. One less crappy company making terrible products and screwing their employees. It's the free market; someone else will pop up and maybe do things right the next time.


They won't go out of business.
 
2012-11-15 09:34:25 PM

jaytkay: I fully support the right of Walmart workers to decent wages, benefits and working conditions.

Except I have never set foot in their crummy stores and hope I never will.

/ True story
// Not sure what it means, feel free to explain


I walked into one once. I discovered they didn't sell beer. I walked out. Haven't been back since.
 
2012-11-15 09:35:11 PM

Ehcks: Doing it wrong! You're not supposed to say you're doing it. You just don't show up!


You show up, then leave Hilarity ensues

Way more hilarity than a sick out
 
2012-11-15 09:36:20 PM

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


This.
 
2012-11-15 09:36:42 PM
My job involves 4 good things.

1. I never work weekends.
2. I don't deal with dancing peasants, i.e., the public
3. My hours are the same every day.
4. Decent benefits

In other ways my job sucks moldy moosecock.
 
2012-11-15 09:36:55 PM

Nonesuch: Good luck... you're going to need it.

/Follow up article next week about these employees getting fired....


This is about the only time of year they can pull this off hopefully without getting fired, at least until after the new year. Big box retailers need at least SOME trained employees to keep the temps in line or it will be five times as much chaos as you see on the news every year. I started at a Circuit City in mid October, so I had time to learn the company ropes (on top of five years previous experience selling the same kind of stuff), but they were still hiring temps up til a week or two before Christmas and most of them had no idea what they were doing.

The biggest differences between WM and CC at that point were product lines (so mostly higher class customers at CC) and that they paid the employees enough more that they wouldn't have come nearly that close to a walkout. The 16 hour forced schedule on Black Friday however, was enough to make me hate the place forever.
 
2012-11-15 09:36:56 PM

El Dudereno:
You can simply fire everyone and hire scabs, but that's only a temporary solution because eventually you run out of people willing to do shiatty work for low pay who are also qualified.


Dunno. Have you seen how many people apply when a new Wallyworld opens? I think they can keep firing everyone and replacing them for quite some time.
 
2012-11-15 09:37:17 PM

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


It's a sickness. They feel subservient and unappreciated in their own lives, probably with good reason. So they search desperately to identify with the "oppressor" in situations like this, hoping that it will result in a class of people even more oppressed and broken than they are. Compassion is a gift that not everyone receives.
 
2012-11-15 09:37:37 PM
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.
 
2012-11-15 09:37:44 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.


Wal-Mart hasn't filed for bankruptcy
 
2012-11-15 09:38:43 PM
Just a stunt by the occupy crowd. Most Wal Marts are open 24 - 7 so black Friday is irrelevant
 
2012-11-15 09:38:44 PM

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


If I asked for a job that paid me $1 a day, would the company be evil or would I be a dumbass?

The market creates a value for these people based on their function and their skill set. They agreed to work for that amount. Why should the company pay them more than they are worth just for the hell of it?
 
2012-11-15 09:38:59 PM

El Dudereno: You can simply fire everyone and hire scabs, but that's only a temporary solution because eventually you run out of people willing to do shiatty work for low pay who are also qualified.


That actually won't be a problem for a while. Even in good economies, the "Less than high school diploma" group has 5-7% unemployment. The last few years, that has gone up to about 15%. And new kids drop out of high school everyday. There will always be plenty of people around. Source
 
2012-11-15 09:39:18 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.


Yes, increased human misery is beautiful.

Cur.
 
2012-11-15 09:40:07 PM

Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.


0/10

Just donated $200. Let's do this!
 
2012-11-15 09:40:27 PM

Hunter_Worthington: At least Wal-Mart got a free way to identify lazy, shiftless, braindead workers.


Yup, they are easy to identify because they work at Walmart. And even they aren't putting up with Walmart's shiat.
 
2012-11-15 09:40:50 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-15 09:40:51 PM

MFAWG: Silly Jesus: 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.

Wal-Mart hasn't filed for bankruptcy


Correct.
 
2012-11-15 09:41:03 PM

Buffalo77: Just a stunt by the occupy crowd. Most Wal Marts are open 24 - 7 so black Friday is irrelevant


Someone may have taken the "Occupy yor jerb{" srsly.
 
2012-11-15 09:41:57 PM

erveek: Silly Jesus: 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.

Yes, increased human misery is beautiful.

Cur.


2/10
 
2012-11-15 09:42:32 PM
How typical... someone who doesn't want to come to work also wants a "donation". Typical 99% garbage here. You want more money? Prove yourself as someone who should be paid more money. Become an asset to the company, not some mindless drone in the hive of collective bargaining.
 
2012-11-15 09:42:42 PM
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.
 
2012-11-15 09:42:46 PM

Silly Jesus: If I asked for a job that paid me $1 a day, would the company be evil or would I be a dumbass?


Yes and yes.

Though the latter is true regardless of context.
 
2012-11-15 09:43:24 PM

Lsherm: 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.

Unemployment is still high enough they can be replaced. Sucks, but true, especially since it doesn't look like this is a nationwide-coordinated effort. If they could get all the workers in all the stores to strike on the same day it would be very effective.


Meh. If all the wal-mart employees in my town walked off the job, the company would have serious problems replacing them. Every big box store, fast food place, grocery store, and small retail store is having to raise wages to attract employees. The unskilled retail labor pool is pretty tight.
Lots of temp workers who barely/don't speak English are filling gaps at some places, but would you want to staff a wal-mart in middle America with English-challenged people on black Friday?

The hambeasts fighting over discounted Chinese-made shiat would burn the motherfarker down.

/come to think of it, that might be damned entertaining
 
2012-11-15 09:43:49 PM
When did we pass the place where the employees of a company, no matter the size, are not looked after by their employer in America? The primary pillar that Capitalism stood on during the Cold War is that the workers are treated well in trade for a job well done. I suppose the demands of a job at Wal-Mart are not all that demanding and hardly fulfilling for a full-realized human being but there is still work to be done to satisfy the demands of the American consumer in the ever-lasting battle towards the bottom of the barrel of prices. Even so, the more we demand out of one sack of meat at the lowest level of competent employment the further away from the shining star we hope to become we venture.
I'm all for it. If there's a large amount of participation in the strike the harder it will be to fill those vacated man hours in such a limited amount of time, thus giving higher ups pause against driving the line so hard. Also people freaking shopping during a freaking holiday of thanks makes me sad to live amongst them.

/man that was a good j
 
2012-11-15 09:43:51 PM

Mrs. Beasley: Just donated $200. Let's do this!


hahahaha.well played.
 
2012-11-15 09:45:18 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.

Pay everyone on earth $25,000 / year to stand around with their finger up their ass? What color is the magical unicorn that will deliver this money from magical money land?


What color is the Fed?
 
2012-11-15 09:46:09 PM
Anyway, there's always Amazon.....
 
2012-11-15 09:46:31 PM

Silly Jesus: MFAWG: Silly Jesus: 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.

Wal-Mart hasn't filed for bankruptcy

Correct.


So the apple is not an orange
 
2012-11-15 09:46:58 PM

Buffalo77: Just a stunt by the occupy crowd. Most Wal Marts are open 24 - 7 so black Friday is irrelevant


Well, it's relevant if enough workers don't show up nationwide. I don't think that's going to happen.

It would be awesome if it did, though.
 
2012-11-15 09:47:19 PM

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.


The CEO of my company has oodles of money. Do I deserve more of it just because he has lots of it?

That's some pretty derpy reasoning there, Lou.
 
2012-11-15 09:47:22 PM
A minimum of $25,000/year means the employee makes over $12 an hour. If I owned a convenience store, I wouldn't pay anybody but the managers above that. Sure, I am the asshole, but you aren't thinking long-term. I am the one motivating you to get out and get a real damn job, education, rich family, whatever. Just stop being pissed because you couldn't do anything better than to wear a tacky blue coat and wish me and my unwanted family a happy holiday.
 
2012-11-15 09:47:45 PM

El Dudereno: but would you want to staff a wal-mart in middle America with English-challenged people on black Friday?


That seems to be the case with most WalMart cashiers in my town the other 364 days a year.
 
2012-11-15 09:48:25 PM
apt311

I worked at Walmart while in college. Granted, a lot of my coworkers struggled with basic language arts, let alone what a second grader would consider kiddie math. I can honestly say that Walmart pays its employees just enough to shop at Walmart. Even if you make "manager", they're always p****ed off because they are moved around so much between stores that they are more worried about meeting corporate numbers than developing their subordinates.

Genius business plan; but has to fail at some point. Maybe this is that point?


I know all you little IT and other salaried peckers out there like to believe different, but you are paid exactly what you are worth. Thx for proving my point. You are owed exactly what you are worth, what job skills you bring to the table.

If it a living wage (laughable term) then so be it. If you can't make it on what you get a Wal Mart, the work another job. Work overnight at the Jack in the Box. Develop more marketable skills or basic learning as the redneck boys would say.

There will always be another idiot that chose to screw off in school rather than actually learn basic skills coming up right behind you.
 
2012-11-15 09:48:40 PM

MFAWG: Silly Jesus: MFAWG: Silly Jesus: 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.

Wal-Mart hasn't filed for bankruptcy

Correct.

So the apple is not an orange


I was comparing the being fired for not showing up aspects. I didn't realize that I must compare every facet of each company.

I also concede that Wal-Mart doesn't manufacture Twinkies....
 
2012-11-15 09:50:23 PM

Mrs. Beasley: Just donated $200. Let's do this!


There are only 88 workers nationwide who have been striking since October. What are you donating for?

Donate AFTER people walk off the job. Right now you're only supporting a potential walkoff, and only groceries at that. Striking workers need cash.
 
2012-11-15 09:50:24 PM

Silly Jesus: Hostess


Don't be too sure.
I was in a Harris Teeter market here in Virginia today and I went to the snack cake shelves.
Little Debbie Swiss Rolls were $1.27 per box.
Hostess HoHos were $4.49 a box, same sized box as the above.
In fact, all the hostess cakes, HoHos, Ding Dongs, Twinkies, Mini Mufffins and etc, were ALL $4.49 per box.

Something is out of whack there and I don't know what it is, but $4.49 for a box of the same size product seems like a losing deal.
 
2012-11-15 09:50:56 PM

DubtodaIll: When did we pass the place where the employees of a company, no matter the size, are not looked after by their employer in America? The primary pillar that Capitalism stood on during the Cold War is that the workers are treated well in trade for a job well done. I suppose the demands of a job at Wal-Mart are not all that demanding and hardly fulfilling for a full-realized human being but there is still work to be done to satisfy the demands of the American consumer in the ever-lasting battle towards the bottom of the barrel of prices. Even so, the more we demand out of one sack of meat at the lowest level of competent employment the further away from the shining star we hope to become we venture.
I'm all for it. If there's a large amount of participation in the strike the harder it will be to fill those vacated man hours in such a limited amount of time, thus giving higher ups pause against driving the line so hard. Also people freaking shopping during a freaking holiday of thanks makes me sad to live amongst them.

/man that was a good j


Jan 20th, 1981 was the exact date that hard work and loyalty stopped being valued by the private sector
 
2012-11-15 09:52:26 PM
wife's step mom and sister work for wally world. this story actually broke over a month ago. I don't know about other states, but Oklahoma is an at will state they can just tell them to fark off if they go through with this. wife's step and sister are planning on going in although begrudgingly. I know black Friday and all get the consumers spending, but how many of you older farts like me remember on Thanksgiving, nothing was open you had to wait until Friday.
 
2012-11-15 09:53:00 PM

Hunter_Worthington: oh,I know. they'll bring the same high quality employees and world class output they bring to the U.S. Public Education system.

//if I wanted to sit around all day going nowhere, I'd be a public school teacher
//those that can do, those that can't teach
// -Hunter, what about those who can't teach?
//good question. They become lobbyists. See teachers, you're not at the bottom of the food chain after all.


Hey look! Another HerpAderp that hates education! You have never worked as hard as a teacher and you never will. Not a teacher but I know a few. Most personal time consuming, thankless job that there is. Mostly because of fark-nuts like yourself.
 
2012-11-15 09:53:12 PM
To a certain degree I see the bleeding heart point...but 25k is about $12 dollars an hour. Expecting that in pay for a zero skills job is pretty ridiculous. Expecting it with health care is out of the question if you are trying to run the cheapest store in town.

I had 2-3 jobs going through college, crappy no skill jobs like Walmart. I did a good job, and didn't whine about the pay, but I didn't plan on staying for life. And working along side career minimum wagers really was a shot in the arm to finish my degree. If they choose to stay, then I choose not to care about their plight.

If we were talking about a skilled position, like machinists, then that would be totally different.
 
2012-11-15 09:53:54 PM

Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.


It's hard to "love" a place that locks people in at night and refuses to pay them, let alone pay them needed overtime.

But hey, keep on being clueless, we need people like that here on Fark.
 
2012-11-15 09:55:02 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.

The CEO of my company has oodles of money. Do I deserve more of it just because he has lots of it?

That's some pretty derpy reasoning there, Lou.


No.
Actually, that proves that they aren't hurting for money and they can afford to pay the employees who made them filthy rich better than subsistence wages, plus provide health insurance.
There's no excuse for such insanely wealthy people not to have a social conscience.

You obviously missed the magnitude of those figures and have no functional understanding of economics, troll.
 
2012-11-15 09:55:09 PM

atomic-age: How do you suggest employees sweetly get WM to stop locking them in to work 'off the clock', pay them enough that how to apply for welfare directions are not part of the pre-employment package, and to promote female and minority employees fairly?


Same way we solve every other problem in America. Lawyers.
 
2012-11-15 09:55:25 PM
smash the windows, steal the merchandise, pretend you're black.
 
2012-11-15 09:56:05 PM

gingerjet: So part of their plan is to pre-announce the walk out?

/I don't think they thought this all the way through


You don't understand how these things work, do you? You get the best results when you give the organization that you are protesting a chance to resolve the issue before D-Day. Also, it gets the word out, making it easier to get press coverage and find people familiar with the issue if the protest is carried out.
 
2012-11-15 09:56:26 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I will gladly boycott Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

/just as I do on the other 364 days of the year


^^
 
2012-11-15 09:58:24 PM

Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

It's hard to "love" a place that locks people in at night and refuses to pay them, let alone pay them needed overtime.

But hey, keep on being clueless, we need people like that here on Fark.


Are they not capable of calling 911? That's called false imprisonment and it's a pretty serious felony.
 
2012-11-15 09:59:37 PM

ProudBoiler: How typical... someone who doesn't want to come to work also wants a "donation". Typical 99% garbage here. You want more money? Prove yourself as someone who should be paid more money. Become an asset to the company, not some mindless drone in the hive of collective bargaining.


Don't be knocking bees by comparing them to the average walmart pile of filth. Bees are fraking awesome!
 
2012-11-15 09:59:46 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Silly Jesus: 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.

The CEO of my company has oodles of money. Do I deserve more of it just because he has lots of it?

That's some pretty derpy reasoning there, Lou.

No.
Actually, that proves that they aren't hurting for money and they can afford to pay the employees who made them filthy rich better than subsistence wages, plus provide health insurance.
There's no excuse for such insanely wealthy people not to have a social conscience.

You obviously missed the magnitude of those figures and have no functional understanding of economics, troll.


No, derpy-doo. Standing in a doorway and saying hello to everyone is in no way deserving of $12 / hour + benefits. No matter how much the boss makes.
 
2012-11-15 10:00:01 PM

KrispyKritter: smash the windows, steal the merchandise, pretend you're black.


Cash your government check, drink a beer, post on fark.
 
2012-11-15 10:00:48 PM

Silly Jesus: Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

It's hard to "love" a place that locks people in at night and refuses to pay them, let alone pay them needed overtime.

But hey, keep on being clueless, we need people like that here on Fark.

Are they not capable of calling 911? That's called false imprisonment and it's a pretty serious felony.


LULZ! Enough money > justice!
 
2012-11-15 10:00:58 PM

rolladuck: ProudBoiler: How typical... someone who doesn't want to come to work also wants a "donation". Typical 99% garbage here. You want more money? Prove yourself as someone who should be paid more money. Become an asset to the company, not some mindless drone in the hive of collective bargaining.

Don't be knocking bees by comparing them to the average walmart pile of filth. Bees are fraking awesome!


Damned not previewing
 
2012-11-15 10:01:16 PM

krafty420: Does this mean there will be double the trampling at other big box stores?


I prefer to do all of my Christmas trampling at Wal-Mart.
 
2012-11-15 10:01:56 PM
And unemployment will be?

/Yeah, economic recovery, sure.
 
2012-11-15 10:02:31 PM

Silly Jesus: No, derpy-doo. Standing in a doorway and saying hello to everyone is in no way deserving of $12 / hour + benefits. No matter how much the boss makes.


Troll. When you get middle aged and the workforce disposes of you for a cheaper kid and you can't find a job, you'll be glad to do that derpy work.
Karma's a batch who never sleeps.
Rest well in the hell you've helped create, Amerikun.
 
2012-11-15 10:02:53 PM
I won't be shopping there that's for sure.

Solidarity and Success, workers!
 
2012-11-15 10:03:04 PM

KrispyKritter: smash the windows, steal the merchandise, pretend you're black.


So...just another day after Thanksgiving, huh?
 
2012-11-15 10:03:21 PM

erveek: Silly Jesus: Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

It's hard to "love" a place that locks people in at night and refuses to pay them, let alone pay them needed overtime.

But hey, keep on being clueless, we need people like that here on Fark.

Are they not capable of calling 911? That's called false imprisonment and it's a pretty serious felony.

LULZ! Enough money > justice!


So people are being falsely imprisoned and contacting the local police and the Walton's are flying in and paying them off so that they ignore the imprisoned people? What brand of tinfoil is your favorite?
 
2012-11-15 10:04:19 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Silly Jesus: No, derpy-doo. Standing in a doorway and saying hello to everyone is in no way deserving of $12 / hour + benefits. No matter how much the boss makes.

Troll. When you get middle aged and the workforce disposes of you for a cheaper kid and you can't find a job, you'll be glad to do that derpy work.
Karma's a batch who never sleeps.
Rest well in the hell you've helped create, Amerikun.


Lol. 0 skill jobs are still not worth $12 an hour no matter how much your heart bleeds.
 
2012-11-15 10:05:06 PM
I worked at this terrible place when I was in school for my second degree.

People who work there are not all idiots. You are not above all of them. You would be above most of them, but there are some normal and smart people that work there. Some people need to work there because they need a third or fourth job. I needed a fourth job.

School is an expensive habit. I was running out of places to work, so I applied to work late nights at Wally World.

But yeah, you can quit any time. These workers need to quit b*tching.
 
2012-11-15 10:05:27 PM
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.
 
2012-11-15 10:06:17 PM
"I'll be all around in the dark - I'll be everywhere.
Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there.
Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there.
I'll be there in the way guys yell when they're mad.
I'll be there in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they built - I'll be there, too."
 
2012-11-15 10:07:21 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 10:07:32 PM

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


QFT. Make yourself valuable, and you'll be treated as a valuable resource. Show you can solve problems at any level, despite the pressure, and you'll be treated as an invaluable resource. Make yourself indispensable at one task, and you'll never move out of that office for the rest of your life.
Or as Alton Brown likes to shout, "UNITASKER!"
 
2012-11-15 10:08:22 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 10:10:02 PM

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!
 
2012-11-15 10:10:17 PM
Don't feed the troll.
 
2012-11-15 10:11:21 PM
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.
 
2012-11-15 10:11:42 PM

Silly Jesus: Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

It's hard to "love" a place that locks people in at night and refuses to pay them, let alone pay them needed overtime.

But hey, keep on being clueless, we need people like that here on Fark.

Are they not capable of calling 911? That's called false imprisonment and it's a pretty serious felony.


Not sure. They were told that they were being locked in because it was company policy that the doors were locked when the store was closed. Regardless, it is hard to "love" to have a job like that, which is what I was pointing out in your original statement. I've heard of plenty of people who worked there because they 'had' to, but never anyone that worked there because they "loved" to have the job.
 
2012-11-15 10:11:50 PM
I wish we didn't even need to have these kinds arguments.

I think as a country a lot of us have forgotten that there is a difference between what's legally OK and what's morally right. This seems to be the root of a lot of or problems and disagreements, at least in my opinion it is.
 
2012-11-15 10:13:14 PM

Silly Jesus: erveek: Silly Jesus: Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

It's hard to "love" a place that locks people in at night and refuses to pay them, let alone pay them needed overtime.

But hey, keep on being clueless, we need people like that here on Fark.

Are they not capable of calling 911? That's called false imprisonment and it's a pretty serious felony.

LULZ! Enough money > justice!

So people are being falsely imprisoned and contacting the local police and the Walton's are flying in and paying them off so that they ignore the imprisoned people? What brand of tinfoil is your favorite?


WHY, THAT'S TOTALLY WHAT I SAID!

If you're going to argue with the pretend erveek you seem to have concocted from whole cloth, go right ahead. The real one will stick to mocking you instead.
 
2012-11-15 10:13:17 PM

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.


well said
 
2012-11-15 10:13:32 PM

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. ...
 
2012-11-15 10:13:49 PM
When you're a company that does everything short of eating your workers' children in front of them, I guess you'd better expect the eventual backlash to be massive.
 
2012-11-15 10:14:21 PM

Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

It's hard to "love" a place that locks people in at night and refuses to pay them, let alone pay them needed overtime.

But hey, keep on being clueless, we need people like that here on Fark.

Are they not capable of calling 911? That's called false imprisonment and it's a pretty serious felony.

Not sure. They were told that they were being locked in because it was company policy that the doors were locked when the store was closed. Regardless, it is hard to "love" to have a job like that, which is what I was pointing out in your original statement. I've heard of plenty of people who worked there because they 'had' to, but never anyone that worked there because they "loved" to have the job.


Do you have a pointer to that case? Love to read up on it.
 
2012-11-15 10:14:31 PM

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.


Doesn't matter. You can cite things like this all day and assholes like this thread's merry band of trolls will still lick the Walton heir's taints. We're Amurricans - no one can be too rich and any amount of employee abuse is perfectly OK because, by golly, they chose the work there.

When I hear shiat like this it pisses me off so much I'm ready to to go heads-on spikes. The billionaires and their white knights right next to them.
 
2012-11-15 10:14:47 PM
Thanks for the heads up, subby. I'll go on Sunday to make my offering to the Capitalist Temple.
 
2012-11-15 10:16:38 PM

Shadowtag: When you're a company that does everything short of eating your workers' children in front of them, I guess you'd better expect the eventual backlash to be massive.


I hope it is, but the fund website shows they've only collected just above 4K.
 
2012-11-15 10:16:59 PM
 
2012-11-15 10:17:29 PM

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.


cdn.inquisitr.com

Assholes.
 
2012-11-15 10:17:46 PM
These godless socialist heathens are denying christians their god-given discount outlet merchandise to celebrate the birth of their saviour!
 
2012-11-15 10:18:00 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: 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.

Doesn't matter. You can cite things like this all day and assholes like this thread's merry band of trolls will still lick the Walton heir's taints. We're Amurricans - no one can be too rich and any amount of employee abuse is perfectly OK because, by golly, they chose the work there.

When I hear shiat like this it pisses me off so much I'm ready to to go heads-on spikes. The billionaires and their white knights right next to them.


Them's revolution words.
 
2012-11-15 10:18:32 PM

Gotfire: Walmart Strippers -NSFW


Well, that was certainly a twist. Kudos.
 
2012-11-15 10:20:23 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Doesn't matter. You can cite things like this all day and assholes like this thread's merry band of trolls will still lick the Walton heir's taints. We're Amurricans - no one can be too rich and any amount of employee abuse is perfectly OK because, by golly, they chose the work there.


They'll also be the first to complain when, should everyone choose not to work there, that they're just lazy.
There is literally no course of action, short of being born rich, that you're allowed to take to success.
 
2012-11-15 10:20:57 PM

Silly Jesus: HotIgneous Intruder: Silly Jesus: 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.

The CEO of my company has oodles of money. Do I deserve more of it just because he has lots of it?

That's some pretty derpy reasoning there, Lou.

No.
Actually, that proves that they aren't hurting for money and they can afford to pay the employees who made them filthy rich better than subsistence wages, plus provide health insurance.
There's no excuse for such insanely wealthy people not to have a social conscience.

You obviously missed the magnitude of those figures and have no functional understanding of economics, troll.

No, derpy-doo. Standing in a doorway and saying hello to everyone is in no way deserving of $12 / hour + benefits. No matter how much the boss makes.


You'be never had a job in retail. Now ask me how I know. I ducking dare you
 
2012-11-15 10:21:28 PM

Gotfire: Walmart Strippers -NSFW


2 things:

1. ...weirdest boner...
2. How the hell did you find that? My google-fu is strong, but I would have never thought to look for that. I can't even see myself tripping over it accidentally.
 
2012-11-15 10:21:41 PM
Remember when $250,000/yr was hardly any money at all, certainly not enough to be considered "rich"?

Now, apparently, $25,000/yr is living pretty high on the hog!
 
2012-11-15 10:22:42 PM

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.


U trollin?
 
2012-11-15 10:23:38 PM

Pistoffradish: Remember when $250,000/yr was hardly any money at all, certainly not enough to be considered "rich"?

Now, apparently, $25,000/yr is living pretty high on the hog!


They've got refrigerators and everything.
 
2012-11-15 10:23:46 PM

Pistoffradish: Remember when $250,000/yr was hardly any money at all, certainly not enough to be considered "rich"?

Now, apparently, $25,000/yr is living pretty high on the hog!


Yeah!!! They gotta go get all uppity. Look, they have refrigerators! What ungrateful bastards!
 
2012-11-15 10:24:19 PM

atomic-age: How do you suggest employees sweetly get WM to stop locking them in to work 'off the clock'


Simple. If anyone EVER did that to me it'd be a call to 911 to report that I was being unlawfully imprisoned. And when the cops showed up I'd be standing on the other side of those glass doors with a sledgehammer and I'd tell them that either they get me out of there or I will.
 
2012-11-15 10:24:22 PM

born_yesterday: Pistoffradish: Remember when $250,000/yr was hardly any money at all, certainly not enough to be considered "rich"?

Now, apparently, $25,000/yr is living pretty high on the hog!

They've got refrigerators and everything.


Jinks!
 
2012-11-15 10:24:26 PM

Gotfire: Walmart Strippers -NSFW


best 2 minutes of my days, thanks
 
2012-11-15 10:26:09 PM
Seeing as I wasn't going to go to Walmart on black Friday then I'll have no problem supporting this.
 
2012-11-15 10:26:29 PM

sethen320: I wish we didn't even need to have these kinds arguments.

I think as a country a lot of us have forgotten that there is a difference between what's legally OK and what's morally right. This seems to be the root of a lot of or problems and disagreements, at least in my opinion it is.


You're spot on.
It began when presidential candidate George Bush I walked off the interview with Dan Rather because Rather dared ask his majesty about Iran-Contra. Right then and there, I realized we were dealing with people who would didn't give a shiat about doing the right thing and that they obviously thought the rules didn't apply to them. They may have been (barely) limited by laws, but anything not explicitly prohibited by law was possible, no matter what the moral implications of right or wrong. Bush One just continued the Reagan shenanigans except badly and suffered the crashing economy that was the Gipper legacy. Clinton rode the dot-com bubble to fame, then up stepped Junior, even more amoral than his daddy. eight years of his psychodrama nearly wrecked the nation, leaving it more divided and weakened than ever before, with wages depressed and economic equality at record disparity. Along the way, we became a nation of grifters and takers arguing with those still possessing a shred of social conscience while we all became poorer. The poorer we became, the more frightened we became and the more the polarized sides lashed out at each other. A meteor strike would be a gift.
 
2012-11-15 10:26:49 PM

RedVentrue: Thanks for the heads up, subby. I'll go on Sunday to make my offering to the Capitalist Temple.


The demand side needs to speak loudly here. So stay the duck away from there
 
2012-11-15 10:27:30 PM

sethen320: born_yesterday: Pistoffradish: Remember when $250,000/yr was hardly any money at all, certainly not enough to be considered "rich"?

Now, apparently, $25,000/yr is living pretty high on the hog!

They've got refrigerators and everything.

Jinks!


Dammit! I shoulda gone with lobster!
 
2012-11-15 10:28:29 PM

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


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

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

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

but even the woman who listens to el rushbo every day does not fill out the slip. because the union is worth it
 
2012-11-15 10:28:38 PM

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.


It's a toss-up. It's hard for me to say, because I don't know exactly the pitch Walmart gives the poor & desperate who fill out applications for their crappy jobs; otoh, I've been in a position where I would have taken ANYTHING just to have an income (almost--never big-box retail). So on the one hand, you can say yes, they knew what they were getting into: A crappy job with crappy pay and almost zero benefits where they could fire you for no reason and unionizing was tantamount to murder or worse.

However, in today's economy, you can't just "quit and find a different job" because there aren't really any other jobs out there, and employers know it. They can screw employees with impunity, knowing their workers have zero recourse and zero options. Low pay? No benefits? Bad hours? "Go find another job--Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T! HAHAHAHAHA!" The employer goes off to twirl his mustache and tie another blonde to the train tracks, and the employee can only seethe in fury and hope he still has 38 hours a week next week.

So I do understand the employees' frustration here, and their only hope of getting any attention is to try to strike on the busiest day of the year and hope somebody--anybody--notices. It probably won't help. There are plenty of other desperate people who need crappy jobs at low pay and no benefits who will fill the empty spaces. But what other options do they have?
 
2012-11-15 10:30:04 PM
I actually do work there. I work 6PM - 3AM guarding pallets apparently.

As far as the walkout goes I never heard any co-worker even consider it. They did make management read some canned home office lingo message about a month ago pertaining to this though. Just contained the usual BS like we love you but we've heard rumors......blah blah blah

There will be no significance come from this. Like has been said people are perfectly aware of Walmart would do with people that walk out and people that are working there are mostly hard up for money and need a job. Now if they REALLLY wanted to make Walmart start shaking in their boots they would start dropping the bit "U" word. That'd put suits on a plane faster than anything.
 
2012-11-15 10:31:53 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 10:32:59 PM

MFAWG: RedVentrue: Thanks for the heads up, subby. I'll go on Sunday to make my offering to the Capitalist Temple.

The demand side needs to speak loudly here. So stay the duck away from there


Frankly, I cannot understand the mindset of anyone that would spend Thanksgiving shopping. It's my favorite holiday of the year. Go to a friend's house, big ol' meal, football, beer, more food, nap, more food. Being thankful for having plenty, and appreciating it with friends. I love it.

I did Black Friday once, and got some great deals, but not great enough to deal with that madness again. But...not even taking a day to give thanks? That's farked up.
 
2012-11-15 10:34:43 PM

CujoQuarrel: Do you have a pointer to that case? Love to read up on it.


Here's a quick story I found...
Link
 
2012-11-15 10:34:47 PM
1.- Silly Jesus is a weak attempt of a troll, and you're all feeding him and we're so close to past midnight.

2.- I would love nothing but to see Walmart fall

3.- Then again, I like a little chaos, so that's that
 
2012-11-15 10:34:52 PM

Gotfire: Walmart Strippers -NSFW


img837.imageshack.us

I truly like how the site reminds me that Adblock is ruining their site revenue while they serve up copyrighted pictures of "The Women of Walmart" from Playboy without permission. The "unregistered" tag for the animated gif software is an added bonus.

That takes some balls.
 
2012-11-15 10:35:12 PM
Get a job.

What if you worked in the spirit of "What If..."


You wouldn't hear "no" very often. You'd hear "Try it and see." And you'd end up with far more than you set out to. When you work at Walmart, you join incredible professionals doing the never-before-seen to save people money so they can live better. It's all part of our unique career experience, and of how - across industries and the globe - we're Making Better Possible.
 
2012-11-15 10:35:22 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-15 10:36:01 PM
Wal-Mart was the biggest client of a law firm I used to work for.

The firm defends Wal-Mart against its employees.

This was one of the reasons I stopped enjoying my work there.

I look forward to the outcome of this, even though I'm sure it just means more money in the coffers of the Death Star (nickname of former firm).
 
2012-11-15 10:36:22 PM
SuperDuper28


I actually do work there. I work 6PM - 3AM guarding pallets apparently.



I think I've seen some of your photography.
 
2012-11-15 10:36:45 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: fanbladesaresharp: I don't mean to be a dick but that's not worthy of $25k a year AND benefits.

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


I'll pay you $9 an hour. Take it or leave it. It doesn't require a degree in engineering to run a farking cash register.
 
2012-11-15 10:36:54 PM
Working on Black Friday is pretty much the norm for retail. If having to work that day turns out to be a surprise, you probably are at about your intelligence level for employment prospects.

HOWEVER! Starting Black Friday on 8pm Thanksgiving Day is a dick move by Walmart, Target, and Toys*R*Us. That's a farking family day. Let them have at least that before you work them to death the next day.

I've decided to boycott all businesses that start the holiday sales on Thanksgiving evening. For my xmas shopping, I think I'll go 100% online unless I find something especially nice in a shop that recognizes family time.
 
2012-11-15 10:36:58 PM
What I find particularly odious is not only the Walton's wealth or how crappy they treat their employees but the company's success at gouging local governments out of amazing amounts of TIF that THEY DON"T EVEN NEED.

they are a cancer on this country and should be shunned, boycotted, bankrupted, and sent packing back to Bentonville where Sam Walton's heirs themselves can find gainful employment in demeaning jobs instead of sucking the life blood out of this country.

harumph!
 
2012-11-15 10:39:36 PM
The Internationale

Go WallyWorld workers...anyone that has to do the farking Walmart cheer deserves $12/hr.
 
2012-11-15 10:40:39 PM
Ah I see the union extortion and intimidation racket for Wal Mart's unwillingness to pay protection money continues.
 
2012-11-15 10:40:44 PM

fanbladesaresharp: I'll pay you $9 an hour. Take it or leave it. It doesn't require a degree in engineering to run a farking cash register.


Nine bucks an hour is $12 bucks an hour after taxes.
 
2012-11-15 10:40:57 PM

Mikey1969: CujoQuarrel: Do you have a pointer to that case? Love to read up on it.

Here's a quick story I found...
Link


Ok. Looks like they could still get out in case of fire (emergency exits and a manager with the key). Was wondering how they could do it and not get sued since that would be a safety issue.

Looks like from the article all they did was lock the doors to keep people out.

I would think that every store would lock it's doors at night when restocking or cleaning.
 
2012-11-15 10:41:26 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: What's cool about having someone on your ignore list is that you can put a note in there that will be displayed each time the ignored person posts something.

And it is filter-free.


What's cool about the ignore feature is that it shows the passive aggressive douchebags who love to tout their own smugness about ignoring someone instead of just not reading their comment.
 
2012-11-15 10:41:54 PM
All I can say about Wal-Mart employees is this, growing up my home number was 425-8864, the local Walmart was 425-8864. We had Walmart employees call in sick to our answering machine.

That being said, good luck to them.
 
2012-11-15 10:42:16 PM
The workers are demanding the following from Walmart:

Improve Workers' Lives
Pay a minimum of $25,000/year and guarantee quality, affordable health coverage for all


No employer has ever hired me out of a desire to improve my life. They hired me out of a desire to exchange their money for my labor, just as I accepted the job out of a desire to exchange my labor for their money. Whoever wrote this has a fundamentally warped view of the employer/employee relationship.

Also, vague and non-quantifiable adjectives such as "quality" and "affordable" are an appeal to emotion and devoid of actual meaning.

Rebuild Communities
Sign on to a national community benefits agreement that ensures as Walmart expands into new markets, it strengthens communities, protects the environment.


Again, the appeal to emotion and the vague meaninglessness, with some extra stupidity based on a complete misunderstanding of the concept of a community benefits agreement. CBAs, where they exist, are supposed to serve the interests of a local community. There is no "national community", so the idea of a national CBA is idiotic, except as a legal bludgeon--which is what they actually want.

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.


In other words, "Agree to a unionized workforce, and agree to unionize all new stores going forward. Oh, and use your influence as the world's largest retailer to force your suppliers to unionize." Before they do that, they should ask one of their suppliers--Hostess--about their experience with a unionized workforce.

Idiotic, pigheaded union leadership is driving Hostess toward liquidation because they believe that NOT working (and thus earning NO money) is somehow better than actually continuing to work, but for less money.

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


And who would decide what constitutes these things? Probably not anyone who actually has to bear the costs of their implementation. Unions love to impose rules without regard to the costs, and that has proven disastrous for the steel industry, the auto industry, airlines, and other heavily-unionized sectors of the economy.

As a side note to all of the arrogant, affluent liberals who think so highly of themselves when they prevent Wal-Mart from opening stores in New York City: the next time you look down your nose at Wal-Mart as you head to Whole Foods to pay $20 for some free-range organic cruelty-free wheatgrass, remember that there are hundreds of thousands of people in that city who would benefit far more from access to cheaper groceries than they ever will from your smug, condescending concern.
 
2012-11-15 10:43:13 PM
As a former Walmart manager, i say, Fark Em. You'll never notice on Black Friday. There's so many damn people there that it's never going to be enough. Besides, reports say it's something like 100 people at most across the country. With 1.2 million people working across the country, yeah, let those 100 people walk.
 
2012-11-15 10:43:19 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: fanbladesaresharp: I'll pay you $9 an hour. Take it or leave it. It doesn't require a degree in engineering to run a farking cash register.

Nine bucks an hour is $12 bucks an hour after taxes.


And my 36 an hour is 27 after taxes. You still haven't made a valid point.
 
2012-11-15 10:44:21 PM

Shadow Blasko: AdolfOliverPanties: Shadow Blasko: [Although apparently you can have until 8 if you blow your department manager... at least at one store]

Nice friends you have there.

What makes you think the friend is the department manager?

The hell is wrong with you.


So, your friends are the sort that give out blowjobs so they can show up 3hrs late to their Wal-Mart shift. I dunno if that's better...
 
2012-11-15 10:45:15 PM
I used to work at the Wal-Mart home office. I'm pretty sure they didn't like unions.
 
2012-11-15 10:45:21 PM

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.


They get their voice. They just get it out in the parking lot and then the unemployment line.

It's just like withholding spousal sex for negotiation purposes. It is effective only so long as it is cheaper to keep you around than to get rid of you.
 
2012-11-15 10:45:51 PM

sethen320: Them's revolution words.


We're already at banana republic levels of wealth disparity in the US. We have people that will defend the rights of billionaires to pay ridiculously low tax rates, but when the employees of the billionaires ask for healthcare or a living wage they have no rights at all.

So, who ends up paying for healthcare for WalMart employees? We do. Walmart employees qualify for medicaid because their billionaire bosses, whose wealth is greater than that of the bottom 123,500,000 Americans combined, won't pay their employees a living wage or provide healthcare.

You can't run a society the way we have been doing for the last 30 years and not expect it to break at some point.
 
2012-11-15 10:47:34 PM

Great Janitor: n short, Walmart workers, you knew what you were getting into when you filled out the job application.


And thus, Wal-Mart is absolved of absolutely all responsibility to you.

/If you're not saying that, don't imply it.
 
2012-11-15 10:48:39 PM

Gyrfalcon: 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.

It's a toss-up. It's hard for me to say, because I don't know exactly the pitch Walmart gives the poor & desperate who fill out applications for their crappy jobs; otoh, I've been in a position where I would have taken ANYTHING just to have an income (almost--never big-box retail). So on the one hand, you can say yes, they knew what they were getting into: A crappy job with crappy pay and almost zero benefits where they could fire you for no reason and unionizing was tantamount to murder or worse.

However, in today's economy, you can't just "quit and find a different job" because there aren't really any other jobs out there, and employers know it. They can screw employees with impunity, knowing their workers have zero recourse and zero options. Low pay? No benefits? Bad hours? "Go find another job--Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T! HAHAHAHAHA!" The employer goes off to twirl his mustache and tie another blonde to the train tracks, and the employee can only seethe in fury and hop ...


I don't know what they tell their people before they get hired, but honestly, how do you not know that working at Walmart isn't a pleasant experience? My first job was working as a bagger at Kroger. I knew after orientation that I was in for minimum wage suck. Actually, I knew during orientation that I was in for minimum wage sucked. What did I do? After three weeks I was looking for a different job. If you don't like where you are at, it's not up to the government or your employer to change. It's up to you.

As far as "in today economy, you can't just quit and find a different job", what economy are you in? In the past 30 days I've had four job offers. One was with a Fortune 100 company that called me up for a job. Now I work in sales, come to find out, companies are really on the look out for sales people. Get over the idea that commission only is evil or scary, and commission only rocks. Make $10/hour, work a 40 hour work week and make $400 minus taxes. Me, I can work less than 40 hours a week and make $5,000 and since I make my own hours, I can do that one week and take the following week off.
 
2012-11-15 10:48:41 PM

Gyrfalcon: because there aren't really any other jobs out there


B.S.

I work for a welfare office. there are jobs out there, enough for people to find second jobs and enough for welfare recipients to close their cases all the time because their new income is over the limit. the obama recovery is in full swing
 
2012-11-15 10:48:44 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: sethen320: I wish we didn't even need to have these kinds arguments.

I think as a country a lot of us have forgotten that there is a difference between what's legally OK and what's morally right. This seems to be the root of a lot of or problems and disagreements, at least in my opinion it is.

You're spot on.
It began when presidential candidate George Bush I walked off the interview with Dan Rather because Rather dared ask his majesty about Iran-Contra. Right then and there, I realized we were dealing with people who would didn't give a shiat about doing the right thing and that they obviously thought the rules didn't apply to them. They may have been (barely) limited by laws, but anything not explicitly prohibited by law was possible, no matter what the moral implications of right or wrong. Bush One just continued the Reagan shenanigans except badly and suffered the crashing economy that was the Gipper legacy. Clinton rode the dot-com bubble to fame, then up stepped Junior, even more amoral than his daddy. eight years of his psychodrama nearly wrecked the nation, leaving it more divided and weakened than ever before, with wages depressed and economic equality at record disparity. Along the way, we became a nation of grifters and takers arguing with those still possessing a shred of social conscience while we all became poorer. The poorer we became, the more frightened we became and the more the polarized sides lashed out at each other. A meteor strike would be a gift.


Good thoughts, but I don't agree with the meteor strike thing :) I also think this is a problem which plagues both right and left, though the right is definitely more prone to this behavior. It's greed pure and simple.

I know it sounds silly but I think a lot of it comes down to the way we run our stock market. Right now people invest in stocks in a way not originally intended. Everyone wants to flip them. They want to buy at $20 and sell at $40. They are not interested in dividends or profit sharing. Originally stocks were about reaping some of the income of the company you helped to build through investment. Because people are really only interested in the paper value of the stock which they are looking to flip at any time, they demand higher and higher profits quarter after quarter. This means they are expecting infinite growth, which is impossible to sustain, regardless of what type of government you have. This shareholder expectation of "more more more" causes CEOs and boards to make decisions to increase the bottom line as much as possible constantly because simply making a shiat ton of money every year is not enough. Now they must make the same shiat ton of money + an additional 50% because that's what the shareholders demand. And if they don't make it then they will be voted out. This leads to ammoral decisions by officers which eventually trickles down to managers, who (in fear of their jobs) enforce them.

Basically our motto is "You're not successful unless you're more sucessful than last year". It doesn't matter if you make way more money than you ever expected. You must always make at least that much again + more, or you are running at a loss as far as shareholders are concerned. This is so messed up because in the end everyone eventually gets screwed. You cannot possibly make more than you did last time forever.
 
2012-11-15 10:49:22 PM
Walmart makes 15 billion net profit and over 2 million employees, Obamacare will eat all that up ( $7500. per employee). Expect to see price increases unless they make everyone part time workers.
 
2012-11-15 10:50:02 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I will gladly boycott Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

/just as I do on the other 364 days of the year


But 2012 is a leap year! Was there a moment of weakness in June?
 
2012-11-15 10:50:44 PM

Great Janitor: I don't know what they tell their people before they get hired, but honestly, how do you not know that working at Walmart isn't a pleasant experience?


And therefore, we should never, ever take steps to make the experience better.

/Again, if you're not saying that, don't imply it.
 
2012-11-15 10:51:05 PM

fanbladesaresharp: I'll pay you $9 an hour. Take it or leave it. It doesn't require a degree in engineering to run a farking cash register.


Is there some reason working for Wal-Mart need not be gainful employment besides your opinion of what counts as work?
 
2012-11-15 10:51:50 PM
I worked at Wal-Mart. If they try to walk out as those customers are going in they are going to die.
 
2012-11-15 10:52:49 PM
Has anyone blamed unions yet, because it's probably their fault
 
2012-11-15 10:53:41 PM

IlGreven: Great Janitor: n short, Walmart workers, you knew what you were getting into when you filled out the job application.

And thus, Wal-Mart is absolved of absolutely all responsibility to you.

/If you're not saying that, don't imply it.


No, you've summed up what I said. Feeling sorry for Walmart employees is kind of like feeling sorry for that guy who purposely shoot himself in the foot
 
2012-11-15 10:54:11 PM
Oh, will the herpa derpas get a shock when they try to Chick-fil-A Walmart.

They'll show up at Walmart intending to support management by buying something. AND THEY WILL BE TRAMPLED FOR $30 DVD PLAYER AND A PALLET OF HUGGIES.
 
HBK
2012-11-15 10:57:01 PM

Fade2black: HotIgneous Intruder: fanbladesaresharp: I'll pay you $9 an hour. Take it or leave it. It doesn't require a degree in engineering to run a farking cash register.

Nine bucks an hour is $12 bucks an hour after taxes.

And my 36 an hour is 27 after taxes. You still haven't made a valid point.


I hope people don't pay you $36 an hour to understand jokes. Because you suck at it.
 
2012-11-15 10:57:04 PM

Fade2black: AdolfOliverPanties: What's cool about having someone on your ignore list is that you can put a note in there that will be displayed each time the ignored person posts something.

And it is filter-free.

What's cool about the ignore feature is that it shows the passive aggressive douchebags who love to tout their own smugness about ignoring someone instead of just not reading their comment.


Actually, what's best about the ignore feature is using the 'Favorites' list instead, and classifying people, whether 'Friends' or not to remind you about them. You can list someone as a favorite merely for being a stupid prick. Those I like to make Purple and label as 'Purple DERPle'. Not sure where I'd categorize you though, since you don't seem to be bright enough to understand why people might need such a thing as an "Ignore" list on a place like Fark where stories can get 300+ comments before you even realize there is a new story.
 
2012-11-15 10:57:28 PM

Cybernetic: As a side note to all of the arrogant, affluent liberals who think so highly of themselves when they prevent Wal-Mart from opening stores in New York City: the next time you look down your nose at Wal-Mart as you head to Whole Foods to pay $20 for some free-range organic cruelty-free wheatgrass, remember that there are hundreds of thousands of people in that city who would benefit far more from access to cheaper groceries than they ever will from your smug, condescending concern.


Stockholm Syndrome, I'd guess.
Some people don't even know they're free.
 
2012-11-15 10:57:45 PM

IlGreven: Great Janitor: I don't know what they tell their people before they get hired, but honestly, how do you not know that working at Walmart isn't a pleasant experience?

And therefore, we should never, ever take steps to make the experience better.

/Again, if you're not saying that, don't imply it.


It's up to the employees to make things better. It's not up to me. It's not up to the government. If the employees hate working there that much, they should do something about it. They are free to leave, find a different job, what ever.
 
2012-11-15 10:58:38 PM

born_yesterday: MFAWG: RedVentrue: Thanks for the heads up, subby. I'll go on Sunday to make my offering to the Capitalist Temple.

The demand side needs to speak loudly here. So stay the duck away from there

Frankly, I cannot understand the mindset of anyone that would spend Thanksgiving shopping. It's my favorite holiday of the year. Go to a friend's house, big ol' meal, football, beer, more food, nap, more food. Being thankful for having plenty, and appreciating it with friends. I love it.

I did Black Friday once, and got some great deals, but not great enough to deal with that madness again. But...not even taking a day to give thanks? That's farked up.


Thank you. I VERY RELUCTANTLY went to a store to get something my wife wanted about 5 years ago. I drove by, saw the line, realized what the hell I was doing, and never even stopped. That's the closest I've ever come. I said it a while back in another thread, but I'll say it again here: I believe it's my moral duty NOT to patronize stores who choose to ruin their employees' holidays. There is absolutley NO reason black Friday can't start on Friday. There is nothing in any store that I need/want so bad that I need to be a part of ruining someone elses family/personal time. I don't care if they celebrate that holiday or not. Almost everyone else who is non-essential gets it, they should too. If they WANT to work it that's fine, but being required to come in and sell shiatty plastic junk...that's really not necessary.
 
2012-11-15 10:58:55 PM

HBK: Fade2black: HotIgneous Intruder: fanbladesaresharp: I'll pay you $9 an hour. Take it or leave it. It doesn't require a degree in engineering to run a farking cash register.

Nine bucks an hour is $12 bucks an hour after taxes.

And my 36 an hour is 27 after taxes. You still haven't made a valid point.

I hope people don't pay you $36 an hour to understand jokes. Because you suck at it.


Har.
 
2012-11-15 10:59:40 PM

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


Really? All they would have to do it offer workers time and half from the neighboring wal-marts.
If it hurt, then pay double time and shuttle bus the workers in. Eventually you can staff the store.
You also can increase the pay of the workers that did not go on strike, and let them fill any slots open in the newly vacated dept manager slots.
 
2012-11-15 11:00:45 PM
What could go wrong?
s16.postimage.org

Walmart Management will laugh this off.
s9.postimage.org

What would Henry Rollins do?
s12.postimage.org
 
2012-11-15 11:00:46 PM
If it sucks so badly to work there, farking quit. Dumbasses.

Of course, if you walk out on black friday, you might not have to.

Most of the walmart employees I've encountered wouldn't even be worth $1.25 an hour. They act like the world owes them.
 
2012-11-15 11:01:01 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: fanbladesaresharp: I'll pay you $9 an hour. Take it or leave it. It doesn't require a degree in engineering to run a farking cash register.

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


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.
 
2012-11-15 11:01:04 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: sethen320: Them's revolution words.

We're already at banana republic levels of wealth disparity in the US. We have people that will defend the rights of billionaires to pay ridiculously low tax rates, but when the employees of the billionaires ask for healthcare or a living wage they have no rights at all.

So, who ends up paying for healthcare for WalMart employees? We do. Walmart employees qualify for medicaid because their billionaire bosses, whose wealth is greater than that of the bottom 123,500,000 Americans combined, won't pay their employees a living wage or provide healthcare.

You can't run a society the way we have been doing for the last 30 years and not expect it to break at some point.


I never said I disagreed with you.
 
2012-11-15 11:01:36 PM

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.


Obama can afford to pay all the workers himself. He doesnt need more than 50k a year. His rent and expenses are paid.
 
2012-11-15 11:01:57 PM

Great Janitor: It's up to the employees to make things better.


What do you think this strike is about?
 
2012-11-15 11:02:50 PM

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?
 
2012-11-15 11:02:54 PM

Silly Jesus: It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.


Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For, while technically "voluntary" , capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty. This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising to obey in return for payment. To promise to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities [of independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate. This results in those obeying no longer making their own decisions. Thus the rational for voluntarism (i.e. that individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and must be allowed to express their individuality and make their own decisions) is violated in a hierarchical relationship as some are in charge and the many obey. Thus any voluntarism which generates relationships of subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete and violates its own justification.

This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom, however, must mean more than the right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is still servitude. For if, as Rousseau put it, sovereignty, "for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented" neither can it be sold nor temporarily nullified by a hiring contract. Rousseau famously argued that the "people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing." [The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 266]

Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary" undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest), the control of the state by the capitalist class plus the tendency for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now control vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. Thus denial of free access to the means of life is based ultimately on the principle of "might makes right." And as Murray Bookchin so rightly points out, "the means of life must be taken for what they literally are: the means without which life is impossible. To deny them to people is more than 'theft' . . . it is outright homicide." [Remaking Society, p. 187]

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? The capitalists have systematically used the state to create limited 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)?

So, while it is definitely the case that no one forces you to work for them, the capitalist system is such that you have little choice but to sell your liberty and labour on the "free market." Not only this, but the labour market (which is what makes capitalism capitalism) is (usually) skewed in favour of the employer, so ensuring that any "free agreements" made on it favour the boss and result in the workers submitting to domination and exploitation.
 
2012-11-15 11:04:09 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Great Janitor: It's up to the employees to make things better.

What do you think this strike is about?


I get that, but they don't own it, so if the company doesn't want to change, then they are free to find a job elsewhere.
 
2012-11-15 11:04:28 PM

Fark Me Runnin: If it sucks so badly to work there, farking quit. Dumbasses.

Of course, if you walk out on black friday, you might not have to.

Most of the walmart employees I've encountered wouldn't even be worth $1.25 an hour. They act like the world owes them.


Hey look! It's another person who has never worked retail!
 
2012-11-15 11:04:53 PM

Ehcks: Doing it wrong

Ehcks: Doing it wrong! You're not supposed to say you're doing it. You just don't show up!


Know how I know you've never been in a union?

You always give the employer a chance to come to the table and bargain before you walk out. Striking is not the first action, it's the last resort.

And I say good on them. Workers have the right to organize in most states. They have the right to go to management as a group and ask for fair wages and benefits. And they have a right to demand their employers follow labor law, with a collective strength that makes it possible for them to action that and hold them to it.

Telling Wal-Mart that they plan to strike in a week, on the busiest day of the year, is the smartest thing they can do. It gives Wal-Mart a chance to come to the table and give them what they want before shiat gets real, and follows the principles of good faith bargaining while making it clear that they have leverage.

Don't forget - people farking DIED for the 40-hour work week, minimum wage, and the right to take a break. This is exactly the same fight, and shouldn't be necessary at all in this day and age.

And I don't shop at Wal-Mart anyway, so it's fun to point and laugh at them.
 
2012-11-15 11:05:16 PM

Silly Jesus: I hope they are all fired.


And then they could sue WalMart for pretty well anything they want. Oh and WalMart would also face federal lawsuits.
 
2012-11-15 11:06:44 PM

CujoQuarrel: Mikey1969: CujoQuarrel: Do you have a pointer to that case? Love to read up on it.

Here's a quick story I found...
Link

Ok. Looks like they could still get out in case of fire (emergency exits and a manager with the key). Was wondering how they could do it and not get sued since that would be a safety issue.

Looks like from the article all they did was lock the doors to keep people out.

I would think that every store would lock it's doors at night when restocking or cleaning.


You missed this part, I guess...
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500 stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to let workers out in emergencies.

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

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


And it took The New York TImes' investigation to start the 'Manager with a key' policy:
Several employees said Wal-Mart began making sure that there was someone with a key seven nights a week at the Colorado Springs store and other stores starting Jan. 1, shortly after The New York Times began making inquiries about employees' being locked in.

Then we have a manager chiming in about the real 'Why':
Tom Lewis, who managed four Sam's Clubs in Texas and Tennessee, said: ''It's to prevent shrinkage. Wal-Mart is like any other company. They're concerned about the bottom line, and the bottom line is affected by shrinkage in the store.''

Another reason for lock-ins, he said, was to increase efficiency -- workers could not sneak outside to smoke a cigarette, get high or make a quick trip home.


Sounds like they were locking them in to me, not locking other people out. Especially when you read the parts about low crime area WalMarts having the same policy. Besides, the very case the story talks about is a guy that shattered his ankle, and nobody was there with a key. If they opened the fire door without a fire, they could be fired, and it took a farking hour for the manager to get there with a key.
 
2012-11-15 11:07:29 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: I hope they are all fired.

And then they could sue WalMart for pretty well anything they want. Oh and WalMart would also face federal lawsuits.


And then it will wind its way through the courts until the plaintiffs run out of money in about 7 hours.
 
2012-11-15 11:07:39 PM
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?
 
2012-11-15 11:08:13 PM

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.


Stop being mean to Libertarians. They will do no such thing. Oh, wait, did you mean Republicans? That description does not fit that party very much. When pressed, most Republicans back away from their slogans. I have fun with this sometimes.
 
2012-11-15 11:08:33 PM

sethen320: I never said I disagreed with you.


Didn't necessarily think you were. Just using your comment as a jumping off point.
 
2012-11-15 11:09:17 PM
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?
 
2012-11-15 11:10:46 PM

John Buck 41: Seeing as how Fark generally is 'liberal' I find it odd that there are so many many posts trashing WalMart workers potentially going on strike.


Fresh troll accounts just like the influx we had when WI was fighting over collective bargaining. Anti labor forces are well organized.
 
2012-11-15 11:12:12 PM

Gawdzila: Or maybe they know it won't work and just want to punch WalMart in the wallet.
I think it might work better than you think. The sort of mouth-breathers that apply to WalMart will probably take longer than 2 weeks to figure out how to work a cash register. Even if they got a bunch of job applicants, considering the relatively short time frame the stores would not be running smoothly (even compared to normal) and would cost the store quite a bit of revenue.


Ship them in from other states. It might cost a bit but the sales will go on. No training required.
 
2012-11-15 11:12:52 PM

erveek: And then it will wind its way through the courts until the plaintiffs run out of money in about 7 hours.


there are plenty of lawyers who'd take the case on a contingency fee basis if not flat out pro bono. Also if the feds get involved, they'll stay involved until things get resolved.
 
2012-11-15 11:13:38 PM

ACallForPeace: Silly Jesus: It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.

Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For, while technically "voluntary" , capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty. This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising to obey in return for payment. To promise to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities [of independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate. This results in those obeying no longer making their own decisions. Thus the rational for voluntarism (i.e. that individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and must be allowed to express their individuality and make their own decisions) is violated in a hierarchical relationship as some are in charge and the many obey. Thus any voluntarism which generates relationships of subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete and violates its own justification.

This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom, ho ...


i.qkme.me
 
2012-11-15 11:13:44 PM

Gotfire: Walmart Strippers -NSFW


I'm calling bullshiat on that. Shiatty corporate practices by Walmart aren't the only reasons I prefer Target. Both the employees and the clientele at WalMart are as terrifying as the People of Walmart site tells us. Unless those are the ONLY hot chicks at ALL of the WalMarts, and they added some ex-employees as well as a few customers, that explanation I'll buy...
 
2012-11-15 11:15:07 PM

lostcat: Wal-Mart was the biggest client of a law firm I used to work for.

The firm defends Wal-Mart against its employees.

This was one of the reasons I stopped enjoying my work there.

I look forward to the outcome of this, even though I'm sure it just means more money in the coffers of the Death Star (nickname of former firm).


WalMart is the most litigated entity on the planet, INCLUDING governments. Scary...
 
2012-11-15 11:15:20 PM

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.


You assume that outsourcing was caused by consumers demanding lower prices. This is completely false.
Companies outsource to save money. Lower prices may be a side effect of that as the company tries to increase market share, but blaming it on consumer spending habits is wrong.
 
2012-11-15 11:16:29 PM

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?
 
2012-11-15 11:17:01 PM

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.


I think Sam Walton is spinning in his grave at east as fast as Walt Disney... Talk about raising a dream, and then having people fark it all to Hell...
 
2012-11-15 11:17:23 PM
25k a year? That's like $12.00 an hour, man. So, like, how many wage-slaves does Wally world employ anyway? I mean, what'll it cost, man, what'll it cost?!
 
2012-11-15 11:19:38 PM

Fade2black: 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.


one of the things Richard Nixon wanted to introduce was a living wage law. Let that sink in for a while.
 
2012-11-15 11:19:43 PM

Hunter_Worthington: I wonder what Labor's pitch to wal-mart's workers is?

"let us do for you, what we've done to the U.S. Auto and steel industries"

At least Wal-Mart got a free way to identify lazy, shiftless, braindead workers. They'll fire the dead wood, and the company will be better off.

//any defeat for organized Labor is a victory for the American Economy.


Well, the richest 1% of it, anyway.
 
2012-11-15 11:19:55 PM

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?


I would say that's a pretty good assessment. The consumers and shareholders are most definitely a huge part of the problem. In the end it's all about greed. Everyone wants more, more, more...and they don't want to pay for it. Hell, the black Friday event is a celebration of greed. Can anyone think of any logical justification for human beings to be trampled to death by a crowd trying to buy plastic things in a store? No. What you have is a crowd of hundreds of people who saw a person hurting on the ground and then made the decision to ignore them, because they can get a good deal on a shiatty TV or laptop.  That's a pretty serious problem.
 
2012-11-15 11:20:11 PM
were gonna need to support them, they are all gonna be out jobs in 3... 2... 1...
 
2012-11-15 11:20:38 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 11:21:20 PM

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?


Walmart is a HUGE bully in the business world.

It's a terrible company. I'm very grateful I don't have to shop there. I know plenty of people who aren't so fortunate.

/so sick of buying cheap shiat only to have it break immediately.
//I. would. like. to. purchase. some. quality. goods. please.
///seriously, I'll pay whatever it takes, just, enough with the cheap shiat
////i hope Wal-mart workers fark UP Black Friday
//fark black friday anyways, watching citizens of one of the wealthiest nations in the world fight over cheap consumer goods is just embarrasing
 
2012-11-15 11:21:45 PM

Hunter_Worthington: //any defeat for organized Labor is a victory for the American Economy.


why should only one side have the freedom to associate as they see fit for their own gain? Also unions had nothing to do with the troubles of the US steel and auto industries.
 
2012-11-15 11:21:50 PM

loaba: 25k a year? That's like $12.00 an hour, man. So, like, how many wage-slaves does Wally world employ anyway? I mean, what'll it cost, man, what'll it cost?!


Call Hillary....she was on the board of directors for years. She helped push out the small business and get Walmart to be the wage slaves they are today.

Hope they walk out.
 
2012-11-15 11:22:00 PM

IlGreven: Great Janitor: n short, Walmart workers, you knew what you were getting into when you filled out the job application.

And thus, Wal-Mart is absolved of absolutely all responsibility to you.

/If you're not saying that, don't imply it.


Yeah, I've always LOVED that line of "reasoning". It's the same thing you hear when you point out that waiters make $2.13/hour. Especially ironic coming from the same people who go on rampages against Obama about the unemployment rate, and how people have to take crappy jobs just to get by.
 
2012-11-15 11:22:03 PM

Fade2black: I just explained why.


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

I'll put it you again:

Is there some reason working for Wal-Mart need not be gainful employment besides your opinion of what counts as work?
 
2012-11-15 11:24:27 PM

timujin: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

Generally speaking, that is untrue. While working at Wal-mart is not a job that requires a particularly high skill level, the people who are skilled enough are also the people who like to be able to eat and who don't like to be told to do work that is in violation of labor laws. Now, I'm sure there are people that are willing to put up with that, but I believe Wal-mart will find the quality of those workers to be lacking.

Basically, you pay for what you get.

Which also happens to be true when you shop at Wal-mart.


Plenty of people work second jobs there during the holidays, so yeah there will be plenty of people willing to do their jobs without a problem at all.

Also, crooks and liars has a OWS section? Figures most of their articles are bullshiat, just like OWS and their goals, fark both of them this wont make a dent in their sales at all.
 
2012-11-15 11:24:52 PM

Mikey1969: Gotfire: Walmart Strippers -NSFW

I'm calling bullshiat on that. Shiatty corporate practices by Walmart aren't the only reasons I prefer Target. Both the employees and the clientele at WalMart are as terrifying as the People of Walmart site tells us. Unless those are the ONLY hot chicks at ALL of the WalMarts, and they added some ex-employees as well as a few customers, that explanation I'll buy...


In the section of town I used to reside in there were a few smokin hot cashiers. But overall I would agree with you.
 
2012-11-15 11:25:00 PM

megalynn44: /so sick of buying cheap shiat only to have it break immediately.


Funny thing is, it wouldn't really cost much if anything more to sell good merchandise. Owing to price creep, in many places and on many items the differential between what Wal-Mart sells and good stuff is not much if anything. Costco somehow manages to sell good stuff for cheap, yet Sam's Club doesn't. It's not the stuff, it's the people doing the selling that are the issue.
 
2012-11-15 11:25:07 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Telling Wal-Mart that they plan to strike in a week, on the busiest day of the year, is the smartest thing they can do. It gives Wal-Mart a chance to come to the table and give them what they want before shiat gets real, and follows the principles of good faith bargaining while making it clear that they have leverage.


It also gives WalMart a way to turn this in their favor. A lot of times, these are small stories, or never make it into the news. Doing it this way gives WalMart the opportunity to play this up in the media.

/Not that I have any faith in WalMart being smart enough to see this...
 
2012-11-15 11:25:54 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: I hope they are all fired.

And then they could sue WalMart for pretty well anything they want. Oh and WalMart would also face federal lawsuits.


Sue for what? Forcing them to show up for the job they said they would show up for? Some of you are farking insane.
 
2012-11-15 11:26:37 PM

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?


If you want to do that, then you work your way up to management and you get more money.
 
2012-11-15 11:27:00 PM

erveek: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: I hope they are all fired.

And then they could sue WalMart for pretty well anything they want. Oh and WalMart would also face federal lawsuits.

And then it will wind its way through the courts until the plaintiffs run out of money in about 7 hours.


Nope, I would bet they'd find a way to make this a class action, by rolling it with other employment complaints. Those are quite often freebies, because the settlements are huge and the lawyers get paid directly from the settlement. Only problem is that they quite often take years to resolve... Hell, I got a check the other day from the Classmates.com settlement, and that was from around 2002 or so...
 
2012-11-15 11:27:14 PM

Hunter_Worthington: I wonder what Labor's pitch to wal-mart's workers is?

"let us do for you, what we've done to the U.S. Auto and steel industries"

At least Wal-Mart got a free way to identify lazy, shiftless, braindead workers. They'll fire the dead wood, and the company will be better off.

//any defeat for organized Labor is a victory for the American Economy.


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.
 
2012-11-15 11:27:32 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.


Yeah, but Hostess was already affiliated with the baker's union.
 
2012-11-15 11:27:34 PM
Welcome to Romney's America.
 
2012-11-15 11:28:02 PM

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


That's a good attitude for feel-good liberal reformism.
It's not a good attitude to take for an effective direct action though.
The powers that be don't respond when you ask nicely, at most you get an extra symbolic crumb. The best thing to do is act on your own and bypass their channels all together.
Kind of like the difference between a gathered circle of liberals kindly asking for change and getting pepper sprayed in the face for their kindness (UC Davis, I think?) , or instead having a group of people willing to throw back tear gas canisters and light fires to make sure people can breathe and play ball when the cops initiate violence, all the while causing economic damage to corporations who threatened to fire their employees if they made political statements (Oakland).
 
2012-11-15 11:28:47 PM

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.


I don't think the strike is because they don't want to work on Black Friday.
 
2012-11-15 11:29:00 PM

GarretSidzaka: were gonna need to support them, they are all gonna be out jobs in 3... 2... 1...


I gave some to the food fund. I will give more this weekend. They haven't raised nearly enough. It was at ~5K when I donated a few minutes ago. The biggest thing we can all do is not shop at Wal-Mart, especially on Thanksgiving. Tell your friends/family, and remind them that the deals they think they'll be getting aren't worth it.

I would hope that if Wal-Mart felt a bit of backlash the other retailers would see the writing on the wall and follow suit, but unfortunately I wouldn't bet on it.
 
2012-11-15 11:29:16 PM

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?


Nice... I like that one. You got your thinking cap on tonight!
 
2012-11-15 11:30:43 PM

Nutsac_Jim: If you want to do that, then you work your way up to management and you get more money.


That's just like... your opinion... man.
Really, give me something besides your opinion that they don't deserve it.
It won't bankrupt Wal-Mart to pay every one of their employees a minimum of $12/hr. This is fact. I'll find the study if I have to, but I recall such a move would cost the average Wal-Mart consumer $1.12 per visit.
They're clearly making Wal-Mart more money than they're getting in return. The disparity is so great that the only credible explanations are greed and cruelty.
 
2012-11-15 11:31:47 PM

steamingpile: Sue for what? Forcing them to show up for the job they said they would show up for? Some of you are farking insane.


it's illegal to fire employees for organizing or trying to organize. It's a federal law, and in some states there are additional laws. Laws go back to when Carnegie Steel called in the Pinkertons and had them get all shooty with some striking workers.
 
2012-11-15 11:33:01 PM

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.


Keep in mind that WalMart ruthlessly stomps out all competition, including that corner hardware store that your parents shopped at, or the local grocery store. As a result, there is almost nothing BUT WalMart to choose from anymore, where else are the consumers supposed to go? Me, I prefer Target, but there are 6 WalMarts closer than Target, and it's a little irresponsible to drive across town, wasting gas, just to shop somewhere else.

Yes, you still have a point, and that consumer behavior is what put WalMart in the position they have now, but at this point, I think a large portion of the customers are people who just plain have no other retail options.
 
2012-11-15 11:33:17 PM

WhyteRaven74: Fade2black: 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.

one of the things Richard Nixon wanted to introduce was a living wage law. Let that sink in for a while.


And he was also one of the most batshiat insane presidents we've ever had. Let that sink in for a while.
 
2012-11-15 11:33:21 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Nine bucks an hour is $12 bucks an hour after taxes.


Let's see, ... assuming $12/hour x 32 hours/week (gotta keep them from being "full time") you're at $384/week. 52 weeks/year, with no vacation, is $19,968. Subtract standard deduction ($11,600) and a single personal exemption ($3700) and you're at $4668.
Looking at page 74 of the Form 1040 instructions here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf shows a total tax for single or MFS is $468. That's about 2.35%. Subtract out the medicare and social security (5.65%) and you have 9% in taxes. 91% of $12/hour is $10.92, take-home. Keep in mind, that's single, no dependents. First child, or if you're married, and you're starting to get EITC, which means you're GETTING more money. Of course, children are expensive, but if you were good at making life choices, you wouldn't be trying to raise a child as a single parent working at Walmart. Maybe you should have listened to your parents and teachers who told you to work hard in school. Now the only consolation you have is maybe your children will, but they probably won't, and thus renews the boundless cycle of perpetual poverty. My god, this is depressing shiat. I'm getting some rum. Good thing Walmart is nearby and open.
 
2012-11-15 11:34:04 PM

randomjsa: Ah I see the union extortion and intimidation racket for Wal Mart's unwillingness to pay protection money continues.


The capitalist and statist extortion and intimidation racket to make most of the population slaves continues.
 
2012-11-15 11:34:04 PM

Cross of Iron: Yeah, but Hostess was already affiliated with the baker's union.


And Hostess has had problems for years owing to some rather badly conceived acquisitions and mergers.
 
2012-11-15 11:34:12 PM

WhyteRaven74: erveek: And then it will wind its way through the courts until the plaintiffs run out of money in about 7 hours.

there are plenty of lawyers who'd take the case on a contingency fee basis if not flat out pro bono. Also if the feds get involved, they'll stay involved until things get resolved.


...by the Roberts Supreme Court. Gee, I wonder how that will go.
 
2012-11-15 11:35:12 PM

WhyteRaven74: Fade2black: 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.

one of the things Richard Nixon wanted to introduce was a living wage law. Let that sink in for a while.


Richard Nixon was quite the interesting guy. I always wondered where his historical standing would have been if Watergate never happened.
 
2012-11-15 11:35:22 PM

John Buck 41: My job involves 4 good things.

1. I never work weekends.
2. I don't deal with dancing peasants, i.e., the public
3. My hours are the same every day.
4. Decent benefits

In other ways my job sucks moldy moosecock.


You forgot:
5. Did not at any time bite my sister.
 
2012-11-15 11:35:23 PM

atomic-age: rolladuck: insertsnarkyusername: The can ask for a union and the company legally has to say yes.

The company can also legally shut down those stores. And re-open others in the next town where there is high unemployment of un- or marginally-skilled workers.

Unions aren't the be-all and end-all of employer-employee relationship management. And you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, ... at least metaphorically.

How do you suggest employees sweetly get WM to stop locking them in to work 'off the clock', pay them enough that how to apply for welfare directions are not part of the pre-employment package, and to promote female and minority employees fairly?


Locked in to work? I would kill over that.


/Yes, I expect to be the subject of a dark article one day.
 
2012-11-15 11:35:30 PM

Mikey1969: IlGreven: Great Janitor: n short, Walmart workers, you knew what you were getting into when you filled out the job application.

And thus, Wal-Mart is absolved of absolutely all responsibility to you.

/If you're not saying that, don't imply it.

Yeah, I've always LOVED that line of "reasoning". It's the same thing you hear when you point out that waiters make $2.13/hour. Especially ironic coming from the same people who go on rampages against Obama about the unemployment rate, and how people have to take crappy jobs just to get by.


That line of reasoning is the absolute truth. It's common knowledge that waiters make less than $3/hour. No one takes a job not knowing what the pay is going to be until that first paycheck. So, if someone applies for a job and is told before hand that the job pays minimum wage and there is no guarantee at 40 hours each week, and they still accept the job, I don't feel sorry for them. No one put a gun to their head and told them to accept a job at Walmart. 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.

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.
 
2012-11-15 11:35:51 PM

rtaylor92: Hunter_Worthington: I wonder what Labor's pitch to wal-mart's workers is?

"let us do for you, what we've done to the U.S. Auto and steel industries"

At least Wal-Mart got a free way to identify lazy, shiftless, braindead workers. They'll fire the dead wood, and the company will be better off.

//any defeat for organized Labor is a victory for the American Economy.

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.


Their unions are also much better than ours, quality of the cars aside. And it's not like they're getting paid peanuts either. American auto union average is 56/hr...foreign auto union is still up around 35-40/hr. But they also train multiple people to do multiple tasks, instead of having the door installer just do door installing for 30 years.
 
2012-11-15 11:37:00 PM

erveek: ...by the Roberts Supreme Court. Gee, I wonder how that will go.


by the time the case ends up in the Supreme Court there could be a couple, at least, different justices there. Also as evident from his opinion in the Health Care Reform Act ruling, Roberts has much respect for existing precedent when it comes to labor law.
 
2012-11-15 11:37:03 PM

Nutsac_Jim: 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?

If you want to do that, then you work your way up to management and you get more money.


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.
 
2012-11-15 11:37:42 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 11:38:02 PM

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

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


OK, as someone pointed out to another poster, you don't understand how unions work, do you? There is more warning and negotiation going on than there is actual striking. I figured that part out in High School.

And no it's not a "feel-good liberal" thing.
 
2012-11-15 11:38:39 PM

LavenderWolf: atomic-age: rolladuck: insertsnarkyusername: The can ask for a union and the company legally has to say yes.

The company can also legally shut down those stores. And re-open others in the next town where there is high unemployment of un- or marginally-skilled workers.

Unions aren't the be-all and end-all of employer-employee relationship management. And you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, ... at least metaphorically.

How do you suggest employees sweetly get WM to stop locking them in to work 'off the clock', pay them enough that how to apply for welfare directions are not part of the pre-employment package, and to promote female and minority employees fairly?

Locked in to work? I would kill over that.


/Yes, I expect to be the subject of a dark article one day.


There are a lot of things I say I would kill over but I don't mean it. This is one of those things I probably would not kill over, but there would probably be a broken door and a job to fill when all was said and done if it was me.
 
2012-11-15 11:38:45 PM
What I've learned from this thread:

If you're an unskilled laborer, you deserve no protections from unsafe or unpleasant working conditions.
 
2012-11-15 11:39:56 PM

Tellingthem: always wondered where his historical standing would have been if Watergate never happened.


Pretty high up most likely. Granted it doesn't help that almost as soon as he was out of office, the EPA and OSHA, which were created during his time in office and given some very serious teeth, found themselves being weakened, by members of Nixon's own party no less.

Fade2black: And he was also one of the most batshiat insane presidents we've ever had. Let that sink in for a while.


His paranoia was a personal thing, when it came to policy he was completely clear headed. And many times far more insightful than he's been given credit for.
 
2012-11-15 11:40:37 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 11:41:05 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Fade2black: I just explained why.

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

I'll put it you again:

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


Especially since all of the definitions I see for "gainfully employed" just say that you are working for a wage. He needs a new catchphrase, because by definition, every person who works at WalMart is "gainfully employed".
 
2012-11-15 11:42:04 PM
For the folks who are all fired up, let us consider something:

Do you support the idea of a Chamber of Commerce? Do you support industry organizations that allow those industries to represent their interests both to the public, as well as to legislators and other politicians? Allow management to confer with one another to build and share strategies that will make said industries run smoother and more efficiently? Even represent their interests in lawsuits to preserve those interests?

If you do, then congratulations, you've just defended the reasons that unions exist. So long as owners and management can confer and associate freely in industry organizations, then workers have the same right to organize themselves in a similar fashion, and even represent their interests to legislators and defend their members from what they see as onerous roadblocks, and even what they see as unfair practices and to defend their compensation.

So long as management has the right to organize and confer, and act upon those meetings and strategize, then labor has the same right.

If you think that NO ONE should associate as such, then congrats, you are likewise against the freedom of assembly, and you should take your Un-American ass out to Somalia or some backwater where they don't have rights guaranteed...
 
2012-11-15 11:42:34 PM

ox45tallboy: so the cost of employee health care (current and future) is not included in the price of their cars.


Funny that having factories in the US hasn't caused the price of cars by Japanese or German companies to increase. It's almost as if the most important thing is how the companies are run, not where.
 
2012-11-15 11:43:03 PM

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.


Because in towns with Walmarts, there are no other employers at all???
 
2012-11-15 11:43:09 PM
So, the "Occupy" folks come up with an idea to encourage WalMart workers to walk off the job on Black Friday with nothing more than a "don't worry, we've got your back..." And despite the fact this is something that originated from the "Occupy" folks, it is being billed as "WalMart workers are organizing..."

At the end of the day whom are the people that will end up getting screwed? It will not be WalMart, it certainly won't be the people behind the "Occupy" movement, it will be the poor WalMart employees that mistakenly believed that "Occupy" actually gave a damn about them as an person.

I will back off me criticism if "Occupy" comes up with the $25K per WalMart employee + insurance benefits for each WalMart employee that walks out on Black Friday, anything short of making good on this, and its just another example of "Occupy" being full of shiat.
 
2012-11-15 11:43:49 PM

Silly Jesus: This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom, ho ...


That image really does sum up your account in a nutshell.
 
2012-11-15 11:45:23 PM

jpo2269: and its just another example of "Occupy" being full of shiat.


why not hold WalMart's feet to the flames for treating their employees the way they do? After all, if WalMart does it right, we're not even having this discussion.
 
2012-11-15 11:45:30 PM

WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Sue for what? Forcing them to show up for the job they said they would show up for? Some of you are farking insane.

it's illegal to fire employees for organizing or trying to organize. It's a federal law, and in some states there are additional laws. Laws go back to when Carnegie Steel called in the Pinkertons and had them get all shooty with some striking workers.


It just flabbergasts me that we're still having these fights today against the Titans of Consumerism (who have replaced Titans of Industry in this day and age). I have the sinking feeling that this may get every bit as ugly, though hopefully not as shooty/stabby/clubby.

My local Wal-Mart is one that's planning to walk out, and I'll be there with them.
 
2012-11-15 11:45:44 PM

WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Sue for what? Forcing them to show up for the job they said they would show up for? Some of you are farking insane.

it's illegal to fire employees for organizing or trying to organize. It's a federal law, and in some states there are additional laws. Laws go back to when Carnegie Steel called in the Pinkertons and had them get all shooty with some striking workers.


You don't fire them for organizing. You fire them for not showing up to work.
 
2012-11-15 11:45:51 PM

Mikey1969: lostcat: Wal-Mart was the biggest client of a law firm I used to work for.

The firm defends Wal-Mart against its employees.

This was one of the reasons I stopped enjoying my work there.

I look forward to the outcome of this, even though I'm sure it just means more money in the coffers of the Death Star (nickname of former firm).

WalMart is the most litigated entity on the planet, INCLUDING governments. Scary...


In 2000, 12 farking years ago, they had a lawsuit filed against them every 23 seconds. Yes, even more than the federal government.
 
2012-11-15 11:46:04 PM
Early Sunday morning: Best time to shop at urban Wal-Mart. Everyone's either in church or sleeping, and I am neither.
 
2012-11-15 11:46:25 PM

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.


It's like you have no idea about the unemployment numbers. Are you really so stupid that you think that people would actually choose to work at Wal-Mart if they had any other option? FFS the people that work there can't even afford to shop there and have to go on government assistance. If you are ok with that then, by all means, please proceed.
 
2012-11-15 11:46:45 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Fade2black: I just explained why.

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

I'll put it you again:

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


Oo Oo I can play this roundabout game too!

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.

Roundabout GO!
 
2012-11-15 11:48:39 PM

Stile4aly: What I've learned from this thread:

If you're an unskilled laborer, you deserve no protections from unsafe or unpleasant working conditions.


Dont forget that increasing pay 4x will have no upward effect on prices.
 
2012-11-15 11:48:44 PM

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.


Yes, I'm sure you masturbate furiously to the fantasy that one day that phone call will come, ONE DAY you will get to deny another human being of the chance at paying work. "God help you" indeed! Oh, the POWER you have!
 
2012-11-15 11:49:51 PM

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.


That was stupid.
 
2012-11-15 11:50:12 PM
Walmart and other big companies achieve economies of scale due to their size.

a union allows workers to gain that same advantage, and see the benefits of economies of scale.

if you want to take issue with how unions are run, fine (I will probably agree, but they aren't run any better than most companies). but wish for the end of unions? congrats, you don't know jack shiat about economics.
 
2012-11-15 11:50:51 PM

Silly Jesus: ACallForPeace: Silly Jesus: It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.

Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For, while technically "voluntary" , capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty. This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising to obey in return for payment. To promise to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities [of independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate. This results in those obeying no longer making their own decisions. Thus the rational for voluntarism (i.e. that individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and must be allowed to express their individuality and make their own decisions) is violated in a hierarchical relationship as some are in charge and the many obey. Thus any voluntarism which generates relationships of subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete and violates its own justification.

This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will ob ...


jpo2269: So, the "Occupy" folks come up with an idea to encourage WalMart workers to walk off the job on Black Friday with nothing more than a "don't worry, we've got your back..." And despite the fact this is something that originated from the "Occupy" folks, it is being billed as "WalMart workers are organizing..."

At the end of the day whom are the people that will end up getting screwed? It will not be WalMart, it certainly won't be the people behind the "Occupy" movement, it will be the poor WalMart employees that mistakenly believed that "Occupy" actually gave a damn about them as an person.

I will back off me criticism if "Occupy" comes up with the $25K per WalMart employee + insurance benefits for each WalMart employee that walks out on Black Friday, anything short of making good on this, and its just another example of "Occupy" being full of shiat.


Here, here! [takes a shot of rum]
 
2012-11-15 11:51:10 PM

CujoQuarrel: Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

It's hard to "love" a place that locks people in at night and refuses to pay them, let alone pay them needed overtime.

But hey, keep on being clueless, we need people like that here on Fark.

Are they not capable of calling 911? That's called false imprisonment and it's a pretty serious felony.

Not sure. They were told that they were being locked in because it was company policy that the doors were locked when the store was closed. Regardless, it is hard to "love" to have a job like that, which is what I was pointing out in your original statement. I've heard of plenty of people who worked there because they 'had' to, but never anyone that worked there because they "loved" to have the job.

Do you have a pointer to that case? Love to read up on it.


This NY Times article was my first search result.
 
2012-11-15 11:51:27 PM

Blue_Blazer: 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.

It's like you have no idea about the unemployment numbers. Are you really so stupid that you think that people would actually choose to work at Wal-Mart if they had any other option? FFS the people that work there can't even afford to shop there and have to go on government assistance. If you are ok with that then, by all means, please proceed.


Oh, we're going to try the excuse of "There are no other jobs out there?" Bullshait. If that were true then websites like Monster would be completely void of jobs. There would be no jobs posted on craigslist. There are jobs out there, you just have to look for them. And if you live in some strange place where there are no jobs, work for yourself. Find something that people aren't willing to and charge them for it. Hell, you can probably become self employed charging lazy ass people money to pick up their dog's shiat and make more money than Walmart pays their own people.
 
2012-11-15 11:51:44 PM
Okay people, since there are so many who do not understand what it is like for an average Wal-Mart employee:

Meet my sister. She's 31, married, with 3 kids. Her and her husband receive his disability pay from his service in Iraqi Freedom, but it's not enough to pay the bills. She took a "part time" job at nights at Wal-Mart, who told her that she would need to work night shift "until they got someone else", and they'd "giver her more hours", as in 40 instead of 32, until they "got night shift where they wanted it".

In the past ten months, she worked ONE week at less than 40 hours. But she is not allowed to get insurance, because she is a "part-time" employee. She has to be there for one year.

Day shift had an opening. However, her night shift manager said she was a great worker and he needed her on nights, so the day shift position went to a new hire.

At times, she is asked to stay over by her manager and do extra work. This work is on the clock, but there's a catch:

She is scheduled at 10:00 on Friday night. The end-of-week pay period is midnight Friday night. If she has worked over through the week, she must report in, but is not allowed to clock in because she could wind up with OVERTIME. Instead, she has to show that she came in to work on time, then she is free to stand in the parking lot with all the low-lifes who hang out at the Wal-Mart parking lot at 10:00 on Friday night.

But it gets better!

She was denied a raise at her 6-month eval for.... ATTENDANCE!

But she never misses work!

Guess what? All those times she clocked in late on Friday nights to avoid overtime - SHE WAS TARDY!

She just had a meeting with the GM of the store to address the insurance issue. She was told point blank she would not be receiving insurance becasue she was a "part time" employee. So, she changed her availability to ensure she would only be scheduled for 4 nights a week. Two days later, the schedule was changed back to 5 nights a week.

On Black Friday, she is supposed to work "Security", which is going to entail keeping order in these long lines of people waiting to receive pieces of paper they can exchange for their items at the counter.

She's all in favor of this strike.
 
2012-11-15 11:52:17 PM

ILoveBurritos: 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.


That's not quite it... Companies actually make inferior versions of their products specifically for WalMart. They still make their 'original formula' for everyone else. I saw it in both socks and underwear when I used to buy them there. I continued to buy the same brand outside of WalMart and found a noticeable improvement. My brother in law pointed this out after watching this movie... Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

ILoveBurritos: 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?


I wouldn't ever buy Levi's at WalMart, but a pair still lasts me 3 or 4 years, and then the first thing to go is the one knee that drops first when I stop at someone's desk to set tup, remove or repair their computer. Otherwise I'd probably get another year or so out of them. The bonus is that by watching for sales, I can still get the Levi's I wear for $32 to $38 a pair.

In short, the only clothes I buy from WalMart are TShirts, and those are only the retro-styled printed ones they have for like $7-$10. All my other clothes I buy at stores like Kohl's or Sears...
 
2012-11-15 11:52:41 PM

jpo2269: So, the "Occupy" folks come up with an idea to encourage WalMart workers to walk off the job on Black Friday with nothing more than a "don't worry, we've got your back..." And despite the fact this is something that originated from the "Occupy" folks, it is being billed as "WalMart workers are organizing..."

At the end of the day whom are the people that will end up getting screwed? It will not be WalMart, it certainly won't be the people behind the "Occupy" movement, it will be the poor WalMart employees that mistakenly believed that "Occupy" actually gave a damn about them as an person.

I will back off me criticism if "Occupy" comes up with the $25K per WalMart employee + insurance benefits for each WalMart employee that walks out on Black Friday, anything short of making good on this, and its just another example of "Occupy" being full of shiat.


Please tell me you're not serious. I really want to believe you have the power of individual thought.
 
2012-11-15 11:53:35 PM

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.


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.
 
2012-11-15 11:53:37 PM

Great Janitor: Because in towns with Walmarts, there are no other employers at all???


Sigh,

Okay, so where do *all* of these employees go? Do you think there are enough other businesses to absorb even a fraction of the number of people Wal-Mart employs?
 
2012-11-15 11:55:12 PM

Nutsac_Jim: WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Sue for what? Forcing them to show up for the job they said they would show up for? Some of you are farking insane.

it's illegal to fire employees for organizing or trying to organize. It's a federal law, and in some states there are additional laws. Laws go back to when Carnegie Steel called in the Pinkertons and had them get all shooty with some striking workers.

You don't fire them for organizing. You fire them for not showing up to work.


*WINK* *NUDGE*

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?
 
2012-11-15 11:55:33 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 11:56:04 PM

Great Janitor: It's common knowledge that waiters make less than $3/hour.


If by "common knowledge" you mean, just waiters, managers and restaurant owners, I guess you're right.

Otherwise, you're full of shiat. I run into plenty of people who have never known that.

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.

But I thought the evil Obama had saddled us with eleventy billion percent unemployment after the workers' utopia of George W Bush? I thought people "had" to take absolutely any job they could find? Are you people flipping the script yet again?
 
2012-11-15 11:56:43 PM

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.


Umm, i hate to burst this myth, but they don't. On average, when a Walmart moves in, the number of businesses present beforehand that closes is 4. After 5 years, and if you've ever seen a Walmart built, a ton of crap gets built around it. I'm not going to look for this study tonight, google it yourself if you want to see it.
 
2012-11-15 11:57:06 PM

jayphat: In 2000, 12 farking years ago, they had a lawsuit filed against them every 23 seconds. Yes, even more than the federal government.


I think the story I read was about 2003, but that seems about like what I remember. I'd forgotten about the 'Every 'x' seconds' part. Like I said: Scary.
 
2012-11-15 11:57:45 PM
Shiat. People are rabid about their shopping. Won't happen.

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-15 11:58:20 PM

Great Janitor: Oh, we're going to try the excuse of "There are no other jobs out there?" Bullshait. If that were true then websites like Monster would be completely void of jobs. There would be no jobs posted on craigslist. There are jobs out there, you just have to look for them. And if you live in some strange place where there are no jobs, work for yourself. Find something that people aren't willing to and charge them for it. Hell, you can probably become self employed charging lazy ass people money to pick up their dog's shiat and make more money than Walmart pays their own people.


So you're saying:

1.bp.blogspot.com
"If she doesn't like it, she should find a better job!"


Because that's what you sound like. And remember what Steve Buscemi was doing in Tarantino's next movie.
 
2012-11-15 11:58:25 PM

Stile4aly: What I've learned from this thread:

If you're an unskilled laborer, you deserve no protections from unsafe or unpleasant working conditions.


That is the Republican dream. Heck, I bet when they owned slaved they biatched because they had to feed and shelter them. Face it, Republican/Libertarians won't truly be happy till they have child slaves working for free and sleeping on the ground outside the factories. Sadly, I see some of the more liberal people here bashing Walmart workers too. A job is a job and not everyone wants to be a doctor or a lawyer. There is no shame in any moral job and people shouldn't be put down for earning an honest dollar. It's pathetic how many people here feel so bad about themselves they have to dump on some poor minimum wage worker to make themselves feel important. What a sad world.
 
2012-11-15 11:58:34 PM

WhyteRaven74: ox45tallboy: so the cost of employee health care (current and future) is not included in the price of their cars.

Funny that having factories in the US hasn't caused the price of cars by Japanese or German companies to increase. It's almost as if the most important thing is how the companies are run, not where.


Uh, they tend to build factories in "right to work" states. I haven't researched it, but I'd venture a guess that foreign car companies influenced the whole "right to work" movement.
 
2012-11-15 11:58:39 PM

jayphat: Umm, i hate to burst this myth, but they don't. On average, when a Walmart moves in, the number of businesses present beforehand that closes is 4. After 5 years, and if you've ever seen a Walmart built, a ton of crap gets built around it. I'm not going to look for this study tonight, google it yourself if you want to see it.


Yeah, either a bunch of chain restaurants, or places that don't do any business related to WalMart. In other words, no competition.
 
2012-11-15 11:58:55 PM

Blue_Blazer: It's like you have no idea about the unemployment numbers. Are you really so stupid that you think that people would actually choose to work at Wal-Mart if they had any other option? FFS the people that work there can't even afford to shop there and have to go on government assistance. If you are ok with that then, by all means, please proceed.


He should have said, "they are free to attempt to find new jobs".

Most men reach their 50's and buy a convertible. My dad hit his 50's and quit his $75k/year job as a hospital equipment maintenance technician to work as a fry cook at Burger King, then moved over to Walmart. He could be better, but if he were on Fark, he'd be Bevets-adjacent, ... plus paranoid as all holy hell. I love him, but he's got no where else to go.
As his only son, I can and would get him doing something more promising with his life if he would simply believe that he could 1) do well at it, and 2) not be a paranoid-delusional cluster-fark of a human. But he simply fails to think that he can succeed. That, and he has no people skills. He's not reclusive, he thinks YOU want to be interested in everything HE is interested in... and he's interested in lots of stuff.
Maybe I should try... he was the only one in my family that didn't flip his shiat when I told them I was an atheist, so there's gotta be some good in there, I know it! [/Luke Skywalker Mode]
 
2012-11-15 11:59:02 PM

Je5tEr: atomic-age: How do you suggest employees sweetly get WM to stop locking them in to work 'off the clock'

Simple. If anyone EVER did that to me it'd be a call to 911 to report that I was being unlawfully imprisoned. And when the cops showed up I'd be standing on the other side of those glass doors with a sledgehammer and I'd tell them that either they get me out of there or I will.


Yeah! And if a guy ever tried to rape me, why I'd just kick him in the balls and laugh! What the hell is wrong with all these people that they can't take a stand and solve their own problems?!

I'll leave this here for the sarcasm-impaired.
 
2012-11-15 11:59:55 PM

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.

// You got a problem with that?
 
2012-11-15 11:59:58 PM

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?
 
2012-11-16 12:00:57 AM

ciberido: CujoQuarrel: Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

It's hard to "love" a place that locks people in at night and refuses to pay them, let alone pay them needed overtime.

But hey, keep on being clueless, we need people like that here on Fark.

Are they not capable of calling 911? That's called false imprisonment and it's a pretty serious felony.

Not sure. They were told that they were being locked in because it was company policy that the doors were locked when the store was closed. Regardless, it is hard to "love" to have a job like that, which is what I was pointing out in your original statement. I've heard of plenty of people who worked there because they 'had' to, but never anyone that worked there because they "loved" to have the job.

Do you have a pointer to that case? Love to read up on it.

This NY Times article was my first search result.


Any retail store where the door locks on the inside require a key to unlock them is a fire marshals wet farking dream!
 
2012-11-16 12:01:01 AM

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?
 
2012-11-16 12:01:18 AM

OgreMagi: Working on Black Friday is pretty much the norm for retail. If having to work that day turns out to be a surprise, you probably are at about your intelligence level for employment prospects.

HOWEVER! Starting Black Friday on 8pm Thanksgiving Day is a dick move by Walmart, Target, and Toys*R*Us. That's a farking family day. Let them have at least that before you work them to death the next day.

I've decided to boycott all businesses that start the holiday sales on Thanksgiving evening. For my xmas shopping, I think I'll go 100% online unless I find something especially nice in a shop that recognizes family time.


This
 
2012-11-16 12:02:27 AM

ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: Because in towns with Walmarts, there are no other employers at all???

Sigh,

Okay, so where do *all* of these employees go? Do you think there are enough other businesses to absorb even a fraction of the number of people Wal-Mart employs?


Taking a guess, I'm going to say that for those employees who aren't happy working there, there probably are enough other jobs out there to take. They just have to go out and find the job.

moefuggenbrew: 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.

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.


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."
 
2012-11-16 12:03:10 AM

jayphat: Umm, i hate to burst this myth, but they don't. On average, when a Walmart moves in, the number of businesses present beforehand that closes is 4. After 5 years, and if you've ever seen a Walmart built, a ton of crap gets built around it. I'm not going to look for this study tonight, google it yourself if you want to see it.


Ummmm I hate to bust your myth, but Wal-Mart also puts in in many places where it doesn't negatively impact local businesses. This is why you provided the average. Tell that to the people in small towns all around the South that feel the impact of a Wal-Mart far, far more than the larger cities, many of which already have a Wal-Mart but the second and/or third Wal-Mart's are included in these averages.

And if you're talking about the "satellite" stores that surround Wal-Mart's, have you noticed that they are invariably huge chains with their own issues and history of treating their employees like crap?
 
2012-11-16 12:03:23 AM

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!
 
2012-11-16 12:04:05 AM

zedster: ...growing up my home number was 425-8864, the local Walmart was 425-8864. We had Walmart employees call in sick to our answering machine.


I don't see what you did there.
 
2012-11-16 12:04:32 AM

WhyteRaven74: jpo2269: and its just another example of "Occupy" being full of shiat.

why not hold WalMart's feet to the flames for treating their employees the way they do? After all, if WalMart does it right, we're not even having this discussion.


Man, you need to update your Amazon wishlist.

As for holding Walmart's feet to the fire, I wish the employees luck, but in this economy it's quite possibly the worst time to try and do it.
 
2012-11-16 12:04:46 AM
"a ton of crap gets built around it. I'm not going to look for this study tonight,..."

Yes, a ton of chain stores owned by large corporations do build strip malls near Walmarts.
But they don't sell the same products.

Walmart closes small business. Those franchises around the area are owned by big business.

But drive the miles of back roads and look at what is not there anymore.

"What is seen.....and what is unseen"
 
2012-11-16 12:05:01 AM
for those cheering on wal-mart:

Wal-Mart's intentionally low wages force employees to need approximately $420,000 per year, per store, totalling $2.66 BILLION annually in Food Stamps and other taxpayer assistance...to survive.

Wal-Mart's intentionally low wages and lack of covered benefits cost taxpayers over $1.02 BILLION a year in healthcare costs.

Wal-Mart's intentionally low wages cost taxpayers as much as $225 MILLION in free and reduced price lunches for school-age children.

Wal-Mart's intentionally low wages cost taxpayers over $780 MILLION in tax deductions for low-income families.


Link


and let's compare the labor costs of unionized Costco vs Wal-marts Sam's Club, shall we? (from those commies at Harvard Business School)

Costco's practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year's employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year'close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the worker's annual salary. To be conservative, let's assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Sam's Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Sam's Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Sam's Club would result in lower turnover costs. But if its turnover rate is the same as Wal-Mart's, Sam's Club loses more than twice as many people as Costco does: 44% versus 17%. By this calculation, the total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Sam's Club is $612 million. That's $5,274 per Sam's Club employee, versus $3,628 per Costco employee.

While Sam's Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees-admittedly, in part by selling to higher-income shoppers and offering more high-end goods. As a result, Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam's Club. Costco's stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.


Link
 
2012-11-16 12:05:33 AM

jayphat: As a former Walmart manager, i say, Fark Em. You'll never notice on Black Friday. There's so many damn people there that it's never going to be enough. Besides, reports say it's something like 100 people at most across the country. With 1.2 million people working across the country, yeah, let those 100 people walk.


I salute those with the courage to walk.
 
2012-11-16 12:05:43 AM

Fade2black: Is there a reason why Wal-Mart should pay a wage to employees that would count as gainfully employed?


It already does. You need a new soapbox.

Here ya go:

Definition
Gainful employment is a general term referring to a job, especially a job that a student takes after graduation. In the most basic sense, gainful employment is any type of employment that leads to profit for the employee. Gainful employment is often assumed to be a source of consistent revenue for the worker, with the classical connotations associated with a steady job.


Link

In short, "gainfully employed" means having a paying job.
 
2012-11-16 12:06:11 AM

Great Janitor: Taking a guess, I'm going to say that for those employees who aren't happy working there, there probably are enough other jobs out there to take. They just have to go out and find the job.


Indeed. You are merely taking a guess. Do you know how long my sister had to wait before the opening in Wal-Mart came up?
 
2012-11-16 12:06:43 AM

Mikey1969: Great Janitor: It's common knowledge that waiters make less than $3/hour.

If by "common knowledge" you mean, just waiters, managers and restaurant owners, I guess you're right.

Otherwise, you're full of shiat. I run into plenty of people who have never known that.


You run into plenty of stupid people. I learned this in high school when I had classmates telling me how little they were making as a waitress.

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.

But I thought the evil Obama had saddled us with eleventy billion percent unemployment after the workers' utopia of George W Bush? I thought people "had" to take absolutely any job they could find? Are you people flipping the script yet again?


Read my posts, find out where I said the name Obama. People aren't working crappy jobs because of Obama or Bush. They work crappy jobs because they chose to accept those crappy jobs.
 
2012-11-16 12:06:45 AM

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
 
2012-11-16 12:07:15 AM
i24.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-16 12:08:47 AM

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.
 
2012-11-16 12:09:45 AM

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.
 
2012-11-16 12:09:49 AM
The Wal-mart worker I know:

My aunt is pushing 70. In her time, she was way ahead of the curve. When her friends were getting married, she was getting a degree. She worked as a HIgh School English teacher for over 30 years. For most of her life she was a respected, independent professional.

Unfortunately, she's not perfect, went through a terribly messy divorce after being cheated on, and it knocked her down enough that she never quite regained her footing in life. Now, her pension doesn't cover her living expenses, so she works at Wal-mart. Where she gets to be stereotyped as a lazy, stupid loser who doesn't even deserve basic laborer protections for safety and health.
 
2012-11-16 12:10:07 AM
Damn unions. Always standing up for the takers not the makers.
 
2012-11-16 12:11:49 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-16 12:12:10 AM

Great Janitor: Read my posts, find out where I said the name Obama. People aren't working crappy jobs because of Obama or Bush. They work crappy jobs because they chose to accept those crappy jobs

were all that was available, due to employer collusion.

FTFY.

People with your philosophy really have no idea what life is like for many people. Do you know how much stress and effort and money it takes to change jobs? To rearrange yourself and your family around a new schedule? Especially when you're married with three kids?
 
2012-11-16 12:12:38 AM

dumbobruni: for those cheering on wal-mart:

Wal-Mart's intentionally low wages force employees to need approximately $420,000 per year, per store, totalling $2.66 BILLION annually in Food Stamps and other taxpayer assistance...to survive.

Wal-Mart's intentionally low wages and lack of covered benefits cost taxpayers over $1.02 BILLION a year in healthcare costs.

Wal-Mart's intentionally low wages cost taxpayers as much as $225 MILLION in free and reduced price lunches for school-age children.

Wal-Mart's intentionally low wages cost taxpayers over $780 MILLION in tax deductions for low-income families.

Link


and let's compare the labor costs of unionized Costco vs Wal-marts Sam's Club, shall we? (from those commies at Harvard Business School)

Costco's practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year's employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year'close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the worker's annual salary. To be conservative, let's assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Sam's Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Sam's Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Sam's Club would result in lower turnover costs. But if its turnover rate is the same as Wal-Mart's, Sam's Club loses more than twice as many people as Costco does: 44% versus 17%. By this calculation, the total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Sam's Club is $612 million. That's $5,274 per Sam's Club employee, versus $3,628 per Costco employee.

While Sam's Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billi ...


Right when I left Walmart in 2008, there was a study done using local social data about workers from Walmart and the whole foodstamp usage. I can't find the study, I looked for 5 mins and thats all the effort I'm putting in tonight. I hope you're sitting down, but Walmart actually REMOVES people from food stamp rolls. About 4% of employees are on assistance when they start with Walmart. By the 6 month mark, that number drops to 2%. After 18 months, 1%. Again, look for the study. I was shocked when I read it.

Yes there will be a large number of people on foodstamps working for Walmart. They are the largest private employer in the country. You'll probably be shocked, SHOCKED to know that state and federal workers are on foodstamps too. Maybe they need their pay raised as well.
 
2012-11-16 12:13:14 AM
Wal-Mart on Thursday reported that its investigation into violations of a federal antibribery law had extended beyond Mexico to China, India and Brazil, some of the retailer's most important international markets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/business/wal-mart-expands-foreign-b r ibery-investigation.html?pagewanted=all
 
2012-11-16 12:13:25 AM

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


So what do you think of all these people in the thread saying "if she doesn't like it, then she should find herself another job"?
 
2012-11-16 12:13:55 AM

ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: Taking a guess, I'm going to say that for those employees who aren't happy working there, there probably are enough other jobs out there to take. They just have to go out and find the job.

Indeed. You are merely taking a guess. Do you know how long my sister had to wait before the opening in Wal-Mart came up?


So, she just waited for an opening at Walmart? Did she not apply for work anywhere else?

I don't know about where you live, but in my area, even after all the illegal aliens taking jobs, there are still plenty of job openings. Some companies can't even hire enough people. Tax season is starting up. I know people starting classes next week to get their IRS certifications to do tax work. I have a friend who started a job today, all he does is pass out flyers. He gets paid ten cents for every flyer he passes out and paid daily. He made $87 in just four hours. I've got another friend, he just works two and a half hours a night door knocking for a roofing company. He's making a thousand dollars a week.

There are jobs out there. No one has to settle for Walmart unless they want to.
 
2012-11-16 12:14:34 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?


Try these:

Link
 
2012-11-16 12:14:38 AM

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.
 
2012-11-16 12:15:18 AM

moefuggenbrew: 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.

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.


Is the warehouse a giant Faraday cage and no cell phone 9-1-1 calls can go out to call the police and let them know the workers are locked in the warehouse?
 
2012-11-16 12:15:31 AM

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


I enjoy a good laugh, but now is not the time for joking. :)
 
2012-11-16 12:15:35 AM

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

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

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


So you think the federal minimum wage should be raised up to a little over $12 an hour? Because that is how much it takes to equal $25 k a year. Have fun paying all the extra money that companies would charge for *everything* to pay for that shiat.
 
2012-11-16 12:15:50 AM

jayphat: Yes there will be a large number of people on foodstamps working for Walmart. They are the largest private employer in the country. You'll probably be shocked, SHOCKED to know that state and federal workers are on foodstamps too. Maybe they need their pay raised as well.


Dude, the HR office at the Wal-Mart my sister works at has a stack of Medicaid forms for the new hires when they ask about benefits.

I am not making this up.

They also have WIC applications if you get pregnant. And the HR manager will help you fill out the paperwork!
 
2012-11-16 12:16:38 AM

sethen320: Nutsac_Jim: WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Sue for what? Forcing them to show up for the job they said they would show up for? Some of you are farking insane.

it's illegal to fire employees for organizing or trying to organize. It's a federal law, and in some states there are additional laws. Laws go back to when Carnegie Steel called in the Pinkertons and had them get all shooty with some striking workers.

You don't fire them for organizing. You fire them for not showing up to work.

*WINK* *NUDGE*

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 would bother me to just not show up to work and leave my employer hanging. That moral thing....
 
2012-11-16 12:16:50 AM

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?
 
2012-11-16 12:17:33 AM

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.

 
2012-11-16 12:17:50 AM

ox45tallboy: Okay people, since there are so many who do not understand what it is like for an average Wal-Mart employee:


But obviously she WANTS to work there and loves it.

...At least according to certain jack-holes on this board tonight.

Myself, I totally feel for her entire family. Occasionally, when money has been tight, my wife has entertained the idea of working at WallyWorld for the holidays. So far, I've been able to talk her out of it, and we've always survived. I can only hope that trend will continue.
 
2012-11-16 12:17:58 AM

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

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


I think those people are spoiled little assholes who have no concept of how bad working conditions could be for them if millions of people in the past hadn't fought hard for workers rights. You stop fighting for them, you lose them. I think making sure everyone gets a certain level of respect as a human being is a very important part of society.
 
2012-11-16 12:18:37 AM

ox45tallboy: jayphat: Yes there will be a large number of people on foodstamps working for Walmart. They are the largest private employer in the country. You'll probably be shocked, SHOCKED to know that state and federal workers are on foodstamps too. Maybe they need their pay raised as well.

Dude, the HR office at the Wal-Mart my sister works at has a stack of Medicaid forms for the new hires when they ask about benefits.

I am not making this up.

They also have WIC applications if you get pregnant. And the HR manager will help you fill out the paperwork!


ox45tallboy: jayphat: Yes there will be a large number of people on foodstamps working for Walmart. They are the largest private employer in the country. You'll probably be shocked, SHOCKED to know that state and federal workers are on foodstamps too. Maybe they need their pay raised as well.

Dude, the HR office at the Wal-Mart my sister works at has a stack of Medicaid forms for the new hires when they ask about benefits.

I am not making this up.

They also have WIC applications if you get pregnant. And the HR manager will help you fill out the paperwork!


I worked in 9, NINE, different Walmarts, 3 as a manager. Never once did I ever see or encourage anyone to fill out forms for social assistance. This situation actually baffels me.
 
2012-11-16 12:18:52 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.


Hey, kind of like a union. You either join the union, or you don't work.
 
2012-11-16 12:18:54 AM

WhyteRaven74: Fade2black: 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.

one of the things Richard Nixon wanted to introduce was a living wage law. Let that sink in for a while.


It's amazing how "liberal" people like Reagan and Nixon look when compared to today's Republican Party platform.  Or at least what it was days before the election. I honestly have no idea what the Republican Party thinks it stands for now that Obama's been reëlected.
 
2012-11-16 12:18:56 AM

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?!
 
2012-11-16 12:19:00 AM

debug: 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?

Try these:

Link


There's also Pointer Brand jeans. Made in the USA.
 
2012-11-16 12:19:19 AM

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.
 
2012-11-16 12:19:22 AM

Great Janitor: ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: Taking a guess, I'm going to say that for those employees who aren't happy working there, there probably are enough other jobs out there to take. They just have to go out and find the job.

Indeed. You are merely taking a guess. Do you know how long my sister had to wait before the opening in Wal-Mart came up?

So, she just waited for an opening at Walmart? Did she not apply for work anywhere else?

I don't know about where you live, but in my area, even after all the illegal aliens taking jobs, there are still plenty of job openings. Some companies can't even hire enough people. Tax season is starting up. I know people starting classes next week to get their IRS certifications to do tax work. I have a friend who started a job today, all he does is pass out flyers. He gets paid ten cents for every flyer he passes out and paid daily. He made $87 in just four hours. I've got another friend, he just works two and a half hours a night door knocking for a roofing company. He's making a thousand dollars a week.

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


This hasn't been argued yet, but I think part of the problem may be employers requiring college degrees where they're really not necessary. I've noticed that trend in recent years. I don't have any data to back that up, it's just anecdotal.
 
2012-11-16 12:21:12 AM

Nutsac_Jim: sethen320: Nutsac_Jim: WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Sue for what? Forcing them to show up for the job they said they would show up for? Some of you are farking insane.

it's illegal to fire employees for organizing or trying to organize. It's a federal law, and in some states there are additional laws. Laws go back to when Carnegie Steel called in the Pinkertons and had them get all shooty with some striking workers.

You don't fire them for organizing. You fire them for not showing up to work.

*WINK* *NUDGE*

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 would bother me to just not show up to work and leave my employer hanging. That moral thing....


I do good for my employer, and they pay me very well. If they paid me less than I could live on our agreement would be different.
 
2012-11-16 12:21:13 AM

Mija: That is the Republican dream. Heck, I bet when they owned slaved they biatched because they had to feed and shelter them. Face it, Republican/Libertarians won't truly be happy till they have child slaves working for free and sleeping on the ground outside the factories.


This is pretty much the modern version of those arguments.
Wage slavery is far from chattel slavery, as representative democracy is far from dictatorship and capitalism is far from plain feudalism. The hierarchies are more flexible, and for a reason. Some people have forgotten that reason. So the main argument is held by two factions of the leaders of these hierarchies, those who forgot why they made things more flexible and those who haven't.
Democrats realize that if you want subservient wage labor underclasses you at least want to take the time to be "benevolent" about it in the same way "benevolent" slave masters took care of their slaves with the basics to stay productive. A slave master has a duty to be a "moral" slavemaster and do right by his business. Republicans are the people who say "fark it, they're subhuman scum that are where they deserve to be and all I care about is being a step above them so I'm going to keep abusing them until I have none left and I destroy my entire plantation or a slave rebellion kicks in."
And abolitionists are just looked at as batshiat crazy.
 
2012-11-16 12:21:39 AM

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.
 
2012-11-16 12:21:40 AM

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

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


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

If an employee is that sick, then... it's an emergency. What's the problem??
 
2012-11-16 12:22:01 AM
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.
 
2012-11-16 12:22:33 AM

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.
 
2012-11-16 12:23:10 AM
Funny story. Times were tough, and I'm not ashamed to say that work was better than no work. Go to Walmart, and ask to apply for a job. They point me to a kiosk to fill out my info into their computers.

Kiosk was broken. I figured out how it worked, booted it correctly, started their application and then filled out the info.

Later, no job. I could fix their job kiosk, but not get employment. Womp womp.

/Life's better now.
 
2012-11-16 12:23:23 AM

Klom Dark: zedster: ...growing up my home number was 425-8864, the local Walmart was 425-8864. We had Walmart employees call in sick to our answering machine.

I don't see what you did there.


My bad 8846 and 8864
 
2012-11-16 12:23:58 AM

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.
 
2012-11-16 12:23:59 AM

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


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

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


Thank you for that.

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


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

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


That always seemed to me like the Health Insurance Mandate of Obamacare. I see the rationale (all the workers benefit from the Union, so everyone needs to contribute) but I don't like it.
 
2012-11-16 12:24:18 AM

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


Hmmm. Okay. Let's do this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I'll put it you again:

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for that.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Walmart can afford raises for everyone.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


killjoy :P
 
2012-11-16 12:34:02 AM

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

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

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

It's like you are PROUD to sound ignorant.


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

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

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


Okay, let's do this then.

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

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

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

Kittypie070: F*ck Wally World.


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

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

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

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

Who is taking and who is making, again?


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

It's like you are PROUD to sound ignorant.


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

daRog: Kittypie070: F*ck Wally World.

Kitty angry. KITTY SMASH!


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

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


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

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

Not sure what happened there...

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

HOW WILL ANYONE BE ABLE TO AFFORD THAT?!


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

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

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

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


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

A dictionary is not a human being.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Who is taking and who is making, again?

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


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

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

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

killjoy :P


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

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

You're not thinking fourth dimensionally.


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

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


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

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

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


Okay, let's do it.

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


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

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

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

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


Um...OK.
 
2012-11-16 12:42:52 AM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Walmart can afford raises for everyone.

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

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

They have plenty of effect on wages.


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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



Ah, yes. The dreaded just-world fallacy.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Okay, let's do it.

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

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


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

If you want more money, find a better job, gain more marketable skills, start your own business. Don't expect the government to increase minimum wage or protest your employer into paying you more.
 
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 12:55:02 AM

Great Janitor: 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 wo ...


You and I share similar backgrounds. I do pretty well for myself at this point in my life, but I've seen mistreatment of others in the name of profits. I don't have a dog in this fight at the moment, but I do believe that something needs to change. There's too much greed and I can see tension building. If the workers think something is wrong and it's a huge majority then there is probably something wrong. If 100 out of 1 million do something then obviously it isn't a problem for them and they will all be as happy next week as they were last week. I believe that there's a problem and so I speak out. In the end it doesn't really matter what I think, but I hope everyone else does.
 
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 12:59:01 AM

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.
 
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 01:04:06 AM

Mikey1969: 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.


Ok, let's try again. Do you look in the dictionary for guidance on how to treat people?

Let's just pretend that nobody said" living wage". What they meant to say is being paid enough to live on without public assistance. There. You got the kindergarten terms. If you need any more help I'm going to have to call a short bus for you. We cool now?
 
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 01:10:58 AM

Nutsac_Jim: 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, h ...


You originally signed up for part-time because you wanted free time, fast-tracked to management over the tards, you never worked holidays because your store was closed...I don't think your experience was typical, for retail in general. I'm glad you moved up and are happy with where you are though. Good work.
 
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 01:13:19 AM
I'm out for the night. Everyone have fun.
 
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'.
 
2012-11-16 01:26:47 AM

Zebulon: 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.


Sigh. Math simply does not work that way.

While your "gross profit" number is accurate, you're also not taking into account that this number is arrived after calculating the huge salaries and bonuses and stock options of the highest level executives, as well as the individuals who hold "honorary" positions at the company due to their ownership. It's a classic dodge for the owner/executive, as his stock options are counted pre-profit, so his slice comes out of the pie before everyone else divvies it up. Reducing salaries of the highest levels of management that are profiting the most from their own decisions to treat the employees like crap would be a huge start.

Also, increasing income does NOT necessarily mean increasing the number of people who shop there, or the number of items they purchase. It can also mean "raise prices". Wal-Mart prices are artificially low due to the fact that they treat their employees like crap. If they paid their employees better, or provided them with benefits, then yes, they would have to raise their prices.

A further refutation of your argument was given earlier in the thread in the comparison with CostCo, who treats their employees much better. A side effect of treating your employees like human beings is that they tend to stay with you longer, thereby lowering employee training costs as you are no longer having to train replacements due to atrocious turnover.

Your oversimplification simply does not do justice to the issue.
 
2012-11-16 01:27:16 AM

ox45tallboy: 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?


Some people honestly like working at Walmart. I know, it's odd. When I worked at Krogers in 1996 I had a coworker, he had been there for years as a bagger. He refused promotion after promotion because he just wanted to be a bagger and nothing more. For those who like working at Walmart, stay there, be happy. For those who don't like it there, find a different job or shut up.
 
2012-11-16 01:32:01 AM

fredklein: 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.


She just had the GM do it last week. Then "someone" overrode the GM and scheduled her for the week after Thanksgiving, 5 nights. The issue hasn't had time to resolve itself this way, and, depending on the way Black Friday works out, it might not have to.

fredklein: 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.


Believe it or not, this was discussed. However, the computers tend to get pissy about people not taking the right amount of time for lunch. Plus, this would mean that she has to go from midnight to 7 AM with no break.

fredklein: /who the heck closes the payroll week at Friday midnight??


You have to close payroll sometime. If it were done at any other time, it would surely f*ck someone else just as much.
 
2012-11-16 01:34:06 AM

Great Janitor: For those who don't like it there, find a different job or shut up.


Or organize and use your freedom of speech and association.
For some reason it's okay for management to be organized and put pressure on workers, but the reverse should be unthinkable and only be done by lazy deadbeats right?
 
2012-11-16 01:35:19 AM
Wal-mart is going to mass-hire a crop of new employees after firing the employees who choose to walk from their duties.
 
2012-11-16 01:37:39 AM
Welp, it should be interesting on Black Friday. Im a Deputy Sheriff and along with about ten others, we will be working security at our local Walmart. Less people is good as long as I still get paid for being there. LOL!
 
2012-11-16 01:37:53 AM

Great Janitor: When I worked at Krogers in 1996


Calling it "Krogers" instead of "Kroger" (its real name) let's me know that you actually DID work there. I have no idea why, but people in the South add the "s".

Great Janitor: For those who like working at Walmart, stay there, be happy. For those who don't like it there, find a different job or shut up.


Once again, many people DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. If your bagger friend had been told that he would be required to also do other work during his shift, and receive no extra pay, would he have quit? What if there were no other grocery stores in the area for him to work at?

I'm glad your friend was able to find a job he liked that gave him fulfillment. But to think that Wal-Mart workers should just find somewhere else to work if they don't like it, as if the problem was the employee and not the job, is just wrong.
 
2012-11-16 01:40:30 AM

Litterbox: Welp, it should be interesting on Black Friday. Im a Deputy Sheriff and along with about ten others, we will be working security at our local Walmart. Less people is good as long as I still get paid for being there. LOL!


So, are you doing this a "side job" for $25+/hour?

What do you think about the employees at Wal-Mart that are being ordered to work "security" and "prevent people from cutting in line or getting into fights", like my sister? For $8.50/hr?
 
2012-11-16 01:40:35 AM

ACallForPeace: Great Janitor: For those who don't like it there, find a different job or shut up.

Or organize and use your freedom of speech and association.
For some reason it's okay for management to be organized and put pressure on workers, but the reverse should be unthinkable and only be done by lazy deadbeats right?


I view it this way: I own a company. I decide how much a job is worth. A person applies for that job. I tell them what that job pays and what the duties involved are. They then make the choice as to whether or not they accept the job if it's offered. Since the worker does not own the company, they can ask for more money and I, the owner, can refuse. If the workers start to organize, I can exercise my right to fire the organizers.

These workers wanting better working conditions are going to have an easier task finding jobs that meet those better working conditions than they are trying to get Walmart to change.
 
2012-11-16 01:45:54 AM

Great Janitor: I view it this way: I own a company. I decide how much a job is worth. A person applies for that job. I tell them what that job pays and what the duties involved are. They then make the choice as to whether or not they accept the job if it's offered. Since the worker does not own the company, they can ask for more money and I, the owner, can refuse. If the workers start to organize, I can exercise my right to fire the organizers.


1) Wal-Mart violated their own agreements many times
2) It's illegal to fire employees for organizing, but yes you could be a snake bastard about it and use excuses.
So both illegal and unethical, good job.
 
2012-11-16 01:47:50 AM

Great Janitor: If the workers start to organize, I can exercise my right to fire the organizers.


No. No, you cannot.

You have proudly displayed your ignorance for all to witness. Go forth and educate thyself before spouting such nonsense in this forum.
 
2012-11-16 01:48:04 AM

ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: When I worked at Krogers in 1996

Calling it "Krogers" instead of "Kroger" (its real name) let's me know that you actually DID work there. I have no idea why, but people in the South add the "s".

Great Janitor: For those who like working at Walmart, stay there, be happy. For those who don't like it there, find a different job or shut up.

Once again, many people DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. If your bagger friend had been told that he would be required to also do other work during his shift, and receive no extra pay, would he have quit? What if there were no other grocery stores in the area for him to work at?

I'm glad your friend was able to find a job he liked that gave him fulfillment. But to think that Wal-Mart workers should just find somewhere else to work if they don't like it, as if the problem was the employee and not the job, is just wrong.


First, when you work hourly, if you're told to do extra work you do it. If they tell you to work off the clock go up the chain of command. I used to work in the corporate office for Gamestop. Store managers were instantly fired once the corporate office discovered they were forcing people to work off the clock. I believe it's an OSHA violation, OSHA or not, the company still gets fined for it. Workers who are required to work off the clock should complain as soon as possible. And not just to the District Manager, but going through the BBB or local government offices. Being required to work off the clock and not saying anything about it changes nothing.

And please, explain to me how someone does not have a choice when it comes to finding work. I've never had that problem.
 
2012-11-16 01:49:19 AM

Smelly McUgly: Silly Jesus: 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.

I am looking forward to Hostess going out of business. Good. One less crappy company making terrible products and screwing their employees. It's the free market; someone else will pop up and maybe do things right the next time.


Mhmm, most likely some Mexican company will buy the brand and move all of it overseas. Mrs Baird's bread anyone?
 
2012-11-16 01:52:41 AM

ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: If the workers start to organize, I can exercise my right to fire the organizers.

No. No, you cannot.

You have proudly displayed your ignorance for all to witness. Go forth and educate thyself before spouting such nonsense in this forum.


Uhm, the Constitution protects the right of the workers to protest and peacefully assemble to speak out on unfair practices. It does not protect a worker walking out of his/her job to do so, since Wal-mart has no union contract. Quote better next time please?

0/10
 
2012-11-16 01:53:46 AM

Great Janitor: And please, explain to me how someone does not have a choice when it comes to finding work. I've never had that problem.


You probably have a better-than-average education, as well as few (if any) people dependent upon you for that next paycheck so that they can EAT.

Just because you don't have a particular problem, it is silly to think that the problem doesn't exist for others. A statement like yours makes you sound like someone that works nights and never understands why everyone complains about the rush hour traffic - you don't drive during rush hour!
 
2012-11-16 01:53:49 AM

Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.


3/10
 
2012-11-16 01:54:41 AM

ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: If the workers start to organize, I can exercise my right to fire the organizers.

No. No, you cannot.

You have proudly displayed your ignorance for all to witness. Go forth and educate thyself before spouting such nonsense in this forum.


You need to look up right to work states. They've legislated, on purpose, the means to get around the NRLA. The laws vary by state.

He's ignorant, but so are you.
 
2012-11-16 01:57:01 AM

People_are_Idiots: Uhm, the Constitution protects the right of the workers to protest and peacefully assemble to speak out on unfair practices. It does not protect a worker walking out of his/her job to do so, since Wal-mart has no union contract. Quote better next time please?

0/10


Great user name for someone that is arguing that Federal law prohibits retaliation against employee organizing. A self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will. Like a Republican who says "government doesn't work" and then, once elected, does his best to prove it.

Here you go. Educate thyself!
 
2012-11-16 01:57:18 AM

Lsherm: ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: If the workers start to organize, I can exercise my right to fire the organizers.

No. No, you cannot.

You have proudly displayed your ignorance for all to witness. Go forth and educate thyself before spouting such nonsense in this forum.

You need to look up right to work states. They've legislated, on purpose, the means to get around the NRLA. The laws vary by state.

He's ignorant, but so are you.


I believe that you cannot be fired for organizing etc as long as it's not on company time in any state.

You can , however, be fired for not showing up for work which is what these people are threatening to do.
 
2012-11-16 01:58:51 AM

ox45tallboy: She just had the GM do it last week. Then "someone" overrode the GM and scheduled her for the week after Thanksgiving, 5 nights. The issue hasn't had time to resolve itself this way, and, depending on the way Black Friday works out, it might not have to.


So... it's a non-issue then.

Believe it or not, this was discussed. However, the computers tend to get pissy about people not taking the right amount of time for lunch. Plus, this would mean that she has to go from midnight to 7 AM with no break.

Do the computers get more or less pissy than management?

And, she's scheduled 10pm to 7am? 9 hours straight?

You have to close payroll sometime. If it were done at any other time, it would surely f*ck someone else just as much.

Most timekeeping software (that I know of) is designed to 'attach' the workers shift to the appropriate day, even if it goes past midnight.
 
2012-11-16 01:59:26 AM

Lsherm: You need to look up right to work states. They've legislated, on purpose, the means to get around the NRLA. The laws vary by state.

He's ignorant, but so are you.


I'm in a right to work state right now (Alabama). Don't call me ignorant for explaining to someone that it is illegal to fire someone for attempting to organize, no matter what state you're in.

Of course there are ways around it. But that doesn't make it legal, it means that you have to find a different reason to fire the organizers.
 
2012-11-16 02:00:17 AM

ox45tallboy: Great Janitor: And please, explain to me how someone does not have a choice when it comes to finding work. I've never had that problem.

You probably have a better-than-average education, as well as few (if any) people dependent upon you for that next paycheck so that they can EAT.

Just because you don't have a particular problem, it is silly to think that the problem doesn't exist for others. A statement like yours makes you sound like someone that works nights and never understands why everyone complains about the rush hour traffic - you don't drive during rush hour!


My education is an associate's degree and a bunch of licences and certifications. So honestly, I'm not really better educated. But everyone I know who is unemployed is unemployed because they aren't looking for work, and that's two people I know who are unemployed. Even my felon friends have jobs. Walmart isn't the only one hiring.
 
2012-11-16 02:02:17 AM

ox45tallboy: People_are_Idiots: Uhm, the Constitution protects the right of the workers to protest and peacefully assemble to speak out on unfair practices. It does not protect a worker walking out of his/her job to do so, since Wal-mart has no union contract. Quote better next time please?

0/10

Great user name for someone that is arguing that Federal law prohibits retaliation against employee organizing. A self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will. Like a Republican who says "government doesn't work" and then, once elected, does his best to prove it.

Here you go. Educate thyself!


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
 
2012-11-16 02:03:48 AM

fredklein: So... it's a non-issue then.


It's another straw on the camel's back, and it weighs on her decision as to what to do regarding the job.

fredklein: Do the computers get more or less pissy than management?


When the computers are pissy, they make sure that management is pissy because the managers have to walk around and scan their barcodes.

fredklein: And, she's scheduled 10pm to 7am? 9 hours straight?


With 1 hour for lunch. But in your scenario, she has already taken TWO hours for lunch.

fredklein: Most timekeeping software (that I know of) is designed to 'attach' the workers shift to the appropriate day, even if it goes past midnight.


That's not the way theirs works. But even if it did work that way, the time clock would still have the previous Friday to deal with as being "Saturday" hours. So that would solve the problem the first week, but it would be back every week afterwards.
 
2012-11-16 02:05:11 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: What's cool about having someone on your ignore list is that you can put a note in there that will be displayed each time the ignored person posts something.

And it is filter-free.


"you can put a note in there that will be displayed each time the ignored person posts something."

Does that make you feel superior? Do you sit in your room alone an laugh at those you've ignored? Do you go to little chat rooms filled with your specially choosen like minded thinking individuals and mock those who don't think like you?

Add me to your Ignore list please.
I don't care much for people that choose to only listen to people that think and view like themselves.
Its very narrow minded. Not open to wide ranges of thought.
Its basically choosing to be ignorant.
 
2012-11-16 02:07:03 AM

gingerjet: So part of their plan is to pre-announce the walk out?

/I don't think they thought this all the way through


Pretty smart, actually. If customers think it will be more of a hassle than it usually is (read riots, people trampled, etc) they might elect not to shop there and it will impact their bottom line.

The question isn't how many will strike, so much as how many shoppers will be scared by the coverage of this and go elsewhere.
 
2012-11-16 02:09:06 AM

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.