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.

(The Daily Caller)   Walmart's response to union walkouts: LOL, you guys are adorable   (dailycaller.com) divider line 52
    More: Followup, Walmart, David Tovar, United Food, UFCW, corporate communications  
•       •       •

3854 clicks; posted to Business » on 06 Sep 2013 at 8:13 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-06 08:21:13 PM
For example, 75 percent of our store management teams started as hourly associates, we have more than 300,000 associates who have been with the company for 10 years or more and every year we promote 160,000 associates to jobs with higher pay and more responsibility

Check and mate farklibs.
 
2013-09-06 08:21:34 PM
The entire company is based on parsimony. What are they thinking?
 
2013-09-06 08:38:55 PM
I wonder what the minimum wage is for protesting?
 
2013-09-06 08:44:16 PM
three protesters arrested in New York City on trespassing and disorderly conduct charges while trying to deliver a petition to a Wal-Mart board member.

I'd really like to know more about that.  Where were they trespassing?  How were they disorderly.

/And let's just get this out of the way.
//Now that's serendipity.  I'd never seen that bit before today.
 
2013-09-06 08:51:42 PM
I'm thinking most Walmart employees don't make enough to risk losing their job from striking.  A work slow down would probably be more effective.  You'd increase payroll expenses and perhaps force management to allow people to work more than 30 hours/week without the risk of losing your job because you were on a strike.  Then again I am very passive aggressive.
 
2013-09-06 08:59:43 PM

Muta: A work slow down would probably be more effective.


They can move slower?
 
2013-09-06 09:08:48 PM

Muta: A work slow down would probably be more effective.


Pretty sure a work slow down would get you as fired as a strike, but without the benefit of laws protecting you in sane states.
 
2013-09-06 09:14:52 PM
Meh - WalMart is comfortable where they are.

From something I saw yesterday their reaction is most of those people are union organizers and for every worker that quits, there are 10 workers waiting to fill their positions.

And what was it?  Like 15 stores that had protests (if that, I think it may have been fewer).  There are WalMart stores everywhere.

They're more worried about Amazon than their less than a handful of protesting workers and they're taking steps to counter the threat of Amazon.
 
2013-09-06 09:18:19 PM
PEOPLE MOCKING PROTESTORS?!?! This will cause great social unrest!
 
2013-09-06 09:19:00 PM
The only way a strike will get walmart's attention long enough to make them even considering doing something besides firing the strikers and hiring new people is if every walmart  employee in the nation walked out all at once, thus bringing business across all us walmarts to a screaming stop.

i can't see it happening though too many fear losing their jobs to make it work, and even fi they did get a strike on that level there is no guarantee it would work as hoped. Walmart would lose millions perhaps as much as a billion depending on when the strike was staged. in sales either way as corporate would have to get permission to either negotiate or mass fire and begin searching for new employees.

Obviously the moist effective date  to launch this would be Black Friday.
 
2013-09-06 09:21:52 PM

Muta: I'm thinking most Walmart employees don't make enough to risk losing their job from striking.


A big old THIS.  Most of the people I know that work at Walmart are working there because they happen to be the best-paying gig in the area for the person's skillset.  And a lot of times, that isn't saying much.  If they fark with trying to form a union, they are shown the door.  After that, the only place left to get a job is at the local store--which just cut its wages in a vain attempt to compete with the big-box.

They never compete, but they do manage to limp along long enough to make this a last-resort option.  After they go under, these people end up becoming the surly fifty-year-old clerk behind the counter at the local convenience store.
 
2013-09-06 09:27:18 PM

grimlock1972: The only way a strike will get walmart's attention long enough to make them even considering doing something besides firing the strikers and hiring new people is if every walmart  employee in the nation walked out all at once, thus bringing business across all us walmarts to a screaming stop.

i can't see it happening though too many fear losing their jobs to make it work, and even fi they did get a strike on that level there is no guarantee it would work as hoped. Walmart would lose millions perhaps as much as a billion depending on when the strike was staged. in sales either way as corporate would have to get permission to either negotiate or mass fire and begin searching for new employees.

Obviously the moist effective date  to launch this would be Black Friday.


That's the catch.  Unions don't have any power unless they have near universal membership, but most of the employees are too afraid of retaliation to actually join and fight for their rights.

It's not that Wal-Mart's pay or career path is that good, or that they're refusing to strike out loyalty to a company they're happy with, it's that they're afraid of ending up in a worse position for trying to do something about it.

For a strike to be successful it needs near 100% participation, but most of the workers won't get onboard until they see other people doing it.
 
2013-09-06 09:43:10 PM

Muta: I'm thinking most Walmart employees don't make enough to risk losing their job from striking.  A work slow down would probably be more effective.  You'd increase payroll expenses and perhaps force management to allow people to work more than 30 hours/week without the risk of losing your job because you were on a strike.  Then again I am very passive aggressive.


Eh.. My mom told me once I was a passive aggressive son of a biatch and she knows because "I'm the biatch!". It made me giggle.
 
2013-09-06 09:45:00 PM
I bet WalMart will be really hurting for the five minutes it takes to train the protesters' replacements.

Perhaps eventually unions will figure out that they're universally unskilled labor whose limited value slips as more illegals flow over the border. Or perhaps not.
 
2013-09-06 09:46:14 PM
The people who work at Wal-Mart are the stupidest people in the world after teachers, so it is no surprise they want to be in a union where they can't be fired no matter how incompetent they are - just like teachers.

Wal-Mart workers in a free market would make enough to buy a stale crust of bread every day. Why? Because that's what they are worth.

You guys need to STFU, and realize that Wal-Mart is doing you MUCH better than you deserve already.

Personally, I hope you all get the Reagan air traffic controllers solution.
 
2013-09-06 09:48:01 PM

TuteTibiImperes: grimlock1972: The only way a strike will get walmart's attention long enough to make them even considering doing something besides firing the strikers and hiring new people is if every walmart  employee in the nation walked out all at once, thus bringing business across all us walmarts to a screaming stop.

i can't see it happening though too many fear losing their jobs to make it work, and even fi they did get a strike on that level there is no guarantee it would work as hoped. Walmart would lose millions perhaps as much as a billion depending on when the strike was staged. in sales either way as corporate would have to get permission to either negotiate or mass fire and begin searching for new employees.

Obviously the moist effective date  to launch this would be Black Friday.

That's the catch.  Unions don't have any power unless they have near universal membership, but most of the employees are too afraid of retaliation to actually join and fight for their rights.

It's not that Wal-Mart's pay or career path is that good, or that they're refusing to strike out loyalty to a company they're happy with, it's that they're afraid of ending up in a worse position for trying to do something about it.

For a strike to be successful it needs near 100% participation, but most of the workers won't get onboard until they see other people doing it.


Exactly
 
2013-09-06 09:51:59 PM

andrewagill: I'd really like to know more about that.  Where were they trespassing?  How were they disorderly.


Blocking the entrance to the NY office building where Wal-Mart had some offices.
 
2013-09-06 09:54:28 PM

enik: I bet WalMart will be really hurting for the five minutes it takes to train the protesters' replacements.

Perhaps eventually unions will figure out that they're universally unskilled labor whose limited value slips as more illegals flow over the border. Or perhaps not.


They're are plenty of unions for skilled professionals.  Unfortunately in 'right-to-work' states (and if that isn't a fantastic euphemism that belies the true nature of the policies, I don't know what is) I don't believe that the union once in place can mandate membership, so it will be up to them to pitch the benefits to all new hires, which gives the employer a better shot at replacing them.

Given that, and the huge hurdle that is getting enough people to join up in the first place for it to be effective, perhaps fighting for a higher minimum wage would be more productive.  A $15 an hour minimum wage would translate to $30,000/year (40 hours per week 2 weeks vacation) and would at least be livable. Of course, while that takes care of the monetary aspect it doesn't come with the protections that unions provide in terms of job security and negotiations for better benefits.
 
2013-09-06 10:04:21 PM
This ain't rocket science. They'll be fired if they walk but people need money so they live in fear.

I worked at a Walmart in 1991. The assistant managers all worked 12+ hours a day, six days a week for $14K per year.  Everybody else was around $5 per hour.
 
2013-09-06 10:05:29 PM

bojon: I wonder what the minimum wage is for protesting?


ACORN used to pay $7.50 back in the 1990's.  Not sure what the going rate is now.
 
2013-09-06 10:07:07 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: For example, 75 percent of our store management teams started as hourly associates, we have more than 300,000 associates who have been with the company for 10 years or more and every year we promote 160,000 associates to jobs with higher pay and more responsibility

Check and mate farklibs.


They really are overstaffed.  They need to look into more automation.
 
2013-09-06 10:14:56 PM

grimlock1972: The only way a strike will get walmart's attention long enough to make them even considering doing something besides firing the strikers and hiring new people is if every walmart  employee in the nation walked out all at once, thus bringing business across all us walmarts to a screaming stop.

i can't see it happening though too many fear losing their jobs to make it work, and even fi they did get a strike on that level there is no guarantee it would work as hoped. Walmart would lose millions perhaps as much as a billion depending on when the strike was staged. in sales either way as corporate would have to get permission to either negotiate or mass fire and begin searching for new employees.

Obviously the moist effective date  to launch this would be Black Friday.


Perhaps it was damp from drooling tryptophan sufferers?
 
2013-09-06 10:15:33 PM
Walmart the greatest organization on the planet
 
2013-09-06 10:20:35 PM
America hates itself.
 
2013-09-06 10:22:03 PM
Walmart Pay scale:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm

/Starts at over minimum wage w/benefits
 
2013-09-06 10:28:22 PM

ferretman: Walmart Pay scale:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm

/Starts at over minimum wage w/benefits


They should all split the pharmacist wages, share the wealth.
 
2013-09-06 10:35:13 PM
The only way any thing will work with Walmart is if CUSTOMERS protest for them to pay a living wage so their employees can get off government assistance. That would hit home a lot better than their workers protesting, but there are too many people who like their cheap crap.
 
2013-09-06 10:52:58 PM

Axel_Gear: grimlock1972: The only way a strike will get walmart's attention long enough to make them even considering doing something besides firing the strikers and hiring new people is if every walmart  employee in the nation walked out all at once, thus bringing business across all us walmarts to a screaming stop.

i can't see it happening though too many fear losing their jobs to make it work, and even fi they did get a strike on that level there is no guarantee it would work as hoped. Walmart would lose millions perhaps as much as a billion depending on when the strike was staged. in sales either way as corporate would have to get permission to either negotiate or mass fire and begin searching for new employees.

Obviously the moist effective date  to launch this would be Black Friday.

Perhaps it was damp from drooling tryptophan sufferers?


img.chan4chan.com
 
2013-09-06 10:54:51 PM
For example, 75 percent of our store management teams started as hourly associates, we have more than 300,000 associates who have been with the company for 10 years or more and every year we promote 160,000 associates to jobs with higher pay and more responsibility

Check and mate farklibs


Mgr Candidates and Manager trainees are payed hourly in most states so as not to run afoul of labor laws, less than 2% of those hired as clerks cashiers etc. are ever promoted beyond hourly positions.

Those 10 year employees include people like the almost 500 who work at the Porterville CA Distribution center whose only other Job Opportunities are field work; these people also include"contract" employees such as truck drivers who actually are employed by swift Transportation.

Amazing how those numbers fail to looks so awesome when you know the actual facts behind them neoconservativetard!

Now go get the mop Lurlitas kid peed in the toy department again
 
2013-09-06 11:03:14 PM

OhioUGrad: The only way any thing will work with Walmart is if CUSTOMERS protest for them to pay a living wage so their employees can get off government assistance. That would hit home a lot better than their workers protesting, but there are too many people who like their cheap crap.


I certainly enjoy the Colt LE6920 I recently purchased at my local wally-world.
 
2013-09-06 11:10:17 PM

TuteTibiImperes: grimlock1972: The only way a strike will get walmart's attention long enough to make them even considering doing something besides firing the strikers and hiring new people is if every walmart  employee in the nation walked out all at once, thus bringing business across all us walmarts to a screaming stop.

i can't see it happening though too many fear losing their jobs to make it work, and even fi they did get a strike on that level there is no guarantee it would work as hoped. Walmart would lose millions perhaps as much as a billion depending on when the strike was staged. in sales either way as corporate would have to get permission to either negotiate or mass fire and begin searching for new employees.

Obviously the moist effective date  to launch this would be Black Friday.

That's the catch.  Unions don't have any power unless they have near universal membership, but most of the employees are too afraid of retaliation to actually join and fight for their rights.

It's not that Wal-Mart's pay or career path is that good, or that they're refusing to strike out loyalty to a company they're happy with, it's that they're afraid of ending up in a worse position for trying to do something about it.

For a strike to be successful it needs near 100% participation, but most of the workers won't get onboard until they see other people doing it.


Didn't Walmart have a "Show up when we open the doors on Black Friday or you're fired" policy last year? Along with a "Doors open for Black Friday sales at 8 PM on Thanksgiving" policy?

I'm pretty sure they did, and am almost certain they'll do something like that (again?) this year in order to discourage employee unionization. And if they do implement such a policy this year, I'm sure they'll find at least one person to fire as an example -- most likely someone with an otherwise perfect attendance record who is late or absent through no fault of their own, even if (or especially if) they call their first-line supervisor to explain why they will be late or miss work. And I'm fairly confident that the company will tell the unemployment board that they were fired with cause for insubordination or some such, just to make sure they're ineligible for UI benefits (and again, to set an example for the other bottom-rung Wal-Employees of what happens when they set anything other than the company's whims as their #1 priority).

/remember, this is the same company who used to require having a million-dollar life insurance policy with Walmart as the sole beneficiary as a condition of employment
//and who pays the bottom rung cogs so little that they qualify for welfare and food stamps
///and who pays a charity organization to help those grossly underpaid employees apply for that help because it costs less than actually paying them a livable wage (read:just barely enough that they don't qualify for welfare or food stamps)
////and who, until recently, paid their employees in Mexico in Walmart gift cards in lieu of actual money, and only stopped because they were told by the courts that that's illegal
\and would do that here if they could, and will the minute they're allowed to
 
2013-09-07 12:09:26 AM
For a company with such high promotion rates, I wonder what their attrition is... especially in management.
 
2013-09-07 12:31:03 AM

King Something: /remember, this is the same company who used to require having a million-dollar life insurance policy with Walmart as the sole beneficiary as a condition of employment


That's not what they did, at all.  They took out life insurance policies on their workers for about $80,000, and since Wal-Mart was paying the premiums, they collected when the employees died.  It wasn't a condition of employment, since Wal-Mart never told the employees about the policies.  They also ended the practice in 2000 because it was becoming illegal in most states to get a life insurance policy on employees whose death doesn't affect the bottom line of the company.

If you're going to mention scandals, there's no need to lie about them.  They became scandals for good enough reason.
 
2013-09-07 02:01:28 AM

Axel_Gear: grimlock1972: The only way a strike will get walmart's attention long enough to make them even considering doing something besides firing the strikers and hiring new people is if every walmart  employee in the nation walked out all at once, thus bringing business across all us walmarts to a screaming stop.

i can't see it happening though too many fear losing their jobs to make it work, and even fi they did get a strike on that level there is no guarantee it would work as hoped. Walmart would lose millions perhaps as much as a billion depending on when the strike was staged. in sales either way as corporate would have to get permission to either negotiate or mass fire and begin searching for new employees.

Obviously the moist effective date  to launch this would be Black Friday.

Perhaps it was damp from drooling tryptophan sufferers?


Damn it i knew someone was going to catch that typo.
 
2013-09-07 04:36:39 AM

whcrow: ferretman: Walmart Pay scale:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm

/Starts at over minimum wage w/benefits

They should all split the pharmacist wages, share the wealth.


You mean the guys who have a post grad degree in pharmacy? You really want them to be making minimum wage too? Because I guarantee you no Wal-Mart anywhere would have a pharmacy.
 
2013-09-07 05:19:05 AM
God, take a look in the mirror Walmart executives and marketing staff.

How do you sleep?
 
2013-09-07 06:01:45 AM

inclemency: God, take a look in the mirror Walmart executives and marketing staff.

How do you sleep?


The Waltons sleep very well ( all in the top 10 richest folks in America ).
 
2013-09-07 08:05:46 AM
There aren't nearly enough liberal tears for me to enjoy in this thread.
 
2013-09-07 08:17:00 AM
Wal-Mart gets public subsides to expand across American, its employees qualify for public assistance because Wal-Mart doesn't pay them enough. Yet, people are fine with low wage workers having to choose between transportation and healthcare. Never mind that these employees, along with all low-wage workers don't have enough money to contribute to the economy. I mean we should want them not to be on public assistance, and be able to buy stuff that isn't food.

Why is that important? Its because our economy is about 70 percent dependent upon people buying stuff, and for them to do that they need to have money. Pretty simple. >.>

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned that Wal-Mart's policy with its suppliers has contributed to a lot of jobs going overseas. Basically they tell their suppliers that they wont buy their products for a certain price, usually a low price at that and the supplier has no choice but to produce their product overseas if they haven't already. I mean they could say no, but Wal-Mart believes its suppliers can be replaced and certainly has the leverage to make that happen.

Anyone with any sense wouldn't support Wal-Mart, its a terrible company. Oh, and its started hiring temps so that they don't have to give them any sort of benefits under Obamacare. So look forward to service getting even worse.
 
2013-09-07 09:00:13 AM

bbfreak: Wal-Mart gets public subsides to expand across American, its employees qualify for public assistance because Wal-Mart doesn't pay them enough. Yet, people are fine with low wage workers having to choose between transportation and healthcare. Never mind that these employees, along with all low-wage workers don't have enough money to contribute to the economy. I mean we should want them not to be on public assistance, and be able to buy stuff that isn't food.

Why is that important? Its because our economy is about 70 percent dependent upon people buying stuff, and for them to do that they need to have money. Pretty simple. >.>

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned that Wal-Mart's policy with its suppliers has contributed to a lot of jobs going overseas. Basically they tell their suppliers that they wont buy their products for a certain price, usually a low price at that and the supplier has no choice but to produce their product overseas if they haven't already. I mean they could say no, but Wal-Mart believes its suppliers can be replaced and certainly has the leverage to make that happen.

Anyone with any sense wouldn't support Wal-Mart, its a terrible company. Oh, and its started hiring temps so that they don't have to give them any sort of benefits under Obamacare. So look forward to service getting even worse.


And anyone who voted or votes for a Clinton supports Walmart. What's your point? Why do you think the Clintons gave China permanent most favored nation status? Those in Congress did not want that. Why do you think he signed NAFTA?
 
2013-09-07 09:24:39 AM

Nemo's Brother: bbfreak: Wal-Mart gets public subsides to expand across American, its employees qualify for public assistance because Wal-Mart doesn't pay them enough. Yet, people are fine with low wage workers having to choose between transportation and healthcare. Never mind that these employees, along with all low-wage workers don't have enough money to contribute to the economy. I mean we should want them not to be on public assistance, and be able to buy stuff that isn't food.

Why is that important? Its because our economy is about 70 percent dependent upon people buying stuff, and for them to do that they need to have money. Pretty simple. >.>

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned that Wal-Mart's policy with its suppliers has contributed to a lot of jobs going overseas. Basically they tell their suppliers that they wont buy their products for a certain price, usually a low price at that and the supplier has no choice but to produce their product overseas if they haven't already. I mean they could say no, but Wal-Mart believes its suppliers can be replaced and certainly has the leverage to make that happen.

Anyone with any sense wouldn't support Wal-Mart, its a terrible company. Oh, and its started hiring temps so that they don't have to give them any sort of benefits under Obamacare. So look forward to service getting even worse.

And anyone who voted or votes for a Clinton supports Walmart. What's your point? Why do you think the Clintons gave China permanent most favored nation status? Those in Congress did not want that. Why do you think he signed NAFTA?


My point, which you don't seem to grasp is that there is an economic benefit to paying workers a living wage. They contribute to the economy when they aren't struggling to to pay for just the basic necessities like rent/mortgage, healthcare (if they can afford it to begin with), food, phone, and transportation. Oh, and maybe when they have money they can do things like start a business and create jobs instead of being stuck in a job that has trapped them.

Oh, and less people will be on welfare. Which is a good thing!
 
2013-09-07 09:40:24 AM

Propain_az: OhioUGrad: The only way any thing will work with Walmart is if CUSTOMERS protest for them to pay a living wage so their employees can get off government assistance. That would hit home a lot better than their workers protesting, but there are too many people who like their cheap crap.

I certainly enjoy the Colt LE6920 I recently purchased at my local wally-world.


Was it cheaper there than other places or was it more of a convenience factor?
 
2013-09-07 09:42:28 AM

Muta: I'm thinking most Walmart employees don't make enough to risk losing their job from striking.


Can you explain this statement? I don't understand how people earning a small amount of money wouldn't be able to risk losing their jobs. If anything, people making less should be more able to risk it.

If you take 1995 skrame (earning $22,000 at Sam's Club) and 2013 skrame ($45,000 at a newspaper*), the former would be much more likely to risk losing his job for more money. I must be looking at it different than you.

*I know I need a new job. Shut up.
 
2013-09-07 09:49:55 AM
The unions shouldn't be wasting their time with WalMart, or any of the purveyors of the "retail economy" - there are no long term jobs there, and no future.
 
2013-09-07 10:27:19 AM

Kyosuke: Muta: A work slow down would probably be more effective.

They can move slower?


Only if they want to risk an implosion in time and space.  Was in WalMart for the first time in more than a year last week, and it was unbelievably bad.
 
2013-09-07 12:28:12 PM
I am surprised it wasn't more like "Hunt them down. Do not stop until you find them. You do not know pain, do not know fear. You will taste man flesh" before sending out the Urak-hai after them.
 
2013-09-07 12:42:15 PM
Here's to hoping Mr. Tovar is the first against the wall.
 
2013-09-07 01:38:14 PM
 
2013-09-07 03:53:38 PM
If you shop at walmart, you are the problem.
 
2013-09-07 10:13:22 PM

Bllasae: There aren't nearly enough liberal tears for me to enjoy in this thread.


Funniest comment I have read all day!
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report