Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Why are unions unable to take on Walmart?

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 28, 2012, 5:15 p.m. EST by francismjenkins (3713)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've heard it said that where unions try to unionize a Walmart, they simply close shop. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the more Walmart's with plywood on their windows the better ... and I would assume, they won't close down ALL their stores (and thus if enough pressure is applied, eventually they'll have to accept unionization).

At this point most of the industries/public sector positions that are unionized aren't the sort of occupations that were traditionally unionized. High skilled industrial workers (who operate highly automated and highly technical factories), and degree'd professionals. The people who need unions the most are the least likely to have one representing them ... and in my view this seems perverted.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

they are not unionized because the people that work there are so poor they are on food stamps and if they try to unionize then lose thier jobs.. they would not be able to feed thier kids.. its the same trick that has always been used to stop unionization. as you can see.. there are no walmarts in new york city due to the fact that the unions will not allow them to operate there with out a union. more power to the unions in new york city

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

wrong. They are not unionized because a majority in any store have not voted to unionize. If W-M used the "trick" of firing employees who try to unionize, the SEIU would have the NLRB on their asses faster than you could say Trumka.

There are no Wal-Marts in NYC because the Democrat city council tools of the unions keep them out lest their campaign coffers lose the in-flow of union cash. In other words, they're the unions' lackeys

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 12 years ago

Wrong they are not unionized because of unfair labor practices.Which shall be ending soon. America is a UNION.Did lara ever get that vomit off her?

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

What unfair labor practices? What's the mighty SEIU doing about it? Where's the NLRB? YOu telling me the NLRB picks a fight with Boeing but is laying down on Wal Mart?

Lara hit it big at baccarat. She's on her way to niagara falls.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 12 years ago

I guess Jess was able to clean her up.I would think them balls did the trick.

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

Jess never made it, actually. He ran his pickup off the county road just outside Port Jervis. Too many wine coolers. He had to hitch a ride back to his doublewide.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 12 years ago

Sorry to hear that . Jess was a good ole boy.Had a thing abot sacking out with them conservative girls.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

wrong.. the people that work at wal mart are not sophisticated enough to play that game.. they are fired for some other bogus reason and not able to prove it was because they tried to unionize. its an atmosphere of fear the same one that cause normal people to watch a man die of a heart attack because they were so scared of losing thier jobs they would not break the rule that they could not open the doors while working at nite to let the paramedics into the store to save the man! same fear tactic same fearful people.

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

Blaming the victims, gesto!!! They're too stupid to figure out how to organize? YOu don't believe that SEIU crap, do you? Have they organized a single W-M yet?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

not stupid.. sophisticated. im not 'blaming' them.. im saying that is the reason they do not organize. there have been marches agianst thier unfair treatment at the home office in bentoville arkansas but no news coverage.. they are terrified of losing thier minumum wage jobs cause they know the economy is tanked. it has nothing to do with stupid. it has everything to do with terror.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

"terror" and "unfair treatment" are against the law. You think the SEIU is some hapless charity organization run by nuns, unable to sic its lawyers and Obama's NLRB on a big bad scary mega-retailer? You've swallowed their press releases all the way.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

only if you can prove it! your dealing with the largest workforce in the world, yes they are scared of the big bad retailer. why do you think the networks did not pick up on the marches at the home office? fear thats why. you do know that wal mart has an underground dns that is bigger than any government dns buried in south west missouri.. yes they are afraid.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

Have you ever been to a Wal-mart? Terror isn't exactly the first word that comes to mind.

Anyhoo, the union would organize store by store, not the whole workforce. Seems like W-M does a pretty good job countering the union's scare tactics, which is why the SEIU hasn't been successful anywhere

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 12 years ago

Jess called said him and some girl lara back at his double wide every thing is ok. Says she drinks and is a little sloopy wit it.But you know Jess like em Lose like that.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

Because they use scare tactics on employees and are told to report any employee who talks about unions as well as report any union rep to a manager so they can be escorted out. They also pander misinformation on the purpose of unions and suggest that unions just try and "take your money."

I worked at one for a few months when I was 17. Most depressing place to work ever. Fuck Wal-Mart. I've been on an 8 year boycott ever since.

My current job has a union. Lowest paying job is 11 dollars an hour. Sadly though the corporation that bought it years ago has hired lawyers and spent tons of money on finding legal ways of getting around paying benefits. Current tactic, only hire part time employees which doesn't qualify them for benefits. Instead of 2 full time employees they hire 3 part time employees.

Without unions and workers rights we'd have corporations like Foxconn in the USA. For anyone who doesn't believe that ask why your products are being made through corps like Foxconn.

They'd love to have that option in America. Then they wouldn't have to pay for shipping overseas.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

I support unions, but for me unions are an intermediary step. When workers own the place they work at .... then these problems will disappear. This doesn't imply top down-command control, just the opposite. No state intermediary between the worker and his/her ownership, rather, workers directly owning the factory, store, shipping company, restaurant, etc. they work for.

We have some examples of this e.g. employee owned companies, co-ops, etc. (but they're few and far between). This model could at least work with firms that are not capital intensive. Some degree of specialization will remain necessary (for instance, a factory worker without a PhD in molecular biology, won't be able to rotate in and out of the research department in a biotech firm).

And I think we have to acknowledge the fact that people need incentives to work extra hard (and things like medical school, or most PhD programs, a computer science degree, engineering, etc., require hard work). But the type of firms high achievers generally work at already pay them well, they already enjoy a high degree of input and collaboration, they have good benefits, and so on. So maybe firms like biotech companies, software engineering firms, architectural firms, computer chip manufacturers, etc. are okay the way they run now (so ultimately we'll need a mix of different approaches, depending on the circumstances). But in many (perhaps most) cases, I think the worker owned model would be better.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

"people need incentives to work extra hard"

Incredibly accurate. It's like the Office Space theory

"It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation? And here's something else, I have eight different bosses right now. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."

Now if I respect my job and my job respects me, good pay, good treatment, etc, I've always done a great job. But when I worked at Wal-Mart, I hated it there. So I was late all the time, slacked off, and ducked out early all the time. A good business model has the best employees, because happy employees work harder.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

Please read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

We know this reform act did not pass, however there is one part that we may find as having relevance. Please pay particular attention to section 3, Facillitating Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 12 years ago

Occupy Oakland doing another great job. God Bless every one of them.True Americans each and every one.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 12 years ago

Most American are now to lazy and to stingy to boycott the Walton Mafia !

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 12 years ago

Walmart or any American company for that matter are all broken up and owned by countries now China India Mexico S America They own a part of all American companies That's why they hire cheap labor Why pay someone $10 an hour to make a pair of jeans here when they can pay someone in China $5 an hour?? That's why the economy in US Sucks


[-] -1 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

dont close down walmarts, then where would i get my products at? I sure as hell cant afford to buy american.

[-] -1 points by smelly (1) 12 years ago

Fucked up francis looks at the most successful retailer in America, and is angry because they aren't unionized. As if that would make prices cheaper or service better for the customers. Nope...just more money in the pockets of union officials, which is then passed on to democrat candidates.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

More like, made in-anywhere "but" the USA-Mart ... yeah, I should weep for their fortunes.

[-] 1 points by smelly (1) 12 years ago

Nobody asking you to weep asshole. Don't like em?...don' fucking shop there. But apparently most of America does...because they save us MONEY

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Just as no one is asking you to increase your IQ (unfortunately for you, significantly increasing adult IQ is impossible at this point) .... so take your sheeple ass to walmart & enjoy their cheap shit. No worries for them, you'll be back, after their belt falls apart, their cheap ass clothing comes undone, etc.

[-] 0 points by smelly (1) 12 years ago

Apparently the asswipe Francis never shopped there. See moron...they carry the same name brands as they do in EVERY major store. Oh yea...those Wal Mart TV's usually explode within a week.

Yet another stupid ignorant OWS fuck head heard from.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Wal-Mart's net profit margins are pretty thin (around 3%) so any increases in pay/benefits would likely be met with an increase in prices which is not good for all the low income shoppers that shop there.

[-] 2 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 12 years ago

But which would be really, really good for AMERICAN employees and for the country as a whole. The idea that the cheapest possible product, made overseas by slave labor, is good for anyone except the (Waltons) is delusional.

The 3% margin does not account for the countless billions the Walton family has accumulated.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Yeah, right.

I'm sure that's why the whole family is in the top 10 on the Forbes 400.

Thin margins.....................giggle.

Turn off FLAKESnews.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

It is from Yahoo! finance, it took about 15 seconds to figure out. In absolute terms it is a lot of money but that is because it is such a massive operation. But of all that money that gets taken in, only 3% is profit returned to shareholders.

It is naive to think that if they unionize it will not increase the cost of their products. So the small increases in pay would be met with more expensive goods and considering most employees do their shopping right there, their financial situation would not really improve much.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Ain't press releases marvelous things.

They can convince you the moon is made of cheese.

They even make skip over that whole massive amount of money thingy.

Even make you ignore what's right in front of your face.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

It is not a press release, it is their 10-K SEC filing.

I worked at a WalMart in high school for a couple years and I can confirm that their profit margins are thin, even at the individual store level. They obviously try to make it up in volume by being the low cost seller of stuff.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

So they kept the mountains of money in the back room and let you count it?

I see you didn't take the Wallyworld career path.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

yes it would.. they would work full time for one thing.. they would have health insurance for another .. they would have a retirement plan all those would be worth the increase in prices.. you are talking about almost 2 million people! taken off the welfare rolls to boot!

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

So basically what you're proposing is an endless spiral to the bottom. I mean, we could always say that lower wages results in lower costs results in lower prices to consumers results in more purchasing power results in increased consumer spending results in more economic activity results in more jobs results in higher wages.

Sounds neat and logical on paper, too bad this theory hasn't panned out in reality. The real world looks more like this. Big stores price out smaller stores, seeks out the lowest cost producers of goods, ultimately they go offshore (to the lowest wage, most exploitative countries they can find), our manufacturing sector is hollowed out, an increasing number of jobs become lower paying service sector jobs, wages are exceedingly depressed, people have exceedingly less purchasing power, they're forced to work more hours to maintain the same living standards, ultimately even working more hours isn't enough, and the slippery slope continues into the economic abyss.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 12 years ago

it is actually working the way the book says it should work. Labor costs are now beginning to equalize so therefore production is being moved back to the US. And yes unemployment has been very low prior to this recession.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Unemployment wasn't low, albeit "the way unemployment is calculated" made it appear low. Overall workforce participation has been declining since 2000, while at the same time workforce participation by those 55 and older has been increasing (because fewer people have defined benefit pension plans).

Our manufacturing output today (as a % of GNP) is HALF what it was in the 1980's (and much lower compared to earlier decades).

The increases in wages in China are more modest than some of the recent reports I've heard suggest (and actually, China is going through its own housing crisis right now & economic growth has slowed, which will dampen prospects for rising wages).

Moreover, our tax base has become to small. It's not only that Bush cut taxes as a prelude to spending over a trillion dollars on wars (keeping in mind this is just the "up front" costs, these wars will cost us much more on the back end, given all the seriously wounded veterans who will require a lifetime of expensive medical treatments), his tax cuts were not affordable to begin with (even assuming public spending could be reduced to below 20% of GNP, which I think is feasible in the medium term, assuming we're willing to cut military and homeland security spending at some point in the not so distant future). Furthermore, the Medicare scare is grossly exaggerated (a 0.25% increase in the payroll tax now, and another 0.25% increase in future decades, would completely solve the solvency problem).

Nonetheless, we need to revise our trade policy. As it stands now, our exports are charged value added taxes (averaging around 20%) by ALL of our major trading partners, while in most cases, they're able to import goods into the US duty free (and to make it worse, they don't charge their exporters value added taxes on their exports, so this puts our exporters at a 20% disadvantage, which cannot be overcome by our modest productivity advantage or proposals like lowering corporate taxes).

You also have to keep in mind, the mark up by retailers is enormous (many times the per unit purchase price of the goods). So if, for instance, we were to impose a reciprocal tax on Chinese imports (charging the same % our exports into China are charged), translating into a roughly 17% border tax on Chinese imports, consumers would barely notice it, whereas even if we excluded energy imports, we could raise something like $300 billion per year from border taxes (not small change).

Unfortunately, we like digging ourselves into holes in this country. We enacted foolish tax cuts, now any proposal to normalize tax rates are derided as class warfare. We devised an absurd trade policy, and in the minds of many, normalizing our trade policy would represent a shift towards protectionism. But these scare tactics are baseless.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 12 years ago

What do you mean unemployment wasn't low. You can object all you want to how it is gathered and calculated but there is no getting around that people were working and happy.

Our tax base is to small. We need to flatten the code, eliminate deductions and make everybody pay into the system. Public spending averages about 18% of GDP historically.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

I mean, sure, if you want to take the labor departments data as gospel, then yes (our unemployment rate was at normal levels prior to 2008). I would say workforce participation is a much more important and accurate number (but you're certainly entitled to disagree). That people were happy with this state of affairs says nothing about the empirical data (this is just an argumentum ad populum, and speaks more to how public opinion is influenced by our media than anything else).

Nonetheless, public spending at 18% is easily achievable (although I'm not sure I would call that number a "historical norm" ... during the 19th century and earlier it was in the low single digits, during WWII it was almost half of GNP, etc.). However, I don't mind saying that 20% is a good "upper limit" (during periods of full employment and normal growth), and 18% is a reasonable and feasible goal. We should acknowledge that right now we're still embroiled in an expensive war, stimulus spending is still happening (albeit at lower levels than 2009/2010), and when our GNP goes down, unemployment goes up, spending as a % of GNP naturally increases.

However, my question to you is where do you propose we make these budget cuts?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 12 years ago

The primary areas - defense and transfer payments. Yes we can eliminate a lot of items in the actual working expense of the government also - such as farm subsidies. I would attempt to limit as many corporate subsidies and research investments as possible and push infrastructure spending to private markets to force that group to accept the risk. This is is playing out right now in Santa Clara as the 49ers are trying to build a new stadium and the City will only pay a small amount; I personally don't think they should pay any.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

I have to say, I have a problem with privatizing public infrastructure. I mean, we socialize the costs, and now seek to privatize the profits (sound familiar, think financial bailouts everyone). Our military spending (as a % of GNP) is 3 times the global average (much higher than Europe and even China, and this is only looking at it as a % of GNP, in terms of real dollars, the numbers are obscenely high).

Eliminating some farm subsidies is probably a good idea, cutting military spending, homeland security spending, etc., get's us very close to balancing our budget (and moving federal spending to below 20% of GNP). Then, all we have to do is agree with Warren Buffett, insofar as the absurdity of a billionaire paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, and whalla, problem solved.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 12 years ago

Regarding infrastructure I wouldn't socialize the cost. Make the private sector build the highway and receive the revenue for the highway but the local authority will have input into management and an option to buy it back if malfeasance occurs. Right now with interest rates low, infrastructure funds can produce high single digit returns in this fashion.

I disagree with the whole Buffet secretary example. She is making above $200,000 so is taxed at the highest rate and receives W2 income. Buffet gets his income off of capital gains which is a much lower rate. Equalize these rates so there is no differential. It would be better to flatten the code bringing down the high end.

As an aside, does anybody think it is interesting that Buffet's secretary doesn't take some of her money and invest with her boss so she can get the lower rate?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

We don't need "new" highways, just some repairs (and anyway, roads are hardly our most pressing infrastructure need). I mean, we already blasted our way through mountains to make the highways in the first place, we already seized the land needed to build the highway (through eminent domain in most cases), etc., so yes, anyway you look at it ... this would be a case of socializing the cost & privatizing the profits (and in this case, it creates a profit center for industry groups where none currently exists). This idea is corporate welfare in its worse form. Not only is it crony capitalism, but this time corporations will get to dictate the price we have to pay to move around our country. No thanks.

As for capital gains taxes, somehow Germany manages a 25% tax rate, while remaining the second largest exporter on earth, with a 5.5% unemployment rate (and Norway has a 28% capital gains tax rate, with a 3.3% unemployment rate). We just can't afford to be so generous to the extravagantly wealthy ... I mean, we have an empire to sustain. Even assuming we come to our senses and begin to reduce our military largess (and other draconian spending measures, like homeland security and our vast prison system) we still won't be able to afford our current level of generosity to the wealthy.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

What you are saying is obviously true for a lot of people. But I don't think you can say that the overall American standard of living has gone down over the past several decades. It is not just the 1% that have more spending power now than they did several years ago.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Workforce participation (as a percentage of working age/able people) has steadily declined, inflation adjusted wages has steadily declined, and after you find out that 2-year adjustable rate mortgage was indeed a "2-year" mortgage, quality of life quickly plummets.

Over-specialization has been identified as an economic problem, and that's one of our most pressing issues. We've given up on consumer goods, our textile industry is nearly dead, our apparel industry is pretty much dead, consumer electronics manufacturing is non-existent in the US, etc.

I wish all the people who love to quote Adam Smith would take the time to read Wealth of Nations, his most important work. While Smith did develop the theory of absolute competition, its application (under his framework) assumes labor scarcity. Furthermore, Smith explicitly stated that tariffs or other taxes charged against exports should be matched by import taxes of the same percentage.

Finally, and most importantly, call me crazy, but I have a real hard time with the idea that it's okay to take advantage of cheap imports that are produced in sweat shops, by child labor, prison labor, and using various other forms of human exploitation that we outlawed nearly a century ago.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

The threat of high prices is a valid concern . It's also a threat of extortion. "If you bring those greedy unions in here, we'll be forced to raise the prices." It's just a lame, empty excuse to keep unions and the middle class on a downward spiral. Which is one of many reasons why no one should shop at Walmart ever again.

[-] -2 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Easier said than done. There are millions of Americans who can't afford to shop any where else. For all the bad things people say about WalMart no one can deny that they can save people money off of their day to day life expenses.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

malarkey there is dollar general and many many others that take the place of wal mart at the same price.. wal mart is just easy

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

Yes, Walmarts are like cancer, once they metastasize they are a bitch to get rid of. They also kill off mom and pop stores creating food (and sundries) deserts. Having a monopoly on poverty might be a worthy goal in some world, but who'd want to live there? Unions raise wages and everybody prospers, Henry Ford had it part right. Banning unions and lowering wages is a race to the bottom.

[-] 1 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 12 years ago

If Americans like those working at WalMart were paid a living wage they wouldn't have to buy cheap foreign goods at WalMart ...

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Well until then, they need WalMart (or Target) and I don't see a national living wage realistically happening anytime soon.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Which by the way equates to around 12 billion per year. Pretty good I would say at a 3% profit.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

I agree. You would expect them to make a large profit in absolute terms though because of how massive their operation is.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

But people don't look at it from that perspective - all they look at is the "numbers" - the millions and billions is what gets their attention.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

People are just ignorant I guess. Investors have $208 billion invested in Wal-Mart. A total return of a few billion per year is pretty modest.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

If the profit is looked from the "complete picture" it shouldn't be a problem.

But people look at from their "perspective" and how much they make.

They don't understand what is involved in runing "mega businesses" and probably never will.

[-] -2 points by TimMcGraw (50) 12 years ago

walmart is the reason i can afford to go to the store whenever i need. hooray for walmart.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Why would you want Walmart to unionize? You want the prices to go higher? Are you a real idiot?

[-] 5 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Because I'm not a narcissist, and thus don't mind shelling out a few extra bucks if it helps make the lives of others less fucking miserable.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

So YOU believe I should spend a few bucks more so the union fucker GETS a few bucks more? Why should I give a crap about a union worker if he wants to take money out of MY pocket. If he wants to make more, join some other union.

[-] -2 points by WooHoo (15) 12 years ago

Then don't shop there.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

You are such a douche. Pull your head out of your fucking ass and attempt to actually discuss issues, fucktwit.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

I love when GurlFried talks dirty

[-] -1 points by WooHoo (15) 12 years ago

There's that potty mouth bi-polar lefty we all know!

Did you like my reply to your other post about the garbage study that you so desperately cling to to make yourself feel smart? It read "You lefty gals are so cute when you're cornered and all defensive." Hahaha!


[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

It's a great study. You are pretty much a dumb fuck. :D

And you are still a fucking troll. Wanna troll all comments? Bring it little bitch.

[-] 0 points by WooHoo (15) 12 years ago

A-hahaha! I love this place. "It's a great study." Did you stamp your feet then too? Hahaha!

Cornered. Defensive.

Keep up the good work!

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

yes it would.. they would work full time for one thing.. they would have health insurance for another .. they would have a retirement plan all those would be worth the increase in prices.. you are talking about almost 2 million people! taken off the welfare rolls to boot!

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Unions sent all the industry off to China. Why would I want to send WalMart there too?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

wal mart is already in china why would you want to continue to pay taxes to support the employees of walmart? food stamps, medicaid, and hud. that would take about 1.3 million people off welfare if wal mart was forced to have full time insured decently paid workers instead of welfare queens for workers.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

In our town there are Walmart employees that have worked there for 40 years. They own some really nice houses in our town. They drive nice cars. What exactly is the complaint?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

you mean both husband and wife? or did one of them have a real job? the complaint is that almost all walmart workers only get to work part time.. 39.5. this keeps them from having benefits and keeps thier income low enough to get hud and the tax payers are the ones that supplement that income because most walmart workers are single parents

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Actually it was Wallworld that sent jobs to China, and they do have stores there.

It's a lack of proper unions in China that has workers jumping off of buildings.

Have you not been paying attention?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Nope, have not been paying attention,, I have a life.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Then go live it and stop posting stuff you make up.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

You know darn good and well that industry went to China because of unions. Every industrial problem has a major issue with unions. Name as many companies with unions that are very successful? There should be thousands, but name just a few for me.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

ge gmc beatrice foods whirlpool thousands of contruction companies there are thousands of companies that are successful with unions sunstrand borgwarner wrigleys and it wasnt unions,, it was the greed of the owners that moved em to china.. cause they wanted that money in thier pockets instead of that money moving around in america and now look at the state of things

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I know darn good and well they went to China because of the passage of GATT.

Most of the perceived "problems", with unions, were caused by the corporations, themselves.

That's why workers are jumping off roofs in China.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Why dont unions start their own companies if they are so smart?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

They can't compete with Chinese slave wages.

Can you?

They did run Saturn until GM F'd it up.

They F'd up Fiat too.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

If they cant compete, as you say, then why are there unions?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Did you miss the part about workers jumping off buildings?

Are you currently competing with Chinese wages?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Jumping off of buildings? Like union postal workers shooting up the office? Like that?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

They're doing it in China, over low wages, high hours, no pension, and lack of benefits. Not to mention plant safety.

Some plants strung up netting all around the buildings, so they would have to go back to work.

They probable had to go directly to HR, get fined and then go back to work.

You know, like that.

Are you currently competing for Chinese wages?

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Industries originally left the U.S. to go to Mexico long before they went to China. How many mexicans jumped off of buildings back then? Where are those reports that I can read?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 12 years ago

Walmart will Unionize and stop trying to save two cents at the cost of your fellow Americans. Oh I forgot the Greed factor is what drives you scabs,.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

I would turn this back around. YOU tell ME, "Stop trying to save two cents." I guess I could say back, "Stop asking for two cents more." Why would I care about your two cents if you dont care about my two cents? Kind of makes me,,,, dont give a damn about you. I would say it is YOU with GREED wanting me to spend more to give to YOU.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 12 years ago

Occupy Oakland doing a great job today. Looks like lots of summer Fun

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

You made a funny statement. You said "JOB" as in "WORK" as in,,, no way any of them would WORK. You made a funny.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 12 years ago

You made a false statement .Most do work

[-] -2 points by Obummer (-16) 12 years ago

I would like to see unions and walmart disappear

[-] 4 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 12 years ago

I would like to see you disappear.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

I'd like to see store clerks, managers, warehouse workers, etc., own the store, collaborate on how they divide duties, maybe people take turns managing (assuming management would remain a necessary function, which is not an assumption I would automatically make), etc.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 12 years ago

They both serve their purpose. Unions have done a great job protecting their workers and there are many of them, SEIU excluded, who are business people and understand how to adapt to the changing environment. Just look at the UFCW and organic food.