Wal-Mart To Union: Fine, We'll Just Close Up Shop

[RuntheDamnBall]

So let's see....Think these people could find a job somewhere else?

 

Why don't they? Could it be it's not as bad as people would like us to believe? Nah.

 

It's the evil business world preying upon innocent retards, that's what it is.

235339[/snapback]

Could be that we're living in an era where people are told they're just lucky to have the jobs that they do have, and if they have to work 3 of them, well, that's their lot in life and they should suck it up. And if you really don't like it, the company can always move to Mexico.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Could be that we're living in an era where people are told they're just lucky to have the jobs that they do have, and if they have to work 3 of them, well, that's their lot in life and they should suck it up.  And if you really don't like it, the company can always move to Mexico.

235356[/snapback]

 

Social Darwinism.

 

Likely these people didn't finish school. Likeyly they're uneducated and less intelligent.

 

In order for some to succeed, others must fail. It's a natural law.

[VABills]

Social Darwinism.

 

Likely these people didn't finish school. Likeyly they're uneducated and less intelligent.

 

In order for some to succeed, others must fail. It's a natural law.

235358[/snapback]

Not entirely fair there JSP. I work with someone who is very smart, masters degree, making 6 figures. She actually likes people and works every weekend at the local grocery store as a checkout clerk, just to associate with regular people. I am sure there are some who enjoy their jobs at Walmart, etc... because of the people interaction. But be sure that a lot are truely highschool dropouts who have made bad decisions in life to put them at this point. But not all.

[KD in CA]

Could be that we're living in an era where people are told they're just lucky to have the jobs that they do have, and if they have to work 3 of them, well, that's their lot in life and they should suck it up.  And if you really don't like it, the company can always move to Mexico.

235356[/snapback]

 

 

I thought we were living in an era were people were told that it's their "right" to have a job (and health insurance), not to mention some invented figured called a "living wage", which bears no relevance to the value for the service being performed by the employee.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Social Darwinism.

 

Likely these people didn't finish school. Likeyly they're uneducated and less intelligent.

 

In order for some to succeed, others must fail. It's a natural law.

235358[/snapback]

Tell me then, why Wegman's does what it does and has happy employees. Why do they help people out who are trying to better their lives and go to school where Wal-Mart does not, knowing that these people might leave the company because they aren't 'trapped?' Is Wegman's a stupid company for being one of the best places to work in the country, and perhaps eschewing some profit for it?

 

On another note, I know plenty of people who just had it drilled into them by family and schools that they would never amount to anything, and so they end up working at a place like Wal-Mart. That doesn't seem so natural to me. I know some people can be really strong and rise above that kind of mentality, but most, when environmentally surrounded with the idea that they are worthless, will actually believe it. I think Wegman's believes otherwise, and they have a lot of happy people who want to work for them.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I thought we were living in an era were people were told that it's their "right" to have a job (and health insurance), not to mention some invented figured called a "living wage", which bears no relevance to the value for the service being performed by the employee.

235369[/snapback]

The 'value' for the service is just as invented, my friend, by people who are making a lot more money. It would not cut significantly into Wal-Mart's gigantic profit margins to provide people with a wage above poverty level, which isn't high at all to begin with. And if you've ever had to work three jobs to keep afloat, you should understand the merits of a living wage. People wonder why parenting is so bad but don't make any connection to the fact that a lot of parents are working endlessly to make ends meet.

[VABills]

The 'value' for the service is just as invented, my friend, by people who are making a lot more money.  It would not cut significantly into Wal-Mart's gigantic profit margins to provide people with a wage above poverty level, which isn't high at all to begin with.  And if you've ever had to work three jobs to keep afloat, you should understand the merits of a living wage.  People wonder why parenting is so bad but don't make any connection to the fact that a lot of parents are working endlessly to make ends meet.

235386[/snapback]

 

Maybe it is "invented", and while I don't agree completely with KD or JSP, it is imperative for each Walmart store to be competative within their market. If a stor is losing money, they fire the managers. The managers have to keep employee costs in line with profits for their store. Why else would a Walmart stay in a market? If they are losing money or just barely making a profit, in that store, they either the employees need to work a little harder to help make a profit or the store should close, hence the employee has no job.

 

Walmart overall and each individual store has to be considered seperately.

[KD in CA]

The 'value' for the service is just as invented, my friend, by people who are making a lot more money. 

 

No, it's not 'invented'. It's the level at which one party is willing to pay and the other party is willing to work. You are suggesting that the party who is paying the cash has no say in how much they have to pay. Long live freedom.

 

 

It would not cut significantly into Wal-Mart's gigantic profit margins to provide people with a wage above poverty level, which isn't high at all to begin with.

 

First of all comrade, the "because they can afford it" line is so counter to everything this country is supposed to be about, I don't even know where to begin on that concept.

 

Secondly, have you run the numbers? Do you really KNOW what the impact would be of what you are suggesting? Please tell me what the impact would have been on Wal Mart's profits last year.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I think Wegman's believes otherwise, and they have a lot of happy people who want to work for them.

235375[/snapback]

 

 

While laid off I worked for Wegman's. And I'll tell you, there weren't a whole lot of happy people cutting fish at Wegman's.

[RuntheDamnBall]

No, it's not 'invented'.  It's the level at which one party is willing to pay and the other party is willing to work.  You are suggesting that the party who is paying the cash has no say in how much they have to pay.  Long live freedom.

235409[/snapback]

Ahh, throw in a buzz-word like freedom when it applies to making profit, and deny it when it applies to someone not having to work 100 hours a week to make it.

First of all comrade, the "because they can afford it" line is so counter to everything this country is supposed to be about, I don't even know where to begin on that concept.

 

Secondly, have you run the numbers?  Do you really KNOW what the impact would be of what you are suggesting?  Please tell me what the impact would have been on Wal Mart's profits last year.

235409[/snapback]

I suppose this is a gotcha. But let's discuss some numbers I have found. 70 percent of Wal-Mart's employees leave within the first year. The company considers full-time 28 hours a week, which is some logic for you, and a third of their employees work under that many hours. The company could afford to pay its employees an average of close to what is considered a living wage if it raised its prices 1%, or cut its profits by a third (admittedly a large margin, but considering Wal-Mart's figures the profit would still remain unbelievably high). You and I differ on what is important here, and that's fine, that's our freedom. I personally believe that companies have as much of a responsibility to their country as its citizens, and I think many are failing in that respect.

 

I appreciate the "comrade" remark, as well. It's nice to see that you can discuss civilly without any digs.

While laid off I worked for Wegman's. And I'll tell you, there weren't a whole lot of happy people cutting fish at Wegman's.

235410[/snapback]

Probably not a lot of happy fish-cutters anywhere! "Knife goes in, guts come out..." I'm sorry your experience wasn't good there.

But in general, I've never dealt with anyone there who wasn't more than pleasant.

[KD in CA]

Ahh, throw in a buzz-word like freedom when it applies to making profit, and deny it when it applies to someone not having to work 100 hours a week to make it.

 

Again, 'making it' as it applies to each of us is our own responsibility. We are all afforded guarantees to live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and fiscal success).

 

I suppose this is a gotcha.  But let's discuss some numbers I have found.  70 percent of Wal-Mart's employees leave within the first year.  The company considers full-time 28 hours a week, which is some logic for you, and a third of their employees work under that many hours.  The company could afford to pay its employees an average of close to what is considered a living wage if it raised its prices 1%, or cut its profits by a third (admittedly a large margin, but considering Wal-Mart's figures the profit would still remain unbelievably high).  You and I differ on what is important here, and that's fine, that's our freedom.  I personally believe that companies have as much of a responsibility to their country as its citizens, and I think many are failing in that respect.

 

I agree with you that companies have a responsibility to the country and its people, just like we all have a responsibility to our communities and fellow citizens. However, I disagree with the concept of attempting to legislate that. If someone wants to be a greedy prick, I believe that is their right.

 

I appreciate the "comrade" remark, as well.  It's nice to see that you can discuss civilly without any digs.

 

(What, no ‘Darin smirk’?) Sorry for the dig. I just sensed a whiff of that "the problem isn't that some people are poor, the problem is that some people are rich" mentality that so many on the left seem to have adopted. The answer of 'tax the rich' to solve all the country's problems is short sighted and unfair IMO, but it seems to be a centerpiece of the opinions of many people when it comes to domestic issues.