Supreme Court declines to take up Wal-Mart class action appeal….

[smb]

yes it would. however this does not prove a social contract.

So where does the U.S. government get its authority from then?

 

[smb]

unless you are working for the government even then your company has owners. it is any investor that has put money into that company.
by law your company has a fiduciary duty to those people. if you work for the government then your owners are us the people and you are accountable to us.



without money or profit the company cannot pay it's bills and cannot expand and grow in the future.
the owners of your company pretty much will want profit generated by the company that is why they started the company in the first place.

you take any management or business class the first rule of business is to make money.
if you are not making money as a business you don't have a business you have a hobby.

without profit you don't have a business. the health of the company has many factors to it yes, but the company lives and dies
by money generation. you can have the happiest staff in the world, but without money they get fired and the doors close.

Do I really need to explain to you the difference between public and private companies. Public companies DO NOT have owners. They have investors. Investors which the Board of Directors is responsible to not me. I am responsible to the CEO of the my company that is hired by the Board of Directors to oversee the day to day operations of the company. Again public companies do not have owners they have investors.

 

[gdgyva]

I could say the exact same about you. It is your ideology that governs your actions. An ideology that is fundamentally flawed an unsustainable for reasons I have already given. I have also ran into many VP's and Director's that have your idealistic approach of profit uber alles. They create many more problems than they solve and leave us to pick up the pieces and rebuild the organization after they leave or transfer out as they inevitably do because what they do is unsustainable. My approach is the opposite of idealism. It is an approach based on the knowledge that no one single single things trumps all other considerations. That is a recipe for long term disaster.

how is a healthy profitable company unsustainable?

this is have to hear

i got here nearly eight years ago.....right at the start of the really bad times

we had 260 employees, were bloated, and our expenses were completely out of line

i streamlined operations, consolidated, and cut where i had to....

we now have 180 employees, are squarely in the black, and are having another record profit year

how is that unsustainable?

and all the while, last year my average employee earned 77k.....not including me, or the owner

 

[justabubba]

I owe nothing to you. The proof is self evident if you go to the store and check out their products. People like you will never be satisfied. You have already moved the goal posts several times and will keep doing so.

anyone who has ever shopped at walmart knows you are correct
manufacturers, to keep their prices low enough to attract walmart's buyers, find ways to cut product costs
seldom does that result in an improved product

 

[countryboy]

I owe nothing to you. The proof is self evident if you go to the store and check out their products. People like you will never be satisfied. You have already moved the goal posts several times and will keep doing so.

I never moved any goal post, if you like, we can go back to your original post and what you have provided as evidence so far.

Furthermore, your own words reveal your ignorance, or extreme bias on the subject. I shop regularly at quite a few different retail outlets, including many of the ones you mentioned. And your claims are simply not true.

 

[ludin]

So where does the U.S. government get its authority from then?

from the consent of the governed have you not read the constitution or the declaration of independence?

 

[ludin]

Do I really need to explain to you the difference between public and private companies. Public companies DO NOT have owners. They have investors.

wow this is about one of the most nonsensical things i have ever seen. do you know what share holders are? they are owners of the company.
it doesn't matter if you have 1 share or 1m shares.

Investors which the Board of Directors is responsible to not me. I am responsible to the CEO of the my company that is hired by the Board of Directors to oversee the day to day operations of the company. Again public companies do not have owners they have investors.

no they have owners.
those owners to get decide on certain major items that the company wants.

IE every year i had IBM stock i would get a packet in the mail for different elections. why? because i was a shareholder of the company.
your company has a responsibility to the people that own shares of that company.

if you own stock in a company you have a % ownership of that company.

 

[Fearandloathing]

WalMart does apply force to the local governments in order to get special tax exemptions for their stores. They are notorious for it.

WalMart does apply force to product suppliers to provide cheap goods. They are notorious for it.

WalMart does apply force to employees to remain non-union. they are notorious for it.

Again it is not about the people who work at WalMart it is about WalMart's business strategy that forces employees to remain non-union. Forces product suppliers into supplying cheap goods. Forces municipalities to provide tax exemptions for their stores. Then turns around and pays their employees so little for their work that they are required to further burden society by forcing them to make up the difference for their employees. It is about government policies that allow WalMart to continue to use these business practices.

Every large company on the face of the earth negotiates the conditions under which they will operate.

However as is usually the case with leftists, the logic is not there. You want to force Walmart to pay salaries above what is commensurate with the service provided so the workers can have a better life.

But, as usual you have forgotten the people who shop there, people who can't afford to shop at high end stores so you would be forcing the poor to do without.

A social safety net is one thing, even Ronald Reagan believed in a strong one. But there is a huge difference when your policies create job losses and your ideas would do just that.

 

[smb]

how is a healthy profitable company unsustainable?

this is have to hear

i got here nearly eight years ago.....right at the start of the really bad times

we had 260 employees, were bloated, and our expenses were completely out of line

i streamlined operations, consolidated, and cut where i had to....

we now have 180 employees, are squarely in the black, and are having another record profit year

how is that unsustainable?

and all the while, last year my average employee earned 77k.....not including me, or the owner

There are multiple ways in which a company reporting healthy profits is actually unhealthy in its practices and is unsustainable.

Company signs several 5 year deals with multiple customers to provide equipment and service.
Company offers voluntary early retirement to high tenured and higher paid employees.
Company reorganization management to minimize management layers.
Company reorganizes management structure to increase direct reports of managers and directors.
Company institutes a service model based on failures parts per million instead of transaction volume.
Company institutes a policy of "optimization" of service to equipment that reduces the number of standard calls allowable based on failures parts per million metrics.
Company institutes workload models based on call standards which are nationalized and with profit margin taken into consideration.
Company institutes rif based on new workload models.
Company institutes travel and other spending restrictions on all employees in order to increase profitability.
Company institutes strict inventory control to cut costs.


All of these policies make the company very profitable. All of them taken separately are not unsustainable. Taken as whole the health of the company is completely compromised in the long run even though currently it appears to be healthy and profitable. That is because the direct effects of the policies above.

New contracts to new customers increase sales but also increase the amount of equipment that is needed to be maintained while they simultaneously cut the number of employees and in particular the most experienced employees that will install and fix the equipment. Basing call rate standard on failures parts per million and "optimizing" service by decreasing the call standard annually further decreases the number of employees you have to service the equipment and is not an accurate way of determining failures. Instituting strict spending controls erodes employee morale and makes proper training nearly impossible. In short what you have left after a year or two of this is company that still shows healthy profitability but is hemorrhaging employees and managers. Reaching a critical mass with customer sustainability because of bad service which will inevitably lead to cancellation of contracts. A company of very inexperienced, poorly trained employees that are ill equipped to make the company successful in the future. Meanwhile the people that instituted the policies listed above are lionized as leaders capable of turning around companies and generally have left or will be leaving the company soon and leave those that have stayed around holding the bag. I have seen this scenario play out multiple times in varying different companies.

 

[smb]

I never moved any goal post, if you like, we can go back to your original post and what you have provided as evidence so far.

Furthermore, your own words reveal your ignorance, or extreme bias on the subject. I shop regularly at quite a few different retail outlets, including many of the ones you mentioned. And your claims are simply not true.

My claims are biased and yours are not. How convenient for you.

You have moved the goal posts.

I stated that WalMart products were inferior. You ask inferior to what. I responded. You asked for specifics. I gave you specifics. You then claimed that those specifics were not valid enough because I did not provide specifics on every store I mentioned.

Again moving of the goal posts. First you claim I don't know what I am talking about because I made general statement about WalMart that is self-evident and one most unbiased people accept out of hand. You ask for comparisons. I gave them to you (first movement). You then asked for specific product types. I gave them to you (second movement). You then claim they were not good enough for you because I did not provide specifics on every store I mentioned (third movement). You then tell other people in the thread that I am dishonest because I did not prove something to your satisfaction without quoting me in your accusation which is a completely and utterly dishonest debate tactic one you should be ashamed of.

 

[gdgyva]

There are multiple ways in which a company reporting healthy profits is actually unhealthy in its practices and is unsustainable.

Company signs several 5 year deals with multiple customers to provide equipment and service.
Company offers voluntary early retirement to high tenured and higher paid employees.
Company reorganization management to minimize management layers.
Company reorganizes management structure to increase direct reports of managers and directors.
Company institutes a service model based on failures parts per million instead of transaction volume.
Company institutes a policy of "optimization" of service to equipment that reduces the number of standard calls allowable based on failures parts per million metrics.
Company institutes workload models based on call standards which are nationalized and with profit margin taken into consideration.
Company institutes rif based on new workload models.
Company institutes travel and other spending restrictions on all employees in order to increase profitability.
Company institutes strict inventory control to cut costs.


All of these policies make the company very profitable. All of them taken separately are not unsustainable. Taken as whole the health of the company is completely compromised in the long run even though currently it appears to be healthy and profitable. That is because the direct effects of the policies above.

New contracts to new customers increase sales but also increase the amount of equipment that is needed to be maintained while they simultaneously cut the number of employees and in particular the most experienced employees that will install and fix the equipment. Basing call rate standard on failures parts per million and "optimizing" service by decreasing the call standard annually further decreases the number of employees you have to service the equipment and is not an accurate way of determining failures. Instituting strict spending controls erodes employee morale and makes proper training nearly impossible. In short what you have left after a year or two of this is company that still shows healthy profitability but is hemorrhaging employees and managers. Reaching a critical mass with customer sustainability because of bad service which will inevitably lead to cancellation of contracts. A company of very inexperienced, poorly trained employees that are ill equipped to make the company successful in the future. Meanwhile the people that instituted the policies listed above are lionized as leaders capable of turning around companies and generally have left or will be leaving the company soon and leave those that have stayed around holding the bag. I have seen this scenario play out multiple times in varying different companies.

most of those are very specific to one type of company

telecom

has nothing to do with my business, or most businesses

are some managers foolish in their decisions....of course

that is why i continue to get headhunter calls to go elsewhere

good managers are worth their weight in gold....just the same as good employees

there are a lot of good managers out there....but a number of bad ones too

that is why people get fired and replaced....because they are sitting in chairs where they really dont belong

 

[smb]

from the consent of the governed have you not read the constitution or the declaration of independence?

Now we are making progress. If the U.S. Government gets it authority from the consent of the governed then that is the proof of the social contract. People consent to be governed and set up that government. The government, being constituted and existing as a result of the consent of the governed are responsible to the people they govern. The people consenting to be governed by the constituted government they consented are responsible to the government for the laws that are passed. Ergo the social contract. Again the proof is in the pudding.

 

[GunFora]

U.S. top court rejects Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo class action appeals | Reuters
Supreme Court declines to take up Wal-Mart class action appeal….

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected Wal-Mart Stores Inc's bid to throw out a more than $150 million class action judgment over the retailers’ treatment of workers in Pennsylvania.

The justices declined to hear a Wal-Mart appeal, leaving intact a 2014 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that largely upheld a lower court judgment awarding $187 million to the plaintiffs.

The case affects about 187,000 Wal-Mart employees who worked in Pennsylvania between 1998 and 2006.


I sure hope judgments like this will force Wal-Mart to pay a living wage and get off the dole..........

With their low wage scale and limiting hours forces many on food stamps etc...........

They could save the taxpayer billions.............only if they paid folks a living wage

Are you saying you want the govt. to mandate that Walmart has to pay their employees a "living wage"? Living wage as defined by whom and in what locality? Walmart is the largest employer in the USA. How much should they be paying their employees per hour?

 

[smb]

wow this is about one of the most nonsensical things i have ever seen. do you know what share holders are? they are owners of the company.
it doesn't matter if you have 1 share or 1m shares.



no they have owners.
those owners to get decide on certain major items that the company wants.

IE every year i had IBM stock i would get a packet in the mail for different elections. why? because i was a shareholder of the company.
your company has a responsibility to the people that own shares of that company.

if you own stock in a company you have a % ownership of that company.

You are not the owner or even partial owner IBM. That may be how they are selling it to you but it is simply not true. It is a fiction. Common stock means you invest in the company and have the ability, according to the number of stocks you own, to vote for the Board of Directors that run the company. It is NOT ownership. It is an investment in the collective ability of the people voted on by the shareholders to make them a profit without having to do anything other than invest capital. It is NOT ownership.

 

[smb]

Every large company on the face of the earth negotiates the conditions under which they will operate.

However as is usually the case with leftists, the logic is not there. You want to force Walmart to pay salaries above what is commensurate with the service provided so the workers can have a better life.

But, as usual you have forgotten the people who shop there, people who can't afford to shop at high end stores so you would be forcing the poor to do without.

A social safety net is one thing, even Ronald Reagan believed in a strong one. But there is a huge difference when your policies create job losses and your ideas would do just that.

First there is little to no proof that increasing minimum wages costs jobs.

Minimum Wage Mythbusters | United States Department of Labor

Second the logic is there. As I have explained in previous posts the business practices of companies like WalMart are unsustainable. They are net loss to the economy at large and to local economy in which they reside.

I as an individual force nothing. Society, in general, has the right as explained in previous posts to demand sustainable practices from the companies operating within their society.

 

[smb]

most of those are very specific to one type of company

telecom

has nothing to do with my business, or most businesses

are some managers foolish in their decisions....of course

that is why i continue to get headhunter calls to go elsewhere

good managers are worth their weight in gold....just the same as good employees

there are a lot of good managers out there....but a number of bad ones too

that is why people get fired and replaced....because they are sitting in chairs where they really dont belong

So you asked for specifics. I give them to you and now you move the goal posts again.

The next time you set up the football Lucy I won't try and kick.

 

[ludin]

Now we are making progress. If the U.S. Government gets it authority from the consent of the governed then that is the proof of the social contract.

LOL consent does not imply contract. in fact that is the opposite of a contract.

People consent to be governed and set up that government. The government, being constituted and existing as a result of the consent of the governed are responsible to the people they govern. The people consenting to be governed by the constituted government they consented are responsible to the government for the laws that are passed. Ergo the social contract. Again the proof is in the pudding.

LOL man talk about your leaps in logic that would clear the grand canyon and back. People give consent to the power of government.
however if that government abuses it's power then the people have the ability to stop it and or
even destroy that government.

 

[gdgyva]

You are not the owner or even partial owner IBM. That may be how they are selling it to you but it is simply not true. It is a fiction. Common stock means you invest in the company and have the ability, according to the number of stocks you own, to vote for the Board of Directors that run the company. It is NOT ownership. It is an investment in the collective ability of the people voted on by the shareholders to make them a profit without having to do anything other than invest capital. It is NOT ownership.

actually it does represent ownership....or a piece thereof

and current ownership is quoted on every stock issued by what is called the market capitalization number

you may only own .0000001 of the company, but if it gets bought, you have to get paid

and preferred shares may give more voting rights.....but i vote my regular shares in the 30 odd companies i own every year

In corporate law, a stock certificate (also known as certificate of stock or share certificate) is a legal document that certifies ownership of a specific number of shares or stock in a corporation.

 

[ludin]

You are not the owner or even partial owner IBM. That may be how they are selling it to you but it is simply not true. It is a fiction.

LOL so ever economic and business book in the world is wrong and you are correct. lol I would love for you to prove that.

Common stock means you invest in the company and have the ability, according to the number of stocks you own, to vote for the Board of Directors that run the company. It is NOT ownership. It is an investment in the collective ability of the people voted on by the shareholders to make them a profit without having to do anything other than invest capital. It is NOT ownership.

You know what the board of directors is right? they are the representatives of the owners of the company. LOL
the owners of the company are people that have purchased shares of that company.

if you don't own shares you can't vote on the company elections or rules.

Stocks Basics: What Are Stocks? | Investopedia

The Definition of a Stock
Plain and simple, stock is a share in the ownership of a company.

your argument is completely destroyed.

 

[imyoda]

Are you saying you want the govt. to mandate that Walmart has to pay their employees a "living wage"? Living wage as defined by whom and in what locality? Walmart is the largest employer in the USA. How much should they be paying their employees per hour?

About the same as their competition..........Costco and Target......... between $14 and $24 per hour would do..........

As for as the government regulating wages paid per hour.......... This may come as a shock to you but the government does.........

And is called the Minimum Wage law.......... and has been in effect since 1939.......

You did not know that?

 

[GunFora]

About the same as their competition..........Costco and Target......... between $14 and $24 per hour would do..........

As for as the government regulating wages paid per hour.......... This may come as a shock to you but the government does.........

And is called the Minimum Wage law.......... and has been in effect since 1939.......

You did not know that?

LOL you want the mom and pop store down the street with 7 employees to be forced by the govt. to pay $14-$24 per hour to their unskilled help? That's funny...so how much should a mechanic with 15 years experience who makes $25/hour now make if the kid next door is making $24/hour for flipping burgers?

 

[imyoda]

LOL you want the mom and pop store down the street with 7 employees to be forced by the govt. to pay $14-$24 per hour to their unskilled help? That's funny...so how much should a mechanic with 15 years experience who makes $25/hour now make if the kid next door is making $24/hour for flipping burgers?

I never said that........ I never suggested that..... and your post demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the issue........IMHO

Study up and get back to us with some postings of value..........

 

[Ntharotep]

The "nobody forces employees to work there" bull is dishonest at best.
Nobody forces a person in a terrible income area with no viable jobs to accept 10$ an hour to try to feed their family. Nobody except circumstances.
Arguments like this makes it sound like people wake up and say "I could use my college degree to go work for Google or Microsoft but you know what, just to try something different but instead I'll go work for Walmart!!"

It makes me wonder if people who make such responses have ever actually had to work in the service industry or have ever had to accept what was available in the work market for that matter.

Nobody made me clean out HUD houses for a summer when I was younger but you know what? I still have the right to complain about the condition those savages left their free housing in.

 

[GunFora]

I never said that........ I never suggested that..... and your post demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the issue........IMHO

Study up and get back to us with some postings of value..........

You implied a $14-$24 min. wage. I was responding to that.

 

[imyoda]

You implied a $14-$24 min. wage. I was responding to that.

NO.............I implied NOTHING........

I was telling you how it is...........