- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There's always some degree of wiggle-room, but unskilled labor isn't supposed to be a career.Not much of a negotiating stance in the case of walmart, unless you just happen to be in a really strange and rare place, the negotiations are simple.
Walmart -- this is what we pay for this job
Potential employee -- your pay is too low and there are no benefits
Walmart -- then seek a job elsewhere and let one of the 18+ other people looking for a job in. Thanks for stopping by.
Pretty easy in this case because it is unskilled labor and the demand for jobs is much, much higher than the number of jobs available. Actually, I think is pretty nice of Walmart to offer above minimum wage, especially in a market where they probably wouldn't have to.
Chances are, if you can't go somewhere else for a better paying job then you're not worth more.
No apparently you arent calling people thugs, you are calling them fascists instead--thats much better. :roll:
Thta isn't wthat I said .... I never said I support government sponsered theft, government CREATES property ... I support property being treated as it is, a socail institution, not a natural right.
Also I am here in reality ... Capitalism is failing ...
We are talking about Walmart and unions ... and I think the person who thinks that walmart workers would be better off without any collective action needs to wake up to reality ... when they are surrounded by evidence and logic showing the opposite.
Just stop, you are using the word selfish. I am saying that employees have a lot of nerve demanding anything, you earn and renegotiate wages, or you accept your conditions. I'm sick of people overestimating their value and trying to force employers to pay them more than what they are worth.I can't read the minds of these Wal-Mart workers but you and others have repeatedly attributed their protests to selfishness or at the very least you're saying they just want more money they haven't earned. While I can't deny that thought may be exactly what's going through their head, a lot of protestors and a lot of unions are working to ensure that everybody gets a fair deal. To ensure that if you work hard enough, you will be able to get by so long as you are dedicated, resilient, and able. Yes, Wal-Mart hired these employees for whatever wage and yes, they agreed to it, but that doesn't mean it's fair.
I used to know a guy who came to the US from India and got a job at this Indian restaurant where they paid everybody less than minimum wage and had a dozen or so of their employees live in an apartment together. They agreed to it, so it's fair, right? They couldn't change it, though, because they were getting paid under the table (as fair as I knew) so they had no say. This is the result of employees losing their voice. They will be exploited and used to further increase the billions of dollars Wal-Mart is pulling in, so long as they cannot be heard. If I were in the Indian chap's position, I would have demanded fairness, but I wouldn't do it out of selfishness or the conquest for wealth and power. I'd do it to help every one of those poor guys stuffed into a two bedroom apartment.
These days, people are struggling just to tread water and every day they go to work and every day they get paid the same amount as the slacker kid who works the register once a week. They agreed to it, but that doesn't mean it's fair. I think you were talking about Wal-Mart's benefits being pretty standard and comparable to those offered by smaller businesses. The only reason for that is the employees and American citizens who demanded better treatment. Rosa Parks didn't ask everybody if they were cool with her sitting at the front of the bus. Kennedy didn't say "we will go to the moon within ten years if you guys feel like doing it."
Every thought of yours begins with the same premise, which is that Wal-Mart employees are already receiving a fair amount of money. But why is $8 an hour fair? What is that based on? And if you had a job for $8 an hour and weren't making ends meet, why wouldn't you demand to get what you think is fair. The whole "if you don't want the job, go find another one" is only a small step removed from "if you don't like [the current president] you can move to Canada."
There's always some degree of wiggle-room, but unskilled labor isn't supposed to be a career.
Kind of like me then I guess. Killing people and breaking things wasn't supposed to be my career, but that is what it ended up being. If I don't like where I ended up, I can only blame myself, not others. It is a shame that more people don't realize that where they end up and what they have is caused by their own choices in life.
Theres aways a give and take. No one gets everything they want. it is a negotiation, even if they strike. Rarely have strikes end with getting everything, if ever. They merely reach a point they both can live with.
Except thats not how it would work, because we see in cooepratives people that have more responsiblity generally get paid more ... just not rediculously more, I mean we have tons of examples of this.
No it isn't ... they pay themselves, what gives them that right is not mental labor, its control of capital.
Of coarse it is the right and moral way to go about it ... It is right and moral to take responsiblity for yourself and your well being, and not accept being a wage slave.
I'm saying the workers should have a say.
Also having a part in the decision making would make them part of the management .... any argument you make against that is the same that monarchists would make against democracy.
And what? 50 years ago you didn't have the saem wealth disaprity you have now ... I'm not saying everyone has to be equal, I'm saying everyone should have the same say in the decisions that effect their lives.
Nonsense, Capitalism HAS'NT always been around, infact socialist forms of organization existed before capitalism.
As far as socialism never working ... thats nonsense, the system that can be taking advantage of more is Capitalism, infact it happens all the time, which is why now its basically run by a couple bankers.
... Its not a capitalistic of socialistic idea, its just a fact on how capitalism works, I'm not for or against it.
Workers will never get their labors worth, because they are in the disadvantage of not holding capital.
The point is the workers will get fired, pensinos cut and so on before the CEO's compensation gets cut.
BTW, I Have a question, over the last 20 years executive compensation has risen 300% ... have CEOs gotten 300% better?
Semantics ... Ownership is power.
Except IT DOES WORK .... you have many many examples of extremely successful cooperative firms ... infact the richest region in Europe is run mainly by cooperatives ... You're just talking out of ignorance.
You're assuming that capitalist property is a natural right ... it isn't ... its a social construct.
My living room is not a social construct because it does'nt affect other peoples lives.
Ok after reading about Hostess ... you're full of **** ... Hostess went through 7 CEOs in 10 years, they had missmanaged for years, loosing income, the workers ALREADY took a hit while executives were taking pay increass ... the company would have gone under with or without the strike ... You cannot seriously blame Hostess on teh unions ... when you get ever increasing pay increases for executives while running the company into the ground .... you can't blame the union for wanting to put a stop to that.
As far as the crappy worker ... the other workeres would'nt wnat a crappy worker in either ... so chances are in a democratic workplace he'd be out. However we have examples of strong union countries, in scandanavia and germany ... are those countries unproductive???? Nope ... emprical evidence always works best.
Working hard helps, but without collective power, the boss will ALWAYS put losses on the workers and take gains for himself ... being a good slave won't change that, the boss will ALWAYS pay himself the most he can and pay the workers the least he can.
No they arn't other than IPOs the company doesn't see any of the money when a stock is bought. Most people buy stocks to get capital gains ... not for long term investment, shareholders actually have very little long term interest in a company, which is one major problem with capitalism.
So then its irrelevant.
What else did you say that you want me to respond to?
1. Where is the evidence that German manufacturs are "more agile" ....?
2. That doesn't explain much since German auto manufacturs were extremely unionized ... also that doesn't change the fact that the auto industry was doing fine when unions were strongest.
3. Where is the evidence that supply chains are smaller? Also purchasing locally is partially German socail policy, i.e. public policy restricting companies ... not Capitalism. As far as strikes, where is the evidence that post ww2, the US had more strikes? Also remember Unions are STRONGER in Germany.
4. We were not JUST talking about the auto-industry, but that isn't culture at all, that's just management.
5. Ok ... doesn't really change my point though ... Also we were not JUST talking about the auto-industry
I want labor to be in a better bargaining position than they are currently. That's it. Organized workers can bargain as a whole and get a higher portion of the profits...which they deserve. Bargaining still occurs. Wages are still set by how profitable a company is, workers just have more power when wages are decided.
Perhaps you can list your credentials to tell us all what qualifies you to judge who may or may not speak about a Wal Mart job let alone attack me for daring to comment about them?
Did the workers in Hostess want to be let go? I some how doubt it.
Perhaps not. But when they gave concessions and the CEO got a big bonus, it likely set this stand off in motion.
People would be better off worrying about themselves, rather than displaying their envy of someone else's station in life. Maybe then they would move up instead of trying to bring others down.
Thoughts anyone?
Just stop, you are using the word selfish. I am saying that employees have a lot of nerve demanding anything, you earn and renegotiate wages, or you accept your conditions. I'm sick of people overestimating their value and trying to force employers to pay them more than what they are worth.
As far as pay goes, yes, the company SHOULD have all the power. It is thier money. The only part of it that is the employee's is the amount that they agreed to when they were hired.
To the bolded. Why can't they turn them down? If they aren't in a position where they have a resume that is "better than Walmart" and they have to accept it why aren't there more options? Could it be that there is no employee leverage? If that is the case then it's their value at the time.I'll be concise because I've already said a lot. Two quick points:
1. Many individuals who are offered a job at Wal-Mart can't turn it down because they're not in a position where they can wait longer and be more discerning. Good jobs are as elusive as the legendary bigfoot. They take an unfair deal because they're sick of watching the Price is Right all day while they scan the classifieds. With the amount of money Wal-Mart makes, it makes sense that these people are protesting - they think they are worth more than they're getting. And it's not just that they think they're paid too little, it's that they want all the future Wal-Mart applicants to receive a fair offer.
1. Many individuals who are offered a job at Wal-Mart can't turn it down because they're not in a position where they can wait longer and be more discerning. Good jobs are as elusive as the legendary bigfoot. They take an unfair deal because they're sick of watching the Price is Right all day while they scan the classifieds. With the amount of money Wal-Mart makes, it makes sense that these people are protesting - they think they are worth more than they're getting. And it's not just that they think they're paid too little, it's that they want all the future Wal-Mart applicants to receive a fair offer.
When the writer's guild of America went on strike, part of it was that digital media was exploding and the writer's weren't seeing any money from it. It wasn't in their contract because it wasn't an anticipated issue in the past. With your line of reasoning, the writer's guild shouldn't have gone on strike because proceeds from internet sales and viewership were not in their contract. Does that seem fair to you? Bottom line - this isn't about giving handouts, this is about enforcing the laws without which working conditions and the existence of a competitive market would be depleted.
Pretty sure I never posted the quote you're attributing to me.Bold: The writers strike was understandable. It had something to do with them directly and was a new technology. When was the last time a new piece of technology affected some stocker at Wal-Mart?
Underlined: Sorry, it has nothing to do with enforcing laws unless it has to do with safety. Pay has nothing to do with a workers safety. The only law there is about how much money a person must get is the minimum wage. And a competitive market is just not possible when you have no real skills. Anyone can put a can on a shelf and as such anyone doing that is quite expendable.
Pretty sure I never posted the quote you're attributing to me.
fyi
Sounds good, but it doesn't work that way. And when management holds all the power, workers have often been abused. We do have history you know.
Then tell her to get the **** out of there. She shouldn't work for such a rotten company.
I'll be concise because I've already said a lot. Two quick points:
1. Many individuals who are offered a job at Wal-Mart can't turn it down because they're not in a position where they can wait longer and be more discerning. Good jobs are as elusive as the legendary bigfoot. They take an unfair deal because they're sick of watching the Price is Right all day while they scan the classifieds. With the amount of money Wal-Mart makes, it makes sense that these people are protesting - they think they are worth more than they're getting. And it's not just that they think they're paid too little, it's that they want all the future Wal-Mart applicants to receive a fair offer.
2. Responding to this:
When the writer's guild of America went on strike, part of it was that digital media was exploding and the writer's weren't seeing any money from it. It wasn't in their contract because it wasn't an anticipated issue in the past. With your line of reasoning, the writer's guild shouldn't have gone on strike because proceeds from internet sales and viewership were not in their contract. Does that seem fair to you? Bottom line - this isn't about giving handouts, this is about enforcing the laws without which working conditions and the existence of a competitive market would be depleted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?