Last edited:
Then you might want to do a bit more research or at least put yourself in the employers shoes before you show your hatred of gays by calling people that fight for (even your) freedom a slang term intent on disgusting imagery mostly associated to fags.
Now that's hilarious.
Then you might want to do a bit more research or at least put yourself in the employers shoes before you show your hatred of gays by calling people that fight for (even your) freedom a slang term intent on disgusting imagery mostly associated to fags.
Are you referring to Tea Bagging? I'm a little confused by this. Tea Bagging is not associated with "fags"...maybe in your world, but not in ours.
You can't assume today's wages should be the inflation adjusted equivalent of past wages any more than you can assume past wages should have been the inflation adjusted equivalent of today's. Supply and demand curves can shift. If the population of people looking for low skill jobs has grown faster than the number of low skill jobs available, then increased competition would have reduced wages.
It is obvious that as a conservative, you are simply not smart enough to understand the points people are making. It is really amazing you think that Walmart isn't dependent on the government, but I'm sure you will believe everything the talking heads tell you to.
If them being dependent upon the government is the problem, shouldn't the solution come from the government?
Hell, shouldn't this be a good thing for the government? That's 2200 less people that the government has to subsidize for Walmart, this should be a good thing for the government and the taxpayers.
But who's going to put up the money necessary to successfully challenge Walmart?...
At the same time, if Walmart closed these to piss of union labor organizers and doesn't have actual plumbing issues to deal with, the lie is so huge as to be completely impossible to hide.
At this point I don't believe Walmart, nor do I believe union labor's perspective.
My best guess now is that Walmart is just really slow to correct what they initially said about this and they won't actually keep these five stores closed for 6 months; either the stores are dead and never re-opening (maybe losing money) or will open much sooner. 5 X 6 months over plumbing is too incredible.
But who's going to put up the money necessary to successfully challenge Walmart?
So dishonest. We'll subsidize their employees more, because they're unemployed.
Having the solution come from the govt can take many forms. Back in the 30's, they did that by enabling unions to do the job.
They'll discredit themselves. I doubt they'll carry the charade so far as to actually have new plumbing installed.
Not sure where you went to school kid but you can't subsidize the "employers" of people who are unemployed because said people don't have an employer....
Fuck I can't believe I just had to type that out.
Well it's either a problem that solely effects Walmart employees, which would really hurt all the arguments I have seen so far, or it is a national problem. Why do you hate on everyone else making minimum wage so much? Why shouldn't they have the same right to make $15 an hour doing the job that any shit for brains 16 year old can (and does) do? Are the people that work at McDonalds somehow lower than Wallyworld employees? Is Walmart some career enhancement from Burger King, working their way up the corporate ladder or some shit?
If minimum wage isn't enough, fine, let's have that debate. Singling out a single corporation for doing what corporations do (make money, pretty cut and dry) is a self defeating battle though. If you so insist, keep on fighting the good fight though, just maybe Walmart will concede and give them a quarter ($.25) more an hour at best.
In all honesty, if what most in this thread are arguing is true you do realize that Walmart is winning fucking bigtime, right? Yall are trying to fight the wrong battles and until you realize that you can't possibly win the war.
If we are not sure why the store closings maybe we can ask Hillary she might still be able to get some insider information she was at one time on their board of directors I believe. I am not sure if she was pro union at the time.
Doesn't mean that it should? Seriously? Are you unable to distinguish between employee and shareholder? Employees are not entitled to a slice of the pie just because a business is successful. Profit participation is the benefit to assumption of risk. If you assume the risk of owning a business you get the profit and if it fails you're holding the bag. Employees are entitled to a salary, nothing more, nothing less. They can choose to receive a salary in exchange for work or they can choose not to, it's pretty simple. If they want to share in the profits than put up the cash and assume the risks.
Can an unskilled laborer like a stocker or greeter or porter or janitor or carriage chaser walk across the street and get a better deal at Target or CVS or Kroger's? Does Microsoft give the guy that cleans the bathroom stock options? Those are not part of the compensation package for unskilled labor. In fact, it can be argued that a publicly traded company CAN'T overpay employees. Their legal fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders, they can't give away the profits to the guy in the mailroom just because it feels good and he needs the money. He's getting what he deserves or he knows where the door is.
An employer/employee relationship is symbiotic. I'm not union and I'm not the least bit worried about my job. Why? Because I'm good at it and because I'm paid to be good at it. I'm 100% free to change jobs at any time if someone offers me more money. My employer is 100% free to replace me if they can find someone more skilled at the same price or equally skilled for less money. That works for the vast majority of businesses and the vast majority of employees. My company has the comfort of knowing I have to perform the job well or I'm out. I have the comfort of knowing they have to compensate me fairly or I can leave and make more. Tell me what's wrong with that relationship? Why does any person need protection beyond the marketplace factors that set wages? If you can't make more elsewhere then you're being paid the proper amount. Wal-mart does not chain their employees up at night. They're free to walk out the door and with that comes the freedom to find a different job. If they can't, then Wal-Mart is the best job available and Wal-Mart is not responsible for their lack of options, nor is Wal_Mart obligated to subsidy them beyond their true worth in the workplace.