Walmart loses major union case. :)

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Shockwave
I hate Unions. Nothing but a bunch of damned thieves, who steal from the common worker to support the agendas of the Union leaders.
The only thing (IMO) a Union is good for is to protect the jobs of the lazy, and ensure there paid "fairly" to the hard working employees.
DOWN WITH UNIONS!!

time for you to crack open the history books.

And why is that? You know how many times a Union has held something up, be it as simple as some work that needs to be done all the way up to stopping a company it its tracks to have its demands met?

 

[Bleep]

I hate Unions. Nothing but a bunch of damned thieves, who steal from the common worker to support the agendas of the Union leaders

Which unions? The NAM? ABA? NASCAP? IBEW? Democrats? Republicans? How about the Police unions and the fire department unions. Or do you just hate the ones that are for the common worker.
In Las Vegas a couple of months ago a union was trying to orginize a store and when they met off the property the management of wallmart sent spies and they fired every person in the store including the managers.
Someone posted about the airlines, look what happend to United Air Lines just a couple of months ago, All employees agreed to large pay cuts only to find out the top 5 people in the company were taking almost 1/2 billion in bonuses, all the paycuts would only cover 1/3 of the management bonuses.
The supreme court has ruled several times that management has the right to manage but workers have the right to orginize, to deny workers that right is unamerican and in the long run not legal.
I have started 3 good busineses in my life and always encouraged my workers to join the IAMAW because I could depend on the unions to provide very skilled machinist and electrical workers for me.

Bleep

 

[amdskip]

I am a Walmart employee of almost 3 years and I make a whooping $7.xx/hour. I am full time at 28 hours a week minimum but I am working a full 40+ right now. Sam Walton has rolled over in his grave too many times to count by now. I do not think that unions are everything but it would help some of the stupid everyday problems that us employees do face.

Walmart has an Open Door policy but many times the door only swings one way and you either go with the flow or get out. Walmart makes tons of profit and the greedy Walton heirs do not feel the need to share the wealth to their employees who are making the money for them. Sure there are plenty of low life losers working at walmart but you have them type of people working many different jobs. Turnover of employees was over 50% at our store last year which says a little something.

No one off the street can do my job that I do personally very easily. There are not many jobs in the store that I can't do. I can mix paint, sell a gun with a background check, work in the meat department, etc. I only have about 5 weeks left at this job before I leave for school and they don't want me to leave because I am way underpaid for what I do and they know that.

Something stupid is holiday pay. We are pro-rated for a holiday. I am working 8 hours tommorrow but I am only getting an extra 7 hours of pay because thats my averaged hours which is pretty stupid IMHO. I know of a guy who was management and got extremely deathly ill with cancer and survived to come back and work at the store. They offered him a cashier job and he refused and is now suing the store for some sort of discrimination. I wish him luck winning this case because he deserves it. I have to cashier when we get extremely busy and I am not paid the extra .25 to do this which adds add up belive it or not. There is just too much stuff to list.

 

[tcsenter]

In Las Vegas a couple of months ago a union was trying to orginize a store and when they met off the property the management of wallmart sent spies and they fired every person in the store including the managers.

Link? This would be a violation of federal law. I'm sure there is a lawsuit, if you could only provide a link or source it would help.

The supreme court has ruled several times that management has the right to manage but workers have the right to orginize, to deny workers that right is unamerican and in the long run not legal.

lol! Sorry, unions are a tenet of socialism. Is the US founded on socialist principles? In fact, the founders loathed collectivist ideologies and commented extensively on their disdain for it. If anything, it is unions that are unAmerican. This is why virtually all the leaders of labor movements were ardent communists or socialists. This is also why the far left despises everything America is about.

Now private property rights - that's American.

I agree that employees should be allowed to organize, but on their own time, at their own expense, and not on company property unless the company permits it.

On edit: And it is the employees who should be permitted to inquire with or seek the help of a union, not unions running all over town trying to drum-up business by propositioning and soliciting employees on company property and company time. There is a difference.

 

[tcsenter]

I have started 3 good busineses in my life and always encouraged my workers to join the IAMAW because I could depend on the unions to provide very skilled machinist and electrical workers for me.

A union skilled trades card and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee these days. The only thing desirable about a union journeyman or skilled trades card was that you were permitted to work only if you had one. If you didn't have one, you couldn't work in your trade.

The union was simply so powerful that it was able to achieve a 'lock' on entire industry trades at one time. Card = work. No card = no work. That's why they were desirable and nothing more. Some regions are still like this, which is probably the 'real' reason you encouraged workers to join the union.

 

[IGBT]

Wasen't walmart the ones locking night shift employees up in the stores till day shift showed up to let em out??

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: jjsole
the executives make millions while the people that do the work get enough to buy dog food. Its basically racketeering of labor imo.

<idiot-blocker>

who are the people that do the work? The cashier? you = dumbxter

</idiot-blocker>

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: amdskip
I am a Walmart employee of almost 3 years and I make a whooping $7.xx/hour. I am full time at 28 hours a week minimum but I am working a full 40+ right now. Sam Walton has rolled over in his grave too many times to count by now. I do not think that unions are everything but it would help some of the stupid everyday problems that us employees do face.

Walmart has an Open Door policy but many times the door only swings one way and you either go with the flow or get out. Walmart makes tons of profit and the greedy Walton heirs do not feel the need to share the wealth to their employees who are making the money for them. Sure there are plenty of low life losers working at walmart but you have them type of people working many different jobs. Turnover of employees was over 50% at our store last year which says a little something.

No one off the street can do my job that I do personally very easily. There are not many jobs in the store that I can't do. I can mix paint, sell a gun with a background check, work in the meat department, etc. I only have about 5 weeks left at this job before I leave for school and they don't want me to leave because I am way underpaid for what I do and they know that.

Something stupid is holiday pay. We are pro-rated for a holiday. I am working 8 hours tommorrow but I am only getting an extra 7 hours of pay because thats my averaged hours which is pretty stupid IMHO. I know of a guy who was management and got extremely deathly ill with cancer and survived to come back and work at the store. They offered him a cashier job and he refused and is now suing the store for some sort of discrimination. I wish him luck winning this case because he deserves it. I have to cashier when we get extremely busy and I am not paid the extra .25 to do this which adds add up belive it or not. There is just too much stuff to list.

your job sucks dude, go back to school, even campus dining halls pay more than that...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Meanwhile, your executives have all left because they certainly don't have to work for anything less than they find agreeable. Then you have the problems currently enjoyed by Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, which is flirting with bankruptcy due in no small part because it took them over a year to find a CEO while the hospital drifted aimlessly and hemorrhaged money. Or worse, the company goes under, everybody is out of a job. Hey that's better!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let's take a look at this.

I don't know what MSNC was offering. If it was 100k a year, then you are right as far as that place goes. Of course perhaps there are other factors the CEO.

Unfortunately, small and middle sized businesses have to spend compartively huge amounts on money to attract CEO's. They get crushed by MegaCorp USA, who if Joe Middlesize Co. strapped themselves financially to hire whoever. That is a real problem. No one can compete with Enron, and look at the quality people they had. Maybe Tyco International too?

So, they do not have to work if it does not suit them. Ok, then others will step up and they can live off their bank account, because I sure would change those golden parachutes too. I guess if they need money, WalMart could use more baggers.

Where are these people going to go? France? Go to a different company who offers them more money, breaking continuity at a place that was working just fine-thank-you?

So, will business pay those big wages to have them taxed? No. Will big execs pump gas? No. They will adjust to their paultry few million a year and live with fewer gold plated trinkets. The money then stays in the corp, and the incentive to lay off people to increase their bonus is gone.

Maybe workers will do a little more too, knowing they arent getting downsized while Big Jim soaks up more and more.

 

[LeeTJ]

Does no one else understand that Most unions exercise MONOPOLY power.

I agree that unions have their place. You can't get rid of unions, BUT you should change the structure of unions. Unions should have to compete for members and if one unions strikes than the company should be able to turn to another union for employees. there should be checks and balances with unions just as with any other supplier.

if i don't like my current supplier of PC's (dell) than i can turn to another supplier (gateway, IBM, Compaq etc). why aren't there competing suppliers for labor?

if there were i guarantee that a lot of the abuses of unions today would go away.

unions would still have negotiating power but it wouldn't be what it was during the '70's or '80's.

 

[0roo0roo]

just so you know, the US is not pure capitalism. its a mixture. pure capitalism was first seen during the industrial revolution, and the suffering it caused was horrifying.

pure capitalism is a nice idea on paper, but once you realise that there are real people, many with families as part of the equation you have to add a little humanity to the equation.

you might ask yourself why unions appeared in the first place.





we are human, not ferengi

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: fuzzy bee

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider When Sam was alive, he would fry a Bentonville exec who tried to pull crap on an employee due to position. Now Sam is gone, and Wally World is a different place, but not a better one. I can see where people are more interested in a union than they once were.

I think if they pay the workers what they deserve, they won't have to worry about them joining the union. They are worried now, and they should be.

maybe they are paying them what they deserve.

I don't think so. And they are loosing lawsuits left and right reg. coercing workers to work overtime but not clock it.

Ah... so what you're saying is, you want Wal Mart to pay its employees what you think they deserve.

It's called capitalism. People with no skills and no value to add to the economy are poorly paid. If you want to make more money, you have to add more value to the economy.

Labor unions apparently think that workers can get wealthy by demand. Long term, I sincerely believe that economic realities will demonstrate otherwise. As another poster noted, Wal Mart could probably replace their entire non-management workforce in a week. I would delight in this situation if a union forms and discovers that they are held hostage to Wal-Mart instead of the other way around. I simply can't see what bargaining power a union would have in this case, particularly in right-to-work states.

Meanwhile, the union itself is a political machine that exists only to preserve its own existence. It extorts money from its members under the pretense of furthering those members' interests, when in actuality it's the union officers who are reaping the most benefits. (Sounds like the criticism others have of Wal-Mart.)

Now, rectifier has noted some very valid points about the benefits unions have brought to the U.S. labor market. I personally believe, however, that those points are historical and that the role of the union has evolved over time to nothing more than a political machine and that the day of the union that really stands for the worker is past. (That is, as I said, just my personal opinon.)

The "share the wealth" arguments are ridiculous. Why in the world should Wal-Mart share the wealth? Disposable employees earn poor wages because there's always someone at the door willing to work for that wage. Why should the company pay more than the market demands?

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just so you know, the US is not pure capitalism. its a mixture. pure capitalism was first seen during the industrial revolution, and the suffering it caused was horrifying.

pure capitalism is a nice idea on paper, but once you realise that there are real people, many with families as part of the equation you have to add a little humanity to the equation.

you might ask yourself why unions appeared in the first place.





we are human, not ferengi

of course it's not pure capitalism. you can't say it was pure capitalism during the industrial revolution either because a basic tenet of "pure" capitalism is free movement of information which was NOT available during the industrial revolution.

we don't KNOW what pure capitalism would be like. however, we are ever changing and just as the addition of the union DID help, it has gotten past the helpful part and has abused it's power, what's new.

again, unions as we know them today DO exercise monopoly power and that is the main reason for most of the abuses. the way to change that would be to change the structure of unions so that there are multiple unions serving the same industries. if companies have alternatives albeit painful ones (it would never be easy to change over your entire workforce) than the strike wouldn't be the ULTIMATE response. if a union strikes and demands are WAY beyond what the employer is willing to pay, than the employer should have the alternative to go to another union and hire their workers.

it's called checks and balances.

 

[tcsenter]

Unfortunately, small and middle sized businesses have to spend compartively huge amounts on money to attract CEO's. They get crushed by MegaCorp USA, who if Joe Middlesize Co. strapped themselves financially to hire whoever. That is a real problem. No one can compete with Enron, and look at the quality people they had. Maybe Tyco International too?

Ah yes, always with the Enron and the Tyco.

The situation at Enron and Tyco were soooo not the 'norm' among America's several thousand corporations, but you know that's the first thing people go to. Enron and Tyco are the far extreme...FAR extreme.

It would be like including Bill Gates in any calculation of the median household worth in the State of Washington. I'm sure when Gates' worth was approaching $100 B, just his contribution alone would pull the median household worth up by several tens of thousands. Even worse, including Bill Gates in the median household worth calculation of just those who reside in his neighborhood.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
It would be like including Bill Gates in any calculation of the median household worth in the State of Washington. I'm sure when Gates' worth was approaching $100 B, just his contribution alone would pull the median household worth up by several tens of thousands. Even worse, including Bill Gates in the median household worth calculation of just those who reside in his neighborhood.

Totally off topic here... you can include Bill Gates when calculating the median with little/no effect. The mean would be severely skewed, however.

But for that we should start a separate thread on statistics.

 

[Linux23]

interesting thread.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Shockwave
I hate Unions. Nothing but a bunch of damned thieves, who steal from the common worker to support the agendas of the Union leaders.
The only thing (IMO) a Union is good for is to protect the jobs of the lazy, and ensure there paid "fairly" to the hard working employees.
DOWN WITH UNIONS!!

time for you to crack open the history books.

Yep-that's about the only place unions belong.

 

[amdskip]

I am going to school right now, just got my associates degree and I'm transferrring to Western Illinois University in like 5 weeks. Walmart is just a side job for me and school comes first so I'm thrilled to be out of that dump.

 

[Ornery]

Yeah, it is interesting. I notice tcsenter only seems to pipe up in the decent threads around here. Some of you nitwits would do well to shutup and absorb what he's saying.

My take:

1. This is a trespassing issue, as tcsenter mentioned
2. It's nobody's GD business what a company pays their execs
3. If you don't like the fvcking pay or working conditions, LEAVE! How hard is that?
4. Some of you ass clowns ought to move to France with your socialist whims

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Yeah, it is interesting. I notice tcsenter only seems to pipe up in the decent threads around here. Some of you nitwits would do well to shutup and absorb what he's saying.

My take:

1. This is a trespassing issue, as tcsenter mentioned
2. It's nobody's GD business what a company pays their execs
3. If you don't like the fvcking pay or working conditions, LEAVE! How hard is that?
4. Some of you ass clowns ought to move to France with your socialist whims

Exactly what I've been trying to say.

The whining over executive pay is nothing but class envy. If you don't like what a CEO makes, don't work for him, and don't buy his products. How freakin' hard is that?

But no, you want to take his compensation by force, be it through taxes or limits on his income. Why? Why should you care for any other reason than envy or envy disguised as moral superiority?

 

[tm37]

Thanks Ornery- now i don't have to say it.

WHy are the unions not going after menards (home improvement store) or walgreens or any of thousand other retail establishments?

Wal mart make a ton of money.

now lets say they we work for different companies.

We are both box boys.

Now my company makes about 100 times the profit as your company Should I be paid more than you. Lets say I make about 25 cents an hour more than you BUT remeber my compay makes 100 times the profit. If I was to go into my boss and say you should pay me 100 times what bob makes I would more than likely be given the opportunity to find other work. now my boss would go to bob and offer him that extra 25 cents an hour and now bob makes more and I am out of work.

The rerason is there are a million bobs running around that can do a good job as a box boy. and even if I am the best possible box boy in the world it doesn't have a huge effect on profits. You don't need to be a great box boy mearly a good box boy. The profit ratio created by that box boy doesn't increase by a whole lot as the skill level rises past a certain point. SO as long as you a good box boy then I really can't have you genmerate a whole not more revenue.

This follows suit with just about ANY unskilled or moderately skilled labor. once they reach a level of compitence you really can't create more profit. So why should I pay a box boy a huge salary? I shouldn't.

Now lets take a look at CEO's IF I have A great CEO and he/she does a great job it can dramitically change my profit. Also there aren't a million people running around that can do what they do. So If I have a great leadership team I should pay them well to preent my compition from trying to lure them away. Hey hire my box boy, I can easly hire another and they a have little effect on my bottom line.

FOr all of you that believe that walmart is an evil corperation ask your self theese questions.

Who provides health coverage to full time workers in the reatil sector.
Who provides hgealth coverage to part time workers.
Who GIVES stock to emp.loyess both full and part time.

Hell you even get a discount

My wife has worked at walmart for almost two years and for retail I believe she get treated pretty well and I makes almost nine bucks an hour. My MIL works full time and has health insurance and a 401K in retail:Q

Show me other retail places that give there employees this amount of benifit and then show me why walmart should give even more.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Ornery
Yeah, it is interesting. I notice tcsenter only seems to pipe up in the decent threads around here. Some of you nitwits would do well to shutup and absorb what he's saying.

My take:

1. This is a trespassing issue, as tcsenter mentioned
2. It's nobody's GD business what a company pays their execs
3. If you don't like the fvcking pay or working conditions, LEAVE! How hard is that?
4. Some of you ass clowns ought to move to France with your socialist whims

Exactly what I've been trying to say.

The whining over executive pay is nothing but class envy. If you don't like what a CEO makes, don't work for him, and don't buy his products. How freakin' hard is that?

But no, you want to take his compensation by force, be it through taxes or limits on his income. Why? Why should you care for any other reason than envy or envy disguised as moral superiority?

Well said.

 

[KDOG]

Walmart going union? Oh great, now we'll have those crackhead, no HS Diplomo, ex con retards being rude to their customers even MORE now. The walmart where I'm at is a total disaster. Its filthy dirty, they just LOVE to put crap in the aisles until you can barely make it thru. Their hiring standards are just have to be the lowest. This is NOT good.

Unions are communist. How? The whole basis of communism was worker rights. Look it up.

 

[Spac3d]

:|:|:|:|:| I love Walmart. I love cheap prices.

<-- Walmart shareholder also.

 

[rectifire]

"The people who helped tremendously in the downfall of US auto companies and airlines via threats of strikes by their uniformed followers."

"The people who have very wealthy leaders who use the dues of their uniformed followers to support their own personal political agendas."

"The people who allow substandard work to be compensated at a super-standard rate."



In situations as touchy as this one, the practical thing to do is look at the overall picture. Overall, have unions helped or hurt our American society and way of life? If you ask me, they have overall been a great beneficial influence. Nobody has denied the things I stated in an earlier post. This is because they cannot deny them....they are facts. The fact is that unions have been at the very heart of shaping each and every work benefit that you take for granted today. However, now that these benefits have become somewhat standardized in the workplace, some people wish to do away with the unions because they feel they are not necessary anymore. They take for granted the benefits that they currently enjoy, giving no thought or reason to how hard people have fought and even died so that they could enjoy such benefits. All they see in a union is a organization that takes a small part of their paycheck. They resent this in a way comparable to taxes. They imagine that they see no tangible benefits from a union, when in truth the benefits are all around them.

The above quotes by fuzzy bee are the same old rhetoric repeated over and over by anti-union forces. Let's make a simple analogy regarding fuzzy's quotes. Let's take these quotes and apply them to the US government instead of unions.

"The people who helped tremendously in the downfall of US auto companies and airlines via threats of strikes by their uniformed followers."

As many may know, thousands of corporations have closed their operations in the USA and moved overseas. They did this to avoid paying increased US taxes imposed by the US government of course. Sounds very much like the US government itself is itself helping to contribute to the downfall of US companies.

"The people who have very wealthy leaders who use the dues of their uniformed followers to support their own personal political agendas."

This statement could very well be applied to the majority of US government political leaders out there. All you would have to do is change where it says "dues" to "contributions." Enough said.

"The people who allow substandard work to be compensated at a super-standard rate."

Again, this statement could very well be applied to many branches of the US government. Red tape seems to reign supreme, and little work gets accomplished for the huge budgets of some government agencies.


Well then, if all these things can be applied to the US government, why not just say that we don't need government anymore. It has outlived it's usefulness and we don't need it anymore. Maybe we should even start to hate the government.

This is akin to the anarchists who drive on public roads and freeways, all the while calling for the destruction of the government since they believe it brings them no tangible benefits. Yet all the while, proof that government works is under their own two feet or the four tires of their car.

What I am trying to say about the unions (and the government) is that even though they have their many faults, in the end it works out on the plus side for the vast majority of us Americans.