PDA

View Full Version : Walmart Strike




pathtofreedom
05-30-2013, 11:13 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/walmart-protest-movement_n_3354735.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174551/walmart-workers-launch-first-ever-prolonged-strikes-today
Hopefully the workers get something more than the artificially subsidized wages that they get. Overall unions have been greatly weakened by right to work laws and anti-union regulations.

TaftFan
05-30-2013, 11:25 PM
They are probably overpaid as it is.

pathtofreedom
05-30-2013, 11:26 PM
They are probably overpaid as it is.
Starvation wages are overpaid?

TaftFan
05-30-2013, 11:30 PM
Starvation wages are overpaid?

I rarely ever see starving Wal-Mart workers.

I did see this female employee the other day. She was drop dead beautiful. But back to the point, she was just walking around the store playing with bike horns with another employee.

The point is, I RARELY see Walmart employees doing anything other than standing around or doing unskilled labor.

Cutlerzzz
05-30-2013, 11:32 PM
Starvation wages are overpaid?

Yeah, those Walmart employees need more meat on their bones. It's not like the American lower class has the highest obesity rate in the world.

Warrior_of_Freedom
05-30-2013, 11:36 PM
if you're going to work at walmart you may as well just collect food stamps, seriously. Jobs like that are for teenagers.

pathtofreedom
05-30-2013, 11:41 PM
I don't see what is wrong with striking. They aren't asking for government privileges. I get that there will always be rich people but it shouldn't mean a small group of people owning the majority of the world's resources.

Ender
05-30-2013, 11:55 PM
I don't see what is wrong with striking. They aren't asking for government privileges. I get that there will always be rich people but it shouldn't mean a small group of people owning the majority of the world's resources.

Unions are part of the problem and should never be supported.

If a Walmart employee doesn't like their job, go some where else.

pathtofreedom
05-31-2013, 12:04 AM
Unions are part of the problem and should never be supported.

If a Walmart employee doesn't like their job, go some where else.
Unions are not part of the problem they are an example of market forces at work.

Ender
05-31-2013, 12:09 AM
Unions are not part of the problem they are an example of market forces at work.

So, why does Ron Paul calls unions unconstitutional?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiLhe5-tmOQ

pathtofreedom
05-31-2013, 12:14 AM
So, why does Ron Paul calls unions unconstitutional?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiLhe5-tmOQ
Because he doesn't like unions. I don't support government protections to union however there is nothing in the constitution restricting unions. Unions are an example of voluntary association and freedom of assembly.

Warrior_of_Freedom
05-31-2013, 12:14 AM
So, why does Ron Paul calls unions unconstitutional?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiLhe5-tmOQ

He doesn't call unions unconstitutional. lol. He calls laws that dictate wages and who can or can't work are unconstitutional.

TaftFan
05-31-2013, 12:20 AM
Private sector collectivism-such as unions, insurance, banks, and corporations-do have their role but often times show their bad sides as they are concentrations of power.

The key is to have free market competition to curb that power.

cindy25
05-31-2013, 12:21 AM
I rarely ever see starving Wal-Mart workers.

I did see this female employee the other day. She was drop dead beautiful. But back to the point, she was just walking around the store playing with bike horns with another employee.

The point is, I RARELY see Walmart employees doing anything other than standing around or doing unskilled labor.

because Wal Mart workers are subsidized by medicaid, food stamps, rent subsidies............

cindy25
05-31-2013, 12:33 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/costco-profits_n_3359033.html

Weston White
05-31-2013, 12:44 AM
Unions have nothing to do with the government; save for public employee unions for those working within local, state and federal governments or government operated businesses or instruments.

The “free market” has no bearing upon the employees of any union. Generally, businesses do not profit-share with their blue/white collar employees (e.g., if Walmart has a windfall year, they are not going to double their employee’s wages, with likely exception to their executive’s and board’s salaries of course).

The real problem, I feel (aside from outright corporate greed), is special interest lobbyists and direct government intervention in the affairs of private businesses through a combination of over-regulation, subsidies, tax incentives, statutory constraint, coordinated partnerships and backdoor dealings, and the like.

Rudeman
05-31-2013, 12:48 AM
If Costco's model continues to be successful others will eventually follow, there doesn't need to be a law to demand it. Also correlation does not imply causation, just because Costco pays its employees more doesn't mean that is the reason they've been recently successful.

Ender
05-31-2013, 08:20 AM
He doesn't call unions unconstitutional. lol. He calls laws that dictate wages and who can or can't work are unconstitutional.

Exactly- which is what unions do. Try working for companies controlled by unions without belonging to the union.

Unions are NOT an example of voluntary association and freedom of assembly.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 08:24 AM
Starvation wages are overpaid?

Look what these forums have become. Just....wow.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 08:27 AM
Unions have nothing to do with the government; save for public employee unions for those working within local, state and federal governments or government operated businesses or instruments.


What? The NLRB only steps in for government unions? Obama didn't steal an auto company and give it to a union? Wow. I must be totally uninformed about such things.

belian78
05-31-2013, 08:27 AM
Exactly- which is what unions do. Try working for companies controlled by unions without belonging to the union.

Unions are NOT an example of voluntary association and freedom of assembly.
Here in central IL, there is no way you are getting a production job of any type, for any supplier of CAT without being in the union. Sure, technically you don't have to join the union (in actuality you'd never get hired but it looks good on paper) but there is still a stipulation that if you aren't in the union you still have to pay dues. I mean, how crazier and underhanded could it get?

angelatc
05-31-2013, 08:29 AM
Unions are part of the problem and should never be supported.

If a Walmart employee doesn't like their job, go some where else.


Yep. I have two people in this house who would not starve while working at WalMart.

God, I detest demagogues. WalMart jobs shouldn't be a career choice. THey're entry level positions, and WalMart has no responsibility to pay you anything over and above what the current demand for labor dictates.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 08:32 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/walmart-protest-movement_n_3354735.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174551/walmart-workers-launch-first-ever-prolonged-strikes-today
Hopefully the workers get something more than the artificially subsidized wages that they get. Overall unions have been greatly weakened by right to work laws and anti-union regulations.


Hopefully the stupid bastards get fired and replaced with people who actually need the jobs. Striking when the economy is good and there is a labor shortage is a great plan. Striking when there are 6 people in line for every empty job? Not so much.

ghengis86
05-31-2013, 08:35 AM
Exactly- which is what unions do. Try working for companies controlled by unions without belonging to the union.

Unions are NOT an example of voluntary association and freedom of assembly.

I disagree. People can form unions to negotiate wages, etc. collectively. Ideally, there should be no laws dictating an employer accept collective bargaining or negotiate at all. The union is free to try and the employer free to refuse. The point being, government should be involved on either side.

I see it as a symbiotic relationship, with each side voluntarily working together to get the best possible outcome. If the union gets too greedy, the employer can refuse their demands; likewise if the employer is treating their employees poorly, the union can refuse to show up for work and deny the employer their highly skilled, safe and smart labor. Both parties are then responsible for their actions. I'd imagine in this case, unions would clean up their act with regard to unproductive/wasted labor and employers would be more apt to pay higher wages for the added value if a trained union worker over a minimum wage, untrained laborer.

At least my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

belian78
05-31-2013, 08:36 AM
Yep. I have two people in this house who would not starve while working at WalMart.

God, I detest demagogues. WalMart jobs shouldn't be a career choice. THey're entry level positions, and WalMart has no responsibility to pay you anything over and above what the current demand for labor dictates.
Had that fight with my SO for over a year and a half, she worked for Walgreens. When we moved farther away, she was even more upset due to gas prices eating even more of her pay. Well, I argued, take your skills and go somewhere that will pay you want you want and give you the hours you want. (she was on 3rd shift) She went down to the Pizza Hut here in town, she had worked for one when she was a teenager. Well, she got hired as a manager. She'll be making more than what she was, and it's right down the street from our house, a win/win.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 08:40 AM
Had that fight with my SO for over a year and a half, she worked for Walgreens. When we moved farther away, she was even more upset due to gas prices eating even more of her pay. Well, I argued, take your skills and go somewhere that will pay you want you want and give you the hours you want. (she was on 3rd shift) She went down to the Pizza Hut here in town, she had worked for one when she was a teenager. Well, she got hired as a manager. She'll be making more than what she was, and it's right down the street from our house, a win/win.


In America, the biggest pay raises tend to come from job changes. And that's true at all levels. Even Executives don't get significant salary bumps unless they move up.

shane77m
05-31-2013, 10:06 AM
I rarely ever see starving Wal-Mart workers.

I did see this female employee the other day. She was drop dead beautiful. But back to the point, she was just walking around the store playing with bike horns with another employee.

The point is, I RARELY see Walmart employees doing anything other than standing around or doing unskilled labor.

Pretty much what I done while working there. : )

Edit:
By the way, if a person wants to make more money at Wal Mart it is possible. If you show up for work, have a little bit of drive, and have a little bit of sense you can get into their management training program. It is not that difficult. Or a person can always transfer to one of the distribution centers. They would get a substantial raise in pay for doing so. I managed to get several raises while there and a merrit raise. Sorry but I don't have much pitty for them.

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/4914.jpg

erowe1
05-31-2013, 10:24 AM
Starvation wages are overpaid?

You already admitted they were overpaid when you said this:


Hopefully the workers get something more than the artificially subsidized wages that they get.

Todd
05-31-2013, 10:32 AM
I rarely ever see starving Wal-Mart workers.

Some of us believe the system of preventing people from access to affordable healthy food is starvation. Keeping people fat with carbs and processed food is injustice IMO.


So you can get a Hungry man meal for $4? But If I want to buy grass fed non GM beef and beaucoup fruits and veggies from my local market, I may spend double from shopping at Walmart.

erowe1
05-31-2013, 10:35 AM
Some of us believe the system of preventing people from access to affordable healthy food is starvation. Keeping people fat with carbs and processed food is injustice IMO.


So you can get a Hungry man meal for $4? But If I want to buy grass fed non GM beef and beaucoup fruits and veggies from my local market, I may spend double from shopping at Walmart.

Even that grass fed non-GMO beef and beaucoup fruits and veggies are more affordable now than they ever have been before.

It's hard for me to see how the fact that, in addition to them, we also have even more affordable options, could be an injustice.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 11:00 AM
Some of us believe the system of preventing people from access to affordable healthy food is starvation. Keeping people fat with carbs and processed food is injustice IMO.


So you can get a Hungry man meal for $4? But If I want to buy grass fed non GM beef and beaucoup fruits and veggies from my local market, I may spend double from shopping at Walmart.


Some of believe in the laws of supply and demand? Yes, that is true.

pathtofreedom
05-31-2013, 11:00 AM
The whole argument that you have you join a union in order to get a job is stupid then you are excepting the anarcho-socialist argument that working isn't voluntary even though it technically is.

cajuncocoa
05-31-2013, 11:02 AM
Look what these forums have become. Just....wow.
I don't agree with the OP on this issue either, but why do you only complain about wide swings to the Left on this board?

angelatc
05-31-2013, 11:08 AM
I don't agree with the OP on this issue either, but why do you only complain about wide swings to the Left on this board?


Because I hate liberals, especially those trying to hijack the Libertarian movement. Thanks for asking!

pathtofreedom
05-31-2013, 11:12 AM
There is nothing inherently leftist about unions. Just because some unions might get government privileges doesn't mean they all do. Likewise there isn't anything inherently governmentental about companies either. They are just forms of organization.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 11:34 AM
There is nothing inherently leftist about unions. Just because some unions might get government privileges doesn't mean they all do. Likewise there isn't anything inherently governmentental about companies either. They are just forms of organization.


Seriously? You don't think there's any philisophical link between Socialism (the Workers Party) and Unions (the workers). Ok....that explains why, like corporations, the unions contribute so heavily to both parties.

Oh, wait.....

Weston White
05-31-2013, 11:42 AM
What? The NLRB only steps in for government unions? Obama didn't steal an auto company and give it to a union? Wow. I must be totally uninformed about such things.

The NLRB is simply a labor practices watchdog for all unions, so as to ensure that both unions follow and meet their legal requirements for proper representation of its members, including the employees that the unions represent (although this is very much an unconstitutional “independant” bureaucracy). I was referring to the collective bargaining capabilities of unions in general or each individual's right to privately contract.

Isn't Obama's fascist conversion of a joint-stock (public) company an entirely unrelated issue?

Zippyjuan
05-31-2013, 11:43 AM
if you're going to work at walmart you may as well just collect food stamps, seriously. Jobs like that are for teenagers.

Many of themn already do. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net#


In fact, Walmart has become the number one driver behind the growing use of food stamps in the United States with "as many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores using food stamps."

Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.

Walmart's employees receive $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. They are also the top recipients of Medicaid in numerous states. Why does this occur? Walmart fails to provide a livable wage and decent healthcare benefits, costing U.S. taxpayers an annual average of $1.02 billion in healthcare costs.


At over $446 billion per year, Walmart is the third highest revenue grossing corporation in the world. Walmart earns over $15 billion per year in pure profit and pays its executives handsomely. In 2011, Walmart CEO Mike Duke – already a millionaire a dozen times over – received an $18.1 million compensation package. The Walton family controlling over 48 percent of the corporation through stock ownership does even better. Together, members of the Walton family are worth in excess of $102 billion – which makes them one of the richest families in the world.

.... CEO Mike Duke makes more money in one hour, than his employees earn in an entire year.


We don't subsidise their labor costs via higher prices but we do subsisdise their profits via public welafare programs.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 11:46 AM
The NLRB is simply a labor practices watchdog for all unions, so as to ensure that both unions follow and meet their legal requirements for proper representation of its members, including the employees that the unions represent (although this is very much an unconstitutional “independant” bureaucracy). I was referring to the collective bargaining capabilities of unions in general or each individual's right to privately contract.

Isn't Obama's fascist conversion of a joint-stock (public) company an entirely unrelated issue?

Only if you're cherry picking data. I stand by my contention.

"Legal requirements for proper representation of its members...."

If the government wasn't so involved with unions, their private contractual disputes could be settled in courts.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 11:59 AM
In America, the biggest pay raises tend to come from job changes. And that's true at all levels. Even Executives don't get significant salary bumps unless they move up.

Until your resume cries "job hopper"

Then you never get hired again, anywhere.

Bman
05-31-2013, 12:04 PM
People should be able to walk off job in groups and demand higher pay, better working conditions, etc. There is nothing wrong with that. The employer should also be able to fire those employees and hire new ones if so desired.

Weston White
05-31-2013, 12:08 PM
Only if you're cherry picking data. I stand by my contention.

"Legal requirements for proper representation of its members...."

If the government wasn't so involved with unions, their private contractual disputes could be settled in courts.

1. The courts are the government.
2. the NLRB is merely a first step prior to filing a civil action in court, thereby saving everbody involved time, money, and frustration. It is a step in the process of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).

roho76
05-31-2013, 12:26 PM
Private business has the right to hire any contractor to handle their labor force, be it a union or a contract house or an HR department. Government employees DO NOT have a "right" to unionize and collectively bargain for my tax dollars, period. This is the problem that I have with right to work legislation. On the government side I agree, on the private sector I'm against R2W. Nobody should be able to tell GM, Chrysler, Ford, or WalMart how to run their labor. If they want to get fucked by a union, so be it.

Also, WalMart employees are not starving. If they were they wouldn't show up to work the next day. They make a choice everyday, whether to go into work or not. Nobody forces them.

I work with the UAW in automotive plants and I get the same old, tired, excuses on why we need unions. "Because they would take advantage of the workers" is what they say. Nobody ever forced them to work anywhere and that's never happened (legally) in the history of the USA, so thats bullshit.

belian78
05-31-2013, 12:37 PM
Until your resume cries "job hopper"

Then you never get hired again, anywhere.
Not true anymore. Upon a time that might have been the case, but 'job hopping' has become normal practice in today's society.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 12:46 PM
Not true anymore. Upon a time that might have been the case, but 'job hopping' has become normal practice in today's society.

Bullshit. It costs thousands to train employees. Just because job-hopping is "the norm" doesn't mean it doesn't scare the piss out of employers. They want people who will stay, period, not people that will exercise their free market rights to leave a job if they feel they are not being paid enough. employers don't want to pay to train someone only to have them leave 6 months or a year later. They want stability, especially in the high turnover jobs like call centers and wal-mart.. ...indeed, it is one of their prime objectives.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 12:48 PM
Until your resume cries "job hopper"

Then you never get hired again, anywhere.


Well, in a down economy it is true that can be held against you somewhat, but the key is not having any spaces between jobs. If you are getting fired, as opposed to getting recruited, you're right though.

erowe1
05-31-2013, 12:49 PM
So let me get this straight.

I work for somebody, and if I quit that job I won't be able to get another one, and my attitude toward my employer for that should be something other than thankfulness?

UWDude
05-31-2013, 12:50 PM
Well, in a down economy it is true that can be held against you somewhat, but the key is not having any spaces between jobs. If you are getting fired, as opposed to getting recruited, you're right though.

Down or up, doesn't matter. Employers do not want a job-hopper in a down economy just like they don't want one in an up economy. And spaces in between does not necessarily mean fired. But when a person has tons of jobs on their resume, an HR guy has the imagination to make too many assumptions, and that resume goes in the round file without a second glance. why should the HR guy assume the best, when he can just look for people with 6 and 9 year stints at one company and know they are "reliable" and "dependable" and "responsible" instead of taking the chance that a job-hopper is "resourceful" and a "go-getter" as opposed to just a bad, bad little worker that quits when he feels he is not being paid enough or treated right. (as so many of you claim is the right course of action for these wal-mart and Burger King employees, which it isn't).

Because no employer wants employees who stand up for themselves, and demand more pay and treatment, (unless it is sales). No, they want obedient slaves that will work as hard as possible for as little as possible. That's exactly how the market works.

belian78
05-31-2013, 12:51 PM
Bullshit. It costs thousands to train employees. Just because job-hopping is "the norm" doesn't mean it doesn't scare the piss out of employers. They want people who will stay, period, not people that will exercise their free market rights to leave a job if they feel they are not being paid enough. employers don;t want to pay to train someone only to have them leave 6 months or a year later. They want stability, especially in the high turnover jobs like call centers and wal-mart.. ...indeed, it is one of their prime sticking points.
That may be true that $1000's go into training at higher end job markets, ones that unions wouldn't be messing with anyway, but not lower end markets where unions chase their prey. I'm what you would consider a 'job hopper', although not from want to do so, and I've never been turned away from a job due to multiple past employers. I'm very up front about the fact that I am a talented/intelligent asset to the company that hires me. I'm upfront about the fact that, I'm looking for a career that I can call a home and will provide for me and my family. I'm also very upfront about the fact that, if I get a better opportunity, I will seriously consider it and possibly move on after giving an appropriate notice. And again, I have never been turned down for a job due to this, in fact my honesty and my abilities seem to work in my favor.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 12:51 PM
1. The courts are the government.
2. the NLRB is merely a first step prior to filing a civil action in court, thereby saving everbody involved time, money, and frustration. It is a step in the process of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).

You do remember that they actually filed a suit against Boeing to try to keep Boeing from moving to a non-union state, right?

angelatc
05-31-2013, 12:52 PM
Down or up, doesn't matter. Employers do not want a job-hopper in a down economy just like they don't want one in an up economy. And spaces in between does not necessarily mean fired. But when a person has tons of jobs on their resume, an HR guy has the imagination to make too many assumptions, and that resume goes in the round file without a second glance.


That's just not true.

belian78
05-31-2013, 12:53 PM
Down or up, doesn't matter. Employers do not want a job-hopper in a down economy just like they don't want one in an up economy. And spaces in between does not necessarily mean fired. But when a person has tons of jobs on their resume, an HR guy has the imagination to make too many assumptions, and that resume goes in the round file without a second glance.

If an interviewer makes assumptions, and doesn't have the intelligence to ask about things like that on a resume, that says more about that interviewer than the applicant.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 01:03 PM
That's just not true.

Blah blah. People will know the truth when reading it. Even you know I am right, you just will not admit it for a long time.


If an interviewer makes assumptions, and doesn't have the intelligence to ask about things like that on a resume, that says more about that interviewer than the applicant.

What good does that do a wal-mart employee, when all of the HR people at all of the other shit job options make these assumptions? Yeah, the HR people at call-centers, fast food joints, and retail stores aren't exactly the best HR people in the world... ...welcome to reality. Now what? Oh, you quit your wal-mart job because they didn't pay enough, or give bathroom breaks, or encouraged you to work off the clock.. ...and now what? Now you have to find a job with a good HR person running the show too? Good luck with the libertopian path to success by job-hopping from a black shit job to a brown shit job, dreaming of the day you take a yellow shit job, and maybe, maybe, one day, get a job where you only get pissed on!

Seriously, thanks for the pointless quip about bad HR people and bad interviewers, it just shows how baseless and oversimplified your so called solutions are for the powerless, low-skill workers.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 01:07 PM
For example, call centers have on average a 90% annual turn over rate. 90%!!! What do you think the prime directive of any HR person or manager at a call center is? What do you think their managers use as the prime metric as to how good a job they are doing when it comes to vetting prospective employees? And how do interviewers try to determine future actions of a prospective employee? Why do they ask questions about the employee's past jobs, skills, and reasons for quitting? If an interviewer is trying to stop the hemorrhaging of employees, and has two resumes in front of him/her, one is a job hopper, and one shows stability, but both are pretty much the same otherwise, which do you think they will choose... ...EV-ER-Y TIME, 100% OF THE TIME?

Let's get real, and stop with the no-thought cliches about how to get ahead that do nothing for nobody.

Cowlesy
05-31-2013, 01:17 PM
Dumb. This is what can happen to even skilled labor.

http://goerie.com/negotiations-could-affect-size-of-ge-transportation-layoff-in-erie


The plan GE Transportation announced Tuesday was both concrete and specific. The company identified the product lines that would be moved to Texas and the 950 union and 100 management jobs that Erie would lose.


But that might not be the last word on the subject.


Sources inside and outside the company said Tuesday that they remain hopeful that some or all of the job cuts might be avoided.


In an interview Tuesday, Lorenzo Simonelli, chief executive of GE Transportation, said the company and the union representing production workers will enter into a 60-day period of so-called decision bargaining.


That process leaves open the possibility of union concessions that could reduce or even eliminate the loss of jobs, said Erie County Executive Barry Grossman, who spoke with Simonelli on Tuesday.


Grossman said he was told "those changes could be forestalled or even negated depending on the outcome of that process."


The company's plan, which would eliminate 950 union jobs and 100 on the management side, would transfer the production of AC locomotives and additional mining-vehicle wheels production to the company's new plant in Fort Worth, Texas.


A slump in mining and a corresponding slowdown in locomotive demand are behind temporary layoffs of about 200 people that the company also announced Tuesday.


But the plan to shift work to Texas is rooted in the need to be competitive in a global marketplace, Simonelli said.


The company's chief competitor, Caterpillar Inc., pays its locomotive assembly workers about half as much as GE Transportation workers earn in Erie. Workers at the nonunion GE plant in Texas also earn less than their union counterparts in Erie.


"Certainly there is a wage advantage," said Richard Simpson, vice president of global supply for GE Transportation.


But higher productivity at the Fort Worth plant is an even bigger factor, Simonelli said.


Simpson said the combination of a new factory and work rules that allow for greater flexibility combine for a productivity advantage of about 20 percent.


So, these Union guys at a great factory of GE Transportation are doing walkouts/marches, but the bottom line is, Caterpillar, and GE Texas, can do produce more than the Erie plant, and labor is half the cost. But the Union won't budge on concessions.

I feel bad for the workers as huge layoffs will cripple Erie.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 01:41 PM
Blah blah. People will know the truth when reading it. Even you know I am right, you just will not admit it for a long time.


I know you're wrong because ... the median number of years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer was 4.6 in January 2012. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm

It really is that simple.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 01:45 PM
If an interviewer is trying to stop the hemorrhaging of employees, and has two resumes in front of him/her, one is a job hopper, and one shows stability, but both are pretty much the same otherwise, which do you think they will choose... ..



That's about what I was trying to say before you busted in here and hollered that if anybody was a job hopper they would bever work again.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 01:45 PM
I know you're wrong because ... the median number of years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer was 4.6 in January 2012. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm

It really is that simple.

LoL

Random statistic proves that employers like job hoppers?

Keep flailing.

compromise
05-31-2013, 01:47 PM
http://mises.org/daily/6335/
Scroll down to "The Wal-Mart monster"


The Wal-Mart Monster

The dissemination of an earlier version of this chapter on the Internet brought the wrath of the anticorporate intelligentsia down upon me. I was accused of having sold my soul for a double latte. For the record, I do not even drink coffee. I had already noticed that, whenever I lectured on South Park at college campuses, nothing infuriated my audiences more than my explication of "Gnomes" with its implicit championing of Starbucks. I am somewhat mystified by the way this particular episode provokes so much indignation, but I think it has something to do with the defensiveness of intellectual elites when confronted with their own elitism. What many intellectuals hold against capitalism is precisely the fact that it has made available to the masses luxuries formerly reserved to cultural elites, including their beloved mocha cappuccinos. From the time of Marx, the left argued unconvincingly for roughly a century that capitalism impoverishes the masses. But the general economic success of capitalism forced the left to change its tune and charge that free markets produce too many goods, overwhelming consumers with a dizzying array of choices that turns them into materialists and thus impoverishes their souls rather than their bodies. Parker and Stone regularly do a marvelous job of exposing the puritanical character of the contemporary left. It does not want people to have fun in any form, whether laughing at ethnic jokes or indulging in fast food. In an interview, Stone excoriates Rob Reiner for this latter-day Puritanism: "Rob Reiner seems like a fun-killer. He just likes to kill people’s fun. He supported a proposition in California that raised taxes on cigarettes. It’s like, Goddamn it, quit killing everyone’s fun, Rob Reiner! There’s such a disconnect. It’s like, Dude, not everyone lives in f---ing Malibu, and not everyone has a yacht. And some people like to have a f---ing cigarette, dude. Leave them alone. I know you think you’re doing good, but relax."

Having had the audacity to defend Starbucks, in its eighth season South Park went on to rally to the cause of Wal-Mart, using an even more thinly disguised name in an episode called "Something Wall Mart This Way Comes" (#809). The episode is brilliantly cast in the mold of a cheesy horror movie. The sinister power of a Wal-Mart-like superstore takes over the town of South Park amid lengthening shadows, darkening clouds, and ominous flashes of lightning. The Wall Mart exerts "some mystical evil force" over the townspeople. Try as they may, they cannot resist its bargain prices. Just as in "Gnomes," a local merchant starts complaining about his inability to compete with a national retail chain. In mock sympathy, Cartman plays syrupy violin music to accompany this lament. When Kyle indignantly smashes the violin, Cartman replies simply, "I can go get another one at Wall Mart—it was only five bucks."

Widespread public opposition to the Wall Mart develops in the town, and efforts are made to boycott the store, ban it, and even burn it down (the latter to the uplifting strain of "Kumbaya"). But like any good monster, the evil Wall Mart keeps springing back to life, and the townspeople are irresistibly drawn to its well-stocked aisles at all hours ("Where else was I going to get a napkin dispenser at 9:30 at night?"). All these horror movie clichés are a way of making fun of how Wal-Mart is demonized by intellectuals in our society. These critics present the national chain as some kind of external power, independent of human beings, which somehow manages to impose itself on them against their will—a corporate monster. At times the townspeople talk as if they simply have no choice in going to the superstore, but at other times they reveal what really attracts them: lower prices that allow them to stretch their incomes and enjoy more of the good things in life. To be evenhanded, the episode does stress at several points the absurdities of buying in bulk just to get a bargain—for example, ending up with enough Ramen noodles "to last a thousand winters."

In the grand horror movie tradition, the boys finally set out to find the heart of the Wall Mart and destroy it. Meanwhile, Stan Marsh’s father, Randy, has gone to work for the Wall Mart for the sake of the 10 percent employee discount, but he nevertheless tries to help the boys reach their objective. As they get closer, Randy notes with increasing horror, "The Wall Mart is lowering its prices to try to stop us." He deserts the children when he sees a screwdriver set marked down beyond his wildest dreams. He cries out, "This bargain is too great for me," as he rushes off to a cash register to make a purchase. When the boys at last reach the heart of the Wall Mart, it turns out to be a mirror in which they see themselves. In one of the show’s typical didactic moments, the spirit of the superstore tells the children: "That is the heart of Wall Mart—you, the consumer. I take many forms—Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target—but I am one single entity: desire." Once again, South Park proclaims the sovereignty of the consumer in a market economy. If people keep flocking to a superstore, it must be doing something right, and satisfying their desires. Randy tells the townspeople, "The Wall Mart is us. If we like our small-town charm more than the big corporate bullies, we all have to be willing to pay a little bit more." This is the free market solution to the superstore problem—no government need intervene. The townspeople accordingly march off to a local store named Jim’s Drugs and start patronizing it. The store is so successful that it starts growing, and eventually mutates into—you guessed it—a superstore just like Wal-Mart. South Park has no problem with big businesses when they get big by pleasing their customers.

Weston White
05-31-2013, 01:48 PM
You do remember that they actually filed a suit against Boeing to try to keep Boeing from moving to a non-union state, right?

Well Boeing is essentially a government instrument anyway and all of that was largely political strategizing, but the NRLB has nothing to do with unions in and of themselves. Remove the NRLB from the equation and unions will stand.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 01:48 PM
If an interviewer is trying to stop the hemorrhaging of employees, and has two resumes in front of him/her, one is a job hopper, and one shows stability, but both are pretty much the same otherwise, which do you think they will choose... ..

That's about what I was trying to say before you busted in here and hollered that if anybody was a job hopper they would bever work again.


In America, the biggest pay raises tend to come from job changes. And that's true at all levels. Even Executives don't get significant salary bumps unless they move up.

Dudette, whatever. LoL Like I said, truth is self-apparent, once shown in contrast to useless false quips.

Also, "heel in uhmelikah!" LoL

Weston White
05-31-2013, 01:52 PM
Not true anymore. Upon a time that might have been the case, but 'job hopping' has become normal practice in today's society.

“Would I ever leave this company? Look, I’m all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what I’m being paid for here is my loyalty. But if there were somewhere else that valued loyalty more highly, I’m going wherever they value loyalty the most.” – Dwight Schrute, The Office

UWDude
05-31-2013, 01:52 PM
In reply to Mises and "South Park philosophy" (really?):


More storage tubs, low priced screw drivers, and cheap Indonesian clothes don't mean much to families that can't afford healthcare or a house of their own so they don't have to pay higher rent every year.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 01:54 PM
More storage tubs and cheap Indonesian clothes don't mean much to families that can't afford healthcare or a house of their own so they don't have to pay higher rent every year.

Appeal to emtion falllacy. I would say nice try, but it really isn't even cleverly disguised.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 01:56 PM
Appeal to emtion falllacy. I would say nice try, but it really isn't even cleverly disguised.

I'll let the readers digest my truth vs. your sad psuedo-lawyerly retorts.

Cowlesy
05-31-2013, 02:05 PM
I'll let the readers digest my truth vs. your sad psuedo-lawyerly retorts.


I also chuckle when you whacky leftists decide to charge hard on a thread.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 02:07 PM
I'll let the readers digest my truth vs. your sad psuedo-lawyerly retorts.


Everybody here knows I do accounting, not law so you're the only person reading "lawyerly" in my responses.


I'm perfectly comfortable with letting people know the truth. You are a union suppporter and you want people to believe that they can't ever get ahead unless they bully their way into a bigger paycheck.

My route, which involves improving your skill set is much more personally empowering.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 02:08 PM
I also chuckle when you whacky leftists decide to charge hard on a thread.

How's that working out for you?

angelatc
05-31-2013, 02:09 PM
..... the NRLB has nothing to do with unions in and of themselves.


You do realize that the NLRB sued Beoing to keep it from moving to a non-union state, right?

UWDude
05-31-2013, 02:10 PM
you want people to believe that they can't ever get ahead unless they bully their way into a bigger paycheck.

Strawman.


My route, which involves improving your skill set is much more personally empowering.

I didn't argue with "improving your skill set"

I argued with this:


In America, the biggest pay raises tend to come from job changes. And that's true at all levels. Even Executives don't get significant salary bumps unless they move up.

remember? Sorry, not going to engage your strawmen arguments and attempts to change the subject.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 02:16 PM
Strawman.



I didn't argue with "improving your skill set"

I argued with this:


remember? Sorry, not going to engage your strawmen arguments and attempts to change the subject.


Numerous studies prove my contention that the largest salary increases come when a worker moves to a new company.

http://www.jobdig.com/articles/618/Want_a_BIG_Raise%3F_Better_look_for_a_new_job._.ht ml

All you got is bluster, Dude. Too bad there's not a market for that eh?

UWDude
05-31-2013, 02:24 PM
Numerous studies prove my contention that the largest salary increases come when a worker moves to a new company.

from your article:
(Read the survey results on Boeing engineers and technical people)

Wait, are we talking about engineers, or people working at Wal-Mart?

I'm confused, I thought this was about low-skill laborers like the types that work at Wal-Mart.

Your whole article is geared towards professionals, not polo-shirt crews at department stores.

Oh, hey, look at the title of this thread. I'll be damned.


All you got is bluster, Dude. Too bad there's not a market for that eh?

1. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. I'll let the readers decide what is true.

2. There is a great market for bluster. It's called sales and marketing.

3. LoL at you being wrong about no market for bluster.

belian78
05-31-2013, 02:31 PM
For example, call centers have on average a 90% annual turn over rate. 90%!!! What do you think the prime directive of any HR person or manager at a call center is? What do you think their managers use as the prime metric as to how good a job they are doing when it comes to vetting prospective employees? And how do interviewers try to determine future actions of a prospective employee? Why do they ask questions about the employee's past jobs, skills, and reasons for quitting? If an interviewer is trying to stop the hemorrhaging of employees, and has two resumes in front of him/her, one is a job hopper, and one shows stability, but both are pretty much the same otherwise, which do you think they will choose... ...EV-ER-Y TIME, 100% OF THE TIME?

Let's get real, and stop with the no-thought cliches about how to get ahead that do nothing for nobody.
Actually, I used to be a manager for a call center. LOL I can attest to the fact that they do not give a fuck about you or how long you are there. Do your job the way they want it done, in the time they want it done, on the days they tell you.. or they fire you and reach into the mountain of applications they have waiting. Call centers spend peanuts training their employees. The materials are already set, they put newhires into a room for a week or less, have them read packets, then sit with veteran reps to take calls. Then boom, they are themselves veteran employees.

Weston White
05-31-2013, 02:32 PM
You do realize that the NLRB sued Beoing to keep it from moving to a non-union state, right?

Is your brain overheating?

angelatc
05-31-2013, 02:33 PM
from your article:
(Read the survey results on Boeing engineers and technical people)

Wait, are we talking about engineers, or people working at Wal-Mart? I'm confused, I thought this was about low-skill laborers like the types that work at Wal-Mart. Your whole article is geared towards professionals, not polo-shirt crews at department stores. Oh, hey, look at the title of this thread. I'll be damned.




Ok, so show me studies that indicate I am wrong. Show me studies that indicate the best way to get a large increase in pay is to stay with your current employer.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 02:34 PM
Oh noes, now angela goes in for the killz! She will point out how wrong I am about bluster, and then smugly assert herself as the bigger winner in the wla mart union debate!

LoL

Say, exactly how does your 31,339 posts, constant twitters, and empty Amazon and Ebay stores lend you time to be a productive member of society, anyway? Where exactly do you work at?

Bye bye for now!

LoL

Weston White
05-31-2013, 02:34 PM
I'm perfectly comfortable with letting people know the truth. You are a union suppporter and you want people to believe that they can't ever get ahead unless they bully their way into a bigger paycheck.

My route, which involves improving your skill set is much more personally empowering.

So your "truth" is that union members require no skill-set, only the ability to "bully". An absolutely ridiculous assertion.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 02:37 PM
Actually, I used to be a manager for a call center. LOL I can attest to the fact that they do not give a fuck about you or how long you are there. Do your job the way they want it done, in the time they want it done, on the days they tell you.. or they fire you and reach into the mountain of applications they have waiting. Call centers spend peanuts training their employees. The materials are already set, they put newhires into a room for a week or less, have them read packets, then sit with veteran reps to take calls. Then boom, they are themselves veteran employees.

Depends on the call center. The call center I worked at had extensive training. It was for computer support. And it still had atrocious attrition.



Ok, so show me studies that indicate I am wrong. Show me studies that indicate the best way to get a large increase in pay is to stay with your current employer.

All you got is bluster, too bad there isn't a market for that, or you'd be rich wasting your life online all day like you do.
Hey, you turn on the troll, you get a bigger, meaner, badder troll back, because if you want bluster, I can give it to you.

Now go crawl back under your bridge. You've been out-blustered.

Buh-bye Angela! Go madly tweet and change the world, while yours passes you... buh bye!

belian78
05-31-2013, 02:38 PM
So your "truth" is that union members require no skill-set, only the ability to "bully". An absolutely ridiculous assertion.
It absolutely is not. I live in central IL which is born/bred Union, and the only union members that are skilled are the ones that have had their jobs long enough to actually learn something, jobs they've had long enough only because they are almost impossible to fire due to the union. There are generations of mouthbreathing neckbeards around here that can't add 2+2, but make $25/hr because they signed up for the union and waited for someone to retire.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 02:41 PM
Is your brain overheating?


No, but the constant poo-poohing of the facts - that the NLRB exists, it is cozier with unions than it is with employers, and the fact that they are involved in "just" settling disputes is annoying me.

They aren't just an arbritration committee - they continually push for changes that would always make life better for the unions. THey've clearly lost their independence and are now just an arm of Big Labor.

I don't know the name for it, but I get the same irritated feeling when a lefty tells me that the government doesn't want to take my guns away.

pathtofreedom
05-31-2013, 02:43 PM
You already admitted they were overpaid when you said this:
my statement makes perfect sense the government artificially drives the wages of employees barely subsidence levels.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 02:43 PM
So your "truth" is that union members require no skill-set, only the ability to "bully". An absolutely ridiculous assertion.


I think it depends on the union, but yes - a worker with more skills commands more money. The whole point of unions is protectionism.

UWDude
05-31-2013, 02:43 PM
There are generations of mouthbreathing neckbeards around here that can't add 2+2, but make $25/hr because they signed up for the union and waited for someone to retire.

why does that make you angry? And why does it matter to you? Why do you feel you are superior to them? And how realistic is your obviously hate filled assertion of a bunch of people you don't know? And why should anybody care about your obviously false and hyperbole filled anecdotes? Did they get all the chicks? Did they beat you up in high school? What's wrong with a neck-beard?

Weston White
05-31-2013, 02:45 PM
It absolutely is not. I live in central IL which is born/bred Union, and the only union members that are skilled are the ones that have had their jobs long enough to actually learn something, jobs they've had long enough only because they are almost impossible to fire due to the union. There are generations of mouthbreathing neckbeards around here that can't add 2+2, but make $25/hr because they signed up for the union and waited for someone to retire.

Say what now? You are wronging the unions for employers hiring unqualified employees and keeping those incompetent employees on throughout their probationary period? Sorry, I am so not buying that book.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 02:48 PM
Depends on the call center. The call center I worked at had extensive training. It was for computer support. And it still had atrocious attrition.



All you got is bluster, too bad there isn't a market for that, or you'd be rich wasting your life online all day like you do.
Hey, you turn on the troll, you get a bigger, meaner, badder troll back, because if you want bluster, I can give it to you.

Now go crawl back under your bridge. You've been out-blustered. Buh-bye Angela! Go madly tweet and change the world, while yours passes you... buh bye!


So, ya got nothin?

Weston White
05-31-2013, 02:48 PM
No, but the constant poo-poohing of the facts - that the NLRB exists, it is cozier with unions than it is with employers, and the fact that they are involved in "just" settling disputes is annoying me.

They aren't just an arbritration committee - they continually push for changes that would always make life better for the unions. THey've clearly lost their independence and are now just an arm of Big Labor.

I don't know the name for it, but I get the same irritated feeling when a lefty tells me that the government doesn't want to take my guns away.

Well I sort of think you are conflating political power play with union legitimacy.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 02:50 PM
Well I sort of think you are conflating political power play with union legitimacy.


I have no problem with a group of workers banding together to demand workplace reforms. But the government should not be involved.

Weston White
05-31-2013, 02:52 PM
I think it depends on the union, but yes - a worker with more skills commands more money. The whole point of unions is protectionism.

Yes, collective protection for a specific class of qualified and skilled employees under a binding contract to perform. There is nothing at all wrong, evil, or bad about that at all.

belian78
05-31-2013, 02:52 PM
Say what now? You are wronging the unions for employers hiring unqualified employees and keeping those incompetent employees on throughout their probationary period? Sorry, I am so not buying that book.
No I'm talking about drunks showing up for work drunk and hurting themselves, then getting workman's comp and still keeping their jobs because of the union. Things like that and just as bad happen all the freakin time. Union members getting caught keying the cars of contractors, knifing the tires of contractors that don't use union and still keeping their jobs. I could go on for days.

belian78
05-31-2013, 02:53 PM
why does that make you angry? And why does it matter to you? Why do you feel you are superior to them? And how realistic is your obviously hate filled assertion of a bunch of people you don't know? And why should anybody care about your obviously false and hyperbole filled anecdotes? Did they get all the chicks? Did they beat you up in high school? What's wrong with a neck-beard?

It makes me angry, because the UAW has a majority of the blame for all but a fraction of the production work leaving this area over the last 40 years or so. This area still hasn't completely recovered from CAT closing down over 80% of it's plants around here.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 02:54 PM
Yes, collective protection for a specific class of qualified and skilled employees under a binding contract to perform. There is nothing at all wrong, evil, or bad about that at all.


LOL at "skilled" employees. I'm in Detroit. It takes the skill of a monkey to be a UAW member.

Skilled workers don't need unions.

belian78
05-31-2013, 02:55 PM
LOL at "skilled" employees. I'm in Detroit. It takes the skill of a monkey to be a UAW member.
Same for the UAW members around here. To be fair, a vast majority, not all.

Weston White
05-31-2013, 03:00 PM
I have no problem with a group of workers banding together to demand workplace reforms. But the government should not be involved.

Exactly, save for when criminal acts are involved by the parties (union, employees, employers, etc.) of course. All should be left entirely to the union to file civil complaints for contract breaches (e.g., courts could order upon petition to first complete the ADR process and if still unresolved then begin discovery and move into trial).

PaulConventionWV
05-31-2013, 03:01 PM
The whole argument that you have you join a union in order to get a job is stupid then you are excepting the anarcho-socialist argument that working isn't voluntary even though it technically is.

lolwut?

Weston White
05-31-2013, 03:07 PM
No I'm talking about drunks showing up for work drunk and hurting themselves, then getting workman's comp and still keeping their jobs because of the union. Things like that and just as bad happen all the freakin time. Union members getting caught keying the cars of contractors, knifing the tires of contractors that don't use union and still keeping their jobs. I could go on for days.

You are talking about entirely separate issues there, unions are not intended to protect employees that are involved in criminal activity, and if the elected board-members of those unions are voting to financially represent employees involved in such activities, then they need to be voted out and replaced with qualified employee representatives.

Weston White
05-31-2013, 03:13 PM
Skilled workers don't need unions.

Sure, but being in a union aids in protecting their continued professional interests, including work related risks and dangerous working conditions, and to prevent their employers from trampling all over them and discarding them as if they were nothing more than a replaceable drill bit.

angelatc
05-31-2013, 03:21 PM
Sure, but being in a union aids in protecting their continued professional interests, including work related risks and dangerous working conditions, and to prevent their employers from trampling all over them and discarding them as if they were nothing more than a replaceable drill bit.

And there we have it - protectionism. You can't fire drunk stoned employees, because they aren't drill bits.

Worker safety is the responsibility of the government now. No legitimate need for union involvement there.

I live in freaking Michigan. Even the union members think the unions are a waste.

And I am just baffled by the constant berating of "evil" employers. Is that why union workers need special protections - they literally hate their employers, and want to bully them into running the company to suit the workers instead of the people who actually own it?

angelatc
05-31-2013, 03:23 PM
And I disagree that unions put the interests of their workers first. The pumber next door is a prime example. His union stopped doing residential jobs because commercial paid more. But the gaps between the jobs were longer. The union members would have preferred to accept both kinds of work, but their made a deal with another union not to compete in that market.

Protectionism. Bid rigging.

So the guy next door was out of work about half the time, thanks to his union.

Weston White
05-31-2013, 03:29 PM
And there we have it - protectionism. You can't fire drunk stoned employees, because they aren't drill bits.

Worker safety is the responsibility of the government now. No legitimate need for union involvement there.

I live in freaking Michigan. Even the union members think the unions are a waste.

And I am just baffled by the constant berating of "evil" employers. Is that why union workers need special protections - they literally hate their employers, and want to bully them into running the company to suit the workers instead of the people who actually own it?

Sure you can, employers simply need to first go through whatever disciplinary process for termination as outlined by their MOU, then once completed (including whatever appeals process), like Emerald and Trump: BAM! You're FIRED!

And no not "bully", but rather contract with them.

Tod
05-31-2013, 03:34 PM
He doesn't call unions unconstitutional. lol. He calls laws that dictate wages and who can or can't work are unconstitutional.


this ^

government interference in the right to freely associate (laws that dictate that if employees vote to be part of a union then everyone is forced to join, etc).

More RP discussion of unions in this video, starting with a question at 53:27


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mVNYqNkZU

pathtofreedom
05-31-2013, 03:41 PM
lolwut?
I have heard many arguments that you have to join a union. So what if a employer wants to set up a closed shop let them. Right to work laws dictating open shops are anti-freedom.

PaulConventionWV
05-31-2013, 03:44 PM
I have heard many arguments that you have to join a union. So what if a employer wants to set up a closed shop let them. Right to work laws dictating open shops are anti-freedom.

You've seen arguments that I have to join a union? That's funny considering I've never made any such arguments. I was really just commenting on the incoherence of your spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. It was atrocious. You can call me a grammar nazi all you want, but I don't think anyone is actually capable of understanding what the first half of that post was actually saying because it was so terrible.

cindy25
05-31-2013, 09:47 PM
if unions are not a solution to low wage de facto monopolies such as Wal Mart then what is?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html

bolil
05-31-2013, 10:57 PM
There is nothing wrong with a union. There IS something wrong with unions having the power of legitimate force at their disposal. Walmart employees are free to unionize and strike just as Walmart is free to fire them and hire a bunch of teenagers willing to 'work' for less.

I find it ironic that Walmart became the powerhouse it is with union dollars. If I had a nickel for every Merican flag wearing idgit I saw shopping at walmart, I wouldn't need to shop there anymore. Those flag shirts were made in Taiwan, btw. Working class people shop at Walmart, I do all the time. Furthermore, there are not to many businesses that will let a down and out person sleep in their parking lot for free... Walmart happens to be one of them.

Anyone that want's to force Walmart to pay their employees better is free to organize a boycott.

Cindy, some jobs just don't produce enough value of any kind to warrant a 'living wage'. The real question is why has the dollar become so fucking worthless?

Carson
05-31-2013, 11:44 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/walmart-protest-movement_n_3354735.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174551/walmart-workers-launch-first-ever-prolonged-strikes-today
Hopefully the workers get something more than the artificially subsidized wages that they get. Overall unions have been greatly weakened by right to work laws and anti-union regulations.

I wish them luck.

I've had a love hate relationship with unions most of my life. There seems to be a time for all things. Right now I'm thinking the counterfeited dollar is backing the divide and conquer principle. Well that and the loot the resources and bring in illegal labor to exploit them, but who is keeping track?

anaconda
06-01-2013, 12:10 AM
I don't see what is wrong with striking. They aren't asking for government privileges. I get that there will always be rich people but it shouldn't mean a small group of people owning the majority of the world's resources.

Striking is a voluntary libertarian authorized activity.

Ignostic?
06-01-2013, 03:27 PM
I have a good friend that works at Walmart and he's paid more than enough to survive. He's good with money, though. He recently got married and bought a house. No welfare of any sort. He's actually doing better off than just about all my friends that graduated college since he doesn't have any student loans to pay off.

Feelgood
06-01-2013, 07:06 PM
@pathtofreedom

There is not single libertarian minded, freedom loving individual, on planet earth that could or would endorse unions or strikes. They are un-Constitutional and a cancer on America. As much as I loathe Rush Limbaugh, he was absolutely right when he said that GM was nothing more then a pension/retirement company that makes cars. The unions destroyed GM.

As for Walmart, I worked there for about 6 months, about 20 years ago. One of the worst jobs I have ever had. I worked the night crew that stocked the shelves all night. People were griping all the time, of pay and hours etc. Management got wind of it, sat us all down for a meeting. They told us all straight up, we agreed to work there, and to accept the wages we were offered. No one is forcing us to work there, and we were free to quit anytime we chose. I stood up, told him he was absolutely right, and thanked him. I then walked to the back of the store, clocked out, left and never looked back.

Bottom line, no one makes them work there, if they dont like their working conditions, pay or anything else they are free to quit and leave. I don't really want to hear any more of your bleeding heart, liberal dribble. Your posts make me want to puke. I hope if they do strike, they ALL lose their jobs. I hope to God, the Walmart CEO does to them, exactly what Reagan did to the ATC's that went on strike. FIRE THEM ALL!

angelatc
06-01-2013, 07:11 PM
if unions are not a solution to low wage de facto monopolies such as Wal Mart then what is?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html

I don't read things on the Huffington Post - they're a liberal site that doesn't deserve traffic. But the answer to the question is Immigration control and import tariffs.

UWDude
06-01-2013, 07:14 PM
@pathtofreedom

There is not single libertarian minded, freedom loving individual, on planet earth that could or would endorse unions or strikes. They are un-Constitutional and a cancer on America. As much as I loathe Rush Limbaugh, he was absolutely right when he said that GM was nothing more then a pension/retirement company that makes cars. The unions destroyed GM.

As for Walmart, I worked there for about 6 months, about 20 years ago. One of the worst jobs I have ever had. I worked the night crew that stocked the shelves all night. People were griping all the time, of pay and hours etc. Management got wind of it, sat us all down for a meeting. They told us all straight up, we agreed to work there, and to accept the wages we were offered. No one is forcing us to work there, and we were free to quit anytime we chose. I stood up, told him he was absolutely right, and thanked him. I then walked to the back of the store, clocked out, left and never looked back.

Bottom line, no one makes them work there, if they dont like their working conditions, pay or anything else they are free to quit and leave. I don't really want to hear any more of your bleeding heart, liberal dribble. Your posts make me want to puke. I hope if they do strike, they ALL lose their jobs. I hope to God, the Walmart CEO does to them, exactly what Reagan did to the ATC's that went on strike. FIRE THEM ALL!




And did your family starve when you just up and quit your job?

... because people with rent and responsibilities don't just up and walk away from jobs.

angelatc
06-01-2013, 07:14 PM
I have heard many arguments that you have to join a union. So what if a employer wants to set up a closed shop let them. Right to work laws dictating open shops are anti-freedom.


Yeah, the unions tried that spin in Michigan, and even the liberals laughed.

anaconda
06-01-2013, 08:15 PM
@pathtofreedom

There is not single libertarian minded, freedom loving individual, on planet earth that could or would endorse unions or strikes. They are un-Constitutional and a cancer on America.

Why can't a group of citizens decide to do, or not do, something in unison? You don't have to buy their product or service. And, how are unions & strikes "unconstitutional?"

I would imagine that GM's board of directors and a dose of government policy killed the company.

Michigan11
06-01-2013, 08:39 PM
jeez people, looks like we fell for another side show again.

Debating unions of workers is like unions of gays, none of it affects us.

Let' move on.

Ender
06-01-2013, 08:43 PM
Why can't a group of citizens decide to do, or not do, something in unison? You don't have to buy their product or service. And, how are unions & strikes "unconstitutional?"

I would imagine that GM's board of directors and a dose of government policy killed the company.

Obviously you do not understand what a union is. Here's part of an article that tells the truth:



A History of Labor Unions From Colonial Times to 2009
by Morgan Reynolds
An Economic Conclusion

While the basic facts of labor history are well known to industrial relations specialists and labor historians, their proper interpretation is not. Most labor historians believe that what is good for unions is good for all labor. This belief underlies pro-union statist interventions in markets for labor but is entirely false, as economic reasoning and evidence prove beyond reasonable doubt.

First, when labor combinations or cartels capture monopoly control over whom employers can hire and impose higher wage rates, the number of jobs available in these companies and industries declines. This is the simple result of the law of demand: when unions raise the price of labor, employers purchase less of it. While an increase in labor productivity can partially offset higher labor cost, labor productivity cannot be raised cheaply or it would have been done already. Unions clearly are an anticompetitive force in labor markets.

Second, workers priced out of work by unions remain unemployed or obtain jobs at nonunion companies. A larger labor supply depresses wage rates there, so union wage rates come partially at the expense of lower nonunion wages.

Third, cartels flourish only where rewards are high and organizational costs low. Highly paid craft workers (known as the “aristocrats of labor”) organized historically instead of “downtrodden,” low-wage workers because they met two conditions:

• Union wage rates often decreased employment relatively little because demand for skilled workers was “inelastic,” that is, employment levels were relatively “insensitive” to changes in wage rates, at least in the short run.
• Craft workers also could organize at low cost because they were few in number, had a common mindset, low turnover, and few or geographically concentrated employers.

Many early economists who sympathized with unions knew unionization could succeed only if restricted to a minority of workers but they endorsed unions as a device to benefit a visible group and ignored the consequences for everybody else, especially wage earners outside the unions. These economists probably wanted to gain a hearing rather than being dismissed as “mean spirited.” That left the field to a handful of truth-tellers like W.H. Hutt and Sylvester Petro. Ludwig von Mises set the standard for advocating the blunt truth with no bow toward labor mythology: “No one has ever succeeded in the effort to demonstrate that unionism could improve the conditions and raise the standard of living of all those eager to earn wages.”

Perhaps the most astounding feature revealed by this history of American unionism is that U.S. labor markets continue to work as well as they do. Despite all the union privileges and immunities granted and a never-ending stream of federal labor interventions, the famous flexibility of U.S. labor markets remains, a truly remarkable fact. And the vast majority of American workers remain stubbornly nonunion despite the best efforts of labor unions, the federal government, its court intellectuals and mass media.



You'll find the rest here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds21.1.html

pathtofreedom
06-01-2013, 08:43 PM
@pathtofreedom

You are obviously a clueless douche, and a plant. There is not single libertarian minded, freedom loving individual, on planet earth that could or would endorse unions or strikes.
How am I a douche? Choosing to strike or join a union is not anti-freedom at all. Unions enhance people's freedom and they are example of self-regulation in the market place. People would "say without labor laws how would we have x, y, or z?" I always say private unions provide those things.
They are un-Constitutional and a cancer on America. As much as I loathe Rush Limbaugh, he was absolutely right when he said that GM was nothing more then a pension/retirement company that makes cars. The unions destroyed GM.
The constitution does not prohibit unions. The constitution allows freedom of speech and freedom of petition which are basic human rights. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean its unconstitutional. I was glad to see General Motors fail they are a crap company who has wronged the world they created the Nazi empire and destroyed valuable electric rail systems nationwide. Fuck General motors.
As for Walmart, I worked there for about 6 months, about 20 years ago. One of the worst jobs I have ever had. I worked the night crew that stocked the shelves all night. People were griping all the time, of pay and hours etc. Management got wind of it, sat us all down for a meeting. They told us all straight up, we agreed to work there, and to accept the wages we were offered. No one is forcing us to work there, and we were free to quit anytime we chose. I stood up, told him he was absolutely right, and thanked him. I then walked to the back of the store, clocked out, left and never looked back.
Even you admit the conditions there are crap. Nobody makes you work there but there is nothing wrong with wanting better conditions. You can also choose to risk it and strike.
Bottom line, no one makes them work there, if they dont like their working conditions, pay or anything else they are free to quit and leave. I don't really want to hear any more of your bleeding heart, liberal dribble. Your posts make me want to puke. I hope if they do strike, they ALL lose their jobs. I hope to God, the Walmart CEO does to them, exactly what Reagan did to the ATC's that went on strike. FIRE THEM ALL!
Why would want people to be fired? People are free to leave they are also free to strike or form a union. Not everybody wants what is shoved down there throat. Not everybody wants to work for more than 10 hours a day. Not everyone wants to be a worker drone. I am not a "liberal" in the modern sense modern liberals are just fascists who have hijacked that term.

Ender
06-01-2013, 08:50 PM
Why would want people to be fired? People are free to leave they are also free to strike or form a union. Not everybody wants what is shoved down there throat. Not everybody wants to work for more than 10 hours a day. Not everyone wants to be a worker drone. I am not a "liberal" in the modern sense modern liberals are just fascists who have hijacked that term.

Unions were originally started by the "leftists" of their day. The unions were mafia-type organizations- they still are, except now they have gov approval.

pathtofreedom
06-01-2013, 08:56 PM
Unions were originally started by the "leftists" of their day. The unions were mafia-type organizations- they still are, except now they have gov approval.
Erm ok. How are they mafia type organizations? They are codified by government and some get government privileges sounds like how corporations are codified and some get government privileges.

Fox McCloud
06-01-2013, 09:04 PM
Unions are not part of the problem they are an example of market forces at work.

In theory, yes? In current practice? Hell no. When a company is forced to deal with a union and HAS to listen to proposal's that the union puts forth and consider them, then that's not market forces; that's giving the union power to force companies' hands.

If unions weren't protected by the NLRB and government regulations, then I'd be ok with them, but they're highly sheltered at the moment.

UWDude
06-01-2013, 09:57 PM
In theory, yes? In current practice? Hell no. When a company is forced to deal with a union and HAS to listen to proposal's that the union puts forth and consider them, then that's not market forces; that's giving the union power to force companies' hands.

If unions weren't protected by the NLRB and government regulations, then I'd be ok with them, but they're highly sheltered at the moment.

Companies and corporations are sheltered too. Owners and shareholders don't get sentenced for manslaughter if their cheap or poorly maintained machines chew up one of their workers. They don't personally get sued if their oil rig explodes and destroys the gulf of Mexico. They don't have to pay anything if their products give people cancer.

anaconda
06-01-2013, 10:51 PM
Obviously you do not understand what a union is.

Perhaps you would like to retract your impulsive and condescending statement.

I am aware that unions create unemployment at the margins, raise labor costs to producers, lower producer output, and reduce social welfare inasmuch as we define this as the sum of consumer and producer surplus. Which seems to be the essence of your Lew Rockwell article.

As long as a union does not use force to prevent producers from hiring non-union labor, use force to limit mobility to or from union membership, or conspire with governments there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. Unions can be peaceful and voluntary associations. I don't like them much, but neither do I like smoking or certain kinds of music. People are free to sell themselves and their labor as they see fit, and may discriminate regarding their associations with coworkers.

You are free to vote with your consumer dollars.

And the UAW can strike until all of the auto manufacturing moves to South Korea and Japan, and the only job for the U.S. auto workers is at the new Walmart that opens in their town.

Ender
06-02-2013, 10:24 AM
Perhaps you would like to retract your impulsive and condescending statement.

I am aware that unions create unemployment at the margins, raise labor costs to producers, lower producer output, and reduce social welfare inasmuch as we define this as the sum of consumer and producer surplus. Which seems to be the essence of your Lew Rockwell article.

As long as a union does not use force to prevent producers from hiring non-union labor, use force to limit mobility to or from union membership, or conspire with governments there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. Unions can be peaceful and voluntary associations. I don't like them much, but neither do I like smoking or certain kinds of music. People are free to sell themselves and their labor as they see fit, and may discriminate regarding their associations with coworkers.

You are free to vote with your consumer dollars.

And the UAW can strike until all of the auto manufacturing moves to South Korea and Japan, and the only job for the U.S. auto workers is at the new Walmart that opens in their town.

My response is neither impulsive or condescending- I respect you- but you are wrong about unions.

Unions began as mafia types and they remain the same. The only difference is now they are "legal"- which does not mean lawful.

All unions use force- just try to work at a unionized business without joining. Unions do not increase wages overall and they help destroy the economy. The one reason Walmart is picked on continually, even though they operate no differently than Costco, etc. is because they will not unionize.

In a free market society, a worker can leave a low paying job and go to a better one- the owners of businesses will increase pay if they need good workers. It is always product that drives the financial state of a country, not unions or fractionalized banking. These are manipulations for the few- not the many.

Right to work states are much closer to real freedom than states that obey unions.

Keith and stuff
06-02-2013, 10:49 AM
My response is neither impulsive or condescending- I respect you- but you are wrong about unions.

All unions use force- just try to work at a unionized business without joining. Unions do not increase wages overall and they help destroy the economy. The one reason Walmart is picked on continually, even though they operate no differently than Costco, etc. is because they will not unionize.

Right to work states are much closer to real freedom than states that obey unions.
Walmart and Costco aren't even the same type of retail business. You likely meant Sam's Club and Costco. Even then, I've never met a unionized employee at any sam's or Costco I've even been in. I understand that some Costco workers are unionized but the vast majority aren't and Costco works to dissuade workers from unionizing. Anyway, Costco pays workers much better than Sam's!

pathtofreedom
06-02-2013, 11:02 AM
My response is neither impulsive or condescending- I respect you- but you are wrong about unions.

Unions began as mafia types and they remain the same. The only difference is now they are "legal"- which does not mean lawfuly
You fail to explain why they are mafia type organization. They began as people wanting to reject the poor conditions of the 19th century mostly for the purpose of less working hours. Codifying an organization does not mean there origins are government.
All unions use force- just try to work at a unionized business without joining. Unions do not increase wages overall and they help destroy the economy. The one reason Walmart is picked on continually, even though they operate no differently than Costco, etc. is because they will not unionize.
They don't use force. You can always choose not to join a unionized business employment is voluntary. IF you accept that you have to join a union you accept the anarcho-syndicalist argument that. Unions should be able to form closed shops.
In a free market society, a worker can leave a low paying job and go to a better one- the owners of businesses will increase pay if they need good workers. It is always product that drives the financial state of a country, not unions or fractionalized banking. These are manipulations for the few- not the many.
Unions emerged during periods of free markets. Fractional reserve banking emerged in free banking systems particularly under the age of the goldsmiths or in the free banking of the United States. Disliking something does not make it non free market.
Right to work states are much closer to real freedom than states that obey unions.
Right to work laws are a form of government intervention and anti-freedom. You guys are funny your descriptions of unions being evil or monopolous reminds me of the leftist description of capitalists.

torchbearer
06-02-2013, 11:21 AM
Right to work laws are a form of government intervention and anti-freedom. You guys are funny your descriptions of unions being evil or monopolous reminds me of the leftist description of capitalists.

sorry, i have a right to work without a group of thugs demand i pay them tribute to work at a company they don't own.

angelatc
06-02-2013, 11:32 AM
Companies and corporations are sheltered too. Owners and shareholders don't get sentenced for manslaughter if their cheap or poorly maintained machines chew up one of their workers. They don't personally get sued if their oil rig explodes and destroys the gulf of Mexico. They don't have to pay anything if their products give people cancer.


That's not true either. Enron executtives went to jail. Wellpoint executives went to jail. Stanford Financial Group exectives are either on trial or in jail. An executive in AU Optroincs group was found guilty of price fixing.

I can go on and on, but there's no point. LIberals create talking points, and facts stand no chance in their wake.

angelatc
06-02-2013, 11:33 AM
Right to work laws are a form of government intervention and anti-freedom. You guys are funny your descriptions of unions being evil or monopolous reminds me of the leftist description of capitalists.

LOL - again, the unions tried that line in Michigan and even the liberals laughed.

angelatc
06-02-2013, 11:37 AM
Why would want people to be fired? People are free to leave they are also free to strike or form a union. Not everybody wants what is shoved down there throat. Not everybody wants to work for more than 10 hours a day. Not everyone wants to be a worker drone.

Oh, the "I should get everything I want!" position. Fact is, those people have every right to start a competing organization that creates a work environment they approve of. But they probably don't want to work that hard, either?

ReasonableThinker
06-02-2013, 11:47 AM
The problem is that Unions don't go far enough. But before I get into all of htat, all of you Libertarian Capitalists must admit that Walmart is a creation of the State. If it weren't for paved roads and State-subsidized transportation then such a company could not exist, as no private road owner would allow for giant semi trucks to ravage their road every day for Walmart's sake. So localized retail spots, run by local people, would naturally take over where this artificial 'monopoly' known as Walmart left off. But regardless, a worker ought to have the right to own the means of his production and the right to elect their own management. The system we have no nicely falls into the category of 'slave wagery.' Introducing democracy into the workplace creates for a healthier, cleaner, and more economically feasible environment.




Unions began as mafia types and they remain the same. The only difference is now they are "legal"- which does not mean lawful.

One could say the same about the standard hierarchal corporations we have today, they evolved out of slavery and Neo-Feudalism. You could work your whole life, treated like garbage, never advancing in the corporation to a significant level, and basically work for 10 hours a day to put some extra cash into a wealthy capitalist's pocket. Whereas, companies like Union Cab are able to own the means of production and make a ton of money working a simple job like taxi driver. No parasitic capitalist elite needed.



sorry, i have a right to work without a group of thugs demand i pay them tribute to work at a company they don't own.

Once you work at a company, you ought to own it. You should become a shareholder and have an equal amount of power as everyone else at your level. Unions were evolving towards worker-cooperative prior to State intervening "Union busters" that mucked it all up. But this would be the end result if we could achieve such a thing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYsFsInxhyc




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

pathtofreedom
06-02-2013, 11:47 AM
LOL - again, the unions tried that line in Michigan and even the liberals laughed.
sorry but laws restricting a businesses and employees right to contract is anti-freedom period. Businesses should be able to form closed shops.

EBounding
06-02-2013, 11:47 AM
Right to work laws are a form of government intervention and anti-freedom. You guys are funny your descriptions of unions being evil or monopolous reminds me of the leftist description of capitalists.

No, RTW laws reduce government intervention because they restrict the already existing legal force of forced unionism. If you don’t join the union in some states, the government forces the employer to deduct the equivalent union dues from your paycheck and give it to the union. How is that freedom?

pathtofreedom
06-02-2013, 11:50 AM
No, RTW laws reduce government intervention because they restrict the already existing legal force of forced unionism. If you don’t join the union in some states, the government forces the employer to deduct the equivalent union dues from your paycheck and give it to the union. How is that freedom?
How is it pro-freedom to require an open shop? Businesses and unions should have the ability to form a closed shop. Also I don't support government intervention protecting unions or any other organization.

ReasonableThinker
06-02-2013, 11:54 AM
@pathtofreedom

You are obviously a clueless douche, and a plant. There is not single libertarian minded, freedom loving individual, on planet earth that could or would endorse unions or strikes. They are un-Constitutional and a cancer on America. As much as I loathe Rush Limbaugh, he was absolutely right when he said that GM was nothing more then a pension/retirement company that makes cars. The unions destroyed GM.


For one, you are not a Libertarian. You're a Libertarian Capitalist that has an extremely tenuous connection to classical Libertarianism at best. Two, how the hell is a union strike anti-libertarian when the first libertarians were pretty much all unionized and constantly striking? Regardless, how is that even against libertarian capitalism? If you live in a neighborhood where you only have a few options to choose from concerning work, and if those companies are abusing their power in some way, then strikes are totally permissible. The fact is, if you wish to have someone work for you, then they are not a slave or indentured servant. They have a right to say how the company ought to be run, and collect the means of production just like anyone else. That's what the original free marketeers believed at least.

ReasonableThinker
06-02-2013, 12:04 PM
Here's another success story of Market Socialism for you sheep. Oh wow look at this, a bunch of workers voluntarily getting together and thriving. And they're even making a decent wage:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYasp49_tyY


BUT HOW WILL THEY EVER MANAGE WITHOUT A CAPITALIST ELITE RAPING THEM EVERYDAY?!?!?!?!?!!

ReasonableThinker
06-02-2013, 12:11 PM
Private business has the right to hire any contractor to handle their labor force, be it a union or a contract house or an HR department.

Prove it. They don't have a right to shit. Companies like Walmart only survive due to the State's policies and in the absence of a State they would go under in a day due to lack of access to transportation. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a State-sponsored transportation system that allows for corporate conglomerates to wipe the fuck out of every single small business and then turn around and say "OH WELL. ITS DA FREE MURKET AT WORK." That is complete bullshit. Walmart exists and wiped out tons of companies because we allowed it with our tax money, the logical conclusion is that we should have a say in how it's run. And in my opinion, that would mean turning it into a worker co-operative similar to Mondragon Corporation in Spain (which has over 83,000 employees and is an international company). This will 1) make workers happier 2) help end wealth inequality, which is something even Austrians admit is a problem 3) pay the workers more money since they won't have to be wage slaves to some capitalist asshole for 40 years of their life.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 12:12 PM
That's not true either. Enron executtives went to jail. Wellpoint executives went to jail. Stanford Financial Group exectives are either on trial or in jail. An executive in AU Optroincs group was found guilty of price fixing.

I can go on and on, but there's no point. LIberals create talking points, and facts stand no chance in their wake.


No you can't go on and on... ...and these executives are in jail for financial misdeed and misleading shareholders, not for being cheap and refusing to upgrade safety equipment or forcing... (Oh whoops, I forgot, nobody can force a worker to do anything according to anti-unionists, but somehow unions can force owners to do things) ...or forcing workers to work massive overtime in dangerous conditions that results in loss of life or limb. No executive has ever gone to jail for that. And that is what we are talking about, not financial tricks. We are talking about the safety of workers and the environment. (how many BP execs went to jail for Deep Horizon, remember 3 people were killed in that accident, and it call came down to a $20,000 upgrade that was ignored)


Say, what is the last good thing unions have done, anti-unionists?

40 hour work week? <<< OH noes! People should be allowed to work 80 hours a week for slave wages "if they want"
time and a half for over time? <<<how dare companies be forced to pay time and a half for making their workers work overtime! Freedom has been ruined for Mr. Pennybags!
Ending sweatshop child labor? <<Why does the state get to mandate what age children should be allowed to work? Freedom is dead! damn those unions and their child protection racket!
Requiring safety for workers? <<If a company wants to save money by putting its workers at risk of death and injury every day, it shouldn't be the state's business! Now get back in that coal mine tunnel, and never mind the rotting support beams!

EBounding
06-02-2013, 12:15 PM
How is it pro-freedom to require an open shop? Businesses and unions should have the ability to form a closed shop. Also I don't support government intervention protecting unions or any other organization.

It sounds like you're assuming that businesses and unions voluntarily joined together to form a closed shop. That is not the case since the union has the benefit of the government force to monopolize the company's labor force. I don't really know of a business that would voluntarily restrict it's hiring choices though...

Right now, any union recognized by the Federal Government (NLR Act) is given the monopoly of labor for that company and can force employees to pay dues or fire them. This labor contract was not made out of free association; it was made under the threat of the government gun. Even if an employer and an employee have a private agreement, a third party (the union) can intervene by going to the federal government and demand the employee pay dues. I don't see how that's freedom.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 12:20 PM
sorry, i have a right to work without a group of thugs demand i pay them tribute to work at a company they don't own.

If you don't like it, don't work there.
If you don't like it, you can just leave.

Unions negotiated a contract with the company, and part of that contract is they determine who works in the company now. Too bad. Company should have treated its workers better before they striked and unionized.

Costco doesn't have this problem. Do you know why? Because they learned from history; treat your employees right in the first place, or risk losing control of them to a labor union.

Such is life.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 12:27 PM
It sounds like you're assuming that businesses and unions voluntarily joined together to form a closed shop. That is not the case since the union has the benefit of the government force...

How so? How often are the police lining up and forcing unionists into their sit-ins? How often are police coming in and enforcing picket lines? Where is this "force" coming from? If you look at history, government "force" REAL FORCE, not the baby force you guys talk about, REAL FORCE, like cops with guns and the sanction of pinkertons, has been anti-union.


Right now, any union recognized by the Federal Government (NLR Act)

Not true, not any union. Not true.


is given the monopoly of labor

Monopoly? How is that? Another company can open its doors and try to hire non-union workers, happens all the time. How is that a monopoly?


for that company and can force employees to pay dues or fire them.

Negotiated in union contracts. If the company didn't want that, it should have just kept letting its workers strike and tried to run on scabs. No force. Companies are just being forced to uphold their contracts. Not all shops are closed shop, and not all union contracts require all workers to pay dues.

torchbearer
06-02-2013, 12:36 PM
If you don't like it, don't work there.
If you don't like it, you can just leave.

Unions negotiated a contract with the company, and part of that contract is they determine who works in the company now. Too bad. Company should have treated its workers better before they striked and unionized.

Costco doesn't have this problem. Do you know why? Because they learned from history; treat your employees right in the first place, or risk losing control of them to a labor union.

Such is life.

the union doesn't own THE FUCKING COMPANY!
they have become nothing but a gang of thieves.
i'm glad we ran their asses out of our state.
our standard of living has gone up.
the only company still plagued with the thieves in this state is P&G, and then, p&G ends up abusing temp agency work, and the union doesn't stand up for the worker, it stands up for the old timers, to protect their asses at the expense of the low paid workers.
every place the union has touched in this state became a crap plant, with crap production, and protective circles of privileged paid employees who did no work.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 12:38 PM
Fact is, anti-unionists have simplistic world models, where they actually think strikes are just street theater, and that a company can run on scabs, just "fire them all and replace them".

Strikes are a real world way, free market driven way, for workers to band together and demand higher wages based upon their collective value. Just like one page from a book is worth far less than all the pages together, so too are workers worth less singly then as a whole.

And when workers go on strike, they are in no way obliged, by any sense of the word "freedom" to come back to work, just because they "agreed to work for a certain price when they were hired". They may have agreed at the beginning, but now it is time for a raise.

And when they risk their livelihoods to strike, you bet your damn ass they aren't just going to walk back to the negotiating table with their bosses and play softball with them. Going on strike is not a joke, it's not a game, and it's not a vacation. It is an incredibly vexing and stressful decision. And you guys expect these workers to play nice with their managers after their managers do anything but with them.

No, striking is the display of power and worth of the whole of the workforce in a company. And they can, and do use that power. And more power to them.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 12:41 PM
the union doesn't own THE FUCKING COMPANY!

The union had to at one point negotatied the terms of working at the company. If you don;t like, it, go work at a non-union company. There are plenty of them. Whether the union owns the company or not is irrelevant.


they have become nothing but a gang of thieves.

empty cliche


i'm glad we ran their asses out of our state.

We? We who?


our standard of living has gone up.

Oh? Really? What state? And since when has the standard of living gone up anywhere in the United States? (LoL, Louisiana)


the only company still plagued with the thieves in this state is P&G, and then, p&G ends up abusing temp agency work, and the union doesn't stand up for the worker, it stands up for the old timers, to protect their asses at the expense of the low paid workers.
every place the union has touched in this state became a crap plant, with crap production, and protective circles of privileged paid employees who did no work.

I sense.... ....conflict within you. Join the dark side... and know the TRUE POWER OF THE WORKER!

torchbearer
06-02-2013, 12:56 PM
The union had to at one point negotatied the terms of working at the company. If you don;t like, it, go work at a non-union company. There are plenty of them. Whether the union owns the company or not is irrelevant.


empty cliche



We? We who?


Oh? Really? What state? And since when has the standard of living gone up anywhere in the United States? (LoL, Louisiana)



I sense.... ....conflict within you. Join the dark side... and know the TRUE POWER OF THE WORKER!

the union uses temp workers as a way to avoid their own work.
they use them as slaves at p&g. its disgusting.
but if you went to afco, every worker is treated with dignity by the company, and every man contributes or gets fired. non-union.
how about you come over to the true power of voluntary work for voluntary pay.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 12:58 PM
but if you went to afco, every worker is treated with dignity by the company, and every man contributes or gets fired. non-union.


Then work at Afco. Big deal. Free market at work. You don't have to work a union job. It's pretty simple, isn't it?

torchbearer
06-02-2013, 01:00 PM
Then work at Afco. Big deal. Free market at work. You don't have to work a union job. It's pretty simple, isn't it?

well, that is what happened in louisiana.
Afco got the best workers, and p&g turnover keeps them from keeping up with quotas.
the non-union plants are creating bigger wages for the most workers, and the last union plants are proving their model as a failure.
our standard of living is booming, in what was one of the poorest states.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 01:03 PM
well, that is what happened in louisiana.
Afco got the best workers, and p&g turnover keeps them from keeping up with quotas.
the non-union plants are creating bigger wages for the most workers, and the last union plants are proving their model as a failure.


Then what is the fucking problem? The union shops are failing. Sucks to be P&G, which is too big for its britches anyway. MAybe P&G should try to negotiate competitive wages to try and bring in Afco workers, (if what you say is true). Surely the unions are not the ones demanding pay be uncompetitive with non-union shops.

Ender
06-02-2013, 04:17 PM
I am amazed that so few people on a Ron Paul forum understand Constitutional law or real capitalism.

Real capitalism is NOT corporatism or mercantilism- this is what we primarily experience today and was the real reason for the Revolutionary War.

Real capitalism is product driven: you make a product- if people like it you keep on making it. The price goes down and salaries go up. If I make a bad product, nobody buys and I'd better start another kind of business. I am not bailed out and people aren't forced to join an organization in order to work.

Right to work states promote everyone's right to a job without having to pay dues or join unwanted organizations. This is called FREEDOM.

If I am forced to join a union and have dues taken out of my paycheck without my consent, how is that any different than the British making the colonists buy only one brand of tea and at their price? How is it any different than the British taxing the Scots against their will?

pathtofreedom
06-02-2013, 04:33 PM
I am amazed that so few people on a Ron Paul forum understand Constitutional law or real capitalism
I quite like Ron Paul even if I disagree with him on a small number of issues. The constitution is meaningless several supreme court cases as well as other things have proven this.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." from Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 "Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper" - George Bush
famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SenateReport93-549.htm
Real capitalism is NOT corporatism or mercantilism- this is what we primarily experience today and was the real reason for the Revolutionary War.
What does this have to with anything? No one advocates the system we have today. Actually the revolutionary war was caused by the colonies being forced to give up colonial scrip and being forced onto a gold standard.
Real capitalism is product driven: you make a product- if people like it you keep on making it. The price goes down and salaries go up. If I make a bad product, nobody buys and I'd better start another kind of business. I am not bailed out and people aren't forced to join an organization in order to work.
I wish people would stop throwing around the words capitalism or socialism and being as both word have lost their meaning. I prefer the term free market. Capitalism is marxist term and libertarians will sound marxist when they throw that around "it is not real capitalism man" vs " the soviet union was not real communism". I oppose bail outs how ever no one is forced to join a union you can work for someone else.
Right to work states promote everyone's right to a job without having to pay dues or join unwanted organizations. This is called FREEDOM.
No it is not this is the government intervening in the market restricting the right of contract. That is called government intervention.
If I am forced to join a union and have dues taken out of my paycheck without my consent, how is that any different than the British making the colonists buy only one brand of tea and at their price? How is it any different than the British taxing the Scots against their will?
Simple you can work for someone who has an open shop. Either Employment is voluntary or not. If we accept that employment is voluntary so too is joining a union.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 05:37 PM
If I am forced....

when you have to work for someone, for crap pay and unsafe conditions, it is not forced, because you can leave and go work somewhere else.

But when you have to work for someone for better pay and safe conditions, but pay just part of that better pay for union dues, it is not forced, because you can leave and go work somewhere else.

See how that works?

Irrational hatred of unions.



Real capitalism is NOT corporatism or mercantilism- this is what we primarily experience today and was the real reason for the Revolutionary War.

who cares about this philosophical drivel, and what bearing does it have on unions? Are we going to talk about reality, or some kind of libertopia that exists only in your mind...

I always find it amazing that people say "this isn't real capitalism". OK. I agree. But why, since it is not real capitalism, are you taking the side of the people who benefit the most form the cronyism and privilege of wealth?

UWDude
06-02-2013, 05:43 PM
It makes me angry, because the UAW has a majority of the blame for all but a fraction of the production work leaving this area over the last 40 years or so. This area still hasn't completely recovered from CAT closing down over 80% of it's plants around here.

So, umm, why do you care if all production work left, all it was doing was hiring lazy neck beards anyway.

And it's always the greedy unions fault, not the poor victimized shareholders and executives faults, who are always having to sacrifice for the good of their workers.

Give me a fucking break.

pcosmar
06-02-2013, 06:19 PM
if you're going to work at walmart you may as well just collect food stamps, seriously. Jobs like that are for teenagers.

It is one of the few employers here. and one of the largest employers outside of the State. My wife works there part time.
She is one of those folks that spend most of the day refolding tables of clothes that are on the shelves. and putting stuff out on those shelve for folks to shop through.

Not entirely unskilled. She had managed Store in the Keys for years.Walmart pays fair money,, defending on position. Generally starting anywhere is higher than minimum. And they offer employees benefits and bonuses,, which is also fair.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 06:22 PM
It is one of the few employers here. and one of the largest employers outside of the State. My wife works there part time.
She is one of those folks that spend most of the day refolding tables of clothes that are on the shelves. and putting stuff out on those shelve for folks to shop through.

Not entirely unskilled. She had managed Store in the Keys for years.Walmart pays fair money,, defending on position. Generally starting anywhere is higher than minimum. And they offer employees benefits and bonuses,, which is also fair.

Warrior_of_Freedom is a better person than your wife, and I am sure he will be glad to tell his story of hard work and success, how he has always been the best employee ever, and I am also sure he will forget to mention any privilege and instead attribute it to his superior personality and intellect. I can't wait to listen to his narcissistic masturbation.

Zippyjuan
06-02-2013, 08:04 PM
I am amazed that so few people on a Ron Paul forum understand Constitutional law or real capitalism.

Real capitalism is NOT corporatism or mercantilism- this is what we primarily experience today and was the real reason for the Revolutionary War.

Real capitalism is product driven: you make a product- if people like it you keep on making it. The price goes down and salaries go up. If I make a bad product, nobody buys and I'd better start another kind of business. I am not bailed out and people aren't forced to join an organization in order to work.

Right to work states promote everyone's right to a job without having to pay dues or join unwanted organizations. This is called FREEDOM.

If I am forced to join a union and have dues taken out of my paycheck without my consent, how is that any different than the British making the colonists buy only one brand of tea and at their price? How is it any different than the British taxing the Scots against their will?

What about the "free rider" problem? In an open shop, a non- union worker gets the same benefits (usually) of a union worker without paying to support the union which helped achieve those benefits.

BAllen
06-02-2013, 08:10 PM
Here's another success story of Market Socialism for you sheep. Oh wow look at this, a bunch of workers voluntarily getting together and thriving. And they're even making a decent wage:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYasp49_tyY


BUT HOW WILL THEY EVER MANAGE WITHOUT A CAPITALIST ELITE RAPING THEM EVERYDAY?!?!?!?!?!!

Where's the sound?

silverhandorder
06-02-2013, 08:28 PM
What about the "free rider" problem? In an open shop, a non- union worker gets the same benefits (usually) of a union worker without paying to support the union which helped achieve those benefits.

It exists. This would be for the union and management to figure out. Do you think there needs to be a law?

UWDude
06-02-2013, 09:13 PM
It exists. This would be for the union and management to figure out. Do you think there needs to be a law?

They already do figure it out, it is one of the contract points. Not all shops are closed. But if a union is striking, and they say we want the shop closed, management says "no", unions say "fine, we aren't working until you say 'yes'", management says "fine we don't need you"... ..and then 3 weeks later, as they lose milions per day, decide they actually do. That is how these things are decided.

No need for a law, just contract enforcement, which is one of the prime duties of government.

GunnyFreedom
06-02-2013, 09:18 PM
One thing this would signal is the onset of inflation.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 09:20 PM
One thing this would signal is the onset of inflation.

So junk in Wal-Mart goes up 10%. It's not the end of the world. Fred Meyer, Albertsons and Safeway are unionized. It's not the end of the world, but it is the end of Wal-Mart sucking off the tit of government and paying its workers crap trying to "stay competitive" with places that pay their workers better wages.

silverhandorder
06-02-2013, 09:22 PM
So junk in wal mart goes up 10%. It's not the end of the world. Fred Meyer, Albertsons and Safeway are unionized. It's not the end of the world, but it is the end of wal-mart sucking off the tit of government and paying its workers crap trying to "stay competitive" with places that pay their workers better wages.
Never heard of them. Where are they based?

UWDude
06-02-2013, 09:25 PM
Fred Meyer is a super store competing with Wal mart, west of the Appalachians
Safeway and Albertsons are very large grocery store chains.
Costco is a large warehouse store that bases its value on buying in bulk, and it pays its employees very well, while still remaining competitive with Sam's Club, Wal-Mart's version of Costco (except with pittance pay for its employees)

silverhandorder
06-02-2013, 09:30 PM
What unions operate in those stores?

UWDude
06-02-2013, 09:36 PM
What unions operate in those stores?


www.google.com

silverhandorder
06-02-2013, 09:42 PM
www.google.com

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226211323AA4zg8F

Seems that Costco is not a union company.

UWDude
06-02-2013, 09:46 PM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226211323AA4zg8F

Seems that Costco is not a union company.

Never said it was.

But it still pays its employees well, and keeps its prices low.

It has already been mentioned in this thread a couple of times Costco is not union.

oyarde
06-02-2013, 10:04 PM
My only concern about wal mart not being open would be that if those shoppers found the few places I go. That would be a bummer, no more in and out quickly . I alreAdy hardly buy anything , that might cure me from the rest .

silverhandorder
06-02-2013, 10:15 PM
http://www.ufcw.org/tag/fred-meyer/

Problems between management and union.

pathtofreedom
06-03-2013, 01:31 AM
Unions are evil and monopolous
Unions took are jobs
Unions are evil
Unions are greedy
In order to have freedom we need to regulate unions more
Sounds like your typical progressive just replace the word union with capitalist.

otherone
06-03-2013, 05:20 AM
The problem is that Unions don't go far enough. But before I get into all of htat, all of you Libertarian Capitalists must admit that Walmart is a creation of the State. If it weren't for paved roads and State-subsidized transportation then such a company could not exist

Eliminate welfare, food stamps, and medicaid and see how Walmart competes in a free market.

pathtofreedom
06-03-2013, 05:51 PM
Walmart is a ward of the government pure and simple. They get large scale local direct subsidies, they get indirect benefits from the government through social programs, government roads favor sprawl and auto oriented development, zoning law regulate sprawl and big box stores into existence, they get benefits from non free trade agreements, and eminent domain (ie theft) which even Ron Paul acknowledges. Libertarians defending Walmart are even dumber than those who defend Monsanto or Microsoft.

thequietkid10
06-03-2013, 09:12 PM
Walmart is a ward of the government pure and simple. They get large scale local direct subsidies, they get indirect benefits from the government through social programs, government roads favor sprawl and auto oriented development, zoning law regulate sprawl and big box stores into existence, they get benefits from non free trade agreements, and eminent domain (ie theft) which even Ron Paul acknowledges. Libertarians defending Walmart are even dumber than those who defend Monsanto or Microsoft.

It is shear 110% bullshit that in a free society that many (or even most) people won't choose the convenience and the lower prices that Wal Mart provides over more expensive mom and pop stores that may or may not have what you are looking for.

thequietkid10
06-03-2013, 09:14 PM
Eliminate welfare, food stamps, and medicaid and see how Walmart competes in a free market.

Probably about as well as all the gas stations, grocers, box stores, dollar stores, convenient stores, and mom and pop stores that pay comparable wages (or less)

thequietkid10
06-03-2013, 09:25 PM
In an article criticizing Wal Mart wages, the article discloses that a full time Wal Mart worker makes on average 10.11 an hour.

That's better then the janitor job I had at an amusement park
that's better then the landscaping job I had at the same amusement park
that's better then the mom and pop take out place I worked at
and its better then the third shift janitorial job (when you consider the wal mart job to be full time, whereas the janitorial job was only 38 hours a week)
that's better then the legal secretary job I have now

http://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages/ar/1

Ender
06-03-2013, 09:25 PM
It is shear 110% bullshit that in a free society that many (or even most) people won't choose the convenience and the lower prices that Wal Mart provides over more expensive mom and pop stores that may or may not have what you are looking for.

Yep-

And for those who are screaming about subsidies, please don't eat any store bought food or buy any gas.

5 Worst Subsidies
http://truecostblog.com/2007/05/30/top-five-worst-subsidies/


Here are some links to other subsidized stores that people hold higher than Walmart-

Safeway angers local labor
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/safeway-angers-local-labor/

$4.2 million in incentives key to Whole Foods deal
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20110727/FREE/110729897/-4-2-million-in-incentives

Costco deal unfair to other Spanish Fork businesses
http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/01/06/costco-deal-unfair-to-other-spanish-fork-businesses/

pathtofreedom
06-03-2013, 09:31 PM
It is shear 110% bullshit that in a free society that many (or even most) people won't choose the convenience and the lower prices that Wal Mart provides over more expensive mom and pop stores that may or may not have what you are looking for.
Even more bullshit walmart prices are low because their prices are subsidized by the government pure and simple. Their convenience is debatable and subjective.

pathtofreedom
06-03-2013, 09:36 PM
Yep-

And for those who are screaming about subsidies, please don't eat any store bought food or buy any gas.

5 Worst Subsidies
http://truecostblog.com/2007/05/30/top-five-worst-subsidies/


Here are some links to other subsidized stores that people hold higher than Walmart-

Safeway angers local labor
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/safeway-angers-local-labor/

$4.2 million in incentives key to Whole Foods deal
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20110727/FREE/110729897/-4-2-million-in-incentives

Costco deal unfair to other Spanish Fork businesses
http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/01/06/costco-deal-unfair-to-other-spanish-fork-businesses/
I favor ending subsidies and I am always against road subsidies. The point remains Walmart is not a free market business and gets subsidies.

Ender
06-03-2013, 09:41 PM
And for those holding unions up as pinnacles of liberty, here's a couple of partial articles, with links, that beg to differ.

From the Blaze:

Only in the twisted mind of Big Labor would having the right to work without being forced into a union be akin to slave labor:

In a lawsuit against three Indiana government officials, a labor union alleged on Wednesday that its constitutional rights under the Thirteenth Amendment— which outlawed “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” — are violated whenever its members are forced to work alongside nonunion employees.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, whose members work as heavy equipment operators, mechanics and construction surveyors, sued Indiana’s governor, attorney general, and labor commissioner in February, alleging that the state’s “right to work” law is unconstitutional.
Indiana’s law prohibits employers from making union membership a condition of getting or keeping a job. The union’s February lawsuit claimed the law violated its members’ Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection” under the law.

But an amended complaint filed on Wednesday added a Thirteenth Amendment claim as well. The new lawsuit suggests that when nonunion employees earn higher salaries and better benefits because of the union’s negotiation on behalf of its members, the union has been forced to work for those nonunion employees for free.

And being forced to work without compensation, the union suggested in its revised lawsuit, is slavery.
…because being forced into a union against your will is freedom?

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/04/23/labor-unions-right-to-work-is-unconstitutional-like-slavery/

From Walter Williams:


Roosevelt had more plans for the economy, namely the National Labor Relations Act, better known as the "Wagner Act." This was a payoff to labor unions, and with these new powers, labor unions went on a militant organizing frenzy that included threats, boycotts, strikes, seizures of plants, widespread violence and other acts that pushed productivity down sharply and unemployment up dramatically. In 1938, Roosevelt's New Deal produced the nation's first depression within a depression. The stock market crashed again, losing nearly 50 percent of its value between August 1937 and March 1938, and unemployment climbed back to 20 percent. Columnist Walter Lippmann wrote in March 1938 that "with almost no important exception every measure (Roosevelt) has been interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of wealth."

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams93.1.html


Tom Woods:


Forgotten Facts of American Labor History
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The ways in which labor unionism impoverishes society are legion, from the distortions in the labor market described above to union work rules that discourage efficiency and innovation. The damage that unions have inflicted on the economy in recent American history is actually far greater than anyone might guess. In a study published jointly in late 2002 by the National Legal and Policy Center and the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone.

That is not a misprint. "The deadweight economic losses are not one-shot impacts on the economy," the study explains. "What our simulations reveal is the powerful effect of the compounding over more than half a century of what appears at first to be small annual effects." Not surprisingly, the study did find that unionized labor earned wages 15 percent higher than those of their nonunion counterparts, but it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.

Although labor unionism has actually made working people worse off, however, the usual argument for labor unionism and government legislation on behalf of labor is that in the absence of these things, employers will pay their workers unconscionably low wages.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods135.html

Ender
06-03-2013, 09:43 PM
I favor ending subsidies and I am always against road subsidies. The point remains Walmart is not a free market business and gets subsidies.

Name one that doesn't.

DamianTV
06-03-2013, 09:46 PM
Name one that doesn't.

Well obviously the .., er, ok Great ... no that one doesnt work either. Alright, ya got me. Maybe a family business?

News: Walmart Workers Rely on Food Stamps - Study (http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/306496.html)

Zippyjuan
06-03-2013, 09:59 PM
In an article criticizing Wal Mart wages, the article discloses that a full time Wal Mart worker makes on average 10.11 an hour.

That's better then the janitor job I had at an amusement park
that's better then the landscaping job I had at the same amusement park
that's better then the mom and pop take out place I worked at
and its better then the third shift janitorial job (when you consider the wal mart job to be full time, whereas the janitorial job was only 38 hours a week)
that's better then the legal secretary job I have now

http://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages/ar/1

But how many are actually full-time? Part timers get paid less.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/walmarts-internal-compensation-plan_n_2145086.html


Low-level workers typically start near minimum wage, and have the potential to earn raises of 20 to 40 cents an hour through incremental promotions. Flawless performance merits a 60 cent raise per year under the policy, regardless of how much time an employee has worked for the company. [Click here to read the full pay policy] As a result, a "solid performer" who starts at Walmart as a cart pusher making $8 an hour and receives one promotion, about the average rate, can expect to make $10.60 after working at the company for 6 years.


Far more important, they said, was Walmart's insistence on keeping most hourly workers part-time, so as to avoid having to provide a variety of benefits available to full-time employees.

The retired store manager said that 70 percent of the workers at his outlet were part-time, meaning they worked no more than 32 hours a week. That ratio was imposed by his bosses at Walmart’s Bentonville, Ark., headquarters, he said, as a means of saving costs on benefits such as medical insurance, which are more easily accessible to full-time workers.


They like to talk about pay and benefits full timers get but few of the workers get full time status. They also rely on frequent turnover of workers to keep the hourly wages lower.

thequietkid10
06-03-2013, 10:25 PM
Even more bullshit walmart prices are low because their prices are subsidized by the government pure and simple. Their convenience is debatable and subjective.

I'm not sure what subsides you are talking about? Are you talking about the welfare net which covers everyone that works in retail or are you talking about tax rebates, which aren't technically subsides at all?

UWDude
06-03-2013, 10:40 PM
Free market doesn't work if people don't try to get as much as possible for their goods or labor.

Period. End of story. That's what makes the whole invisible hand work. It's part of bargaining, and supply and demand. Anybody who would disparage a person or people trying to negotiate more for their goods or labor, does not believe in the principles of a free market. Period, end of story. So quit trying to tell me workers trying to get higher wages and benefits do not fit in a free market system. They are as important as the mangers trying to pay them as little as possible.

Those who say "get more skills" is like saying to a widget company charging $1 a widget, "instead of demanding $1.50 for your widgets, you should just make widget 2.0's!" well, how about let the market determine whether $1.50 widgets will sell, instead of thinking you have any right to tell the widget maker how they should conduct their finances. IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS!

If you are going to condemn collective bargaining, then you might as well condemn the "buy in bulk" principle too. HOW dare people band together and demand companies sell them more for less! What greedy assholes! For people who claim to understand free markets, you sure are a bunch of amateurs.

People have every right, to do whatever they can, to negotiate as much pay as they can for themselves, as long as it does not include violence. If that includes banding together, and starting mass work stoppages, so be it.

BTW, one of the things unions negotiate with managers is NO wildcat strikes. That means if a union agrees to a three year contract, it will not just up and strike a year later... ..although, according to free market purists, unions should be allowed to strike whenever they want, because hey, people should be free to stop working whenever they want, right? Or is it only the managers and corporations that get to break the rules of contracts whenever they want, because quote "they own the company" end quote.

pathtofreedom
06-03-2013, 10:41 PM
I'm not sure what subsides you are talking about? Are you talking about the welfare net which covers everyone that works in retail or are you talking about tax rebates, which aren't technically subsides at all?
Tax rebates are subsidies. They often get direct money from local governments and eminent domain.
http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

mad cow
06-03-2013, 10:53 PM
Socialists don't hate Walmart,they hate success.Sam Walton opened a general store in Bentonville,Arkansas(for pity's sake)going up against such established concerns as F.W. Woolworth(owner of the tallest building in the world at one time),Sears(owner of the tallest building in the world at one time)from such backwater hamlets as NYC and Chicago.No wonder he beat them at their own game,he had all of the advantages.:rolleyes:

I bet if he was still owner of a mom and pop country store,socialists would love him.
But let him try to improve his station,like crabs in a bucket,socialists will grab a hold of him and try to drag him back down to their level.

Two college drop-outs in a garage in Palo Alto taking on IBM and NCR?A milkshake machine salesman from San Diego dreaming of a hamburger business spanning the globe?
Same deal.Stay small,young man,stay small.The new mantra of a socialist America.

UWDude
06-03-2013, 10:56 PM
Another example of how unions are absolutely a part of the free market.

A bunch of small sprocket companies are selling their sprockets to Mr. Spacely for $1 each. They get together, and agree, they will not sell him any sprockets, unless he agrees to buy them for $2.

Mr. Spacely has a problem, he needs his company to keep running, but he doesn't want to pay double.

He can either curse the sky, run around, get red in the face, and huff and puff about how he wishes he could FORCE them (with price fixing laws, perhaps, yes, those are force, not free market!) to sell them to him for $1 a piece, or he can try to negotiate with them. With any luck, he may be able to get them for $1.50 each.

Now, how much are the sprockets worth? Any free market geniuses here know?

Answer... ...the price agreed upon, not what Mr. Spacely says it should be, and not what the sprocket companies say it should be. This is not a new concept. 1776, Adam Smith.

Now that we have covered elementary economics, change "sprocket companies" to "workers" and "sprockets" to "hourly labor".

Uh oh... ....now what? Your "unions are not free market economics" argument is revealed for the sham it is.

UWDude
06-04-2013, 03:05 AM
How dare these Cambodians demand higher wages from Nike? Don't they know Nike relocated there so they could pay them fairly for their 60 hour work weeks?

They are demanding $14 more dollars a month? $14 MORE DOLLARS A MONTH!?!!? Do they expect the shareholders and executives in Oregon to starve to death!?? It's an outrage!

Ungrateful bitches. If they don't like working there, there are plenty of other Cambodian sweatshops hiring!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87QeWaUzggQ

silverhandorder
06-04-2013, 03:38 AM
Seems like there are workers who oppose the union too. Why should union workers be allowed to keep those people from working?

UWDude
06-04-2013, 04:12 AM
Seems like there are workers who oppose the union too. Why should union workers be allowed to keep those people from working?

They shouldn't.

silverhandorder
06-04-2013, 05:02 AM
So then should you not respect the choice of those that choose to work?

UWDude
06-04-2013, 05:42 AM
So then should you not respect the choice of those that choose to work?

Not once the union has contracted a closed shop. It takes a lot to get there, but once they get it. Too bad for the scabs... maybe they can play next time there is a renegotiation of the contract, but I doubt it.

But don't worry, there will be plenty of sweatshops in Cambodia paying $145 a month.

otherone
06-04-2013, 05:44 AM
Socialists don't hate Walmart,they hate success.

Speaking as an Individualist, I resent corporations such as Walmart who collude with government to filter my middle-class tax dollars through the underclass to line the pockets of the 1%. The poor are used in the massive money-laundering scheme with the blessing of the bleeding hearts. Stop taxing me, get government out of the economy, and let Walmart compete with the little guy on a level playing field.

Todd
06-04-2013, 06:30 AM
Some of believe in the laws of supply and demand? Yes, that is true.

But that's not the way it works. We don't have a free market. We have a government mandated market for certain types of food. Cheap carbs, corn based products and processed crap.

It shouldn't cost me $6 for the McDonald salad and $1 for the McDouble.

Not a Free market.



Even more bullshit walmart prices are low because their prices are subsidized by the government pure and simple. Their convenience is debatable and subjective.

Yep^ What he said.

silverhandorder
06-04-2013, 09:35 AM
Not once the union has contracted a closed shop. It takes a lot to get there, but once they get it. Too bad for the scabs... maybe they can play next time there is a renegotiation of the contract, but I doubt it.

But don't worry, there will be plenty of sweatshops in Cambodia paying $145 a month.
Well what do you imagine it means by closed shop? Contracts are not all the same. When a contract is broken you go to court. You don't take things into your own hands and damage the property and persons of other people. Especially innocent people such as scabs.

pcosmar
06-04-2013, 10:06 AM
http://www.workers.org/2013/06/03/striking-walmart-workers-supporters-converge-on-company-headquarters/

The only "News" I could find..

No one here is striking.

jllundqu
06-04-2013, 10:27 AM
Are we really having the "Unions are actually good!" debate again on RPF?

Man... we have a long way to go.

Ender
06-04-2013, 10:51 AM
Are we really having the "Unions are actually good!" debate again on RPF?

Man... we have a long way to go.

Yep.

For all the Walmart haters/union lovers-

When looking at the "subsidies" argument, every business in the US is subsidized, as well as 99.9 of all US citizens. If you collect SS, use medicare, drive on roads, etc you are subsidized. Every business in the US is subsidized.

Making arguments against Walmart, while loving all the other subsidized corps is ridiculous.

We are caught in mercantilism as were the colonists- until we actually get back to real free markets, welcome to The Matrix.

jllundqu
06-04-2013, 10:53 AM
@Ender

On a side note. You excited about the movie coming out later this year? I don't have my hopes up, plus the freaking trailer gives away the ending.

angelatc
06-04-2013, 11:52 AM
Speaking as an Individualist, I resent corporations ... who collude with government to filter my middle-class tax dollars through the underclass to line the pockets of the 1%. The poor are used in the massive money-laundering scheme with the blessing of the bleeding hearts. Stop taxing me, get government out of the economy, and let (them) compete with the little guy on a level playing field.

Sure, but there's no reason to single out WalMart. All big corporations get tax breaks and subsidies.

angelatc
06-04-2013, 11:55 AM
But that's not the way it works. We don't have a free market. We have a government mandated market for certain types of food. Cheap carbs, corn based products and processed crap.

It shouldn't cost me $6 for the McDonald salad and $1 for the McDouble.

Not a Free market.




Yep^ What he said.


Not arguing about the subsidies, but the demand for the designer food you crave just isn't there. Less demand = higher price. And the efficiency isn't there either. Like it or not, a farmer who uses insecticides and Round Up on his feilds is going to have a much higher yeild than one who doesn't.

You want to eat food that is less in demand and costs more to produce, but pay less for it. Good luck.

EBounding
06-04-2013, 12:12 PM
Monopoly? How is that? Another company can open its doors and try to hire non-union workers, happens all the time. How is that a monopoly?



I was talking about a monopoly of labor within the organization.

So the NLRA doesn't force businesses to take union dues from non-union members and give it to the union? If 50%+1 of employees choose to create a Union, the other 49% aren't forced by the government to pay union dues? Is that right?

Zippyjuan
06-04-2013, 12:14 PM
Sure, but there's no reason to single out WalMart. All big corporations get tax breaks and subsidies.
What makes WalMart a target is the disparity between the owners of the company (who occupy spots in the ten richest people in America) while paying their workers the lowest wages and that they use their size to extort prices and breaks not just from local, state, and federal governments but also suppliers. A supplier cannot afford to NOT do what WalMart demands. They reportedly have personel in their offices which sign up employees for assistance like food stamps.

The workers have not shared in the success of the company.

BAllen
06-04-2013, 12:19 PM
Are we really having the "Unions are actually good!" debate again on RPF?

Man... we have a long way to go.

RP supports freedom of workers to organize. Just not a closed shop.

pathtofreedom
06-04-2013, 01:44 PM
Sure, but there's no reason to single out WalMart. All big corporations get tax breaks and subsidies.
No one is singling out Walmart people are just pointing it out.

UWDude
06-04-2013, 01:53 PM
Well what do you imagine it means by closed shop? Contracts are not all the same. When a contract is broken you go to court. You don't take things into your own hands and damage the property and persons of other people. Especially innocent people such as scabs.

Yeah... and? They have not negotiated a closed shop at the Cambodian plant, yet.


Are we really having the "Unions are actually good!" debate again on RPF?

Man... we have a long way to go.

I know, huh, I made two long posts that showed exactly how collective bargaining is as much an instrument of the free market as buying in bulk or price fixing, and nobody had any retort. Perhaps I shall repost them:


Free market doesn't work if people don't try to get as much as possible for their goods or labor.

Period. End of story. That's what makes the whole invisible hand work. It's part of bargaining, and supply and demand. Anybody who would disparage a person or people trying to negotiate more for their goods or labor, does not believe in the principles of a free market. Period, end of story. So quit trying to tell me workers trying to get higher wages and benefits do not fit in a free market system. They are as important as the mangers trying to pay them as little as possible.

Those who say "get more skills" is like saying to a widget company charging $1 a widget, "instead of demanding $1.50 for your widgets, you should just make widget 2.0's!" well, how about let the market determine whether $1.50 widgets will sell, instead of thinking you have any right to tell the widget maker how they should conduct their finances. IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS!

If you are going to condemn collective bargaining, then you might as well condemn the "buy in bulk" principle too. HOW dare people band together and demand companies sell them more for less! What greedy assholes! For people who claim to understand free markets, you sure are a bunch of amateurs.

People have every right, to do whatever they can, to negotiate as much pay as they can for themselves, as long as it does not include violence. If that includes banding together, and starting mass work stoppages, so be it.

BTW, one of the things unions negotiate with managers is NO wildcat strikes. That means if a union agrees to a three year contract, it will not just up and strike a year later... ..although, according to free market purists, unions should be allowed to strike whenever they want, because hey, people should be free to stop working whenever they want, right? Or is it only the managers and corporations that get to break the rules of contracts whenever they want, because quote "they own the company" end quote.



and


Another example of how unions are absolutely a part of the free market.

A bunch of small sprocket companies are selling their sprockets to Mr. Spacely for $1 each. They get together, and agree, they will not sell him any sprockets, unless he agrees to buy them for $2.

Mr. Spacely has a problem, he needs his company to keep running, but he doesn't want to pay double.

He can either curse the sky, run around, get red in the face, and huff and puff about how he wishes he could FORCE them (with price fixing laws, perhaps, yes, those are force, not free market!) to sell them to him for $1 a piece, or he can try to negotiate with them. With any luck, he may be able to get them for $1.50 each.

Now, how much are the sprockets worth? Any free market geniuses here know?

Answer... ...the price agreed upon, not what Mr. Spacely says it should be, and not what the sprocket companies say it should be. This is not a new concept. 1776, Adam Smith.

Now that we have covered elementary economics, change "sprocket companies" to "workers" and "sprockets" to "hourly labor".

Uh oh... ....now what? Your "unions are not free market economics" argument is revealed for the sham it is.


Sorry anti-unionists, negotiating for yourself is a cornerstone of free market principles.

otherone
06-04-2013, 03:58 PM
Sure, but there's no reason to single out WalMart. All big corporations get tax breaks and subsidies.

I single out Walmart because they are probably the single largest example of the money laundering scheme. As an example, how many times do we stand in line behind someone chattering on a smart phone who pays for their groceries with food stamps? Like someone mentioned, our taxes directly bolster Walmarts bottom line. Certainly other companies benefit, but Walmart most of all because they are the major player.

silverhandorder
06-04-2013, 04:21 PM
Yeah... and? They have not negotiated a closed shop at the Cambodian plant, yet.

What do you mean "Yeah... and?". Does this mean you agree?


I single out Walmart because they are probably the single largest example of the money laundering scheme. As an example, how many times do we stand in line behind someone chattering on a smart phone who pays for their groceries with food stamps? Like someone mentioned, our taxes directly bolster Walmarts bottom line. Certainly other companies benefit, but Walmart most of all because they are the major player.

So what? You are not attacking the practice by hating on walmart. So you take walmart out, there will be walmart 2.0.

otherone
06-04-2013, 04:32 PM
So what? You are not attacking the practice by hating on walmart. So you take walmart out, there will be walmart 2.0.

Walmart ain't the problem. Government is. Walmart extracts money from the system with as much enthusiasm as any welfare queen. People get what they can get. Food stamps, bailouts, cash for clunkers, mortgage interest deductions, etc, etc. And I pay for it all.

UWDude
06-04-2013, 05:18 PM
What do you mean "Yeah... and?". Does this mean you agree?


Yes.

pathtofreedom
06-04-2013, 06:11 PM
As for the leftist comments I don't consider it to be leftist to think it is wrong that 20% of people own 90% of the world wealth. I also don't consider it leftist to support freedom of assembly or right to contract. As for leftism itself well libertarianism has its origins there.

angelatc
06-04-2013, 06:11 PM
I single out Walmart because they are probably the single largest example of the money laundering scheme. As an example, how many times do we stand in line behind someone chattering on a smart phone who pays for their groceries with food stamps? Like someone mentioned, our taxes directly bolster Walmarts bottom line. Certainly other companies benefit, but Walmart most of all because they are the major player.


So you think people paying with food stamps should shop at places that are expensive? Sorry, but this Walmart-bashing is nothing but the result of liberal indoctrination.

Walmart didn't start out being the majorplayer they are. They found a niche that the other businesses in the market deemed not worthwhile. THey studied efficiency, and their customers needs and wants, and built an empire. I hate that people on this board think it's a bad thing to succeed.

The issue is with the government passing out favors, not with the businesses who ask for them.

angelatc
06-04-2013, 06:13 PM
As for the leftist comments I don't consider it to be leftist to think it is wrong that 20% of people own 90% of the world wealth.

Well, it is.

otherone
06-04-2013, 06:18 PM
So you think people paying with food stamps should shop at places that are expensive? Sorry, but this Walmart-bashing is nothing but the result of liberal indoctrination.


No. I don't think people should get food stamps merely to trickle up to corporate interests. It has nothing to do with liberal indoctrination.
Get rid of entitlements, and let Walmart and it's minions fend for itself without my tax dollars.

silverhandorder
06-04-2013, 07:16 PM
No. I don't think people should get food stamps merely to trickle up to corporate interests. It has nothing to do with liberal indoctrination.
Get rid of entitlements, and let Walmart and it's minions fend for itself without my tax dollars.

I agree. However political solutions do not work. You can't get politicians or people to vote for that. The only option is to build a community that works to protect it's own. Grow the base by making it attractive for people to live libertarian lives.

pathtofreedom
06-04-2013, 10:39 PM
Well, it is.
Nope it is a practical issue not an ideological one.

Weston White
06-05-2013, 12:28 AM
My response to several separate posts:

Closed-shop simply means that all employees are required to pay as equal members of their union, while right-to-work statutes, prevents unions for compelling all employees to pay into its funds against their own desire or preference; similarly some states permit for fair-share status, wherein all employees are required to pay union dues, those employees that have sought fair-share status pay slightly less than full-share members (e.g., 25-cents less then monthly dues), simply to signify their protest or dissatisfaction with their union or its management, while also sacrificing some of their grants as union members, such as voting or serving on its boards or committees.

The continued use of steroids, speed, or cocaine within the human body does not go without severe consequences, and neither does the continued use of half-life pesticides nor synthetic hormones in our crops and livestock.

Farmers could stop being so lazy and instead actually begin working their lands again, using their brainpower in the process (e.g., strategic planting of certain plants, flowers, and herbs that inherently repeal insects, cycling of crops, converting over to aquaponics or hydroponics, etc.) Families could once again grow and tend to their own home gardens.

If I had to choose between Walmart bashing and Walmart worshiping, I would have to go with the former.

Cutlerzzz
06-05-2013, 02:26 AM
Not once the union has contracted a closed shop. It takes a lot to get there, but once they get it. Too bad for the scabs... maybe they can play next time there is a renegotiation of the contract, but I doubt it.

But don't worry, there will be plenty of sweatshops in Cambodia paying $145 a month.
The per capita income in Cambodia is $931 dollars a year. $145 dollars a month would be twice the national average.

Todd
06-05-2013, 09:29 AM
Not arguing about the subsidies, but the demand for the designer food you crave just isn't there. Less demand = higher price. And the efficiency isn't there either. Like it or not, a farmer who uses insecticides and Round Up on his feilds is going to have a much higher yeild than one who doesn't.

You want to eat food that is less in demand and costs more to produce, but pay less for it. Good luck.

lol at the idea that eating fresh produce and meat that hasn't been overly processed is now "Designer".

Certainly efficiency lowers cost. But not to a 6 to 1 ratio.

angelatc
06-05-2013, 09:53 AM
lol at the idea that eating fresh produce and meat that hasn't been overly processed is now "Designer".

Certainly efficiency lowers cost. But not to a 6 to 1 ratio.

I am guessing you grew up in the city, and have never even had an outdoor herb garden.

angelatc
06-05-2013, 09:56 AM
Farmers could stop being so lazy and instead actually begin working their lands again, using their brainpower in the process

Other people should forced to work harder so that you can have what you want, at the expense of what the rest of the nation is demanding?

So increasing efficiency is being lazy. Just wow....

pathtofreedom
06-05-2013, 10:00 AM
Other people should forced to work harder so that you can have what you want, at the expense of what the rest of the nation is demanding?

So increasing efficiency is being lazy. Just wow....
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they advocate force.

KingNothing
06-05-2013, 10:07 AM
Because I hate liberals, especially those trying to hijack the Libertarian movement. Thanks for asking!


I hate anyone who demands something of others or embraces a sense of entitlement, but I have absolutely no ill-will for unions. I think they're ultimately detrimental, but that people DO have a right to form them if they want, and that people can strike if they so choose. And, at the same time, if no one asked for higher wages, no one would ever receive higher wages. I'll never fault anyone for asking for more money.

KingNothing
06-05-2013, 10:13 AM
I know you're wrong because ... the median number of years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer was 4.6 in January 2012. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm

It really is that simple.

When I was in college, we were told that the best way to advance is to change companies, which would also give us opportunities to learn a wider variety of techniques to get jobs done. And we were also told that average 30 year old professional has had something like 8 different jobs in his lifetime.

"Job hopping" is only a problem if you're changing positions at an absurd rate. If you're spending 18+ months at a position, no one cares how many jobs you've had.

Todd
06-05-2013, 10:25 AM
I am guessing you grew up in the city, and have never even had an outdoor herb garden.

Actually, I live in the country and have a great one. A member of a local co-op too. Have seen first hand how Government destroys the ability to eat healthy. Listen, there are many ways to grow and produce cheaper healthier food through INNOVATION that can at least "compete" with some of the Monsanto GMO produce. You sure are reading alot into my position and several others as well.

This is some funny shit. I get called a right wing extremist by the Co-op hippies for telling them Big government is destroying their livelihood, and I basically get called a leftist on Ron Paul forums for arguing the same. LOL.

angelatc
06-05-2013, 10:45 AM
Actually, I live in the country and have a great one. A member of a local co-op too. Have seen first hand how Government destroys the ability to eat healthy. Listen, there are many ways to grow and produce cheaper healthier food through INNOVATION that can at least "compete" with some of the Monsanto GMO produce. You sure are reading alot into my position and several others as well.

This is some funny shit. I get called a right wing extremist by the Co-op hippies for telling them Big government is destroying their livelihood, and I basically get called a leftist on Ron Paul forums for arguing the same. LOL.



Well then, I stand corrected. I think it's hard to believe that someone who farms doesn't think that crops that are pest resistant, drought tolerant, maturing faster in a weed free field aren't much easier to grow and therefore cheaper to produce.

There's no evidence that organic, GMO foods are healthier than organic.

angelatc
06-05-2013, 10:46 AM
When I was in college, we were told that the best way to advance is to change companies, which would also give us opportunities to learn a wider variety of techniques to get jobs done. And we were also told that average 30 year old professional has had something like 8 different jobs in his lifetime.

"Job hopping" is only a problem if you're changing positions at an absurd rate. If you're spending 18+ months at a position, no one cares how many jobs you've had.

Glad to see you've come around to seeing things my way. Now, on to the rest of the world!

angelatc
06-05-2013, 10:48 AM
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they advocate force.

That's true, but Weston is a liberal.

Todd
06-05-2013, 11:12 AM
Well then, I stand corrected. I think it's hard to believe that someone who farms doesn't think that crops that are pest resistant, drought tolerant, maturing faster in a weed free field aren't much easier to grow and therefore cheaper to produce.

There's no evidence that organic, GMO foods are healthier than organic.

We agree sort of..... I do understand the concept talthough there is still debate. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

But I'm not really arguing that it is much cheaper to have Organics or that I wish to force the Government to subsidize the industry.

But what I do expect is when the Government says they promote healthy eating and healthy lifestyle, that they don't work against those of us who "choose" not to partake in the GMO industry by altering the market in favor of them and allow people who wish to go another route to compete

I don't expect to get blueberries in December unless I go to a big Box mart. I understand this.

Maybe my intial post wasn't as clear as should be, but my argument is basically that it's fundamentally wrong to subsidize and give advantage to those that wish to market processed unhealthy foods over people trying to eat foods the way God intended them to be.

It is debatable whether Organics are healthier than GMO, but maybe I just like the taste better.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hexvPNhJfto

Weston White
06-05-2013, 11:51 AM
Other people should forced to work harder so that you can have what you want, at the expense of what the rest of the nation is demanding?

So increasing efficiency is being lazy. Just wow....

Yes. Absolutely, as with most business arrangements, such is part of our free-market economy—a la the rules of supply and demand. If you want my business, you better be prepared to break an honest sweat for my patronage (e.g., neither Foster Farms nor Tyson Foods get by money, but Organic Valley does).

Moreover, spraying chemical compounds into the air that then drains into the water tables is by no means increasing the efficiency of anything positive and beneficial, save to pollute the environment for years and years to come.

Apropos, if you have failed to notice, when American companies outsource their factories to third-world slave factories, they do not kindly reduce the purchase prices of their products for their loyal customers (yet do pad the profits of their shareholders), rather their prices stay the same and are then raised over time (e.g., Apple, Dell, Guess, Levi's, Nike, etc.); and consequently in obverse relation the selection and quality of their products in nearly every instance gradually diminishes over time.

Weston White
06-05-2013, 11:57 AM
That's true, but Weston is a liberal.

Not really so much. No. Wrong answer. False. Incorrect.

Weston White
06-05-2013, 12:12 PM
There's no evidence that organic, GMO foods are healthier than organic.

You are being dishonest. GMO crops likely contain unnatural molecules that your body is incapable of processing that remain behind to wreak havoc during your digestive process (leading to a myriad of longterm health related concerns), while the nutritional value of crops are really dependant upon the soil contents.

Here is one such example study: The Devil in the Details (http://organicfarms.wsu.edu/blog/devil-in-the-details/); Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review (http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685)

“The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.”

“Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

“Vitamin C, antioxidants, and phenolic acids tend to be higher in organic food about 60% to 80% of the time, while vitamin A and protein is higher in conventional food 50% to 80% of the time.”

NationalAnarchist
06-05-2013, 02:14 PM
My wife worked at wal mart twice. They suck! They keep you at about 35-38 hours a week so as to make sure you get no benefits and the pay is lousy as well. She got up to 8.90$ an hour with a raise! Only damn thing I liked about Wal Mart is the fact she could transfer and she did...then eventually quit and found a job making less money per hour but more hours over all.

pcosmar
06-05-2013, 03:10 PM
They are probably overpaid as it is.

Most of them are not overpaid. ($2 an hour would be overpaid for a few) And though it is Not a high paying job,, Walmart does pay more than minimum wage,, plus bonuses and benefits.
My wife works there (part time) and has her health insurance,, and gets bonuses and stocks.
I wish they would hire me.

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/06/05/wal-mart-dismisses-protesters-as-paid-agents/


“Let me be clear these associates are not part of Wal-Mart,” said Gisel Ruiz, Chief Operating Officer at Wal-Mart Stores Inc., to a stadium full of U.S. workers the company brought to Arkansas to attend its yearly employee pep rally Friday.

“They are part of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and they are paid to be here and disrupt this week’s activities and that is just plain wrong,” Ms. Ruiz said of the protesters.

About 100 protesting workers walked off their jobs last week and traveled from all over the country,


100,,?
the local store has more that 100 employees,, and there are dozens of stores in this state alone. (Several dozens)

100 union agitators,, with very little "rank and file" support.

long thread for a non-story.

thequietkid10
06-05-2013, 03:25 PM
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they advocate force.

I don't think it's the use of force that offends angelatc, it's the amount of economic ignorance.

Todd
06-05-2013, 05:53 PM
I don't think it's the use of force that offends angelatc, it's the amount of economic ignorance.

my economics is just fine. Free market = Food competition.

More Freedom please

Weston White
06-05-2013, 07:40 PM
I don't think it's the use of force that offends angelatc, it's the amount of economic ignorance.

How so? You don’t actually believe that the higher-ups at Walmart, McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc., actually make their purchases at their place of occupation do you; no, right? Because while their customers are all busy drooling over their fake-food cheesy-burgers, greasy fries, GMO soy-beef, and cheaply imported crap, they are all out dining on porterhouses, lobster, mignon, and the like laughing their rumps all the way to the bank in their fancy imported cars.

And so the saying goes: Once you’ve seen sausage being made, all you want to do is make sausage.

angelatc
06-05-2013, 07:46 PM
How so? You don’t actually believe that the higher-ups at Walmart, McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc., actually make their purchases at their place of occupation do you; no, right? Because while their customers are all busy drooling over their fake-food cheesy-burgers, greasy fries, GMO soy-beef, and cheaply imported crap, they are all out dining on porterhouses, lobster, mignon, and the like laughing their rumps all the way to the bank in their fancy imported cars.

And so the saying goes: Once you’ve seen sausage being made, all you want to do is make sausage.

Have you people never been out of your collective basements?

Yes, I absolutely believe that the higher ups at WalMart shop at WalMart. The people in retail are expected to buy the products that pay their bills. Back in the day, my husband worked for a grocery retailer in Indiana (Marsh, for those of you in the know) and one of the Executive Directors was fired when someone saw him at WalMart with only a bag of dog food in his cart.

You people are horrible. The people that run these businesses are intent on providing serrvice to their customers, and they collect money only because other people see value in what they do. Unfortunately, some of that money comes not from consumers, but from elected officials. But that's not WalMart's problem - it's the government's flaw.

angelatc
06-05-2013, 07:52 PM
You are being dishonest. GMO crops likely contain unnatural molecules that your body is incapable of processing that remain behind to wreak havoc during your digestive process (leading to a myriad of longterm health related concerns), while the nutritional value of crops are really dependant upon the soil contents.

Here is one such example study: The Devil in the Details (http://organicfarms.wsu.edu/blog/devil-in-the-details/); Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review (http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685)

“The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.”

“Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

“Vitamin C, antioxidants, and phenolic acids tend to be higher in organic food about 60% to 80% of the time, while vitamin A and protein is higher in conventional food 50% to 80% of the time.”



The use of transgenic crops, he points out, has to date prevented the spraying of 473 million kilograms of toxic pesticides, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 23.1bn kg – equivalent to taking 10.2 million cars off the road – and saved 108.7 million hectares of land from being turned into farmland. Rather than creating environmental havoc, GM crops have, by and large, been better for the environment than growing the equivalent conventional crops, with relatively lower yields and higher chemical input.
Equally, no-one has died or fallen ill directly as a result of eating GM food (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/uk/voices/commentators/this-gm-breakthrough-could-be-the-first-of-many-8430642.html). Studies showing that GM food damages the health of laboratory animals have been discredited. Contrary to what the pro-organic lobby would have us believe, it is actually more dangerous to eat organic food – as the 53 people in Germany who died in 2011 from eating organic beansprouts tragically discovered.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-gm-crops-are-bad-show-us-the-evidence-8641168.html

See, I know that there are lots of GMO foods that are better fo you than the unmodified versions, too. I don't care about GMO food. I want my food to be cheap. You can go shop at Whole Foods while I shop at WalMart....except that isn't adequate. No, you want the government to make the food you find objectionable illegal.

It's like the other liberals and green energy. They want to drive prices up so that their solar and wind power scams can compete, price wise.

And Weston, whats really funny is the Conclusion of your study:
Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.

Weston White
06-05-2013, 08:12 PM
You are so funny! So let me get this straight you are against unions and government intervention because (aside from raising the costs of products, presumably) they restrict the individual freedoms of employees, employers, and consumers, yet you wholly support businesses that punish its employees simply for exercising their own personal choice and free will (e.g., to shop and make purchases where, when, and how they deem appropriate)?

And “they collect money only because other people see value in what they do.” ...Oh yes, that is exactly why they do it. Sure, sure.

You keep playing the “it’s all our corrupted governments fault” card, as if businesses play absolutely zero roll in the loopholes and statutory exclusions being created to their own benefit—primary by their own lobbyists. Deny it all you want, still you remain ever vigilantly the staunch corporate fascist that you have come to know and love.

UWDude
06-05-2013, 08:15 PM
I don't think it's the use of force that offends angelatc, it's the amount of economic ignorance.

Nobody has yet been able to counter my argument that labor is just like sprockets. An item, that people can band together, and demand higher prices for, if they wish. It has been conveniently ignored.

Perhaps because it would expose that price fixing laws are actually un-libertarian, as are monopoly busting laws, but they are so popular, that even some of the staunchest of libertarians believe there should be laws against price fixing... ...which is all unions are actually doing... ...price fixing.

Furthermore, a free market purist would have to be all in favor of bringing in immigrants for cheaper labor, if a union were to make the wage prices too high, but once again, this is un-stomachable for many of the so called "lovers of liberty" here.

Indeed, it was angelaTC's solution, immigration controls (using force to stop people from crossing imaginary lines on the ground to stop them from undercutting wages) and tariffs (taxing people for not being born on the same side of the line as others).

So the real ignorance is how a free market really works, and how if there was truly a free market, many of the wishes and popular laws of people here would disappear. In a truly free market, Mexicans would be able to flood America with cheap labor, after all, who is the US government to tell Mexicans they can't work in a South Carolina auto factory or a North Carolina Soap factory?


And tarriffs give no value to anyone but shareholders anyway. Whenever there is a tarrif on in imported product, the domestic producer realizes they can just raise their prices to match the tariff price, and everyone loses.

So really, it is AngelaTC that is for more central control of the economy, not me. She is the liberal, she is who she hates.

krugminator
06-05-2013, 08:21 PM
It's fine if Wal-Mart want to unionize. It should also be fine if Wal-Mart wants to immediately fire anyone who tries.

UWDude
06-05-2013, 08:26 PM
It's fine if Wal-Mart want to unionize. It should also be fine if Wal-Mart wants to immediately fire anyone who tries.

The magic of unions is they can kung-fu this, and "fire themselves collectively" periodically, proving to employers that collectively, workers can have power. Many of the assumptions of people here is that there is an unlimited supply of Wal-Mart laboreres. They forget, that Wal-Mart's strategy is to go into small towns, use their power and leverage to get tax breaks and push out competition. This creates not only bad blood, (people who will refuse to work for Wal Mart) but also, small towns often do not have large labor pools to begin with.

krugminator
06-05-2013, 08:31 PM
The magic of unions is they can kung-fu this, and "fire themselves collectively" periodically, proving to employers that collectively, workers can have power. Many of the assumptions of people here is that there is an unlimited supply of Wal-Mart laboreres. They forget, that Wal-Mart's strategy is to go into small towns, use their power and leverage to get tax breaks and push out competition. This creates not only bad blood, (people who will refuse to work for Wal Mart) but also, small towns often do not have large labor pools to begin with.

I'm not making any assumptions about the feasibility. They are more than welcome to unionize. Unions as a group are clearly bad for the country, and public employees have absolutely no moral right to unionize, but I don't think Wal-Mart employees should be stopped by any type of government coercion.

Weston White
06-05-2013, 08:53 PM
Absolutely, I do not believe for a second that any (madly, insane) scientist or business has the right to play Creator-in-Chief to my or anyone else’s natural environment. Moreover, there is absolutely no way that GMO crops, and reengineering of both livestock and sea life are not impacting Mother Nature in ways that we as a society have yet to even begin to fathom.

Say in twenty-years from now when companies start cloning man-bear-pigs or even bring velociraptors, tyrannosaurus rexes, triceratops or pterodactyls back from the grave, will you still not object?


And Weston, whats really funny is the Conclusion of your study:

There are two separate issues to consider: (1) nutritional value (e.g., the vitamins and minerals absorbed by the product during its development) and (2) health value (e.g., the bodily hazards involved with consuming the matured product). To also note through aquaponics you could readily load a burst of vitamins and minerals into your crops using an entirely natural process.


* I am not really sure why you keep supporting the notion that organic products would be so much more expensive without their GMO counterparts? Truly, currency inflation bears more upon that aspect than anything else. Non-GMO food was much cheaper prior to the uprising of corporations such as Monsanto. The price of organic foods will only decrease as more competition and demand is levied (i.e., why do you think GMO companies are quickly and quietly buying out organic producing companies left and right)?

pathtofreedom
06-05-2013, 11:00 PM
Ah yes it is those evil unions they are the cause of problems. Business men and corporations are totally altruistic and would never do anything to harm us. Those corporations only care about the well being and care of their employees and customers. It is all those evil greedy unions that have caused our problems. Employment is totally voluntary and you have plenty of choices while unions are not voluntary and will totally exploit you. ./sarcasm