always quality NetRunner. Good find. Walmart is always a topic in ethics classes.

Walmart is known for predatory ethics ethics. There is a massive slew of problems and union issues with this company.

I'm not siding with Wal-Mart, but unionization is really bad news for everyone (except the labor unions themselves). Unions, once being an essential moderator of power between employee and employer, have lost their way in modern times. Unionizing will only create more overhead cost for both Wal-mart and the employees. The employees will have to pay the opportunity cost of default benefits package in addition to union dues, possible paycheck loss from strikes, and at worst, their job. At the end, worker unions help no one, they only weaken the bond between employee-employer relations; also increases outsourcing of jobs.

^That is how corporations view Unions, but why not look at them from a working class perspective. Unions empower individual workers, who would otherwise be bullied and abused by management, by forming a collective with the power to negotiate. They are a necessary counterbalance to the extreme power of corporations, who would just assume have wage slaves. Employer-Employee relationships at Walmart are currently a boot on the throat, so I'm not exactly sure how forming a Union would make things any worse. BTW, Unions are responsible for the weekend, overtime and the middle class.

Unionization is bad, syncron? Let me see, unions have given us:

- Safe work places
- Living wages
- 40 hour work weeks
- Overtime pay
- Job protection with contracts
- Affordable health insurance

Western Europe has higher unionization rates than the US, and what has that meant? A higher standard of living there than we have here. Don't tell me that unions have lost their way, because we need them now more than ever. They're not perfect, but they're a sight better at looking out for workers interests than management is. As a former vice-president of my local, I can't tell you how many times we had to file grievances about something as simple as overtime pay. Even after all these years of established overtime regulations, management still tries to violate them. BTW, Wal-Mart is NOTORIOUS for violating overtime pay rules.

I'll gladly pay a little extra if I know a working class person like me isn't getting fucked along the way. And that's why I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. Fuck their little bouncy smiley face.

That might be true, union influence does vary greatly throughout different industries. You cannot deny unions have a great deal of responsibility in destroying the American automotive industry though.

^Corporate greed destroyed the American auto industry. Fair pay for a day's work isn't optional.

>> ^syncron:
That might be true, union influence does vary greatly throughout different industries. You cannot deny unions have a great deal of responsibility in destroying the American automotive industry though.


Actually, yes, I think that can be denied.

Colossal mismanagement had more to do with that than the assembly line workers demanding a real wage.

Okay, I'm not sure, but I think I'm the only person here who actually works for Wal-Mart.

The minimum wage in Idaho is the same as the federal, which now is 6.55 an hour. Yet I started at 9.10 an hour, and I received a 40 cent raise within two months. If I move to overnights, I will receive a 1.50 an hour shift differential, putting me at 11 dollars an hour. Not too bad for the cost of living here. And I didn't need a union to negotiate that for me.

In the video they warn of Wal-Mart's downsizing of its 401K and profit sharing incentives. My answer...so what? Why would anybody put their entire 401K into one company? Didn't Enron's employees learn that the hard way eight years ago? And besides, everyone in my store just received a 250 dollar profit-sharing bonus for passing the sales goal. Once again, no union was needed.

About the politicking...I don't care if someone from corporate tells me who to vote for. They won't fire me for voting for Obama, because 1) I don't need to tell them about my vote and 2) I'm not voting, anyway. Doesn't matter to me in the slightest bit. And besides, if they fire me for that I'd sue them, and they know it. They are much more afraid of a lawsuit than they are of a union.

And about the overtime? If you get it, they have a talk with you about it, then remind you to leave early next time. Some of my friends that work there, if they have an hour of overtime, will be told to take a two-hour lunch. That isn't to cheat them out of overtime, because they aren't supposed to be scheduled that many hours, anyway. Don't think of it as Wal-Mart saving money; think of it as workers not being overworked. And in the end, nobody complains about a two-hour lunch, anyway.

Oh, and the ending, with the guy talking about Wal-Mart employees starving at their lunchtimes? I don't know if he's working at the Ethiopian Wal-Mart, but I've never seen anybody go hungry because they don't earn enough. 17K a year is below the poverty level for a family of four? Yeah, if that's the only income for your family! I work with a woman who has five kids, and she does just fine. You know why? Because her husband also works full-time. It's called "family planning," and if you're starving to death in the break room...wtf is wrong with you?

--
I don't care for Wal-Mart much, but that's just because I hate dealing with its customers all day at the deli. Talk about dredging the gene pool for scraps!

I make a good living at Wal-Mart, and I don't care that they have no union, because they don't need one. IMO.

I've been in a union and I know of the internal abuses that can take place in the upper echelons, most of which have to do with seniority breeding complacency. I'm not prepared to say "all unions are bad" but power (on either side of the bargaining table) can be abused.

The important thing to remember is, labor unions care more about its own interests rather than those of the workers. And oftentimes their goals are not the same.

@thinker247, I'm kinda surprised at your position on unions. To quickly run through your points:

On wages, Wal-Mart needs to compete with other unionized employers, so they have to offer decent pay. The shift differential is required by law (again, pushed by union efforts). The 40 cent raise I'm sure you earned, but I'm also sure you'll hit a wage ceiling quickly, unless you advance to a higher position within the company, or move to a different job entirely.

On 401k and profit sharing, cutting back on those things affect you. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "why would anyone put their 401k in one company", we're talking about corporate matching of contribution to the fund, not about how the funds are diversified. The idea behind profit sharing is that you're tied to the company's profit -- reducing the percentage rate at which it's done, or eliminating the program altogether is against your interests, and results in less money paid to you. Unions would fight both moves, because Wal-Mart is definitely in good shape right now.

Advocacy of politics by individuals is fine, but requiring employees to hear one-sided propaganda is questionable at best. I know you're solid in your beliefs, but people who're naive and trusting might buy into it, without realizing that it's actually counter to their own interests. To me, this is a bit like separation of church and state -- I shouldn't be forced to listen to political propaganda in order to keep my job.

As for overtime, you're describing the corporate reaction to the overtime laws unions helped get passed. They do everything they can to minimize overtime pay, even if a particular individual wants to work overtime hours to get more money. It does mean no one gets overworked, but without unions, there wouldn't have been any consideration of that at all.

As for no one starving at Wal-Mart, I doubt it's a blanket condition for every Wal-Mart everywhere, but I'll also point out that people who're in that situation won't advertise it. Unless you're personally supervising everyone at your Wal-Mart to ensure they've eaten each day, it'd be pretty easy to hide skipping a lunch.

Okay, so that wasn't quick. I promise I won't charge overtime.

I never was good with economics, so I am just relaying this from my point of view as a single, childless male. Changing those traits could change my view, but I'm not sure.

About the 401K, I is bad with ekonomiks. But I mentioned the profit sharing has not been taken away, or even lowered.

You think politicking is bad because it hurts naive people, but I don't think naive people should be able to vote in the first place, so...yeah. Fuck 'em. Wal-Mart can tell me who to vote for all day long if they wish, as long as I'm clocked in for it.

I understand if a worker works overtime they should be compensated. And at Wal-Mart, they are. It's frowned upon, but they don't break the law by not paying overtime already worked. They just found an inventive way to remove the danger of overpaying workers--don't let them work overtime. And if you want to work overtime? Go get a second job. I can barely stand that place for eight hours; why would I want overtime?

I don't need to supervise the employees to know they're all being fed regularly. 70 percent of them are overweight or obese. Trust me, nobody is passing out and dying because their bodies aren't receiving enough food. If you add the weight of customers and the weight of the workers, I'm surprised Wal-Mart hasn't pulled us into the sun by now.

>> ^NetRunner:
@thinker247, I'm kinda surprised at your position on unions. To quickly run through your points:
On wages, Wal-Mart needs to compete with other unionized employers, so they have to offer decent pay. The shift differential is required by law (again, pushed by union efforts). The 40 cent raise I'm sure you earned, but I'm also sure you'll hit a wage ceiling quickly, unless you advance to a higher position within the company, or move to a different job entirely.
On 401k and profit sharing, cutting back on those things affect you. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "why would anyone put their 401k in one company", we're talking about corporate matching of contribution to the fund, not about how the funds are diversified. The idea behind profit sharing is that you're tied to the company's profit -- reducing the percentage rate at which it's done, or eliminating the program altogether is against your interests, and results in less money paid to you. Unions would fight both moves, because Wal-Mart is definitely in good shape right now.
Advocacy of politics by individuals is fine, but requiring employees to hear one-sided propaganda is questionable at best. I know you're solid in your beliefs, but people who're naive and trusting might buy into it, without realizing that it's actually counter to their own interests. To me, this is a bit like separation of church and state -- I shouldn't be forced to listen to political propaganda in order to keep my job.
As for overtime, you're describing the corporate reaction to the overtime laws unions helped get passed. They do everything they can to minimize overtime pay, even if a particular individual wants to work overtime hours to get more money. It does mean no one gets overworked, but without unions, there wouldn't have been any consideration of that at all.
As for no one starving at Wal-Mart, I doubt it's a blanket condition for every Wal-Mart everywhere, but I'll also point out that people who're in that situation won't advertise it. Unless you're personally supervising everyone at your Wal-Mart to ensure they've eaten each day, it'd be pretty easy to hide skipping a lunch.
Okay, so that wasn't quick. I promise I won't charge overtime.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by doogle.