19 ms·

They're not interfering with the right to bargain collectively though. For all we know, they're genuinely warning their employees that they may be involved in a

They're not interfering with the right to bargain collectively though. For all we know, they're genuinely warning their employees that they may be involved in a PII collection scam. They can't reprimand/dismiss you for using the app, but surely they can tell you it's unwise. I don't see why people are so quick to tie Wal-Mart to the pyre; for what they pay, their employees are satisfied to an outsized degree. Given that they are the third largest employer, behind the DoD and the PLA, they've surely done something impressive in building one of the largest and most satisfied minimum-wage-or-thereabouts workforces in the world. Obviously we can't take their statement at face value. We also can't take the union's statement at face value. Each party has its own interests. I'm sure anyone here who has dealt with a real union recognizes that nobody runs one because they love their industry's labourers. They are no less political than the corporations they bargain with.

duaneb 10y ago
It's certainly unwise to interpret their concern that charitably--it only has access to photos and it's a chat app. It has the same concerns any other chat app would have. They don't publish PSAs about texting.
- randomdata 10y ago
  But if we recognize that it is yet another chat app, like every other chat app, why are people even downloading it in the first place to prompt Wal-mart to feel the need to issue a statement?
  - duaneb 10y ago
    It only has the privacy profile of a chat app. The "OUR Walmart" app offers other functionality, like legal advice and concerns specific to employees, that I would imagine I would love were I an employee myself. That said, I don't think it's out of order for... whatever OUR walmart is (a union?) to release a privacy statement. But painting them as identity thiefs, phishers, or ad resellers is absurd. In my view, Walmart is pandering to fears without actually identifying real concerns.
    - randomdata 10y ago
      > Walmart is pandering to fears without actually identifying real concerns. What part of their concern do you not believe is real? If I were Walmart, I would certainly be concerned about others trying to gain intelligence on me. > like legal advice and concerns specific to employees Well, that certainly sounds like a really good way for information, that Walmart may not want just anyone to know, to leak. Maybe the intentions of OUR Walmart is nothing but pure, and hope for nothing but the best for Walmart, but I don't see what benefit there is in being so trusting? Security is about always mitigating the attack vectors, after all. Besides, why should we believe a service named "OUR Walmart" does not want to know anything about Walmart?
psyc 10y ago
Former Walmart employee here. Before there was any such thing as smart phones, they still used to instruct us not to speak to union people, and to report being approached.
- jandrese 10y ago
  Whatever you do, don't report union reps approaching Wal-Mart employees. It's the quickest way to get a store shut down and everybody blacklisted. Wal-Mart is terrified of unions and has an almost religious zeal for prosecuting them. Edit, source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over-labor-activism/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over... http://rense.com/general65/union.htm http://rense.com/general65/union.htm
darpa_escapee 10y ago
This is the same company that shows employees videos that are equivalent to "Unions = bad, yuck, gross, not even once" during training. They have every incentive to prevent unionization. If workers have room to negotiate, that means they could negotiate for fair compensation. Reminder that our country's labor history is rife with straight up mass murder of workers because they demanded fair pay, safe working conditions and anything but 12hr work days all week. Even the suggestion of possible unionization would leave innocent people dead. Walmart has done nothing to be given the benefit of the doubt and to do so is to be willfully ignorant of our past and present. > for what they pay, their employees are satisfied to an outsized degree Weird that Walmart relies heavily on the state to subsidize benefits and compensation through welfare, Medicaid and food stamps that they should be paying out to their employees from their massive profits. They refuse to give people enough hours for full time employment to avoid their duty to their employees, despite people begging for more hours. "Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance" http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#3a6ac67d7cd8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...
- randomdata 10y ago
  > they could negotiate for fair compensation. What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all. I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work. > If workers have room to negotiate A union actually takes away a worker's room to negotiate. The union becomes the only vendor and, in this case, Walmart would be legally required to hire through that vendor for the defined positions. This is less fair, as now you are managing the supply of labour and actively hindering competition. A union has no bargaining power if it has competition, of course. While the benefits of a union are clear, the way you try to spin the situation is, to say the least, interesting. A union is beneficial because it takes away the fairness and takes away the freedom to negotiate. Fairness and freedom are what allow people to drive value towards zero, which is where the problems stem from. I have a feeling this will be taken as an anti-union message, even though it really is a pro-union one. The loss of fairness is a good thing! We have a long history to look back on to see why.
SilasX 10y ago
Parent is downvoted, but they're at least correct that it's legal to recommend employees not associate with union organizers (including related activities like downloading an app). It's only when they take retaliatory action that it starts to cross the line.
coldtea 10y ago
>They're not interfering with the right to bargain collectively though. For all we know, they're genuinely warning their employees that they may be involved in a PII collection scam. I never thought the benefit of the doubt could go so far.

duaneb 10y ago

It's certainly unwise to interpret their concern that charitably--it only has access to photos and it's a chat app. It has the same concerns any other chat app would have. They don't publish PSAs about texting.

randomdata 10y ago
But if we recognize that it is yet another chat app, like every other chat app, why are people even downloading it in the first place to prompt Wal-mart to feel the need to issue a statement?
- duaneb 10y ago
  It only has the privacy profile of a chat app. The "OUR Walmart" app offers other functionality, like legal advice and concerns specific to employees, that I would imagine I would love were I an employee myself. That said, I don't think it's out of order for... whatever OUR walmart is (a union?) to release a privacy statement. But painting them as identity thiefs, phishers, or ad resellers is absurd. In my view, Walmart is pandering to fears without actually identifying real concerns.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    > Walmart is pandering to fears without actually identifying real concerns. What part of their concern do you not believe is real? If I were Walmart, I would certainly be concerned about others trying to gain intelligence on me. > like legal advice and concerns specific to employees Well, that certainly sounds like a really good way for information, that Walmart may not want just anyone to know, to leak. Maybe the intentions of OUR Walmart is nothing but pure, and hope for nothing but the best for Walmart, but I don't see what benefit there is in being so trusting? Security is about always mitigating the attack vectors, after all. Besides, why should we believe a service named "OUR Walmart" does not want to know anything about Walmart?

psyc 10y ago

Former Walmart employee here. Before there was any such thing as smart phones, they still used to instruct us not to speak to union people, and to report being approached.

jandrese 10y ago
Whatever you do, don't report union reps approaching Wal-Mart employees. It's the quickest way to get a store shut down and everybody blacklisted. Wal-Mart is terrified of unions and has an almost religious zeal for prosecuting them. Edit, source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over-labor-activism/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over... http://rense.com/general65/union.htm http://rense.com/general65/union.htm

darpa_escapee 10y ago

This is the same company that shows employees videos that are equivalent to "Unions = bad, yuck, gross, not even once" during training. They have every incentive to prevent unionization. If workers have room to negotiate, that means they could negotiate for fair compensation. Reminder that our country's labor history is rife with straight up mass murder of workers because they demanded fair pay, safe working conditions and anything but 12hr work days all week. Even the suggestion of possible unionization would leave innocent people dead. Walmart has done nothing to be given the benefit of the doubt and to do so is to be willfully ignorant of our past and present. > for what they pay, their employees are satisfied to an outsized degree Weird that Walmart relies heavily on the state to subsidize benefits and compensation through welfare, Medicaid and food stamps that they should be paying out to their employees from their massive profits. They refuse to give people enough hours for full time employment to avoid their duty to their employees, despite people begging for more hours. "Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance" http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#3a6ac67d7cd8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...

randomdata 10y ago
> they could negotiate for fair compensation. What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all. I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work. > If workers have room to negotiate A union actually takes away a worker's room to negotiate. The union becomes the only vendor and, in this case, Walmart would be legally required to hire through that vendor for the defined positions. This is less fair, as now you are managing the supply of labour and actively hindering competition. A union has no bargaining power if it has competition, of course. While the benefits of a union are clear, the way you try to spin the situation is, to say the least, interesting. A union is beneficial because it takes away the fairness and takes away the freedom to negotiate. Fairness and freedom are what allow people to drive value towards zero, which is where the problems stem from. I have a feeling this will be taken as an anti-union message, even though it really is a pro-union one. The loss of fairness is a good thing! We have a long history to look back on to see why.

SilasX 10y ago

Parent is downvoted, but they're at least correct that it's legal to recommend employees not associate with union organizers (including related activities like downloading an app). It's only when they take retaliatory action that it starts to cross the line.

coldtea 10y ago

>They're not interfering with the right to bargain collectively though. For all we know, they're genuinely warning their employees that they may be involved in a PII collection scam. I never thought the benefit of the doubt could go so far.