10 ms·

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 incenti

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.
- matchagaucho 10y ago
  Walmart typically puts small Mom-n-Pop shops out of business when they move into a community... and they pay far lower wages than the businesses they replace.
  - harryh 10y ago
    False: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20313 http://www.nber.org/papers/w20313
    - matchagaucho 10y ago
      Follow the money. NBER's source of funding is dubious, at best.
      - harryh 10y ago
        It's the largest economic research organization in the US and the #1 clearinghouse for academic work in economics. Furthermore, just because the paper is on NBER, it doesn't mean the organization did the research. It's just the organization that hosts the paper. If you click through, you can see that the work was done by faculty at Stanford and The University of Michigan.
        matchagaucho 10y ago
        And their "research" is used by right-wing conservatives to justify fracking, and other environmentally damaging agendas. http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/11/01/shale-boom-nber-conservative-dots/ http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/11/01/shale-boom-nber-conse...
        harryh 10y ago
        The paper I linked to wasn't done by NBER. They just host a database of research done by basically all academic economists. Your ad hominem attack isn't even aimed at the right people.
bradleyankrom 10y ago
Probably off topic, but this reminded me of the only other retailer (that I'm aware of) that could challenge Walmart for the title of "most vehemently anti-union employer in America": Menards[0][1] [0] http://gawker.com/menards-the-gold-standard-of-union-hating-retailers-1748301120 http://gawker.com/menards-the-gold-standard-of-union-hating-... [1] http://gawker.com/documents-how-a-major-company-bombards-employees-with-1781111355 http://gawker.com/documents-how-a-major-company-bombards-emp...
briandear 10y ago
Their duty to employees? Those employees have the right to quit. If the supply of labor decreases, the prevailing wage will increase. Also not mentioned are the effects of Obamacare and the unintended consequences of companies cutting hours.
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  When the ACA was passed, Walmart hired enough people to make sure that everyone worked less than the required average of 30hrs a week per month so that they would not have to pay for health benefits or be fined. They relieved themselves of their duty to provide benefits to their full time employees by going out of their way to eliminate full time employees.
  - jnicholasp 10y ago
    Why is it that we believe employers have a duty to employees to provide benefits like health coverage?
    - kalleboo 10y ago
      Because Americans want all the benefits of socialism but with plausible deniability about not being "commies"
  - toast0 10y ago
    What did you expect them to do? When Wal-Mart has a choice, they almost always choose the least expensive option. If the drafters of the ACA wanted Wal-Mart to pay for health insurance, they should not have left Wal-Mart an easy way out.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >If the supply of labor decreases, the prevailing wage will increase. // So, all the low paid need to do is reduce the number of people available. Genocide has never been so easily argued for.
rayiner 10y ago
> massive profits. Wal-Mart's profit margin is about 5%.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- yolesaber 10y ago
  That doesn't mean that $131.69 billion is not a massive amount of money. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Pro...
  - rayiner 10y ago
    That's gross profit--revenue minus cost of goods sold, not including salaries and rent. Other overhead plus taxes brings that down to about $15 billion. Which is not a lot of profit for a company with almost 2.3 million employees. It's equivalent to a 20-employee mom-and-pop that pulls out $120,000 a year for its owner. A McDonalds franchise is much more profitable.
    - yolesaber 10y ago
      Wow! Thank you for explaining that to me. Surprising.
- ebrenes 10y ago
  But isn't much of that self-inflicted? That is to say, Walmart purposely aims to undercut the competition on price and to save people money. If they deviated a bit from that mantra they could surely increase their profit margins. Especially in areas where they are now the main purveyor of goods after they've driven out the competition.
listerOfSmeg 10y ago
As someone working there currently I have never seen any such Anti-Union video. The only videos I have ever seen are training at doing a particular job ie, meat slicer maintenance or what to do when coming upon a spill, or disposal of sharps. Oh and the stupid masturbatory founder worship of Sam Walton ones.
listerOfSmeg 10y ago
As someone working there currently I have never seen any such Anti-Union video. The only videos I have ever seen are training at doing a particular job ie, meat slicer maintenance or what to do when coming upon a spill, or disposal of sharps. Oh and the stupid masturbatory founder worship of Sam Walton ones.

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.

matchagaucho 10y ago
Walmart typically puts small Mom-n-Pop shops out of business when they move into a community... and they pay far lower wages than the businesses they replace.
- harryh 10y ago
  False: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20313 http://www.nber.org/papers/w20313
  - matchagaucho 10y ago
    Follow the money. NBER's source of funding is dubious, at best.
    - harryh 10y ago
      It's the largest economic research organization in the US and the #1 clearinghouse for academic work in economics. Furthermore, just because the paper is on NBER, it doesn't mean the organization did the research. It's just the organization that hosts the paper. If you click through, you can see that the work was done by faculty at Stanford and The University of Michigan.
      - matchagaucho 10y ago
        And their "research" is used by right-wing conservatives to justify fracking, and other environmentally damaging agendas. http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/11/01/shale-boom-nber-conservative-dots/ http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/11/01/shale-boom-nber-conse...
        harryh 10y ago
        The paper I linked to wasn't done by NBER. They just host a database of research done by basically all academic economists. Your ad hominem attack isn't even aimed at the right people.

bradleyankrom 10y ago

Probably off topic, but this reminded me of the only other retailer (that I'm aware of) that could challenge Walmart for the title of "most vehemently anti-union employer in America": Menards[0][1] [0] http://gawker.com/menards-the-gold-standard-of-union-hating-retailers-1748301120 http://gawker.com/menards-the-gold-standard-of-union-hating-... [1] http://gawker.com/documents-how-a-major-company-bombards-employees-with-1781111355 http://gawker.com/documents-how-a-major-company-bombards-emp...

briandear 10y ago

Their duty to employees? Those employees have the right to quit. If the supply of labor decreases, the prevailing wage will increase. Also not mentioned are the effects of Obamacare and the unintended consequences of companies cutting hours.

darpa_escapee 10y ago
When the ACA was passed, Walmart hired enough people to make sure that everyone worked less than the required average of 30hrs a week per month so that they would not have to pay for health benefits or be fined. They relieved themselves of their duty to provide benefits to their full time employees by going out of their way to eliminate full time employees.
- jnicholasp 10y ago
  Why is it that we believe employers have a duty to employees to provide benefits like health coverage?
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    Because Americans want all the benefits of socialism but with plausible deniability about not being "commies"
- toast0 10y ago
  What did you expect them to do? When Wal-Mart has a choice, they almost always choose the least expensive option. If the drafters of the ACA wanted Wal-Mart to pay for health insurance, they should not have left Wal-Mart an easy way out.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>If the supply of labor decreases, the prevailing wage will increase. // So, all the low paid need to do is reduce the number of people available. Genocide has never been so easily argued for.

rayiner 10y ago

> massive profits. Wal-Mart's profit margin is about 5%.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yolesaber 10y ago
That doesn't mean that $131.69 billion is not a massive amount of money. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Pro...
- rayiner 10y ago
  That's gross profit--revenue minus cost of goods sold, not including salaries and rent. Other overhead plus taxes brings that down to about $15 billion. Which is not a lot of profit for a company with almost 2.3 million employees. It's equivalent to a 20-employee mom-and-pop that pulls out $120,000 a year for its owner. A McDonalds franchise is much more profitable.
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    Wow! Thank you for explaining that to me. Surprising.
ebrenes 10y ago
But isn't much of that self-inflicted? That is to say, Walmart purposely aims to undercut the competition on price and to save people money. If they deviated a bit from that mantra they could surely increase their profit margins. Especially in areas where they are now the main purveyor of goods after they've driven out the competition.

listerOfSmeg 10y ago

As someone working there currently I have never seen any such Anti-Union video. The only videos I have ever seen are training at doing a particular job ie, meat slicer maintenance or what to do when coming upon a spill, or disposal of sharps. Oh and the stupid masturbatory founder worship of Sam Walton ones.

listerOfSmeg 10y ago