8 ms·

> they could negotiate for fair compensation. What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed t

• 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.
            • matchagaucho 10y ago
              Like I said... follow the money. I choose to filter this out as false authority, not ad-hominem.
              • harryh 10y ago
                Everyone chooses which science they want to deny so they don't have to confront inaccuracies in their world view. I guess this is yours.
                • matchagaucho 10y ago
                  There's no science required here. Walmart is a minimum wage body shop. Plain and simple. So at best, their presence in a community only displaces other minimum wage jobs, or creates more minimum wage jobs. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/walmart-can-afford-15-minimum-wage-commentary.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/walmart-can-afford-15-minimum... The paper cited is a typical right-wing conservative position that corporate ladders with management positions provide workers with more opportunities for advancement, and thus possibly higher wages.
    • kognate 10y ago
      Here is a link to the PDF of that paper. https://www.global-economic-symposium.org/knowledgebase/the-future-of-wages-and-benefits/virtual-library/do-large-modern-retailers-pay-premium-wages/at_download/file https://www.global-economic-symposium.org/knowledgebase/the-...
      • matchagaucho 10y ago
        Thanks for sharing. This paper speaks to wages... not benefits, which Walmart avoids by classifying employees as part-time.
        • harryh 10y ago
          And mom and pops avoid because most ACA requirements don't apply to employers with fewer than 50 full time employees. There's simply no evidence that Walmart is a drag on wages compared to retailers it replaces. Quite the opposite actually.
    • matchagaucho 10y ago
      Probably should have clarified overall comp and benefits are lower... not specifically wages.
      • harryh 10y ago
        Do you have any evidence for that point of view? Mom and pops very rarely have good benefits because they don't have the resources that larger firms have. It's complicated and expensive to set up things like health care plans and 401Ks. This is why the ACA employer mandate doesn't apply to firms with fewer than 50 employees.
• jahaja 10y ago
  I'm curious about how people that see unions as something that causes a negative outcome for workers explains the massive gap in worker rights etc that clearly exists between the US and Europe.
  • randomdata 10y ago
    Perhaps it is because just as we have seen here, they are told by labour advocates that fair compensation and room for negotiation are a good thing? Since a union takes both of those away, if fairness and freedom are good, one can only conclude that a union is bad. That's why I found the use of the parent's words so interesting.
    • jahaja 10y ago
      I'm not sure what you actually mean here, could you please clarify? Do you by fairness strictly mean the initial compensation being offered, but not what the workers believe is a fair compensation after-the-fact? Do you by freedom strictly mean individual freedom to bargain, but not the freedom to organise and bargain collectively?
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • randomdata 10y ago
        Which part of the original comment did you not understand? Fair means everyone is operating in their own interests, as they choose, which can include expecting more in the future. I did ask in the comment what is more fair than that, and you didn't mention anything when you initially replied, so presumably you agreed with that part. Freedom means that everyone is able to operate in their own interests, as they choose. Collective bargaining locks some people out of operating in their own interests. This part should be obvious. A union cannot function when there is competition. The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom. But, like I said, less freedom and fairness is a good thing here. There is no reason to shy away from it. Unions have done wonders for the public.
• toomanybeersies 10y ago
  > Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all This is completely untrue. There are a lot of people who need to work to eat and pay rent. Often they're backed into a corner where there's literally no other jobs available than Walmart, which means that Walmart can offer any wage they want and the potential employees have no options beyond accepting, or being on the street.
  • hammock 10y ago
    When you put it that way, it sounds like Walmart is doing them a great service. Keeping them off the street. And saving the taxpayers welfare dollars at the same time.
    • jahaja 10y ago
      This is a particularly malicious rationalisation historically.
    • darpa_escapee 10y ago
      Walmart's MO was to setup shop in towns, undercut the competition until there was no competition left and then raise prices. A great service indeed. Did you know that people who profit from child labor help hungry kids eat?
  • randomdata 10y ago
    How is it untrue? What people, who did not reach an agreement with Walmart to work together, are working at Walmart? Why would Walmart even want to have workers who walked away from the table during negation, of whom they have no employment agreement and are technically not even employees, working for them? That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Even ignoring the sketchy legal ground, it seems like a huge liability to have what are effectively random people walking in off the street doing work at your store. I am still dubious that Walmart, or any other business for that matter, would allow this.
• pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. // Seriously, do you think that's how it happens? Is that bluster, naivety, or what? "He sonny, do you want to eat dirt or accept our below healthy subsistence wages?" seems closer to how it goes. People don't work for low wages because they can't bargain, they work for low wages because the alternative is for them not to work and the government won't mandate a Living Wage. It's not fair because people who have less resources, from birth usually, are in a far worse bargaining position and usually don't have the occasion to negotiate their wages. The only chance they have to create leverage is to unionise and force the company to decide whether to waste 20% of their workforce and do a massive employment and training drive (or suffer a strike, or ...) or to accede to paying a, for example, inflation matching wage increase.
  • sillysaurus3 10y ago
    Seriously, do you think that's how it happens? Is that bluster, naivety, or what? Why not assume they're genuinely curious to learn rather than attack them? It gives better conversation.
    • danharaj 10y ago
      Going over the same basic points over and over again might be a better conversation, but it's always the same comversation, which gets tiresome.
      • randomdata 10y ago
        The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has. I have to wonder if anyone actually read my comment, or just saw the word union and started replying with their stock responses.
        • anigbrowl 10y ago
• vacri 10y ago
  When economies of scale have allowed Walmart to drive all the other shops out of business in your town, and you need to earn money to live, you don't exactly have a fair bargaining position as an employee. Do you seriously believe that any of the floor staff at Walmart have been able to negotiate a separate wage for themselves?
  • randomdata 10y ago
    > you don't exactly have a fair bargaining position as an employee. Sure you do. You can choose exactly what you want out of the deal. That's also the problem. > Do you seriously believe that any of the floor staff at Walmart have been able to negotiate a separate wage for themselves? No, which is why we advocate removing the fairness. Fair does not equal good. Fair is what leads to this situation.
• state_less 10y ago
  Were I a slave and then given an opportunity to be a indentured servant, sure I'd agree. That doesn't mean I live in good conditions. Yea, I could terminate the agreement and move on to being a slave again, but why would I? It's an agreement made under duress, we can do better for these people. Don't you agree?
  • randomdata 10y ago
    Yes, I agree that fairness and freedom is the problem here. That's literally what the whole comment was about. A union helps take away fairness and freedom so that the employees benefit.
    • anigbrowl 10y ago
      You are assuming your premise as your conclusion.
      • randomdata 10y ago
        Well, that's the topic at hand. If the premise needs discussion, we can discuss it.
  • BurningFrog 10y ago
    > That doesn't mean I live in good conditions I think this is the core misunderstanding of the left in this area. Choices are only thought to be voluntary if they are between "good" alternatives, where "good" is measured by the standards of US college educated middle class.
    • state_less 10y ago
      Hopefully most us agree indentured servitude is not a good condition to be in, so neither option is good here and yet you might come to some agreement.
• jacalata 10y ago
  yada yada yada rich and poor equally free to not sleep under a bridge?
  • randomdata 10y ago
    The rich and the poor are equally free to make offers on places that prevent them from sleeping under the bridge, absolutely. But since those with homes are just as free to say no to some (esp. the poor), they really might be left to live under a bridge. This is why freedom and fairness can be bad. If we take away freedom, we can allow those people under the bridge to have homes.
• anigbrowl 10y ago
  Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work. This is self-evidently untrue. You are confusing basic economic models with empirical conditions. While simple models of things like supply and demand are essential to understanding economic conditions, over-reliance on them is like thinking that being able to work simple problems of gravitation is all you need to know about aeronautics. You are assuming a particular kind of bargaining relationship, the closed shop, that is actually illegal in many jurisdictions. You're also way overestimating the negotiating power of of the individual employee, or (put another way) ignoring the vast economic disparity between the parties and the resulting lack of leverage for the non-specialist employee. When shareholders pool their capital and hire managers to run the business, is it a loss of freedom for them? Hardly, they can choose to sell their interest in the business if they no longer want to own it, or take a more active role if they are unhappy with the performance of their economic agents. Why are you so averse to low-level employees doing the same thing with their wages - essentially hiring the union to negotiate on their behalf?
• gridspy 10y ago
  In your argument, you are assuming that the individual Walmart worker has the power to negotiate. However, they do not. There are many potential (unskilled) workers, and Walmart has all the power. They are more than happy to present an offer and say "take it or leave it" to the individual worker. Contrast that to the highly skilled market that most HN readers inhabit, and it is scary place to be.
• briandear 10y ago
  So industrial monopolies are illegal but apparently a labor monopoly is not. It's illogical. Labor is a product like any other.
• darpa_escapee 10y ago
  > 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. On one side of the table, there is Walmart: a large group of well-monied people that pay lawyers, lobbyists, PR teams and think-tanks to level the playing field in their favor. On the other side, there is you: an individual person who can only bring their time and skill to the table and needs to eat. Unorganized labor is great for Walmart. If you don't like their terms, there is a large pool of qualified applicants that will take whatever employment they can get. If Walmart's terms aren't really that great for everybody, where huge swaths of people are not being paid fair market compensation for their productivity then, individually, workers have no option for change. > 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. People are not being paid fair market compensation for their work that they would be if they were able to bargain collectively the way Walmart is able to. An individual has little recourse against the might of many people who want to pay them as little as possible. If capital is allowed to consolidate wealth and power into a corporation, labor should be able to collectively negotiate with it. Unions can serve to to bridge the gap of uneven power at negotiations. > A union has no bargaining power if it has competition, of course. A union is under the same market forces as anybody else. If it has competition, it must compete. > A union actually takes away a worker's room to negotiate Depends on the union. Some allow for negotiation, some have a scale which you can work with.
• mirimir 10y ago
  You make a good argument. But "fairness" is a loaded term. There would be no need for unions if no employer had more than a few employees. In that case, employers and employees would have similar market power. But when employers have numerous employees, there is an imbalance in market power. Through collective bargaining, unions restore employees' market power.
• pasquinelli 10y ago
  that's a good point: fairness is neither here nor there. the point is to get a better deal for workers.
• ethbro 10y ago
  > 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. I would argue that this is where the lack of fairness stems from. In every rural small town I've visited, Walmart is effectively a monopoly. They're backed by a capital-intensive and incredibly efficient logistics network, and they've leveraged that to put local competition out of business. Consequently, they're the only employer in their industry in that town. Sure, you could get a job doing something else (if the town has a 'something else'), but that still means there are going to be a large number of jobs controlled by Walmart without competition. And that distorts the local labor market via the disparity in power.