Wal Mart

http://www.walmartworkerscanada.ca/temp ... emands.pdf

I don't believe any real explanation is necessary.

 

All clear.

 

Part of the issue stems from there being no official Wal Mart union. Instead, the site is run by United Food and Commercial Workers Union in Canada; a group that has often spoken out against Wal-Mart's practices towards its employees.

I'm not sure if Wal-Mart exists in any real form in Norway right now, so I'll give an explanation of their stance on Unions. They hate 'em. More specifically, workers are told the benefits of not having a union during training, there is a chapter in the handbook about how to prevent unionization, and the company has been known to 'arbitrarily' shut down Wal-Mart stores that get close to unionizing.

In short, they stink.

The highlighted text in this case is Wal-Mart's well-publicized attempt to get the UFCW to stop using yellow logos that are oval, circular, or semi-circular.


Because yeah, Wal-Mart owns yellow circles.

 

People who work at Walmart complaining that they can't make a livable wage is like a starving person walking into hardware store and complaining that they can't find anything to eat.

 

I saw a documentary on Wal-Mart some time back and had an opinion on the matter. I believe that opinion is similar to Philes's. Single mothers were having a difficult time supporting their families on their pay from Wal-Mart. While menial positions at Wal-Mart might be suitable for a teenager, perhaps they are not the best for single mothers. This is not necessarily the fault of Wal-Mart.

 

The Grocery Store (Superstore, a division of Loblaws Inc.) I worked at in the Maritimes paid out $16-18 to their long-time staff. Wal-Mart pays, on average, $10 to their long-time staff. After one year, I was making the same as somebody who had been at Wal-Mart for five.

They also commonly fight against laws or bills that would cause them to have to provide benefits to employees (like health insurance, for example). Wal-Mart typically also runs down other businesses in the area, leading to them being the only place for single mothers who desperately need to feed their children to work. Dr. Raj Patel claimed recently that he has witnessed Wal-Marts create a massive 'economic crater with Wal-Mart in the centre'.

So yeah, they are accountable for the problems they cause.

Here are some other shitty things Wal-Mart has done:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/us/wo ... -mart.html

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Se ... ?id=450120

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 0433.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/techn ... oo&emc=rss

 

I see nothing wrong with Walmart's demands here.

They are opposed to unions and the company they are suing is claiming to be the union for walmart employees while using a variation of their logo and tag line.

Telling the company to stop using Walmart's trademarks or variations of it is just Walmart protecting its business and IP.

 

In the town I grew up in, the walmart came in, cut costs below cost, and drove everyone out of business, and then jacked their prices up (at one point people were paying around 300-400% of retail, by my mothers math). For several years, they were practically the only store where you could buy anything other than groceries. Thankfully, a Costco opened nearby, and they were forced to drop their prices to more 'reasonable' amounts.


Companies like this are why I called my previous girlfriend a mentally retarded, naive, rich bitch for being a fan of unregulated capitalism.

 

DF's example is incredibly common and well-known. It may be hard for those outside the American Continent to understand, though, because Wal-Marts outside North America are unionized.

Also, Walmartworkerscanada.ca has existed for six years. There is no validity to trying to restrict 'oval, circle-shaped, or semi-circular' logos that utilize a yellow and/or blue colour scheme. Unless you want Wal-Mart to be able to sue, let's say, Midas for infringement.

I think you might be mistaken as to how unions work, Magikot. Rarely are they actively endorsed by the employers of the people in them. Wal-Mart is against unions because it would harm their ability to get inexpensive, overtaxed labour.

 

I'm well aware of how unions work, I've been in a teacher's union the past 5 yrs and for my last two years of high school I was in a food worker's union.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Walmart for all the reasons mentioned. They are a terrible company both in their economic impact and their moral values.

I just find it hard to muster a lot of sympathy for single mothers with no education and 5 kids who are working at Walmart. Don't have so many kids if you are unskilled and single? Find a different job elsewhere? I realize that sounds cold, but the cold truth is many people in situations like that have done it to themselves through life decisions they have made.

 

Hm.

On the one hand, the original WMWC -is- a fifth-column being organized by people who aren't Wal-Mart employees, so they are...rather the wrong people to raise this kind of banner. If unionized store employees wanted to call themselves WMWC, I'd have less of an objection.

On the other, I'm generally against condemning Wal-Mart for slashing prices to the bone by hiring discount labor. That's smart play, and Wal-Mart workers are getting paid exactly as much as their skills are worth; i.e. not much. It's a good job for immigrants, high-schoolers and people working their way through college, it's not the kind of job you try to support a "middle-class" family on.

If Wal-Mart wants to keep their labor discounted, they basically need to refuse to negotiate with their workers. Now, by unregulated "pay what the market will charge," Wal-Mart has no real reason to negotiate with their workers; there's always more workers where that last batch came from. However, if a union forms, management is required to "negotiate in good faith," and even if it's realistic, a blunt statement of "we don't, specifically, need you; there's more fish in the sea who need to eat" won't fly with the courts. (Plus, in Canada, it's a lot harder to strikebreak. In fact, in Quebec it's illegal to cross a picket line.)

Their activities are definitely on the gray line of legality, but they are reasonable under the circumstances and I generally side with Wal-Mart.

 

Philes: Not everybody who works at Wal-Mart is making poor life choices. You have to understand, especially in the case of unwanted pregnancies (which are possible for anybody who have sex, not just trailer trash), that sometimes people get trapped. Yeah, pro-choice is great, but many women find themselves attached to their children and unable to go through with aborting/giving them up for adoption. Oftentimes, their mates don't feel the same, and leave them in the dark.

As an example, my girlfriend's mom (a woman I hate, but no matter) was married with two young kids (the second being born four-five years after the first), but had to work at Wal-Mart anyway because the couple were just starting out. He was a private in the military and made $12,000 or so a year, and that just isn't enough to support any family in Canada (this is known as an investment. By the time a member of the military has been there for ten years or so, their wages increase to around $55,000, more if they are a specialist).

So she worked at Wal-Mart. I don't see where her poor life choices came in (they do, but not til later) in this case.

You're also still missing the point wherein Wal-Mart becomes the major employer of an area. You have to work there, because your old job no longer exists.

Also, Wal-Mart employees don't work any less than other retail employees. Their products may be discount, but they're actually probably doing more than the people at Sears or Zellers or your local Safeway (Sears's difference being that you have to dress fancier), yet they get paid 2 thirds as much? Yeah, that's good business alright. This is exactly how a business should be run: few ethics mean more profits!


Since I doubt any of us here are wealthy businessmen, I think we should probably all consider the consequences of businesses making profit by treating us poorly.

 

They knew their income wasn't enough to support a family, so they had 2 kids? I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make sense to me and argues for making the educated choices Philes mentioned.

I'm married. My wife and I make a decent living but, because my job situation is not secure, we have held off on having children. We make more than some who have multiple kids, but we don't want to live paycheck to paycheck to support another life as they do.

Why do so many people try to live above their means, then blame businesses for not paying them ubsurd amounts for unskilled labor? I just don't understand it.

 

Why do so many people have such unrealistic expectations of life?

Both children were accidents. I, also, was an accident (my mother used both the birth control pill and a condom when I was conceived), most people in the West are accidents. It's nice that you're 'holding off on having children', Idiotfool, but unplanned pregnancies happen. I know you'll just say "Well, you can abort the baby, or give it up for adoption, or etc. etc.", but part of pro-choice is not judging people for not aborting a baby or giving it up. Also keep in mind that some people really want a child, and that we become more and more infertile as we age. If we wait too long, no babies for us.

"If you live in a town where people are stupid enough to let Wal-Mart kill the competition, Move"? Xz, this is the most ridiculously uneducated thing I have heard in ages (maybe I just need to turn on Fox News or something). Where do you suggest they go? With what money or line of credit will they buy themselves a home? What if their spouse has already managed to get themselves a job in the area? Do you expect them to pack up and leave behind their friends and family and start all over again somewhere else to escape Wal-Mart's wrath?

And what happens when they get to the next town? Wal-Mart will eventually open up there, too. I guess you could go live in a tiny community of 3,000 people or less (though, Wal-Mart occasionally opens in these places, too), but where would you find employment there?

Well, if there is a mythical place where Wal-Mart's aggressive penetration marketing (yeah, I know how that sounds) does not break apart small businesses in the area, I'd like to see it. Wal-Mart has (fortunately for their economies) failed in certain places like Germany. However, the incredibly low price value is all too appealing to consumers. Indeed, the fundamental theories of Economics suggest that an indifferent consumer will go buy something at Wal-Mart for $4.00 instead of at Sears for $6.00. Other large corporations actively competing against Wal-Mart are the only thing that keeps them from monopolizing metropolitan markets, as well.

Now, seeing as how you are very supportive and (I assume) somewhat knowledgeable about running successful Capitalist Economic systems, you must already know that the formation of a monopoly breaks the system. Market values are kept fair by the consumers and producers pushing against eachother with supply and demand, and through competition with other firms. Since you know this, you also know that when a single firm holds an absolute advantage or a monopoly on a product, they can charge whatever they want for it, and if the consumers want it, they'll just have to settle for the price.

I've already laid out the major difference between the wages given to Wal-Mart employees and employees of grocery stores, other department stores, etc. Why aren't they making the same? Wal-Mart employees do the same or more than the average employee of other retail chains.


EDIT: From one of the articles which I have already posted

Wal-Mart has decided to sue, because the UFCW has successfully started unionizing Wal-Marts. This seems like a pretty dirty case to me.