Help walmart strikers!

[bannination]

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com ... y-strikers

[O Really]

For a variety of reasons, I can't actually show up, but I'm happy to continue my same practice of the other 364 days of the year to actively avoid Wal-Mart. Market competition is one thing; predatory practices damaging entire communities is entirely something else.

[billy.pilgrim]

For a variety of reasons, I can't actually show up, but I'm happy to continue my same practice of the other 364 days of the year to actively avoid Wal-Mart. Market competition is one thing; predatory practices damaging entire communities is entirely something else.

walmart and mcdonalds etc have done nothing illegal and are exercising their rights within our free market;
however,
market value and free market require an informed consumer acting without duress.

an informed consumer acting with the knowledge of how many tens of thousands of middle class family business these companies destroyed in return for low class wages would easily make the decision to support small local independently owned business in he wasn't under financial duress to purchase the highly taxpayer subsidized low prices offered by the huge companies.

[O Really]

For a variety of reasons, I can't actually show up, but I'm happy to continue my same practice of the other 364 days of the year to actively avoid Wal-Mart. Market competition is one thing; predatory practices damaging entire communities is entirely something else.

walmart and mcdonalds etc have done nothing illegal and are exercising their rights within our free market;
....

An action doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. But in fact Wal-Mart does a lot that's illegal. On average, they get sued once a week (50+ cases per year) - just on labor matters - just in Florida. And they lose a lot of them.

Wal-Mart is a target (no pun intended) of labor not just because they're non-union, but because their practices create serious worker dissatisfaction and because they are the gorilla.

Wal-Mart has a very visible caste system, where career life is pretty good once you get to the management level within a store. Life under that is a lot like indentured servitude.

[rstrong]

The weird thing is, there are people who hold up Walmart as an example of free enterprise.

Walmart is all about milking government programs and tax breaks and subsidies.

Examples

It's more than just low wages putting a huge number of people on Medicaid and other taxpayer subsidized government programs. Low wages may be a simple fact of life, but this is a company that gives classes to employees on how to collect government assistance to offset the low wages.

[billy.pilgrim]

For a variety of reasons, I can't actually show up, but I'm happy to continue my same practice of the other 364 days of the year to actively avoid Wal-Mart. Market competition is one thing; predatory practices damaging entire communities is entirely something else.

walmart and mcdonalds etc have done nothing illegal and are exercising their rights within our free market;
....

An action doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. But in fact Wal-Mart does a lot that's illegal. On average, they get sued once a week (50+ cases per year) - just on labor matters - just in Florida. And they lose a lot of them.

Wal-Mart is a target (no pun intended) of labor not just because they're non-union, but because their practices create serious worker dissatisfaction and because they are the gorilla.

Wal-Mart has a very visible caste system, where career life is pretty good once you get to the management level within a store. Life under that is a lot like indentured servitude.

agreed

just pointing out that I see these companies as destructive the the overall economy - turning hundreds of thousands of people out of owning their own middle class businesses and into low wage earners who have to depend on government services

same can be said of what has happened in the banking world. almost no more small town banks (and no more S&Ls since reagan destroyed them with some twisted deregulation bs) and the jobs they created, most have been swallowed by the citigroups etc with their billion dollar executive compensations and the clerk wages they pay to their workers

[billy.pilgrim]

Is knowingly relying on thousands of workers that will necessarily collect some sort of welfare "corporate welfare" (real question)? And, if so, will any con here admit that Walmart is more of a welfare queen than the ones they gripe about (rhetorical question, we know how they are)?

the taxpayer's navy protects their cargo ships, which off load at taxpayer subsidized docks, onto taxpayer subsidized trains and trucks which travel on taxpayer subsidized rails and roads to bring products to these huge stores owned by the richest people in the world - while destroying the businesses of the taxpayer

the benevolent aristocracy is so good to us regular people

[Supsalemgr]

So is Fish Head suggesting that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to use the roads?

BTW, thanks for the offer, but I probably will pass on the protest.

[O Really]

agreed

just pointing out that I see these companies as destructive the the overall economy - turning hundreds of thousands of people out of owning their own middle class businesses and into low wage earners who have to depend on government services

same can be said of what has happened in the banking world. almost no more small town banks (and no more S&Ls since reagan destroyed them with some twisted deregulation bs) and the jobs they created, most have been swallowed by the citigroups etc with their billion dollar executive compensations and the clerk wages they pay to their workers

But Wal-Mart is way different and way more destructive to a community than bank consolidation. Banks may eat up some other financial institutions, but Wal-Mart tries to eat up all other retail, including hard/soft goods, groceries, pharmacy, auto repair/supplies and yada ad infinitim. They're into eyeglasses, hair care, and practically anything else that can get someone into the store - all of which are destructive to local businesses.

[billy.pilgrim]

So is Fish Head suggesting that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to use the roads?

BTW, thanks for the offer, but I probably will pass on the protest.

tag - you get more wrong about just everything - it's hard to imagine

I'm not aware of anyone who uses our socialized roads who doesn't pay taxes, other than maybe homeless pedestrians
but some don't pay their share - bicyclers come to mind but their wear and tear on our roads is negligible
heavy trucks that haul walmart good etc cause approximately 60,000 times the wear and tear when compared to the average car, yet they pay only a couple times more in tax
if they paid their share, the free market would show a more accurate cost of the walmart goods and the local manufactures would be able to compete against products made thousands of miles away

[homerfobe]

What Walmart really needs is a unionized labor force; yep, that's the ticket. Just think, being a unionized worker gives you the right to sit on your ass when you feel like it, tell a supervisor to go to hell, tell a supervisor you'll get your job done when you damn well feel like it....the list of rights are endless! And not to mention the joy that the union derives from your membership! Look at the 'dues' they get from your paycheck! Hey, makes no difference whether or not you support that political candidate, your union dues go where the Union says they'll go.

Oh yeah....one drawback-------this:

Hostess, Maker of Twinkies, Going out of Business LINK

"The company, whose roster of brands date as far back as 1888, filed a motion to liquidate Friday with U.S. Bankruptcy Court after striking workers across the country crippled its ability to maintain production."

"Unlike many of its competitors, Hostess had been saddled with high pension, wage and medical costs related to its unionized workforce."

"The shuttering of Hostess means the loss of about 18,500 jobs. Hostess said employees at its 33 factories were sent home and operations suspended Friday."

"The move to liquidate comes after a long battle with its unions. Thousands of members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union went on strike last week after rejecting a contract offer that slashed wages and benefits."

Not wishing anyone bad luck or anything like that, but if they walk out or strike, piss on 'em, I hope they starve.

OK, so why do I feel that way? I've had my run-ins with various unions. All I've met were attitudes fueled by gimme-gimme.

Gimme-gimme more money and benefits, but gimme-gimme less work and work days.

[rstrong]

Not wishing anyone bad luck or anything like that, but if they walk out or strike, piss on 'em, I hope they starve.

I've never been a union person. I've always been in favor of a company's rights - with a few exceptions - to hire someone else rather then being held hostage by a strike.

Of course I'd never put it as psychotically and stupidly as you do.

However:

CNN: Workers react to Hostess closing

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits.

The company got their major concessions and pay cuts from the workers, and they still went bankrupt again. The second time, the union is merely being used as a scapegoat. Dropping someone from $48,000 down to $25,000 - plus a big increase in insurance expenses - is not an offer given in good faith.

[homerfobe]

Of course I'd never put it as psychotically and stupidly as you do.

Your lack of intelligence is not my fault. Whine on.

[Supsalemgr]

Not wishing anyone bad luck or anything like that, but if they walk out or strike, piss on 'em, I hope they starve.

I've never been a union person. I've always been in favor of a company's rights - with a few exceptions - to hire someone else rather then being held hostage by a strike.

Of course I'd never put it as psychotically and stupidly as you do.

However:

CNN: Workers react to Hostess closing

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits.

The company got their major concessions and pay cuts from the workers, and they still went bankrupt again. The second time, the union is merely being used as a scapegoat. Dropping someone from $48,000 down to $25,000 - plus a big increase in insurance expenses - is not an offer given in good faith.

The workers have the option of finding a better job. Maybe their skills are only worth what Hostess was willing to pay. They could always go to Walmart as they are always hiring.

[O Really]

Yo Super-S - you seem to imply that the employment relationship is one of equal power. It's not. But it also looks like you favor the employer holding most of the cards, unbridled by regulation or worker pressure. Here's my question - do you really think that quitting an employer is the only recourse an employee should have if s/he's dissatisfied? Do you think it's OK for executives to negotiate employment contracts with their employer? If so, why is it wrong for grunt-level employees to do so, also?

At what point would you find an employer to have too much control over the employment in a community? Were mill and mine towns and company stores a good thing? Obviously, in some aspects they were beneficial in the short term to workers, but would you really think it's OK if Wal-Mart, as the only significant employer in a town, took over? Taking it one logical step further, was indentured servitude a bad thing? Individual contract between two consenting parties, right?

Assuming you don't actually believe employers should be totally unfettered in the employment relationship, what regulations do you find to be necessary?

[Supsalemgr]

Employees should have the ability to express dissatisfaction for specific issues. Most companies have "open door" policies where an employee has the right to express their opinions freely and without repercussion. I personally moved into management in 19070 at the early age of 27. I therefore have spent over forty years in management and we always encouraged folks to come to us with concerns. I recognize the folks on the frontline have an insight we in management do not always have. This is where I have a problem with unions is they get between the worker and management in many cases and this causes disension.

[O Really]

Employees should have the ability to express dissatisfaction for specific issues. Most companies have "open door" policies where an employee has the right to express their opinions freely and without repercussion. I personally moved into management in 19070 at the early age of 27. I therefore have spent over forty years in management and we always encouraged folks to come to us with concerns. I recognize the folks on the frontline have an insight we in management do not always have. This is where I have a problem with unions is they get between the worker and management in many cases and this causes disension.

Not to nit-pick, but I noticed you used the term "abiity" instead of "right." And you offered no obligation on the part of the employer to respond. So take a real union out of it - do you have a problem with collective action by groups of employees not in a union?

[Supsalemgr]

Not for a legitimate grievance. I have had management colleagues I did not respect for the way they treated folks. In the end, they are identified and removed. That is my personal experience.

[Colonel Taylor]

[billy.pilgrim]

Management may have blamed the workers but reality blamed the idiots in management who couldn’t let go of the idea that the average consumer was kernel homer simpson

Ever forbes thinks the kernel is a tool


http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung ... t-failure/


Hostess' Twinkie Defense is a Management Failure
Founded in 1930 as Interstate Bakeries Co. (IBC) the company did fine for years. But changing consumer tastes, including nutrition desires, changed how much Wonder Bread, Twinkies, HoHos and Honey Buns people would buy — and most especially affected the price – which was wholly unable to keep up with inflation. This trend was clear in the early 1980s, as prices were stagnant and margins kept declining due to higher costs for grain and petroleum to fuel the country’s largest truck fleet delivering daily baked goods to grocers.
Hostess spent decades fighting the trend
IBC kept focusing on operating improvements and better fleet optimization to control rising costs, but the company was unwilling to do anything about the product line. To keep funding lower margins the company added debt, piling on $450M by 2004 when forced to file bankruptcy due to its inability to pay bills. For 5 years financial engineers from consultancies and investment



The obvious problem is leadership kept trying to sell the same products, using roughly the same business model, long, long, long after the products had become irrelevant.



the kernel - wrong as usual




.