Quote from: Julie Fern on August 01, 2008, 09:52:25 AMapparently wal-mart not realize there lot more employees than managers:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.htmlNot really -- they're just focusing on the people they're allowed to speak with.Also, managers are of course employees.
apparently wal-mart not realize there lot more employees than managers:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html
Let me just note for the record that I think it's terrible that companies like walmart and costco provide low-cost goods for working class families, improving their standard of living. I think it's terrible that they purchase good from China, meaning a higher standard of living for people far worse off than the poorest american. I also think it's terrible that such trade creates economic interdependence, and minimizes the risk of military conflict with such countries. Finally, I think it's terrible that such companies provide jobs for low-skilled people, until they can find better jobs. Given that the standard of living for most americans has gone up over the last few decades, not down, and that the unemployment rate has gone down over the last few decades, not up, it is clear that such policies are harmful to our nation, and must be stopped.
Are you saying that Walmart's practice of locking in employees and threatening them if they attempt to leave (even when in need of medical attention) is not exploitative?
oil speculators are driving oil prices into the stratosphere.
First of all, walmart is the largest single employer in the US. That means that there are more walmart jobs than jobs of any other kind, that is why we pick on walmart. That means that without unions the employees have absolutely no power to negotiate wages. Just as all the conservatives have said, if you work for walmart and tell your boss you want $0.50 extra per hour, they'll laugh at you or fire you.
Second of all, labor is not a resource like other things. If you have an ounce of gold and someone offers you a price you don't like, you can hold on it it and wait for a better price. If someone offers you a bad job with no health care, eventually you are FORCED to accept it--you have to pay for all those bigmacs somehow.
But the truth of the situation is that walmart is already running with as few employees as they believe they can and still make money. Increasing labor costs (or making them reflect the real cost on society) is not going to cause massive layoffs at walmart.
And neither will it hurt the company, which does not operate at slim margins, it is wildly profitable.
As for the taxes issue, MY taxes aren't going up, and, likely, neither are yours, Earlcat.
And yes, I do have a problem with walmart's not paying its fair share of the tax burdon.
Rather than trying to close the tax loopholes that they are sooo good at creating, I'm asking my congress person to ask them to shoulder it in a different way, by making it easier to unionize and force them to pay the REAL costs of labor.
If you have a problem with your taxes going up, I suggest you take that up with your congress person, you might mention corporate loop holes.
Quote from: mightyaphrodite on August 02, 2008, 05:02:32 PMAre you saying that Walmart's practice of locking in employees and threatening them if they attempt to leave (even when in need of medical attention) is not exploitative?This is already illegal, but nice job moving the goal-posts.
How is that "moving the goalposts?" My original post said that I believe Walmart's practices are exploitative. Another poster said they weren't and I linked to an article. The above point wasn't directed to you, but way to personalize the argument.
In any event, has this practice been deemed illegal in all states? Last I read, it was legal in some states, provided there is a fire exit. Of course, the problem came from the fact that these people were told that if they used that exit and there was no fire, they'd be fired (even if it was an emergency).