This is despicable.

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Wal-Mart's 2004 profits were $9 BILLION. McDonald's profits were $2.28 BILLION. Hardly near zip point sh!t.

Throw out a big number to try to make a point without putting that number in context.

In the three months ended October 31st the company reported the following information:

Revenues were 69.2billion
Costs of sales was 52.5billion
Operating costs and SG&A were 12.9billion
Interest, taxes and misc Income was -1.5billion
Net income was 2.286billion

Without getting to in depth, labor for running the stores is all in the SG&A number. If you doubled the average wallmart Salary there would be operating losses of 10 billion dollars per quarter and Wallmart would be competely out of business in less than a month.

Wallmart's margin runs at 6-7%. This is miniscule, most small business operate on 20-50% margins. Wallmarts greatest expense is labor, even a VERY small adjustment in salarys will wipe out their profit completely and put them in negative territory.

 

[Doboji]

meh.... it's business. They don't owe higher wages... you don't like their wages? work somewhere else.

Very simple.

-Max

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
People usually hate unions until they're about to lose their job and they realize that a single voice has no weight.

uh, and a lot of union members find out that unions don't have much pull these days either. You can still easily lose your job in a union. But hey, at least they get to pay weekly union dues to feel safe.

 

[Red Dawn]

Damn those employees for trying to make a sh!tty job a little less sh!tty. Oh well they were looking for a crappy job before they found a crappy job at Wally World, shouldn't be to hard to find another crappy job. If they had any sense they would try to get a job at Costco which is Unionized BTW and is very profitable.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Damn those employees for trying to make a sh!tty job a little less sh!tty. Oh well they were looking for a crappy job before they found a crappy job at Wally World, shouldn't be to hard to find another crappy job.

The nice thing about democracy and capitalism is that if the job is crappy, then you get another job that isn't as crappy. Chances are a lot of those workers were crappy workers and weren't worth the demands they placed on Walmart, ruining it for the good workers. All unions do is give crappy workers job security and make the workforce stagnant. Then the unionized company attracts more crappy workers looking for a free ride.

Someone else posted that in California, the teacher's union set rules to filter out bad teachers. I really commend that union, and I think that's a great move. There was another union that was started for nurses and investigated the salaries of the managers, who got pay raises that exceeded the pay cuts of the nurses. That is another example of a union being beneficial.

I don't think the problem is with unions directly. Maybe there needs to be some reform and third-entity union regulation to keep their own power in check.

Are there any Information Technology unions?

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's too bad some of you see unions as evil... you usually only hear about the negative things (like when they fight for someone's job that deserves to be cut).. It's unfortunate that the positives aren't heard.

Yeah, we only hear about teachers going on strike for a month or two, or nurses at hopitals going on strike, leaving the hospital to hire temp nurses to take care of the patients.

How callous do you have to be to go on strike when you're a nurse?

Nurses work long difficult hours. There is a shortage of them. Welcome to a free market economy. They have power to wield and they will wield it. Its no different than walmart here, walmart can afford to shut down the store to also crush a possible uprising of union elsewhere. Whats good for the goose...

Or did you think the nurses were going to work out of the goodness of their own hearts and the company was paying them out of the goodness of their's? This isn't a communist utopia.

Unions make some stupid demands and do result in a lot of useless employees sticking around sometimes...but I'm not going to say they're all bad. And given the recent trend of slashing employee benefits to remain competitive, I think we will see more come into being.

You just proved my point, if you don't like the wages, go elsewhere. There is a shortage of nurses afterall, it shouldn't be too hard to find a job, right?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's too bad some of you see unions as evil... you usually only hear about the negative things (like when they fight for someone's job that deserves to be cut).. It's unfortunate that the positives aren't heard.

Yeah, we only hear about teachers going on strike for a month or two, or nurses at hopitals going on strike, leaving the hospital to hire temp nurses to take care of the patients.

How callous do you have to be to go on strike when you're a nurse?

Nurses work long difficult hours. There is a shortage of them. Welcome to a free market economy. They have power to wield and they will wield it. Its no different than walmart here, walmart can afford to shut down the store to also crush a possible uprising of union elsewhere. Whats good for the goose...

Or did you think the nurses were going to work out of the goodness of their own hearts and the company was paying them out of the goodness of their's? This isn't a communist utopia.

Unions make some stupid demands and do result in a lot of useless employees sticking around sometimes...but I'm not going to say they're all bad. And given the recent trend of slashing employee benefits to remain competitive, I think we will see more come into being.

You just proved my point

No he didn't

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Damn those employees for trying to make a sh!tty job a little less sh!tty. Oh well they were looking for a crappy job before they found a crappy job at Wally World, shouldn't be to hard to find another crappy job. If they had any sense they would try to get a job at Costco which is Unionized BTW and is very profitable.

No, more like damn the government that forced Walmart to keep employees it didn't want, or shut down.

Like I said before, a Union's ONLY leverage should be the threat of walking off the job en-mass and forcing the employer to saddle the cost of training a new crew. Any law that prohibits the firing of Union members or organizers is an absurd violation of an employer's rights.

The true outrage here is that Walmart was forced to close, rather than allowed to hire and fire at will.

I fully support the right to Unionize. It's the hallmark of a free country. But NOT if the Unions and Union members have more rights than non-union members and employers.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Amused

The true outrage here is that Walmart was forced to close, rather than allowed to hire and fire at will.

They weren't FORCED to do anything. They CHOSE to close rather than let their employees exercise their right to unionize.

There was no wrongdoing here. Both sides did what they were legally allowed to do. Employers vs. employees is a power struggle, and this is how it played out in this case.

 

[ucdbiendog]

i cant stand walmart

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Damn those employees for trying to make a sh!tty job a little less sh!tty. Oh well they were looking for a crappy job before they found a crappy job at Wally World, shouldn't be to hard to find another crappy job. If they had any sense they would try to get a job at Costco which is Unionized BTW and is very profitable.

No, more like damn the government that forced Walmart to keep employees it didn't want, or shut down.

Like I said before, a Union's ONLY leverage should be the threat of walking off the job en-mass and forcing the employer to saddle the cost of training a new crew. Any law that prohibits the firing of Union members or organizers is an absurd violation of an employer's rights.

The true outrage here is that Walmart was forced to close, rather than allowed to hire and fire at will.

I fully support the right to Unionize. It's the hallmark of a free country. But NOT if the Unions and Union members have more rights than non-union members and employers.

Wally World shouldn't be prevented by the government from hiring non Union Members. However if other Unions like the Teamsters refuse to deliver goods to Wally World because they blacklisted or ran out the Union and refuse to crtoss Picket Lines the government shouldn't interfere with them either.

 

[iversonyin]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Amused

The true outrage here is that Walmart was forced to close, rather than allowed to hire and fire at will.

They weren't FORCED to do anything. They CHOSE to close rather than let their employees exercise their right to unionize.

There was no wrongdoing here. Both sides did what they were legally allowed to do. Employers vs. employees is a power struggle, and this is how it played out in this case.

Don't confuse ethics and legal. Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean its ethical.

I support Walmart, modern unions are evil.

Now they get what they deserved, jobless...

 

[JDub02]

Good for Wal-Mart.

Unions today pretty much suck because of the corruption and abuse of power by union leadership.

They do have their place in some areas of work, but unskilled labor (retail, food workers, etc.) should NEVER be unionized nor should any federal/state employees.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: iversonyin

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Amused

The true outrage here is that Walmart was forced to close, rather than allowed to hire and fire at will.

They weren't FORCED to do anything. They CHOSE to close rather than let their employees exercise their right to unionize.

There was no wrongdoing here. Both sides did what they were legally allowed to do. Employers vs. employees is a power struggle, and this is how it played out in this case.

Don't confuse ethics and legal. Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean its ethical.

I support Walmart, modern unions are evil.

Now they get what they deserved, jobless...

Which is actually no big deal because the job they lost was sh!tty in the first place.

Of course there might be a silver lining in this fopr those workers, maybe other stores will spring up to fill the void left by Wally World that treats their employees decently and they will have no need to unionize.

 

[91TTZ]

The level of ignorance on this thread is astounding. It's not surprising through, considering that most of the members seem to be 15-22. They just don't have the real world experience.

they do have their place in some areas of work, but unskilled labor (retail, food workers, etc.) should NEVER be unionized nor should any federal/state employees.

This is so wrong it is laughable. Non-skilled labor was the MAIN reason that unions and work laws were made. These people were repeatedly stepped on and forced to work in unsafe working conditions. Picture a sweatshop with the people working in unsafe conditions. These are unskilled laborers. I guess they shouldn't have any unions to demand better working conditions.

 

[Phoenix86]

nvm.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Amused

The true outrage here is that Walmart was forced to close, rather than allowed to hire and fire at will.

They weren't FORCED to do anything. They CHOSE to close rather than let their employees exercise their right to unionize.

There was no wrongdoing here. Both sides did what they were legally allowed to do. Employers vs. employees is a power struggle, and this is how it played out in this case.

WRONG. Walmart was prohibited from hiring and firing at will. The employees had every right to unionize, and Walmart SHOULD HAVE had every right to fire them rather than give into their demands and then have to shoulder the cost of training a new crew.

Walmart was FORCED to employ people it didn't want to, or close.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Damn those employees for trying to make a sh!tty job a little less sh!tty. Oh well they were looking for a crappy job before they found a crappy job at Wally World, shouldn't be to hard to find another crappy job. If they had any sense they would try to get a job at Costco which is Unionized BTW and is very profitable.

No, more like damn the government that forced Walmart to keep employees it didn't want, or shut down.

Like I said before, a Union's ONLY leverage should be the threat of walking off the job en-mass and forcing the employer to saddle the cost of training a new crew. Any law that prohibits the firing of Union members or organizers is an absurd violation of an employer's rights.

The true outrage here is that Walmart was forced to close, rather than allowed to hire and fire at will.

I fully support the right to Unionize. It's the hallmark of a free country. But NOT if the Unions and Union members have more rights than non-union members and employers.

Wally World shouldn't be prevented by the government from hiring non Union Members. However if other Unions like the Teamsters refuse to deliver goods to Wally World because they blacklisted or ran out the Union and refuse to crtoss Picket Lines the government shouldn't interfere with them either.

That's fine. That's what freedom is all about.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Amused

The true outrage here is that Walmart was forced to close, rather than allowed to hire and fire at will.

They weren't FORCED to do anything. They CHOSE to close rather than let their employees exercise their right to unionize.

There was no wrongdoing here. Both sides did what they were legally allowed to do. Employers vs. employees is a power struggle, and this is how it played out in this case.

WRONG. Walmart was prohibited from hiring and firing at will. The employees had every right to unionize, and Walmart SHOULD HAVE had every right to fire them rather than give into their demands and then have to shoulder the cost of training a new crew.

Walmart was FORCED to employ people it didn't want to, or close.

I glanced over that article and I didn't see where it said they were forced to hire Union Workers. If they were it must have been a Canadian or a Quebec Law or Statute.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
The level of ignorance on this thread is astounding. It's not surprising through, considering that most of the members seem to be 15-22. They just don't have the real world experience.

they do have their place in some areas of work, but unskilled labor (retail, food workers, etc.) should NEVER be unionized nor should any federal/state employees.

This is so wrong it is laughable. Non-skilled labor was the MAIN reason that unions and work laws were made. These people were repeatedly stepped on and forced to work in unsafe working conditions. Picture a sweatshop with the people working in unsafe conditions. These are unskilled laborers. I guess they shouldn't have any unions to demand better working conditions.

yes, because we know sweatshops are rampant in the United States in 2005.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
The level of ignorance on this thread is astounding. It's not surprising through, considering that most of the members seem to be 15-22. They just don't have the real world experience.

they do have their place in some areas of work, but unskilled labor (retail, food workers, etc.) should NEVER be unionized nor should any federal/state employees.

This is so wrong it is laughable. Non-skilled labor was the MAIN reason that unions and work laws were made. These people were repeatedly stepped on and forced to work in unsafe working conditions. Picture a sweatshop with the people working in unsafe conditions. These are unskilled laborers. I guess they shouldn't have any unions to demand better working conditions.

yes, because we know sweatshops are rampant in the United States in 2005.

They aren't mainly due to Unions.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: CPA

yes, because we know sweatshops are rampant in the United States in 2005.

Thanks to labor laws they're mostly gone from the US.

So, companies did the next best thing and got the products made in countries without decent labor laws.

 

[kermalou]

i have only been to Walmart once and can tell ya I liked the prices but that is about it.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: CPA


yes, because we know sweatshops are rampant in the United States in 2005.

By the way, I love your reasoning ability- use the status quo (which is the way it is because of labor laws that were passed) as a reason why labor laws aren't needed.

You should work for a company that pollutes a lot, they'll love you.

'Studies have shown that air quality has been cleaning up since the 1970's. Therefore we don't need pollution control laws"

Yet any reasonable person would see your quote as looking like this:

"Studies have shown that air quality has been cleaning up since the 1970's, when pollution control laws were enacted. Therefore we do not need pollution control laws"

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: iversonyin
Don't confuse ethics and legal. Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean its ethical.

I support Walmart, modern unions are evil.

Now they get what they deserved, jobless...

Which is actually no big deal because the job they lost was sh!tty in the first place.

Of course there might be a silver lining in this fopr those workers, maybe other stores will spring up to fill the void left by Wally World that treats their employees decently and they will have no need to unionize.

Who are you to run down Wal-Mart employees and their jobs? Have you ever worked there or has your family? I can say yes to both. (with well educated persons in both cases)

When my father developed cancer it was Wal-Mart's solid benefits (including much better than average health coverage) that kept him alive (several years so now his grandchildren will have known him) and didn't bankrupt the family. There are people who work at these stores for a reason, even when they have offers of more "respectful" jobs. Around here local farmer's wives will work at WM for the benefits that their family business can't burden.

I worked there while in college for a bit of cash and summer rent. While not a career it was respectable and I learned a ton about their business model, while being able to chat about electronics, tools, or firearms with hundreds of people. (some bad, most okay, but a few enjoyable who respected good service)

The modern "union" is nothing more than the legal extortion of business and a drain on the bottem line of both businesses and their employees. Think about situations such as mentioned above the next time you feel the desire to run down hard working people whose jobs would not exist with a union. (not that there are not complete idiots that work there, but you'll find them at most workplaces )

edit: spelling