Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    (snip)"The Fund allows teachers to meet the everyday needs of children that would otherwise hinder their learning ability. This is a noble project, but once again, the teachers’ union is allowing its own politics to stand in the way.

    The WEA recently decided that, despite the direct benefit to children, the Children’s Fund will now refuse to reimburse teachers for some of their purchases simply because “[a] great many of the receipts members submit for reimbursement are for purchases from Wal-Mart.”

    What makes the WEA think that hurting Wal-Mart (search) is more important than meeting the needs of children? The answer is clear: Wal-Mart has successfully resisted unionization of its employees, becoming organized labor's common enemy. For the WEA, penalizing Wal-Mart's anti-union policies is more important than allowing its members to help their needy students.

    To understand this change, one must examine the true nature of the teachers union's constant focus on achieving political power and money.

    The union movement as a whole is in a bind. The number of union households is on a 30-year decline. Contrary to common sense, which would dictate an emphasis on organizing, union officials are convinced that the answer is spending record amounts on political activity. This inevitably leads to fault lines developing between union officials and rank-and-file members.

    The NEA is, once again, the best example of this. NEA president Reg Weaver has said that the nation’s teachers are evenly divided between political parties: one-third Democrat, one-third Republican, and one-third Independent. Yet over the last election cycle, the NEA spent millions in member dues engaging in political party-like activities primarily on behalf of Democrat candidates. It also used member dues to tell those same members how to vote. In the end, the union failed in its number one goal to win back the White House. Now teachers are asking tough questions that union officials will have to answer.

    Teachers are wondering why an increasing part of their hard earned money is going for overpriced services they may never see. They are wondering why the dues they are forced to pay are used to fund initiative and media campaigns with which they may not agree.

    Rather than addressing these internal divisions, organized labor leaders are diverting its members’ attention by moving in solidarity against business opponents. Wal-Mart is an especially attractive target because unions have been unsuccessful in organizing the retailer’s employees. This is why, in the distorted reality of union officials, the WEA is justified in going after Wal-Mart, even at the expense of teachers and needy children.

    Of course, it is the Washington Education Association’s prerogative to decide how to disburse the Children’s Fund. But allowing a political battle to trump charitable efforts of teachers is evidence that the union’s true priority is to protect its monopoly over education, regardless of the impacts on students.

    The same teachers who purchase the coats, shoes and school supplies for needy children from Wal-Mart, at least in part, also finance the Children’s Fund with their mandatory membership dues. Yet the WEA dictates how teachers are to spend what they could rightly call their own charitable gifts. When teachers don’t fall into line, the WEA penalizes them.

    When teachers see a need and want to extend their hearts to children who come into class shivering, why should they be restricted in meeting that need by the NEA or any of its affiliate’s self-serving political agenda? If the WEA claims that teachers are underpaid, why is it penalizing a teacher for trying to stretch her meager dollar by buying a coat at Wal-Mart for $13.88 rather than elsewhere for $24.99? Rather than vilifying teachers’ use of money, the WEA should condone their generous spirit. After all, it’s about the children, right?(snip)"

  2. #2
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    So some unions do stupid things. No defense for what they're doing, but they have the right (if their members so vote) to spend their funds as they wish.

    If enough members don't like it, it will change.

    If it were me, I'd pay any receipt that went to help the kids..I don't care where it came from!

    What WM should do is agree to reimburse any teacher receipt the union doesn't...watch the PR on that one

  3. #3
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Well Golly Jee, I thought that unions were supposed to help those forking over the money to make the existience of the union possible. Silly me.

    Teachers are wondering why an increasing part of their hard earned money is going for overpriced services they may never see. They are wondering why the dues they are forced to pay are used to fund initiative and media campaigns with which they may not agree.


    And to add insult to injury those dues aren't tax deductible either.

    Here's a Q & A page from the National Right To Work website, regarding the rights of schoolteachers. Scary stuff.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    ... and it doesn't stop there ! The state of Maryland is now trying to legislate that any private business which employs more than 10,000 people in their state must contribute at least 8% of their payroll to employee medical benefits, either through private insurance or by paying what amounts to a special tax directly to the state of Maryland MedicAid fund.

  5. #5
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Good read when it comes to lawmakers deciding how to spend other people's money (that isn't even in the tax fund!)

    I think the government is getting out of control around these parts:

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    As usual faux news gets all hyper about an issue and forgets to give the facts of the cases.

    Tire dumping/recycling:
    The purpose is to get rid of illegal tire dumpsites and improper disposal of tires. Scrap tires are an environmental nusiance and release many toxic air pollutants when burned improperly. There are many uses for scrap tires. Besides the law is intended for large dumpsites, not 'some dude storing his own tires on his property' Furthermore, when was the last time you got tires and they let you keep the old ones?

    "It jeopardizes the liberty of everyone. Consider: Will average New Mexicans have any reason to suspect that it is a criminal offense to store old tires on their own property?"

    Hmm, last time I checked ignorance of the law was no excuse. But don't let that get in the way of a crappy editorial.

    The guy convicted for killing a rattlesnake:
    It just happens to be an endangered species. But sure, it was 'threatening' children, even though it was known to be a shy snake that almost always retreates and a witness testified that events did not happen as he describes him. It was such a 'threat' that they were able to get his attention, he was able to find a weapon, and then kill it without anyone getting hurt. But of course, any sort of endangered species management is wrong because it might end up in a developer having to halt work for a few days to relocate some endangered species.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    ... and it doesn't stop there ! The state of Maryland is now trying to legislate that any private business which employs more than 10,000 people in their state must contribute at least 8% of their payroll to employee medical benefits, either through private insurance or by paying what amounts to a special tax directly to the state of Maryland MedicAid fund.

    http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b7491c2a-a6...00e2511c8.html
    Yes, it's terrible that we are forcing the nation's largest retailer to step up and do what is right. They pay their workers crap and give bad health benefits (if they let you get them at all). As a result, their workers have to get state funded health care and it's a burden on the whole state. As the bill states, only two corporations would be effected by this bill. The other, another grocery store, spends 20% of its payroll on health benefits and their workers are unionized so they definitely get paid more. Poor WalMart. Where do the family members rank on the list of billionaires?

  8. #8
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    From the article:
    The Maryland bill was backed by an unlikely lobbying alliance between local groups: the United Food and Commercial Workers International union and Giant Foods, the state's largest supermarket operator, which is owned by Ahold, the Dutch retailer.

    Giant and Wal-Mart are believed to be the only two private employees in Maryland with more than 10,000 workers.


    Whatever your feelings on Wal-Mart, it is just wrong for one company to try to use the powers of the government against another company. Compete in the marketplace, not the statehouse.


    Also, if passed, this bill virtually guarantees that there will never be another company employeeing 10,000 in the state forever.



    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  9. #9
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergent D
    Yes, it's terrible that we are forcing the nation's largest retailer to step up and do what is right. They pay their workers crap and give bad health benefits (if they let you get them at all). As a result, their workers have to get state funded health care and it's a burden on the whole state. As the bill states, only two corporations would be effected by this bill. The other, another grocery store, spends 20% of its payroll on health benefits and their workers are unionized so they definitely get paid more. Poor WalMart. Where do the family members rank on the list of billionaires?
    There's one thing I can never figure about statements like that. Wal-mart employees more people than any other private company in the country, something a million people. Yet all you ever hear is what an awful place it is to work, blah, blah, blah. Are those million workers just so stupid that they don't realize that they are being "oppressed"?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  10. #10
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Are those million workers just so stupid that they don't realize that they are being "oppressed"?
    Obviously, because otherwise the fantasy economists on the left praising the virtues of the Living Wage Fallacy wouldn't have to scream so loudly...and so pointlessly.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  11. #11
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    From the article:
    Giant and Wal-Mart are believed to be the only two private employees in Maryland with more than 10,000 workers.

    According to the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative, which has pushed for the legislation, Wal-Mart spends only 3.5 per cent of its payroll on healthcare for more than 15,000 workers in Maryland. Giant, with 18,000 unionised members in the state, says its healthcare costs are equivalent to around 20 per cent of its payroll.


    You know, I think Wal-Mart might have a simple end-around this law should it pass. Simply lay off enough people to get under the magic 10,000 worker limit. Even if it means closing a few stores and making existing workers do longer hours at the remaining ones. Then those folks making "crap wages" will be a eatin' then, won't they?


    As for why Wal-Mart workers aren't rebelling? I think it has to be considered what a large makeup of their workers are:


    - young people just starting out (many of whom still live with their parents and don't have a full slate of expenses).
    - Elderly people working there to supplement their already sustainable retirement income (and get out of the house)
    - People who have, or have a spouse working an existing (and better paying) primary job, taking up a position there to supplement the family income.
    - People will little or no job skills, who aren't likely to find a better paying alternative at a competing enterprise. Some folks will take shelf stocking over working in food service any day.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  12. #12
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    What WM should do is agree to reimburse any teacher receipt the union doesn't...watch the PR on that one
    Fuckin A right!!!!
    AMEN!!!!!
    Hell yea!!!!!!

    man i hope they do it!!!!!!

    Talk about a PR nightmare for the teachers union!!!

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    You know, I think Wal-Mart might have a simple end-around this law should it pass. Simply lay off enough people to get under the magic 10,000 worker limit. Even if it means closing a few stores and making existing workers do longer hours at the remaining ones. Then those folks making "crap wages" will be a eatin' then, won't they?
    Better yet, if this bill is in fact signed into law, WalMart should close down each and every store in Maryland for about 4 weeks while they make a "decision" about how to deal with the situation i.e. whether or not to continue with a Maryland payroll of which 8% will be 'taxed'. In the meantime, for those four weeks, Maryland residents will have little choice but to flock to the Unionized grocery chain instead. This will guarantee that customers/voters will not only have to pay notably higher prices at the Unionized store for a long enough time period to make a dent in their family budgets, but it will also be interesting to see how the unionized store employees react to their workload being doubled and/or calls to work 60-80 hours per week instead of 40, as well as whether or not food and other commodity shortages develop.

    Most of all, doing this will send 15,000 Marylanders flocking to the unemployment and social services offices so that other Maryland voters can find out how just much NOT having WalMart in their state would really cost them.

  14. #14
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Melonie,
    And close every store within 30 miles of the DC, PA, Va, Wva, and DL borders and open new ones in those states so Md gets no sales tax revenue

  15. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Quote Originally Posted by montythegeek
    Melonie,
    And close every store within 30 miles of the DC, PA, Va, Wva, and DL borders and open new ones in those states so Md gets no sales tax revenue
    Yup, actually they could erect new stores 1/8 th of a mile across the MD state line in all of these other states and permanently close and outright demolish every store inside MD within 30 miles of these new stores/state line. Doing so would temporarily cost Walmart about 1/3rd of its sales revenue for the year or two it would take to get the new stores permitted and built, as well as the one time cost of the new stores. But on the other hand it would save WalMart from having to pay an 8% 'special tax' forever by dropping their MD employee total below 10,000. Perhaps most importantly of all, it would send a clear message to any other states who might consider enacting similar laws in the future - i.e. doing so will cost that state the loss of a huge amount of sales tax revenue, plus the cost of providing unemployment and welfare benefits for 5,000 former employees, plus increasing the cost of living for residents of that state who live too far from the state line and must therefore shop locally at unionized stores charging significantly higher prices.

  16. #16
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    Obviously, because otherwise the fantasy economists on the left praising the virtues of the Living Wage Fallacy wouldn't have to scream so loudly...and so pointlessly.
    Fantasy Economists, I love that name. I guess making the numbers work is a lot easier when you make up your own.

    Quote Originally Posted by doc-catfish
    You know, I think Wal-Mart might have a simple end-around this law should it pass. Simply lay off enough people to get under the magic 10,000 worker limit. Even if it means closing a few stores and making existing workers do longer hours at the remaining ones. Then those folks making "crap wages" will be a eatin' then, won't they?
    It would not surprise me one bit if they did exactly that. I read a while back about a store in Texas where the butchers voted to make a union. The next day Wal-Mart decided to get rid of the butchers and buy all their meat pre-packaged. If the law is passed, why would any large employer do business in the state? Who's to say that they don't decide to lower it to 2,000 next year?

    As for why Wal-Mart workers aren't rebelling? I think it has to be considered what a large makeup of their workers are:

    - young people just starting out (many of whom still live with their parents and don't have a full slate of expenses).
    - Elderly people working there to supplement their already sustainable retirement income (and get out of the house)
    - People who have, or have a spouse working an existing (and better paying) primary job, taking up a position there to supplement the family income.
    - People will little or no job skills, who aren't likely to find a better paying alternative at a competing enterprise. Some folks will take shelf stocking over working in food service any day.
    I'm sure you are right. Plus, that is pretty characteristic of most retail jobs. In most stores at the mall, you'll find a few full-time managers and assistant managers, the rest are students and other part-time workers. When I was married, my husband had a job with a large business, with good benefits. I never cared what the benefits were where I worked, his were so much cheaper and better. Just because an individual worker does not have benefits such as health care, does not mean that the family is without it.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: here we go on WalMart versus Unions again !

    Well, the Maryland house and senate have approved the 8% special medicare tax bill which only applies to WalMart. Now we'll see whether the governor vetoes it (he has promised that he will) and then whether the Maryland house and senate can override the veto (50:50 odds).

    Interestingly, a bit of press is now starting to trickle out now which is not 100% WalMart bashing ..

Similar Threads

  1. Banks v. Credit Unions
    By Lizette in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-08-2005, 07:02 PM
  2. Anyone know more about unions?
    By Phedre in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 10-20-2005, 07:27 AM
  3. Stripper Unions
    By lalala_lola in forum Other Work
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-04-2005, 04:42 PM
  4. dancers unions/organizations in canada???
    By kennedy in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-20-2003, 01:02 AM
  5. unions in Colorado
    By morgan913 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-26-2003, 12:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •