Seems like the right spot since we speak of Walmart so much.
Fun little clip here
So when ya all complain about creepy customers - well - you could be cleaning the shit off someone else's toilet!
Seems like the right spot since we speak of Walmart so much.
Fun little clip here
So when ya all complain about creepy customers - well - you could be cleaning the shit off someone else's toilet!
That was very funny, Did garth Brooks really create that song? Anywayz i liked it and i signed up!!!





well, in the interest of 'balance'
"{snip} When unions have dug in, the victories often have been pyrrhic. Grocery-store workers used to enjoy generous benefits, including health-care coverage at no additional cost and wages of almost $18 an hour. For decades, grocers complied because their competitors had unionized workers that demanded the same compensation. But in the past decade, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other nonunionized discount chains have significantly expanded their food offerings. Traditional supermarket chains have rushed to cut labor costs, demanding that workers pay for part of their health-care premiums and top out at lower wages.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union fought back in 2003; 60,000 Southern California grocery workers went on strike or were locked out for more than four months. Safeway Inc., Kroger Co. and Albertson's Inc. suffered massive sales losses. And the union gained little ground. New workers lost free health-care coverage and the top pay scale for incoming food clerks fell to $15.10 an hour from $17.90. (Union) Grocers [sic] still are seeking to cut labor expenses, which account for about two-thirds of their operating costs. (snip)"
from
If the issue were laid out plainly in front of most Americans, would they really feel comfortable paying 20% more than they really need to for food in order to provide grocery clerks with a $15.10 an hour union paycheck and union employee benefits ?
The flip side argument is that WalMart and other retailers who import the least expensive products available globally, and who pay their US employees a wage rate which is actually commeasurate with the (lack of) skill level of those employees, has directly contributed to raising the standard of living of every customer by allowing them to purchase 'more for less'.





Actually, I do. I would not shop at wal-mart if it was thye last store on earth.If the issue were laid out plainly in front of most Americans, would they really feel comfortable paying 20% more than they really need to for food in order to provide grocery clerks with a $15.10 an hour union paycheck and union employee benefits ?
This makes no sense. If they are importing most of thier merchandise, they are reducing the number of possibe manufacturing jobs availabe in the US. That contributes to more unemployment.The flip side argument is that WalMart and other retailers who import the least expensive products available globally, and who pay their US employees a wage rate which is actually commeasurate with the (lack of) skill level of those employees, has directly contributed to raising the standard of living of every customer by allowing them to purchase 'more for less'
Also, Wal-mart does NOT pay commeasurate with skill levels, they pay VERY poorly and expect their employees (not jsut clerks but also MANAGEMENT) to work less than 40 hours every week. Managers get diciplined if they go over 40 hours, EVEN IF they are covering hours for another manager. Most people cannot raise a family on less than 40 hours a week.
I fail to see how the ability to buy more cheaply made crap at a price marginally less expensive than K-mart or Target really raises anybody's standard of living.
My MySpace Page:
When you perform... you are out of yourself--larger and more potent, more beautiful. You are for minutes heroic. This is power. This is glory on earth. And it is yours, nightly.
--Agnes De Mille





What she said ^





That makes even less sense. Your comment implies that not only should WalMart and other discount retailers pay 'union scale' wages to unskilled sales clerks, but that the US gov't should ban Chinese and other imports so that Americans (again paid 'union scale' wages) can once again be able to work in long-dead American industries like textiles and consumer electronics. Well, let's see, the union scale wages for sales clerks would raise retail prices by 20% to cover their hourly pay and benefits. The embargo on Chinese import would at least double the cost of clothing and consumer electronics if made in America under OSHA and EPA rules at union hourly pay rates, as well as increasing the price of 'labor intensive' food by a good 50% (unless of course you're advocating that US growers use illegal alien labor).This makes no sense. If they are importing most of thier merchandise, they are reducing the number of possibe manufacturing jobs availabe in the US. That contributes to more unemployment.
I suppose this is all logical in some particular point of view, but the missing link is that nobody is going to increase your earnings or my earnings or the earnings of most other Americans to go along with the markedly higher pricing we'll all have to pay for these American (union) made items sold at a (unionized) retailer. That lowers OUR standard of living, pure and simple, because we wind up spending more money to purchase the very same things, or wind up spending the same amount and getting far less !
In fact it's even worse than that, because as dancers we depend on the 'discretionary spending' of club customers. If, as you suggest, an extra $100 a week is being extracted from club customer budgets because they must now pay higher prices for American made products instead of cheaper Chinese products, plus pay higher prices to support 'union wage scale' retailers, guess which 'discretionary spending' item in the club customer budget is likely to suffer the most ? I'd wager a cutback in trips to the club, and a cutback in private dance purchases on the remaining trips. So under your suggestion, not only would you wind up facing a 20-30-50% increase in the prices of some items you need to buy, but you'd also wind up facing a 20-30% decrease in club earnings potential at the same time - because your club customers are also having to spend the same 20-30-50% more on some items that they need to buy, thus leaving them less money to spend on private dances at your club !
Granted that if your suggestion was implemented, you might sell a few extra dances to newly unionized sales clerks and newly employed American textile and consumer electronics workers, but don't forget that they now have to pay the same 20-30-50% more for some items they need to buy as well ! And let's not forget that we'll all likely be faced with an additional tax increase to cover the additional cost of social welfare benefit recipients who will need a 20-30% increase in their benefit check in order to buy the same food. clothes etc.
Like virtually every other aspect of economics policy, you can't make changes in one part of the 'system' without having consequent changes ripple through the rest of the 'system'. You can't give one group more money in exchange for the exact same amount of value added merchandise or services without taking that extra money from somewhere else. In the case of your suggestion, that somewhere else is the pocket of many club customers, as well as double-dipping in your own pocket. If you want to volunteer to do that yourself, go for it ! However, please don't doom the rest of us into being forced to do the same, and being forced to bear the same economic consequences.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 02-03-2006 at 12:34 PM.
Well, that is a whole lotta words Melonie.
But the fact is people are not willing to pay other people what their true worth to this society is.
Capitalism is failing in some significant ways (like how dependent we are becoming on other countries simply for the clothes on our back and rampant importing of illegal labor "because our economic system depends on it") and Walmart is a large symptom of that.





That comment could be taken about 100 different ways, all dependent on the criteria one uses to define 'true worth'. If you remember, before I became a dancer I was a Respiratory Therapists, and literally helped save people's lives on a daily basis in hospital ER's. However, in American society, stroking men's libidos pays much much better than saving their lives. Lots of other applications of the 'true worth' measurement arise where unionized industries are concerned i.e. is a fork truck driver really worth a $100,000 per year paycheck with overtime included, or is a grocery clerk putting cans on shelves or sweeping bar codes past a scanner really worth $15 an hour ?But the fact is people are not willing to pay other people what their true worth to this society is.
Absent rampant protectionism/tariffs and draconian border control/H1B visa measures, the ultimate arbiter of 'true worth' is exactly what the world's lowest cost producer says that it's worth.
Well, the 'tin foil hat' crowd would argue that capitalism has nothing to do with it, and that in fact it is gov't regulation which created these problems ... via everything from legislating a minimum/living wage well above world levels, to unemployment/comp insurance costs well above world levels, to OSHA and EPA compliance costs well above world levels, to tax rates well above world levels.Capitalism is failing in some significant ways (like how dependent we are becoming on other countries simply for the clothes on our back and rampant importing of illegal labor "because our economic system depends on it")
If that person is working to build a multi-million (or even multi-billion) dollar business - then perhaps yes - they deserve a part of that value. The don't deserve to give up wages and benefits just so the C-level crowd can give themselves bonuses and benefits (I am thinking of a particular airline right now.)
With our manufacturing and now research heading into China, well - today's CEOs are getting a little to familiar with the communist manner of things... not paying people for the value they create.





Again, the 'tin foil hat' crowd would argue that it is not capitalism but gov't regulation / legal precedent that attempts to 'equalize' worker pay and benefits despite differences in individual productivity contributions and despite differences in individual insurance risk factors.With our manufacturing and now research heading into China, well - today's CEOs are getting a little to familiar with the communist manner of things... not paying people for the value they create.
Back to the original subject of the thread, if WalMart pay, benefits and working conditions are SO bad, then why do new WalMart's always draw many many more job applicants than there are available positions to fill ?
This of course comes back to the definition of 'fair value', and a question of whether WalMart pay rates are undercompensation vs fair compensation for the 'value' their employees provide. The flip side of this question of course is whether unionized grocery clerks' $15+ an hour paychecks are fair compensation vs overcompensation for the 'value' that THEY provide. This same sort of evaluation also undoubtedly applies to union pay rates at a 'particular airline' versus Southwest, AirTran, JetBlue etc.
For the record, I'll agree with you completely that when 'hired gun' CEO's, CFO's etc approve massive bonuses, golden parachutes etc. for themselves while their corporation resembles a corpse that isn't cold yet, it's very unfair to the workers. However, as the capitalist that I am, I see a tremendous difference between a board of directors bringing in 'hired guns' to run a long established business with a guaranteed annual pay/bonus/bennie contract, versus a 'founder' CEO, CFO etc. who built up the company from essentially nothing, and who risked personal and professional bankruptcy every step of the way.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 02-03-2006 at 03:12 PM.
They apply at Walmart because the other smaller retailers were closed up or are struggling (Kmart and mom & pop shops). They apply at Walmart because Walmart has chased manufacturing out of the country so those jobs are gone too. The only other option is get a government job - just be careful not to get a government call center job because those will get shipped to India too.
Melonie, I think we are pretty much on the same page - I am merely more moderate about things than you are. Though sometimes I have the intense urge to note your communist like leanings when it comes to shafting the average worker.
I guess I would just feel a little better about things were not easier to start wars in two countries before even being able to bring enron creeps to trial.
Also I hear all this nonsense about globalism being so good for america so we can sell our goods to other nations while I walk into target and struggle to find an american made good here in the good ole USA while we continously give up electronics, software, and other high technology endeavors to other societies.
We got people loosing jobs, corporate cronies leveraging visa's and offshore outsourcing to fuck people out of money, loosing our capacity for our country to make things, with R&D going offshore we are looing our capacity to invent things... it is bullshit man. Total... fucking... bullshit. This is NOT good for america no matter what anyone says. Hell, we are even fighting obesity with those 20 pound pickle jars!
Melonie,
A few more posts and you'll be half way to publishing a book on the subject of Wal Mart and unions!
I strongly agree with Deogol about our need to hold corporate cronies like the Enron guys accountable (they should be forced to work very public demeaning jobs for life). Hoever, I'm not all into buying American just to buy American. If they make something I want and it's good, I'll buy it. If not, oh well -
About every six months or so, I get intrigued about this largest company in the country and walk into a WalMart to see if there is anything I would like to buy. Invariably I leave ten minutes later without buying anything. I'm just not interested in anything they have to sell.
In addition to their poor choice of product, I know people who sell to WalMart and have worked there. They have very bad things to say about WalMart's business practices. I have no problem with labor or businesses coordinating their efforts to thwart WalMart's strong arm tactics.
I do worry, though, that WalMart's success is a sign of our society evolving into this gross, uber-American consumer consumption machine.
I guess I don't disagree with much of the content of your posts, just one premise - that having the ability to purchase a lot of cheap stuff that we don't need is good for our economy.
You know it isn't.
I applaud those neigborhoods which have voted to keep WalMart out.
Melonie, while I agree with you in principle, I disagree that Sam risked personal and professional bankruptcy every step of the way. In my career, I've worked both as a "hired gun" and as a corporate cronie. After a while, I just couldn't stomach the politics and went off on my own.Originally Posted by Melonie
Invariably every company enjoying success at that "middle" stage needs to take the leap to the "big boy" size. There are three factors which will make them successful:
1) start building the story you will tell your customers, employees, and business partners about how management's dedication and hard work are better than the rest. Promote this at every turn. Hire a PR guy to promote, promote, promote. Devise a way to identify those who haven't "gotten with the program" and eliminate them - execute them if necessary.
2) start hiring "hired guns" to do the dirty work. Always blame them. Heck, you can even hire "hired guns" to do #1 for you if you want. The big consulting firms have specialties in this - the last I heard it was called "Change Management"
3) cut corners wherever you can without harming your customers. start paying off the local government, your bankers, and give heavily to both political parties. Buy off the media. If any of them don't "get with the program" hire a few hired guns to do some dirty work. Make everyone fear you so much that they can't help but love you.
We don't need big companies. Invariably they all become evil.





Well, again, the 'tin foil hat' crowd would argue that a significant segment of Americans do not actually want us 'making things', because 'making things' usually involves nasty industrial processes, worker safety risk etc. Instead, it is arguable that the same significant segment of Americans would prefer that America make 'money' i.e. provide financial services to the rest of the world at a fat profit margin, provide corporate headquarters for companies that 'make things' in other countries and bring the profits back to America etc. Getting America out of the business of 'making things' domestically avoids all the 'hot button' issues of environmental compliance cost, OSHA compliance cost, occupational disease insurance cost, building more nuclear power plants, producing and transporting dangerous chemicals, etc. Of course there are a few industries where this does not apply i.e. pharma, biotech, software, agriculture, etc. and that same segment of Americans wants to keep those sort of industries.We got people loosing jobs, corporate cronies leveraging visa's and offshore outsourcing to fuck people out of money, loosing our capacity for our country to make things, with R&D going offshore we are looing our capacity to invent things... it is bullshit man. Total... fucking... bullshit. This is NOT good for america no matter what anyone says
But when the major force behind the American economic engine gradually becomes profit margin from acting as the world's premier banker / broker / insurance agent, then America becomes firmly but invisibly linked at the hip to the global businesses who are its 'customers'. Thus any proposal which would cut off the import of Asian manufactured goods, for example, would also cause a major financial 'hit' to the US bankers and US corporations who directly profit from the operation of those Asian factories they bankrolled/partnered with. Thus if a large segment of the American domestic economy is essentially dependent on providing services to those bankers / brokers / insurance agents whose 'wealth' is now largely dependent on the profitability of overseas manufacturing industries, and those bankers / brokers / insurance agents take a big 'hit' from a modern-day version of the Smoot-Hawley act, then the American domestic economy would be in BIG trouble in a BIG hurry.
If you'd like a 'microcosm' example just stop into a Manhattan 'show club' and check out business levels at the end of a week when the DJIA has dropped 500 points !





Actually you've got this backwards. My pet peeve is the 'shafting' of exceptional workers in order to subsidize 'average' workers ... whether that be overcharging the middle class to subsidize unskilled workers (either directly through income taxes or indirectly through unionized retail prices), or whether that be a club charging a percentage based house fee which collects vastly more dollars from dancers who are hustling their butts off vs dancers who are sitting at the bar.Though sometimes I have the intense urge to note your communist like leanings when it comes to shafting the average worker
IMHO the true root of the problem is that unskilled American workers have gradually been allowed to assume that they are 'entitled' to a particular standard of living which the 'true value' of their labors does not support. This of course is followed up by a gov't which has legislated along those lines to maintain that particular minimum American standard of living via 'wealth transfer' from the middle class, as well as by union 'negotiations' extracting pay rates which maintain that particular standard of living via higher retail prices for everybody. For decades now both American and foreign businesses have been positioning themselves to deal with this issue, mostly by an 'if you can't beat 'em, don't play the game' approach ! WalMart appears to take a different approach of 'if you can't beat 'em, fight dirty'.
Last edited by Melonie; 02-04-2006 at 05:58 AM.
Exactly.Originally Posted by colleen
Walmart is not good for our economy in the long run and in many cases not even in the short term.
I also think the Deogol made an excellant point with the following comment:
Capitalism is failing in some significant ways (like how dependent we are becoming on other countries simply for the clothes on our back and rampant importing of illegal labor "because our economic system depends on it") and Walmart is a large symptom of that.
Most worker shafting is done at the C-level these days. I can't tell you as a stock holder how PO'ed I am in many boards who put these lunatics into office stuffing their pockets while driving the company right into the ground. But of course, who puts who on the boards? Yep - it's a cozy little circle these Den of Thieves have for themselves.Originally Posted by Melonie
Wealth transfer by taxation is certainly unfair.IMHO the true root of the problem is that unskilled American workers have gradually been allowed to assume that they are 'entitled' to a particular standard of living which the 'true value' of their labors does not support. This of course is followed up by a gov't which has legislated along those lines to maintain that particular minimum American standard of living via 'wealth transfer' from the middle class, as well as by union 'negotiations' extracting pay rates which maintain that particular standard of living via higher retail prices for everybody. For decades now both American and foreign businesses have been positioning themselves to deal with this issue, mostly by an 'if you can't beat 'em, don't play the game' approach ! WalMart appears to take a different approach of 'if you can't beat 'em, fight dirty'.
Wealth transfer by unions of people demanding their share of the pie is not.
(And yes, the automakers have been eathing some big peices, but so have the management who then glibbly blames it on the union. In the end, it is ALWAYS management's fault. Toyota, Nissan, etc. are proving it is not a union problem.)





Again not wanting to go to far afield on the original point, but Toyota and Nissan are well aware that their American operations have more or less sidestepped having to deal with the 'union problem' so far. This is because when they set up American operations over the past 10 years their employees were starting out with zero service, which afforded Toyota and Nissan the opportunity to get away with much lower effective labor and benefit costs ...In the end, it is ALWAYS management's fault. Toyota, Nissan, etc. are proving it is not a union problem
(snip)"Meanwhile, Toyota reconfigured the process it uses to produce plastic parts at the plant, allowing it to bring back work from a supplier and create 45 jobs at the plant, which employs 7,000 people. Those jobs are at labor rates of about $44 an hour - roughly $23 less than those paid by Detroit automakers, because of vastly lower costs for health care and retirement."(snip) from
... and in many cases Toyota and Nissan have been successful in avoiding the unionization of their American workers altogether ...
... so if the truth of the situation were examined, you are praising Toyota for doing the same exact things relative to unionized Detroit automakers that you are flailing WalMart for doing relative to unionized grocery/retail chains !!!
... and if the the truth of the situation were examined further, the fact that Toyota and Nissan are able to bring equal/better quality vehicles to the US market at a lower price than Detroit Automakers is, in large part, due to the lower wages and much lower benefits Toyota and Nissan are providing to their American workers relative to the 'union paycheck union benefits' Detroit autoworkers which GM, Ford and Chrysler must deal with. This is not very far different from what WalMart is doing versus Target, Kroger etc. Yet for some reason nobody is calling for a nationwide campaign against Toyota and Nissan for operating at much lower employee pay and benefit levels than GM or Ford.
The 'tin foil hat' crowd would probably argue that Toyota developing the Prius Hybrid was one of the smartest moves ever, and we're not talking about the virtues of the vehicle itself. It is arguable that Toyota's marketing of corporate management as a big time advocate of 'alternative energy', thus endearing itself with certain segments of the American 'left', has yielded the fringe benefit of zero public criticism of Toyota's American auto worker's significantly lower pay and benefits. It is also arguable that, given the very limited number of hybrid vehicles that Toyota actually intends to produce relative to their total vehicle production, that this was one of the least expensive corporate publicity campaigns in history ! However, it's taboo to confuse 'popular' public opinion with actual facts.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 02-05-2006 at 05:18 PM.
When Walmart has starting jobs at $44/hr and health benefits then your statement might ring truer. In other words, I don't think so, Melonie!!!Originally Posted by Melonie
Because people probaly think they are fair wages. I mean how can you complain about $44/hr?... and if the the truth of the situation were examined further, the fact that Toyota and Nissan are able to bring equal/better quality vehicles to the US market at a lower price than Detroit Automakers is, in large part, due to the lower wages and much lower benefits Toyota and Nissan are providing to their American workers relative to the 'union paycheck union benefits' Detroit autoworkers which GM, Ford and Chrysler must deal with. This is not very far different from what WalMart is doing versus Target, Kroger etc. Yet for some reason nobody is calling for a nationwide campaign against Toyota and Nissan for operating at much lower employee pay and benefit levels than GM or Ford.
Something certainly has gone wrong in Michigan - I will admit that. But a union of people trying to scratch out a living in Target is different than a union trying to scratch out a living on 100,000/year.
When it cost me 40 bucks to fill up my small 4x4 I certainly was thinking about a prius! And no one can mistake me for a leftist tooling around in an SUV (an actual SUV - like the kind you can take off road - but that is another thread!)The 'tin foil hat' crowd would probably argue that Toyota developing the Prius Hybrid was one of the smartest moves ever, and we're not talking about the virtues of the vehicle itself. It is arguable that Toyota's marketing of corporate management as a big time advocate of 'alternative energy', thus endearing itself with certain segments of the American 'left',
Yes, you're right, it is "arguable." I see it as planning for the future on part of Toyota to be positioned in the market as the company with an option and forward thinking ... compared with the US companies who are better known for guzzling dino-cars for soccer moms.has yielded the fringe benefit of zero public criticism of Toyota's American auto worker's significantly lower pay and benefits. It is also arguable that, given the very limited number of hybrid vehicles that Toyota actually intends to produce relative to their total vehicle production, that this was one of the least expensive corporate publicity campaigns in history ! However, it's taboo to confuse 'popular' public opinion with actual facts.
~





ah ... now we get down to the nitty-gritty ... that it's OK for skilled non-union workers at Nissan to be paid a 33% lower hourly wage with significantly fewer benefits than their skilled unionized counterparts at GM, but that it's NOT OK for UNskilled non-union workers to be paid a 33% lower hourly wage with significantly fewer benefits at WalMart than their UNskilled unionized counterparts at Target ! Thus the true issue here would appear to involve 'living wage' and a minimum acceptable US standard of living arguments, and not relative pay rates or benefits of union vs non-union. Well, the 'tin foil hat' crowd would clearly point out that unskilled American laborers in fact do not produce enough 'added value' to justify that minimum acceptable US standard of living that apparently you and many others feel they are 'entitled' to. Thus if the point was 'honestly' discussed, we'd be debating yet another tax funded gov't 'entitlement' program for unskilled Americans rather than imposing a 'stealth tax' via forced retail price increases at WalMart with the same end result of transferring more money to unskilled American workers so they might maintain some minimum US standard of living.Because people probaly think they are fair wages. I mean how can you complain about $44/hr?
Oh BTW, Toyota is just as involved in building big gas-guzzling vehicles for the American market as the US carmakers ... but like their non-union plants they're able to keep a low profile thanks in large part to their Prius 'green' image campaign--- >
~
Last edited by Melonie; 02-05-2006 at 06:07 PM.
Whatever Melonie, all I know, is when the union workers strike, nobody makes anything - and that is the labor market place holding the sale of it's skills out to the best bidder.




I would pay more. I believe that a full-time working American should earn at least $20,000/year.Originally Posted by Melonie
For the purpose of this discussion I think it would help to define skilled and unskilled workers.
I am no fan of Walmart by any means but I do not understand why all of their employees are being refered to by some as unskilled and yet all Toyota employees are deemed skilled.
Further explanation of this would be appreciated.





Well, the Toyota article, and the Toyota vs Detroit wage comparison, was specifically speaking of plastic injection molding operations, which I'm told involve $100,000 molds, million dollar machines, and all sorts of temperature, pressure and feedrate controls in order to make a good molded part. No mention was made of the relative pay rates of mowing lawns or cleaning bathrooms at Toyota vs Detroit automakers.I am no fan of Walmart by any means but I do not understand why all of their employees are being refered to by some as unskilled and yet all Toyota employees are deemed skilled.
In regard to the 'unskilled' WalMart vs Target/Kroger stock clerks, realistically speaking anybody who is over 18, can walk and talk, and can pass a drug test meets the 'qualifications'. How much skill does it really take to find a case marked 'Tomato Soup' in the back room, wheel out the case and open it, and stack cans of tomato soup on the shelf next to the cans of tomato soup that are already there. And if the stock clerk is looking to upgrade, they then have to learn the highly complex task of sweeping items past a bar code scanner, reading the cash register display, and making change !!! And according to the union, restocking tomato soup cans is supposed to be worth $15 an hour plus union benefits ...




Pay in these menial jobs has nothing to do with skill level, it is related to the work being done and diminishing returns. If you need 40 hrs a week at your pay level, and are only getting 30, the solution isn't protest, it's getting a part time job somewhere else.Originally Posted by colleen
As their capacity to create raises (more and more scientific graduates every year), we have to expect that people hire from that talent pool as well, even if the wages weren't lower. I don't see why you care so much about your fellow American, and so little about your fellow man.Originally Posted by Deogol
Please cease and desist using this phrase. You post articles that would lead someone to believe you wear one, and have used it in nearly half of the DD post you make for the last 2-3 weeks.Originally Posted by Melonie
Reasons to avoid mid and larger caps...Originally Posted by Deogol
Bookmarks