Boycott Walmart

[Guest]

But....but...where will I get my spandex biker shorts and tube tops??

Waiting for AV of you in biker shorts and tube top.


The other side of the spectrum is Walmart strong arms their vendors to lower their prices every year. Ten percent, I think it is. A company has to comply or lose the huge Walmart as a customer.

To accomplish this, vendors have to move manufacturing away from the US, throwing Americans out of jobs.

Moving jobs overseas is akin to making a building taller by taking building materials from the lower floors. It works for a while and doesn't cost you anything.

That is, moving jobs overseas cuts a companies costs letting them compete with lower prices.. But it also drags pay down in the US, worsening the US economy, and reducing the buying power of American consumers. It is that buying power that sellers enjoy.

Eventually that will come home to roost, but to a CEO, that is a problem for another Quarter, and probaby his successor. He can look good to the stockholders now.

 

[rgraham666]

As Ted pointed out, the modern business model seems to undermine the economy.

A market is dependent on people with money buying things. If the people who make up your market have no money, they're not going to be buying stuff.

Somehow the modern courtier (and the people at the high levels of business are usually courtiers) has convinced themselves that what they do here has no effect on what happens there and vice versa.

There's that odd sound again. Sounds like people knitting with the occasional meaty THUNK! for punctuation.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Don't let amicus hear you say that.

Seems like you guys need to catch up with us Brits on the full time versus part time deal.

Over here, after a qualifying period obviously, part timers get the same rights as full time staff.

Pretty easy to get round but the rule does at least exist.

Seems that neither the government nor unions care very much that massive employee turnover is a very useful tool for employers.

Buyers market do I hear you say? Reminds me of an economics test question. "Describe the elasticity of a miner."

Perceant.

Because I live in the 19th century anyway ...

(1) Marx predicted quite accurately the problem of capitalism as regards the job market. In a capitalistic society, all things become the subject of marketplace competition - family, values, and employment itself. So long are there are people competing for jobs, there will be employers competing to see how low they can drop the bar.

(2) Try Carlyle's "Captains of Industry" for interesting commentary on the worker/owner relationship. While short of Marx (Carlyle's much more conservative), he's got a similar perspective in this sense: both agree that so long as absolute financial gain is the only consideration, we're all in a bad way.

Interesting how everyone saw this coming, and no one seems to have been able to do anything about it. Rum little creatures, you humans.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

(1) Marx predicted quite accurately the problem of capitalism as regards the job market. In a capitalistic society, all things become the subject of marketplace competition - family, values, and employment itself. So long are there are people competing for jobs, there will be employers competing to see how low they can drop the bar.

Shanglan

One of the more interesting things about the revolutionaries masquerading as conservatives is how much they agree with Marx. The only two differences are that they think vicious competition and the destruction of the public weal is a good thing and that the rich will win the class war.

Big difference.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

They do a good job for the consumer to an extent. However, those low prices are being supported by your tax dollars that pay their workers welfare etc.

Anyway, this isn't a forever boycott. It's in support of all these people they kicked out on the street because they wouldn't let them organize. The last time I checked, you do have the right to organize.

You have a right to organize, they have a right not to deal with you. You aren't talking about skilled workers for the most part here, you are talking about unskilled workers. When you are an unskilled worker, your right to organize is highly curtailed by the fact you are easily replaceable.

I don't blame any corporation for being anti-union. I've seen what unions do and frankly, it's a little apalling. That could just be my southern, right-to-work, judeo-christian work ethic mentality. But after working for company that had one of the strongest unions in the ountry, if I had a corporation I would fight a union tooth & nail.

Oddly, where I come from, Wal-mart is a plumb job. They pay above average, have some benefits and if you can get on, most people stay with them til they retire. I shop there, on a fixed income, the cheap prices for things I need are a god send. If they unionize, their prices will go up over night and not just a little, they will go up significantly. While that might be great for their workers, it will be disasterous to me and a lot of folks like me.

There is a quid pro quo involve here. If you hate Wal-mart, that's well and good. But if you stick it to them, they are going to pass that on to the consumer, and a large number of us won't be able to meet that strain on our resources easily.

 

[gauchecritic]

Which brings us again to the question of corporate motive.

As has been said, if you're the only customer for wholesale goods then you can demand what price you like. The same with wages and staff, which is where unions come in.

I agree that unions can grow larger than is good for them (very like government departments and multinationals) but surely the staff of one store can become a negotiating body whilst being reasonable about 'demands'.

I think the key thing to remember about rising costs being passed on to the consumer is that it is very rare that those costs will affect overall profit for the company, when it is reasonable to suppose that providing a service doesn't equate well with the term stockholder. They are not mutually exclusive by any means but any reasonable, long term business arrangement must take into account that profitability (I mean here, gross, obscene profitablity) is not a reliable source of sustained growth.

 

[cloudy]

You have a right to organize, they have a right not to deal with you. You aren't talking about skilled workers for the most part here, you are talking about unskilled workers. When you are an unskilled worker, your right to organize is highly curtailed by the fact you are easily replaceable.

I don't blame any corporation for being anti-union. I've seen what unions do and frankly, it's a little apalling. That could just be my southern, right-to-work, judeo-christian work ethic mentality. But after working for company that had one of the strongest unions in the ountry, if I had a corporation I would fight a union tooth & nail.

Exactly, Colly.

My first major was personnel & labor relations, and at one time I considered an apprenticeship with the government labor negotiators. Tough job, but I would have loved it.

Labor unions served a purpose when they were first started. Now all they do is drive the cost of unskilled labor artificially high, and those costs get passed on to the consumer, the company has to move outside the U.S. to keep their prices competitive, or it's forced to close its doors permanently. I can't see any of that as a good thing, no matter how much I'd like to see wages go up.

 

[cloudy]

Which brings us again to the question of corporate motive.

As has been said, if you're the only customer for wholesale goods then you can demand what price you like. The same with wages and staff, which is where unions come in.

I agree that unions can grow larger than is good for them (very like government departments and multinationals) but surely the staff of one store can become a negotiating body whilst being reasonable about 'demands'.

I think the key thing to remember about rising costs being passed on to the consumer is that it is very rare that those costs will affect overall profit for the company, when it is reasonable to suppose that providing a service doesn't equate well with the term stockholder. They are not mutually exclusive by any means but any reasonable, long term business arrangement must take into account that profitability (I mean here, gross, obscene profitablity) is not a reliable source of sustained growth.

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

The largest single cost for a retail business is personnel. You can argue about it until you're blue in the face, but it is, and that's not going to change anytime soon. Drive personnel costs up by paying artificially high wages for largely unskilled jobs, and I guarantee you that prices will go up and profits will go down.

There's no way around it.

 

[gauchecritic]

Labor unions served a purpose when they were first started. Now all they do is drive the cost of unskilled labor artificially high, and those costs get passed on to the consumer, the company has to move outside the U.S. to keep their prices competitive, or it's forced to close its doors permanently. I can't see any of that as a good thing, no matter how much I'd like to see wages go up.

Here's an idea then, what if, just like on Star Trek, everyone did their job to the best of their ability and their pay was that they could have everything for free?

No sorry, forget that. Stupid really. Some people would work harder than others. Some people would have the responsibility of the welfare of hundreds if not thousands of people on their shoulders and would get no more reward than the one who cleaned the toilets. Daft idea really.

How could anyone in that kind of society show, by their possessions, that they were superior to anyone else? Forget I said anything.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Which brings us again to the question of corporate motive.

As has been said, if you're the only customer for wholesale goods then you can demand what price you like. The same with wages and staff, which is where unions come in.

I agree that unions can grow larger than is good for them (very like government departments and multinationals) but surely the staff of one store can become a negotiating body whilst being reasonable about 'demands'.

I think the key thing to remember about rising costs being passed on to the consumer is that it is very rare that those costs will affect overall profit for the company, when it is reasonable to suppose that providing a service doesn't equate well with the term stockholder. They are not mutually exclusive by any means but any reasonable, long term business arrangement must take into account that profitability (I mean here, gross, obscene profitablity) is not a reliable source of sustained growth.

If the demands made by unions were reasonable, it wouldn't be a problem. Unions however, lost a great deal of their utility when the government began regulating bussiness. Now unions fight for ever increasing benefits for their members that quickly become out of proportion to what the laborers provide.

The company, which ends up held hostage, will eventually give in and jack the price of their labor up, but they aren't going to let it come off their bottom line. They will simply raise prices across the boards until they meet the same level of profitability they had before the union came into being. the consumer pays for every gain the union makes and once they start, unions never stop demanding more, more , more.

It is not Wal-mart, who will suffer. It's me. It's thousands like me who struggle to survive on a fixed income. Cost of living increased won't keep up with the burgoening cost of labor. As I said, when you stick it to Wal-mart, it isn't Walmart who suffers. They will merely pass the costs on to their customers. I can't imagine trying to survive here on what I am alloted, if Walmart weren't in bussiness. If it becomes just as expensive to shop there as it does at sears or penny's or macy's, I'm doomed.

 

[cloudy]

Here's an idea then, what if, just like on Star Trek, everyone did their job to the best of their ability and their pay was that they could have everything for free?

No sorry, forget that. Stupid really. Some people would work harder than others. Some people would have the responsibility of the welfare of hundreds if not thousands of people on their shoulders and would get no more reward than the one who cleaned the toilets. Daft idea really.

How could anyone in that kind of society show, by their possessions, that they were superior to anyone else? Forget I said anything.

Gauche, I'm all for people making more money if they can, that's a given.

I have to object, however, when someone who didn't finish high school gets a job that, because it's unionized, pays more than what that same person would make if they had taken the time, and put in the effort, to get an education. How could that possibly be viewed as a good thing?

Where would be the incentive, beyond pure learning, to get an eduction? There wouldn't be one. It's very discouraging to graduate from college with damn good grades, only to learn that you won't be making as much as the guy down the road at the factory...not because he's smarter, or a harder worker, or has a better education than you do (or even because he's been in the workplace longer), but simply because it's a unionized workplace.

I'm sorry, I just think that's bullshit.

In an ideal world, people would work to the best of their ability, and be paid according to that, but it just doesn't work that way, and it never will.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Here's an idea then, what if, just like on Star Trek, everyone did their job to the best of their ability and their pay was that they could have everything for free?

No sorry, forget that. Stupid really. Some people would work harder than others. Some people would have the responsibility of the welfare of hundreds if not thousands of people on their shoulders and would get no more reward than the one who cleaned the toilets. Daft idea really.

How could anyone in that kind of society show, by their possessions, that they were superior to anyone else? Forget I said anything.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

I love the idea. It's a beautiful vision. But even Marx knew what had to come first:

Change human nature.

Love the lad, but that's when I smiled and shook my head. Ah yes. Because that's worked so well the last thousand times people tried it.

Human nature at the moment still requires the carrot and stick. I wish it didn't. But realistically, how many people would slog through ten years of education and practice to become doctors, and then take high-pressure, life-altering decisions into their hands every day, when they could make the same money growing tulips? I don't think one even has to posit competitive consumerism to come to the conclusion that it won't work well. Even just simple, honest desire to live peacefully and enjoy one's family would drive people out of many professions unless some greater reward was given.

Skinner came up with some ideas. He envisioned a weighted work system. You could work one hour cleaning sewers to make up for four hours of gardening, or whatever. But even he had trouble dealing with professions that require a high investment in training and education. Such a person sacrifices not only the time invested, but largely the option to do other things. Once you've trained a doctor, you need him to doctor, not plant tulips. And it's not efficient to train eight people as doctors and have each work a few hours now and then.

And so we are caught. Until we become saints, or we all become doctors, I suppose.

Shanglan

 

[cheerful_deviant]

deleted

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Here's an idea then, what if, just like on Star Trek, everyone did their job to the best of their ability and their pay was that they could have everything for free?

No sorry, forget that. Stupid really. Some people would work harder than others. Some people would have the responsibility of the welfare of hundreds if not thousands of people on their shoulders and would get no more reward than the one who cleaned the toilets. Daft idea really.

How could anyone in that kind of society show, by their possessions, that they were superior to anyone else? Forget I said anything.

In that system, where is the incentive? Why would anyone take a high stress job or one that requires significant extra education? If everything is free, who will stop those who take far more than others? Or if you are deciding who needs what, who makes that decision?

Until you change the way people are wired, it won't work. At least, in my opinion, it won't work.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

If the demands made by unions were reasonable, it wouldn't be a problem. Unions however, lost a great deal of their utility when the government began regulating bussiness. Now unions fight for ever increasing benefits for their members that quickly become out of proportion to what the laborers provide.

The company, which ends up held hostage, will eventually give in and jack the price of their labor up, but they aren't going to let it come off their bottom line. They will simply raise prices across the boards until they meet the same level of profitability they had before the union came into being. the consumer pays for every gain the union makes and once they start, unions never stop demanding more, more , more.

It is not Wal-mart, who will suffer. It's me. It's thousands like me who struggle to survive on a fixed income. Cost of living increased won't keep up with the burgoening cost of labor. As I said, when you stick it to Wal-mart, it isn't Walmart who suffers. They will merely pass the costs on to their customers. I can't imagine trying to survive here on what I am alloted, if Walmart weren't in bussiness. If it becomes just as expensive to shop there as it does at sears or penny's or macy's, I'm doomed.

I have worked much of my life on union job sites. But being management, I am not union my self. I will agree that the unions were a great thing years ago, they served their purpose in giving the working man a fair wage and looking after their members. But the time of the union is passing because of mainly the reasons stated above.

Every year the unions get greedier. The wages increase, the benifits increase and the cost continues to climb. The union workers feel protected by the union and are not in fear of loosing their jobs so they don't work as hard. The Northeast is still heavily union and will probablly remain so for yeas to come, but even here, the infulence here is fadeing. Heavy Construction in New England is predominantly union, but new companies comming up are not starting up union and are resisting the unions for as long as they can. The unions are killing themselves and they are to stubborn to see it.

Just recently up here was a case of a textile mill that was union. THe workers were fighting for more pay, more benifits, the Mill was saying they had to cut benifits and lower wages in order to stay in buisness. The union refused and went on strike. 2 months later the mill folded up and the work went overseas.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I agree that unions can grow larger than is good for them (very like government departments and multinationals) but surely the staff of one store can become a negotiating body whilst being reasonable about 'demands'.

It's a rare option. Many of the unions here are actively touting for business. For instance, at the non-profit where I worked some years back, the initial push for unionization was actually from SEIU (service employees industry) approaching our staff and suggesting that we come into the fold. Amusing, I know, but it really was the classic "outside agitators."

At first I was in favor of them. I feel that it's important for employees to have a strong voice in order to engage in a meaningful and reasonable dialogue with management. So long as we are all playing "capitalism," it's best if we all actually play, and so I feel that everyone's interests are ultimately served best by all parties, owners, management, and labor, having strong advocates in the process.

I was deeply disillusioned. I realize that what follows will sound like hyperbole, but please understand that I honestly went into this leaning toward the side of the union.

They lied about us in public. They flung out ridiculous accusations to try to smear our names in public and destroy our ability to raise the donations we needed to survive. Every time our management declined a demand, they announced that we were willfully negligent in our mission.

They committed illegal actions. They broke into a storage facility, stole lists of our donors, and sent them all letters announcing that we were negligent in our mission and abusive of our employees. This was flatly not true. Their showcase "dismissal without cause" was someone who stole a $500 suite of software and registered it in his own name, preventing us from using the goods we owned and involving us in illegal use of copyrighted materials.

They drafted in large numbers of people unassociated with our operation. Twice they picketed our facility. Each time, they came with bullhorns, placards, and something like thirty people. (The bullhorns, I might add, were a particular problem to the beneficiaries of our mission, which they chose to ignore.) Of those thirty people, at no time did I see more than three or four actual employees of our facility.

All of this was distasteful and some of it illegal. But in aid of what? This last is what broke any goodwill I might have had left:

They sold our employees down river.

From the beginning of the negotiations, they wanted one thing and one thing only: a closed shop. Personally, I find the whole concept of a closed shop appalling and am disgusted that it is not illegal. To force people to pay to go to work is mere thuggery, and ironically one of the abuses unions in the United States were formed to stop. At the beginning of the negotiations, our employer had many things on the table: pay raises, increased vacation time, health insurance improvements, changes in working hours and flex time. Closed shop was the one thing they would not yield on. And one at a time, every one of those other benefits was rejected by the union in favor of the one thing that did employees no measurable good, but lined their own pockets.

I respected our managing director. And so I believed her when she explained why, in the end, she yielded on closed shop. She yielded because the local councilman brought her into his chambers, closed the door, and explained quietly but firmly that we would yield, or we would be shut down.

End of discussion.

I still believe that a blance of power is ideal in a capitlistic system. I just query whether, in some cases, the balance is not badly skewed to the union.

Shanglan

 

[gauchecritic]

I used to work with a guy who had a saying that I really liked.

Working at the factory, good pay for basically unskilled work, it was a given that spare shifts (overtime) were worked in pairs when possible, one for the tax-man, one for the wage.

When ever anyone started crying at the amount of tax they paid his reply was generally: You have to pay taxes to keep the lame and the lazy. However much I hate the term, that's what I call a 'work ethic'.

Ok, here's a different idea then. Reduce the retirement age to 45 and index link their pensions.

 

[cloudy]

Black Shanglan, that is illegal in some states, in fact, it is here in Alabama.

In "right to work" states, closed shops are illegal.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Ok, here's a different idea then. Reduce the retirement age to 45 and index link their pensions.

Then your doctors and college professors are retiring after about 17 years in the field. Good return on 10 years of training?



Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Black Shanglan, that is illegal in some states, in fact, it is here in Alabama.

In "right to work" states, closed shops are illegal.

And I love them for it. If I'd had to pay union dues to keep my job, fuck me if I wouldn't start a new anti-union union. Me and the Molly Malones.

Shanglan

 

[gauchecritic]

Then your doctors and college professors are retiring after about 17 years in the field. Good return on 10 years of training?



Shanglan

Did I even once mention the words mandatory or compulsory?

For shame. (you.. you... firestarter!)

 

[Kassiana]

If I could afford to, I would. Seeing that I can't, I won't.

 

[AlteregoID]

Isn't this the second or third thread you've started about Walmart?

That's a tad obsessive compulsive isn't it?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Did I even once mention the words mandatory or compulsory?

For shame. (you.. you... firestarter!)

Mmm. I'm not going to stop if you keep calling me those sorts of enticing names

Mandatory or not, how long are the doctors and other skilled tradesmen going to keep working for the joy of it? I have a friend who is a veterinarian. He loves animals and is as dedicated a worker as you'd like. But he's laying serious plans to retire by 50. I have not doubt he'd do it earlier if he could.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

If unions are greedy, where did they learn it from? Have you seen the way upper management rewards themselves these days?

If unions disappear, what will happen to the regulation that controls business now? Will lobby groups for various businesses disappear as well, evening out the power balance?

And to paraphrase Peter Drucker, what does a degree certify except that the holder has sat for a long time?

I'm a high school dropout. Taught myself computer programming. Worked hard. It meant sweet fuck all! Better to be normal, dress right, speak right and never rock the boat.

Psychopathy and normalcy will always be rewarded before intelligence and drive.