Is Wal-Mart Really that bad?

[lonejedi]

Ok, so lately, I've been "debating" with my friend about whether Wal-Mart is corrupt, or not.
He thinks it's the worst thing in the world, while I don't see the problem with Wal-Mart.

I am for Wal-Mart for several reasons. The main reason is Free-Market. If Wal-Mart is driving out local businesses, so what? Those businesses should be able to compete if they are a business. If competing is too hard for them, they should quit. Wal-Mart stared as a local small store, and had to compete with the big dogs, and look how it turned out.

The second reason I feel Wal-Mart is justified, is because how many other companies, produce units over seas, for cheap wages, and then sell them over at the U.S making easy money. Many companies did this BEFORE Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart seems to be the Scape-goat.

Final reason I'm for Wal-Mart, is that those who complain about Low-Wages, and no Health Care benefits, have no argument. Those people are not forced to work at Wal-Mart, they ahve a choice, they can work else where. And even those who do work at Wal-Mart, have stock options to where they can own some of the stock in Walmart?

Discuss.

(The Debate Hall needed something to keep the activity.)

 

[Jazzy Jinx]

I am on your side and agree completely. I don't really know many arguments you can use against Wal-Mart. I didn't even know people debated about Wal-Mart...

Well, there is a first time for everything.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I live in Arkansas, home of Wal-Mart. I have worked for Wal-Mart in the past year. Here is my take.

First, as far as money goes, Wal-Mart offers most per-hour than any other retail store in this country (starting wage). They have the best benefits for full-time and part-time (as far as retail goes). And no Union (if you dont like the union).

Now for the China thing. Every thing comes from China these days. Wal-Mart will actually buy an American product if we produce it at a reasonable price. Just look at all the clothes in the store, cause thats about all "we" produce now. I know this because this summer Wal-Mart gave monthly meetings to us employees (of course they could be pumping us full of lies).

But, it was stated that this past Black Friday, Wal-Mart gave 5% of all money to gay rights. I have absolutely no problems with homosexuality, in fact, I have many friends who are homosexual. I just think there were many other organizations who could of used the money. Now take Katrina for instance (as much as I cant stand that crap. I mean they had a warning they just ignored it. BAH, dont get me started, thats another debate topic there), Wal-Mart donated over $2 Billion in supplies. I know this because I had to load that crap up (and to send it down to the ******* who didnt leave the city. What a wast of time. BAH).

Mom and Pop stores just cant offer the quanity that Wal-Mart can. I dont want to order red spray paint when Wal-Mart has thirty cans. If I want mini red bananas, I know Wal-Mart has them (maybe). And what if I want both and dont want to drive all over town? Point is America wants every thing as fast as they can get their hands on it, and Wal-Mart offers that.

Got to say Im for Wal-Mart. Unless one of you can turn me off or show me a store with lower prices.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I never even conceived that Wal Mart might be bad until you brought this up. What'd they do wrong again?

Oh, and -10 points for using a "the reason is because" sentence format.

 

[Digital Watches]

Well, I'm mainly against Wal-Mart for it's apparent inability to deal reasonably with its suppliers. An example that's frequently cited was a certain small bicycle manufacturer whose business was for all intents and purposes ruined by demand from Wal-Mart to produce enough of a certain model to supply a nation's worth of their stores, which effectively shut down production for all other models, and then demanding an unbelievably low price for having bought in bulk. Everyone I know whose company has dealt with Wal-Mart has complained of similar issues, such as demands for lower-than-usual prices, unreasonable deadlines, etc.

That being said, I don't really think they're violating any laws (Although if we don't start making laws that make local labor more attractive to businesses than outsourcing, our economy is going down the toilet). I just don't like the way they, as a corporate entity, do business with their suppliers.

 

[Xsyven]

When I lived in a suburb of Portland, they were thinking about building a Wal Mart. The city was furious.

The city was Oregon City. It's an inexpensive town south of Portland. Cheapest high school in the district.

The argument as to why Wal Mart couldn't be built was that "It would attract a 'Poor' community". It was already poor, yet they didn't build a Wal Mart because of the three rich people that claimed it would attract "trashy" people.

Well, I've since then moved from that city, and now live in a very rich town in Southern Utah. It's a relatively small town. A lot smaller than Oregon City. Yet-- we have two Wal Marts... one on each side of the city. Probably takes 7-10 minutes to drive from one to the other.

Personally, I love Wal Mart. It's open 24 hours, it's cheaper than any other grocery/'whatever the hell you need' store, and it's clean and well kept.

I've yet to find anything to hate about Wal Mart... except for the fact that they screwed me over from getting a PS3. But that wasn't their fualt.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Well, I'm mainly against Wal-Mart for it's apparent inability to deal reasonably with its suppliers. An example that's frequently cited was a certain small bicycle manufacturer whose business was for all intents and purposes ruined by demand from Wal-Mart to produce enough of a certain model to supply a nation's worth of their stores, which effectively shut down production for all other models, and then demanding an unbelievably low price for having bought in bulk. Everyone I know whose company has dealt with Wal-Mart has complained of similar issues, such as demands for lower-than-usual prices, unreasonable deadlines, etc.

That kind of sounds like they shouldnt of done business with Wal-Mart. If I couldnt make the demands to a buyer I wouldnt make an agreement. Do you have an article or something?

 

[Digital Watches]

That kind of sounds like they shouldnt of done business with Wal-Mart. If I couldnt make the demands to a buyer I wouldnt make an agreement. Do you have an article or something?

I agree that everything wal-mart did was perfectly legal underthe circumstances. And no. I read it from an article, but I didn't think to save it. Sorry. Either way, as a consumer, I think Wal-Mart's incredibly convenient, and I can't really speak as a Wal-Mart employee, as I've never known or been one. I've just known a few people they've bought things from, and it's apparently a bit of a pain.

 

[Jeremy Feifer]

More Jobs...Cheaper Prices....Free theft pass if under 25$ (once per store)...whats the problem. Comin from someone wh lives in the hood...walmart isnt that bad.... but i do see it from the ma and pa point of cool...

 

[Mediocre]

I'm not about to say anything so extreme as that Walmart is "good" or "bad." I don't think I'm in a position to make those kinds of broad judgements.

What I will say is that I've heard about some of the things Walmart has been doing, and I don't like them.

I'm not a big fan of predatory pricing, although I understand that it's a natural product of capitalism. I'm also not a fan of employee lock-ins, but I can't say I fully understand that issue.

However, the one thing I find absolutely unforgivable for Walmart is their strong anti-unionism. Unions are an important check on exploitation of employees, and for Walmart to disallow unions certainly doesn't endear me to them. Some of the tactics the've been using to prevent unions simply disgust me. If you don't know what I'm talking about, click here and here. And if you think my sources are biased (and I admit they may be), you still have to ask yourself why there's only one unionized Walmart in North America. The fact that Walmart is so strongly anti-union and the means they will go to in order to prevent one from forming are two things I find very troubling.

So, while I can't say that Walmart is "evil", I certainly don't like them, and I absolutely refuse to shop there. I wish more people would do the same.

 

[Digital Watches]

Wow. That's good information I didn't know. Does Wal-Mart even attempt to justify its squeamishness towards unions?

After reading those articles, I'd agree with the anti-Wal-Mart sentiment for that alone.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

When I was hired on this past summer they made me sit through a 1 hour crappy as hell video. This video did its best to convince me that unions were evil. The main point they stressed was union dues. That dosent seem like a big concern to Wal-Mart to me. I know they have some hidden agenda and its pretty obvious, they just wont come out and say it. But its probly the fact that with unions, people would be able to unite and get something done. (which would piss the ceo off if he had to fork out more money)

 

[iceman48]

Congrats on being moron #2. Temp debaters are not to reply in posts.

First and final warning. Post again and you are done with the contest before it even begins.

 

[Dodongo]

When I was hired on this past summer they made me sit through a 1 hour crappy as hell video. This video did its best to convince me that unions were evil. The main point they stressed was union dues. That dosent seem like a big concern to Wal-Mart to me. I know they have some hidden agenda and its pretty obvious, they just wont come out and say it. But its probly the fact that with unions, people would be able to unite and get something done. (which would piss the ceo off if he had to fork out more money)

Maybe Walmart is just trying to at least defend themselves from the inside. It's one of the most hated corporations in existence and for very few legit reasons. The problem with most unions is that they have more hidden agendas and seekers of great personal gain than the companies they often oppose.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Maybe Walmart is just trying to at least defend themselves from the inside. It's one of the most hated corporations in existence and for very few legit reasons. The problem with most unions is that they have more hidden agendas and seekers of great personal gain than the companies they often oppose.

My personal belief is they dont want the unions influence. I had been working there for 2 months and was making 2 dollars less than the next person who had been there for 15 years. There was so many in that situation. With the union, Im sure they would change a few things about that.

Now most unions only allow skilled workers and wal-mart did not have many. Wal-Mart could simply go to the corner and hire new employees to unload boxes. This is much easier and cheaper then screwing with the union.

I dont think its bad they dont allow the union in. I dont think unions are a bad thing. I just found it funny the way wal-mart flames the union to keep their workers on their side.

 

[Digital Watches]

Maybe Walmart is just trying to at least defend themselves from the inside. It's one of the most hated corporations in existence and for very few legit reasons. The problem with most unions is that they have more hidden agendas and seekers of great personal gain than the companies they often oppose.

"Few legit reasons" is going a bit far. As a customer, you've got no real reason to hate wal-mart as far as I can tell, but if you deal with them in any other way (employee, supplier, etc), it's fairly clear that all the negative opinions of Wal-Mart are not unwarranted.

 

[Crimson King]

Wal-mart has done nothing wrong. They were successful and people want to punish them for it. Without Wal-Mart many more people than a few families would lose their jobs. Also, we have a capitalist economy and if you can compete with anyone, you deserve to go under. It's cruel but it's true. How is this any different from a local store that has been in business 30 years, has the best prices in a town, and drives out other local competition? Wal-Mart is successful, good for them.

 

[Mediocre]

My personal belief is they dont want the unions influence. I had been working there for 2 months and was making 2 dollars less than the next person who had been there for 15 years. There was so many in that situation. With the union, Im sure they would change a few things about that.

Now most unions only allow skilled workers and wal-mart did not have many. Wal-Mart could simply go to the corner and hire new employees to unload boxes. This is much easier and cheaper then screwing with the union.

I dont think its bad they dont allow the union in. I dont think unions are a bad thing. I just found it funny the way wal-mart flames the union to keep their workers on their side.

The employees want unions. Instead of just allowing a store to unionize, Wal-Mart shut down the store.

I have a problem with that. I'm suprised you don't.

Wal-mart has done nothing wrong. They were successful and people want to punish them for it.

I understand that companies driving their competitors out of buisness is a part of capitalism.

I also understand that workers have a legal right to unionize, and Wal-Mart is denying them that right. Therefore, what Wal-Mart is doing is illegal. I don't think they've been taken to court over it yet, but it's definitely illegal under the Wagner Act.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

The employees want unions. Instead of just allowing a store to unionize, Wal-Mart shut down the store.

I have a problem with that. I'm suprised you don't.

90% of Wal-Marts employees are unskilled workers. Its pointless for them to join a union. Fact is, most of the employees that worked beside me were against the union. We had so many things being held from our pay checks as it was. The last thing they wanted was another $100 taken from them. Its not like Wal-Mart is trying to screw its employees by denying them union membership. They already offer the best benefits compared to the other retail chains.

I did not grow up in a union family so Im sure Im missing a few facts about unions. I have never been a part of a union, so I can not offer my personal experience.

If I was an owner of a store and my employees were revolting against me, I would shut my store down. The situation you are talking about has happened in Arkansas hundreds of times, once in the home office. Wal-Mart closed down and went through a re-hiring/re-training period.

Its like this, Im running a job site thats building a small office or building. I have 3 shovel workers whos job is simply to shovel dirt. (unskilled workers) Say these workers want to go on strike because they feel mistreated. I could easily fire those employees and go down the road to find new shovel workers. Lets say the brick masons want to go on strike. (skilled workers) I would have a much harder time trying to replace those workers.

 

[Crimson King]

I grew up in a union family, and I am vehemently against unions. Unions petition government to intervene because instead of working harder, they want everything handed to them. Sure, they are instances when businesses do illegal activities, but in a pure capitalist society that is maintained by the law of nature. If a company has ****ty employee conditions, those employees will go to competitors. This forces the companies to maintain a safe haven for their employees. Same goes if prices are too high due to a monopoly. Sure it's not fair, but they own that facet of industry (like Rockefeller with oil) and he has the right to charge whatever he sees fit. We created a socialist economy once we allowed government regulations. That's why democracy doesn't work.

 

[Mediocre]

90% of Wal-Marts employees are unskilled workers. Its pointless for them to join a union. Fact is, most of the employees that worked beside me were against the union. We had so many things being held from our pay checks as it was. The last thing they wanted was another $100 taken from them. Its not like Wal-Mart is trying to screw its employees by denying them union membership. They already offer the best benefits compared to the other retail chains.

You're missing the point here. The majority of Wal-Mart employees voted to unionize at a store in Quebec. The store was shut down. The company did something similar when it killed a meat-cutters union.

If I was an owner of a store and my employees were revolting against me, I would shut my store down. The situation you are talking about has happened in Arkansas hundreds of times, once in the home office. Wal-Mart closed down and went through a re-hiring/re-training period.

Employees are "revolting?" Bull****. Unionizing is an employee's legal right. If excercising that right is "rebelling", in your mind, then quelching that "rebellion" is illegal.

Its like this, Im running a job site thats building a small office or building. I have 3 shovel workers whos job is simply to shovel dirt. (unskilled workers) Say these workers want to go on strike because they feel mistreated. I could easily fire those employees and go down the road to find new shovel workers.

That's fine.

But if those employees had joined a union, that union could have argued their side (or not, if their demands were patently ridiculous). If they'd been trying to join a union at the time you fired them, they could have sued you.

Lets say the brick masons want to go on strike. (skilled workers) I would have a much harder time trying to replace those workers.

Wal-Mart will prevent unions from forming in both skilled and non-skilled labour groups, as shown by the meat-cutters example.

Sure, they are instances when businesses do illegal activities, but in a pure capitalist society that is maintained by the law of nature.

Huh? What "law of nature" are you speaking of, exactly?

If a company has ****ty employee conditions, those employees will go to competitors. This forces the companies to maintain a safe haven for their employees.

Yeah, unless that's the only place they can get a job.

We created a socialist economy once we allowed government regulations. That's why democracy doesn't work.

I fail to see what democracy has to do with our semi-socialist economy, or with this topic as a whole.

Moreover, Canada and many parts of Europe have more socialist economies than we do in the US, and most of them are doing alright. A little socialism is not necessarily a bad thing.

And whether you think socialism is a bad thing or not, Wal-Mart is doing something illegal by blocking unions like it has.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I have contacted a man my family knows who is very high up in Wal-Mart. Tomorrow Im going to get Wal-Marts side of the story, and their ideas on unions.

I want you to understand Im not for Wal-Mart, nor am I against it. I can only give you what was fed to me while I worked for them. I do want to know both sides of the story.

 

[Mediocre]

I have contacted a man my family knows who is very high up in Wal-Mart. Tomorrow Im going to get Wal-Marts side of the story, and their ideas on unions.

Okay. I'll be interested to hear it, but I'm not sure I'll believe it.

I want you to understand Im not for Wal-Mart, nor am I against it. I can only give you what was fed to me while I worked for them. I do want to know both sides of the story.

Why did you just believe what was fed for you?

You should critically analyze things you hear on your own. Think about who's giving you this information, and if it benefits them for you to believe it. In the case of Wal-Mart, they are clearly benefiting by indoctrinating their employees against unions.

 

[lonejedi]

I believe someone stated this before, but I'm just going to add on to it. I personally believe that Unions are bad for a company like Wal-Mart. The majority of jobs at Wal-Mart require no college degree, and only a bit of training. The reason why employees want a Union, is so that they can get more money from simple jobs that anyone can perform. Unions are just ways for employees who get paid decent wages for easy jobs to complain and get their demands.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Ok, Ive spoke with Scott Pleasman who works in the home office here in Arkansas. He is the marketing manager for the south. It seems Wal-Mart is quite strict on what the employees say about their stance on unions. He was able to give me an email adress to ask questions about unions and Wal-Mart, and they would give me some answers. It also seems they were of no help.


Thank you for your message.

­We want to clearly address your concerns about unions. Our associates, not our
managers or Home Office, are the only ones who decide whether or not they want
to be represented by the union. Time and time again, our associates have made a
decision to reject the union, citing that they do not need to pay a third-party
their hard-earned dollars for something they can do for free every single day.
We have an open communication between associates and supervisors, and our
associates value this part of our culture.

Thank you,
Customer Relations


This reply obviously tip-toes around the answers I am seeking. No matter what question I ask, I always receive this same response. Frustrated as I maybe, I still stand by my stance of no unions in Wal-Mart.

 

[behemoth]

I worked at Sam's Club (a Wal-Mart company). "Full time" there was 35 hours, so no one could collect full time benefits. Twice I saw people who had worked there for over 5 years get fired because they (on two separate occasions) worked 40 hours. I was hired for a great wage, but people who had been working there for many years were barely making more than me.

As a quick side note, I am against Wal-Mart partially because the owners have become part of the economic elite, and their values have been assimilated into that culture.

Many people who are against Wal-Mart believe thusly because the idea of one company with that much power is frightening. The problem is that very few people will desist going to WM because of the convenience and savings. They give Americans the one thing that we seem to really care about: more money in the pocket.

 

[Crimson King]

Why shouldn't Americans go to Wal-Mart? It's their money being spent and they SHOULD get the best value.

Also, I am adamantly against blatant Wal-Mart bashing because if I rose that level from a convenience store, I'd be **** proud of myself. That is the American dream in motion. Of course, if a Mom and Pop was able to ever get a monopoly in a town, would they say they shoud be broken up because they are hurting local business? Hell no. I see it with a local grocery chain that is VERY monopolistic. They have the best prices, best variety and they are from my town. So why should they be punished for doing a good job?

 

[Mediocre]

I believe someone stated this before, but I'm just going to add on to it. I personally believe that Unions are bad for a company like Wal-Mart. The majority of jobs at Wal-Mart require no college degree, and only a bit of training. The reason why employees want a Union, is so that they can get more money from simple jobs that anyone can perform. Unions are just ways for employees who get paid decent wages for easy jobs to complain and get their demands.

I'm not sure why you think working at Wal-Mart is an "easy job." Just because a job is low paying doesn't make it easy. The people working at McDonald's or other fast food places don't get payed much, but their jobs sure as hell aren't easy.

I like unions. I'm part of a union. I admit that I don't like handing over part of my paycheck to them, and I admit that I don't get much benefit out of being in a union. However, I do like that the people who have been working at my supermarket for years (aka, the people with experience who often have families to support) get payed more for their years of work, and because they need the money.

I also like the fact that I'm guaranteed a break every so often, and that employees are protected from being fired without a reason. That's why I like unions.

Ok, Ive spoke with Scott Pleasman who works in the home office here in Arkansas. He is the marketing manager for the south. It seems Wal-Mart is quite strict on what the employees say about their stance on unions. He was able to give me an email adress to ask questions about unions and Wal-Mart, and they would give me some answers. It also seems they were of no help.


Thank you for your message.

*We want to clearly address your concerns about unions. Our associates, not our
managers or Home Office, are the only ones who decide whether or not they want
to be represented by the union. Time and time again, our associates have made a
decision to reject the union, citing that they do not need to pay a third-party
their hard-earned dollars for something they can do for free every single day.
We have an open communication between associates and supervisors, and our
associates value this part of our culture.

Thank you,
Customer Relations


This reply obviously tip-toes around the answers I am seeking. No matter what question I ask, I always receive this same response. Frustrated as I maybe, I still stand by my stance of no unions in Wal-Mart.

They didn't tiptoe around the issue. They lied about it. It's pretty obvious from Wal-Mart's actions that when their associates want to unionize, Wal-Mart doesn't just sit there and let them do it. If you want to know what I'm talking about, see the examples in my previous post.

I worked at Sam's Club (a Wal-Mart company). "Full time" there was 35 hours, so no one could collect full time benefits. Twice I saw people who had worked there for over 5 years get fired because they (on two separate occasions) worked 40 hours. I was hired for a great wage, but people who had been working there for many years were barely making more than me.

Two of the reasons I am adamently pro-union. Some people need to work full time, and need to make more money. Once somebody has a family, they're going to need it.

Also, it rewards employees for sticking with the company.

As a quick side note, I am against Wal-Mart partially because the owners have become part of the economic elite, and their values have been assimilated into that culture.

By economic elite, I assume you mean "rich?"

I don't have a problem with people becoming rich because they run successful companies. I just have a problem if people become rich by treating thier workers badly.

Many people who are against Wal-Mart believe thusly because the idea of one company with that much power is frightening. The problem is that very few people will desist going to WM because of the convenience and savings. They give Americans the one thing that we seem to really care about: more money in the pocket.

I'm proud to say that I've never been in a Wal-Mart in my life, and I intend to keep it that way.

Sure, it would be cheap. Sure, it would be convenient. But I don't like the kind of buisness Wal-Mart does, so I'm not willing to give them my money.

Why shouldn't Americans go to Wal-Mart? It's their money being spent and they SHOULD get the best value.

You know, I'm not saying we should prohibit people from going to Wal-Mart.

I'm saying we should prohibit Wal-Mart from mistreating people (specifically, their employees).

Also, I am adamantly against blatant Wal-Mart bashing because if I rose that level from a convenience store, I'd be **** proud of myself. That is the American dream in motion. Of course, if a Mom and Pop was able to ever get a monopoly in a town, would they say they shoud be broken up because they are hurting local business? Hell no. I see it with a local grocery chain that is VERY monopolistic. They have the best prices, best variety and they are from my town. So why should they be punished for doing a good job?

I don't want to punish Wal-Mart for "doing a good job." I don't have any problem with the low prices, or the wide selection. That's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is how Wal-Mart treats it's workers, and although I think what they do is wrong, I don't even really want to punish them for that. All I want is for them to stop doing it. It's definitely illegal, and in my opinion, immoral.

That's why I don't like Wal-Mart. Not for any other reason.

 

[behemoth]

By economic elite, I assume you mean "rich?"

I don't have a problem with people becoming rich because they run successful companies. I just have a problem if people become rich by treating thier workers badly.

Not quite what I meant. I suppose this isn't the time nor the place to get into it, but by "elite" I mean the people who run the world banks, the AP, benefit from the fiat system. The social, economic, and governmental elite (think fraternal orders, bohemian grove, bilderberg group, trilateral commission, etc.)

I do agree with your point of view on this issue, very well put.

 

[Crimson King]

I don't want to punish Wal-Mart for "doing a good job." I don't have any problem with the low prices, or the wide selection. That's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is how Wal-Mart treats it's workers, and although I think what they do is wrong, I don't even really want to punish them for that. All I want is for them to stop doing it. It's definitely illegal, and in my opinion, immoral.

That's why I don't like Wal-Mart. Not for any other reason.

I was more venting on a recent argument that I heard from people at school that Wal-Mart should be shut down because people can't match their price without losing money themselves.

 

[Deleted member]

Two of the reasons I am adamently pro-union. Some people need to work full time, and need to make more money. Once somebody has a family, they're going to need it.

Yeah uh, I know this is off-topic, but we mos def need a union topic. I'm starting to hate them.

 

[Eor]

You know, you're welcomed to make one

I do not shop at Wal-Mart for the reasons Mediocre said, but also because I simply like Target better. I find it funny that Wal-Mart tries to say they're a Christian store, but then treat their employees so terribly.

 

[Mediocre]

Yeah uh, I know this is off-topic, but we mos def need a union topic. I'm starting to hate them.

That's nice.

I find it funny that Wal-Mart tries to say they're a Christian store, but then treat their employees so terribly.

They're neo-Christians. The kind of Christians who care about the unborn but not the born, and would rather damn their neighbor than love them.

That's the kind of demographic Wal-Mart targets. Of course, they want other people to shop there, but they really seem to focus on these types of Christians.

 

[Deleted member]

That's nice.

Hey guys I can do that too

They're neo-Christians. The kind of Christians who care about the unborn but not the born, and would rather damn their neighbor than love them.

That's funny

That's the kind of demographic Wal-Mart targets. Of course, they want other people to shop there, but they really seem to focus on these types of Christians.

That's almost insightful

...

On a more related note, Wal-Mart should not be criticized for selling things cheap in small communities due to the fact that they are simply doing what every person would do if their business reached the same popularity and size, although with all the bad publicity they should probably do more than offer jobs to "help" those small communities that they are "ruining"

 

[Mediocre]

Hey guys I can do that too

Well, when you made that post I wasn't exactly sure what your point was.

I talked about how unions made people with families able to get more money, and you talked about how you disliked unions. Unless you dislike the fact that people who have families are getting more money, I don't understand how what I said relates in any way to what you said.

To me, it seemed about as postworthy as somebody who went into a boxing topic and said something like, "Hey, I think red is a really bad color for boxing gloves. Somebody should really make a topic about that."

On a more related note, Wal-Mart should not be criticized for selling things cheap in small communities due to the fact that they are simply doing what every person would do if their business reached the same popularity and size, although with all the bad publicity they should probably do more than offer jobs to "help" those small communities that they are "ruining"

Did you bother to read any of the posts I made? Or the posts that anybody else made in the last page? The topic is less than three pages long; it shouldn't be that hard.

I don't think you're stupid (I know from your DWYP debate that you're not), but you haven't said anything in this topic yet that's really worth saying. In your first post all you said is, essentially, "unions are bad," without giving any evidence or any kind of reason, and in your second you just repeated something Crimson King said a few posts before.

I'm not trying to piss you off, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd use some of the skills you showed in DWYP when posting in this topic.

 

[Deleted member]

I talked about how unions made people with families able to get more money, and you talked about how you disliked unions. Unless you dislike the fact that people who have families are getting more money, I don't understand how what I said relates in any way to what you said.

To me, it seemed about as postworthy as somebody who went into a boxing topic and said something like, "Hey, I think red is a really bad color for boxing gloves. Somebody should really make a topic about that."



Did you bother to read any of the posts I made? Or the posts that anybody else made in the last page? The topic is less than three pages long; it shouldn't be that hard.

I don't think you're stupid (I know from your DWYP debate that you're not), but you haven't said anything in this topic yet that's really worth saying. In your first post all you said is, essentially, "unions are bad," without giving any evidence or any kind of reason, and in your second you just repeated something Crimson King said a few posts before.

I'm not trying to piss you off, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd use some of the skills you showed in DWYP when posting in this topic.

Have you ever considered that maybe I was simply responding to your clever retort and only that? Did you ever think that maybe I think this topic is kind of silly and I was only posting in it to insight emotions towards the subject of unions so people would be up for a debate? To flare up people's opinions? And maybe..just maybe.. that I also wrote a cop-out of an opinion that pertained to this discussion so Crimson King wouldn't call my last post spam? Because he does, you know..I'm a pretty active debater, but for this thread I've much carried out the role of my avatar

Well, when you made that post I wasn't exactly sure what your point was.

Then why don't you refrain from sounding like what you advertise in your signature before you actually are sure what my point is

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I'm not sure why you think working at Wal-Mart is an "easy job." Just because a job is low paying doesn't make it easy. The people working at McDonald's or other fast food places don't get payed much, but their jobs sure as hell aren't easy.

I worked for wal-mart. It is an easy job. The fact that minimal intelligence is needed makes it an easy job. If you think stress is the factor that makes the job difficult then it would all depend on the individual. In my past I have also worked at a fast food establishment. The most difficult part was learning the register. Are you serious? You are pro-union right? Do you think people working in fast food deserve the same privileges as people who have spent years learning a trade (master welder)? You have to see that most people are only looking for the easy way out.

However, I do like that the people who have been working at my supermarket for years (aka, the people with experience who often have families to support) get payed more for their years of work, and because they need the money.

Yeah, Wal-Mart gives pay increases the longer you work there. Plus, they offer money for courses in management if you want more money later down the road.

I also like the fact that I'm guaranteed a break every so often, and that employees are protected from being fired without a reason. That's why I like unions.

Unions members are not the only ones who are guaranteed a break. Fifteen minuets for every two hours is guaranteed by state laws. State laws also require a reason that justifies the firring. Yes there are cases these laws have been broken but you only hear about the negative side.

Some people need to work full time, and need to make more money. Once somebody has a family, they're going to need it.

I am so tired of hearing about people with five kids complain about not making enough money. If I ended up working at McDonalds for the rest of my life I dont think a big family is a good idea. I know there are other instances but we are talking about unskilled workers in the union.

I don't have a problem with people becoming rich because they run successful companies. I just have a problem if people become rich by treating thier workers badly.

Again, your only speaking about a small portion. Wal-Mart (where I was employed) treated us very well.

I'm proud to say that I've never been in a Wal-Mart in my life, and I intend to keep it that way.

Way to keep the ignorance alive. You take all the bias reports and treat them as facts, see where you get with that later in life. I have been on both sides of this issue.

I'm saying we should prohibit Wal-Mart from mistreating people (specifically, their employees).

How the hell are they mistreating the employees? Show me an article about a mistreated employee and Ill show you 100 about rewarding their employees.

The issue at hand is how Wal-Mart treats it's workers, and although I think what they do is wrong, I don't even really want to punish them for that. All I want is for them to stop doing it. It's definitely illegal, and in my opinion, immoral.

Wal-Mart has been in trouble for legal reasons before. If they were in any violation now I'm sure we would know about it.

I do not shop at Wal-Mart for the reasons Mediocre said, but also because I simply like Target better. I find it funny that Wal-Mart tries to say they're a Christian store, but then treat their employees so terribly.

I could go to any business in America and find an employee who is not happy and would be more the glad to tell me all the way they are being mistreated. I find it hard to swallow that Wal-Mart is entirely awful b/c of a few bad apples.





-Edit-

Dont make a freaking union topic. This thread is more than suffice.

 

[Crimson King]

Mad Hatter brought up a very good point. Wal-Mart largely hires people who are unskilled, uneducated, and with mostly no work experience/poor work record. By giving THESE people a union, you are basically allowing them to be set for life without doing any work other than the job. High School and College students should not be in a union. They don't know enough about the world to see anything other than more money. Family men and women are the ones who realize the importance of the job and how raising wages has shock waves in the industry.

 

[Digital Watches]

The emotionally charged argument that unskilled workers don't "deserve" unions is completely insane.

No one is arguing that the same privelages and benefits need be given to Wal Mart workers as blacksmiths or any other comparison you wish to draw. Unions exist within numerous trades and do not all have the same demands. They exist simply to maintain or improve the conditions of the employment of the trade, whatever that may be. A union for Wal-Mart workers couldn't reasonably demand, for example, full medical coverage for bottom-level employees, and probably wouldn't. To unionize does not give the workers unreasonable power over their employers, it simply creates a situation in which they can, with any effect whatsoever, negotiate with them.

To deny that there should unions for unskilled workers is to deny that there should be bare minimums and reasonable employer standards for unskilled laborers.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

The emotionally charged argument that unskilled workers don't "deserve" unions is completely insane.

How so? If they want more they should work for it. IE, get a higher education, pick a trade skill, etc. Unskilled workers are more likely to abuse the system.

No one is arguing that the same privelages and benefits need be given to Wal Mart workers as blacksmiths or any other comparison you wish to draw. Unions exist within numerous trades and do not all have the same demands. They exist simply to maintain or improve the conditions of the employment of the trade, whatever that may be. A union for Wal-Mart workers couldn't reasonably demand, for example, full medical coverage for bottom-level employees, and probably wouldn't. To unionize does not give the workers unreasonable power over their employers, it simply creates a situation in which they can, with any effect whatsoever, negotiate with them.

1. Wal-Mart already offers some of the best benefits. I have stated this long ago.
2. Not all unions are the same. Some are simply after the money of employees.
3. The Wal-Mart that I worked at (it was a distribution center, but still the same) used a chain of command technique. If you had a problem you go to the person above you. If you feel unjust in their actions you go to the person above them and so on. They also followed a "sundown" policy. This simply gave you an answer to whatever problem in 24 hours.
4. If its not broke don't fix it. (lame I know)

To deny that there should unions for unskilled workers is to deny that there should be bare minimums and reasonable employer standards for unskilled laborers.

I will never agree with unskilled worker unions. There are many state laws that protect the employee.