Emma, you will certainly remember this: In a smaller city in Quebec, they were able to get a union organized for the Walmart workers. This would be the first unionized Walmart in the world. Once the union put forth it's contract proposal, Walmart announced that the store would be closed.

On the surface, it looks like "anti-union action". But in reality Walmart cannot keep the lowest prices and pay higher wages and deal with restrictive work rules. It is the nature of the game - low prices come from somewhere, Walmart is making a profit, so I would have to guess that it comes from lower costs, great automation, and keeping employee salaries and benefits in line with being a discount retailer.

Trying to turn a job as a cashier or a shelf stocker into a "house, two cars, 2.3 kids, cat dog, white picket fence" is just not going to happen. If being a Walmart greeter is your idea of a career, then you need to adjust your lifestyle expectations as a result. Sorry, but it just doesn't make sense.

"peasant policies" are a fairly common situation, created by preferential tax laws for certain types of investments. It isn't a nice thing to look at from a personal stand point (you are worth more to your company dead than alive is the common phrasing, not really true), but it is something that is created by the law, and which could be eliminated by simple changes to the tax laws. Congress has not seen fit to fix this, so therefore it must be legal and acceptable.

I think it could be looked at as an interesting way for a company to recoup the investment made in training an employee.

Alex

I have to second this, and from the looks of things at our local Wallmart, 85% of the employee pool (non-managerial) is made up of college students and seniors who are looking for some part time hours to supplement their social security benefits (and or retirement income from past jobs).

I bought this DVD when it came out as well. It didn't tell me alot I didn't already know but it certainly reinforced the way I already felt about the company.

At first my wife and I were going to boycott Wal-Mart.....then I did some research trying to figure out where the "labor friendly" place to shop was.
Turns out all the "big box" retailers are engaging in the same sort of practices, in an effort to keep up with the Waltons.

So really we don't have much of a choice when it comes to where to shop. We live in a "right to work" state so there are no grocery chains or general merchandisers with union employees here.

While I am appalled at the way the Wal Marts of the world do business, about all I can do about it is make a contribution to the AFL CIO and vote Democrat. *shrugs shoulders*

I could say the same thing about getting a job in a GM plant in Detroit. Most of those guys have just a high school education, the rest of the training is provided by the company.
They make $27 an hour.

It doesn't take alot of brains to be a flight attendant or a baggage handler either but those people get paid well because they have the right to bargain collectively for their wages and benefits.

If Wal-Mart is allowed to use its buying power to get lower prices from suppliers then why can't Wal-Mart's workers use their "collective labor power" to get better wages and benefits?
Seems like a double standard to me.

well bettter education can mean many things , could mean to read the fine print , could mean to check the jobsearch alot more often , could mean networking with others to find better positions, can also mean to know their rights , education is no just grades on a piece of paper

the workers can use there collective labor power , all they need to do is form together and call a mass strike , at the end of the day the workers have the power to run the company , without them the store would turn to shit , sure they can fire the lot of them but that takes time and money

if the workers can hold off long enough with no source of income they can change things

walmart and the like use the same tactic when they are bargaining better deals , they walk in with there power and money saying we want this at X price or we will take our business elsewhere( ok might be more to it then take ,but you get the idea)

most established unions are crap anyway

i don't know abou others but with my jobs
I have always had the right to pick and choose where, when and for how much I work.
I make the decision at interview time whether or not I work for someone.
At no stage am I over a barrel to take the job, but if I do I'd better be prepared to accept the wages and conditions on offer or go elsewhere.
If the potential employer can't see the value I possess and be prepered to pay for it, then they're not worth working for - simply walk away.

Lenny, airlines and car companies are interesting choices. In both cases, they are industries where the existing "big guys" are all suffering because of thing they have given during past labor negotiations.

In GM's case, legacy labor costs (the cost of retiree benefits) are costing the company huge amounts of money each year, which would be the difference between profit and loss in most cases.

In airline cases, many, many of those companies have gone bankrupt in the US over the last 10 years, and the usual solution is MASSIVE rollbacks in employee wages and benefits.

If they put those costs into tickets or cars, we would be paying 30% to 50% more.

If every Walmart employee wanted to make stocking shelves into a family supporting career, I would suspect that prices at the store would go up rather dramatically (because not only would wages go up, but because shop rules would probably double the amount of staff required to run the stores).

Alex

I disagree totally.

The reason GM is losing money is because of bad management. They put too much faith into gas guzzling SUV's and when oil prices spiked they were screwed. Same thing with Ford.
The car companies that are flourishing right now are the ones that got into hybrids early and whose normal lineup of cars are fuel efficient.

The Japanese workers have very strong labor rights and wages, as do the American workers who work in the Japanese factories here.

Southwest and Jetblue both have a unionized workforce yet they remain profitable.
The legacy airlines are still using circa 1960 business models built around the hub and spoke system. That's why they're losing money.

There are plenty of major retailers in the country who have a unionized workforce and they remain profitable.

If the government would do their job and raise minimum wage to 8.50 an hour then I'd agree that a union probably wouldn't be necessary for a company like Wal-Mart. However this congress and president won't do that because they're in the back pocket of companies like Wal-Mart.

So I think the workers should be able to get together and bargain for wages collectively.

Well nobody can say that this documentary isn't having an effect
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/...rt_health_care

I thought I might add to this pissing contest... I only have 2 points...

The first point is the slogan used by old man Sam when he started Sam's clubs and walmarts... The store was all american made products... after old man Sam's death ... Corperate Walton found better profit in international trade and markets... as well as labor...

and from personal experience... working at Florida's largest distrobution facility... supplying the stores located in most of the southeast region ... they have NO climate control and being right to work state... it is not manditory to provide heat or air... the quota for ALL package, shipping, or recieving departments is 110% ... if you get less then your 110% quote in your work day , you recieve a written warning, then a dock in pay, then suspension, then if you dont maintain at least 100% (which I think is the only possible quota that could be filled) your fired.

I worked as a forklift operater in shipping and made 8.25 per hour on 3rd shift, 8.25 was the shift pay increase from 7 per hour. after 6 months you were "eligible" for "up to" 1.00 of a raise till your 1 year anniversary. I was there for 4 months, got told my qouta was to low. I quit after my written warning for having a 102% quota.
The turnover ratio there was very high as a new crew starts every tuesday, 10 to 12 people. I was the last new employee till the next tuesday.

anyone who thinks walmart is a good thing ... needs to apply and work there... see for yourself...

Lenny, you might want to read this:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ma...gmpr-m18.shtml

In the case of GM, $1800 out of every car sold goes to paying those costs.

Most people don't realize, but when GM or a Ford closes a plant, they are often stuck paying upwards to 80% of the salary costs anyway for years to come. There is very little flexibility in the process.

GM's sales and market share have dropped massively in the last 30 years, but they are still supporting the retirement benefits and (rapidly increasing) medical costs. Just last year, they have moved from 5.2 to 5.8 BILLION dollars. That change alone would cover 25% of the losses last year. Those costs continue to spiral and they are not going to go away until GM goes bankrupt, which is a solid possiblity.

Walmart would be non-functional with $15/hour stockboys and $20/hour fork lift drivers, especially if there were shop rules and legacy retirement costs to cover in the future. The impact at the cash register would kill (see K-mart).

Pindilly, I don't think anyone here is suggesting Walmart is a good career choice. Your experience with a tough work situation combined with (often over done) right to work laws means that it sucks ass. However, the truth is there, 10-12 new people come in every week to take a swing at it. That says enough.

Alex

Alex I'm a reasonable guy, and I agree there are extremes involved on both sides of the argument.
I never said Wal-Mart should have $15 an hour stockboys. Don't inflate my position to make yours look more reasonable.

GM's problems are mostly due to their loss of market share, and that can't be blamed on the guy working the assembly line, the buck has to stop with management on that one.
(Although I do agree that things like the UAW JOBS bank are absurd)
There's also the issue of rising health care costs, which is another subject altogether that would take too long to go into here.

There is a vast array of social policies that I disagree with that cause these sorts of problems. The problem isn't just "Wal-Mart"
However, the minimum wage in this country, if it had been indexed to inflation would be around 8.50 an hour today.
Someone working full time making minimum wage only makes 2/3 of what it takes to cross the "poverty line"
What's the point in having a minimum wage if it doesn't at least keep people out of poverty?
Whenever anyone in congress brings up raising the minimum wage Wal-Mart is one of the first people in line with campaign and PAC contributions for any congressman who will oppose raising the minimum wage.
These are the sort of things that bother me. I think if a person works full time (in the richest country in the history of the world) that they should be able to feed themselves and see a doctor if they're sick. That's not too much to ask (unless you're Wal-Mart)
Raising wages and providing health insurance wouldn't hurt Wal-Mart's profitability one iota, yet they act as if it would put them into bankruptcy.

The administration would have everyone in America working for a $1 an hour if they could tax that money and make claims on Fox News of having 0% unemployment.

If you raise minimum wage then people will loose jobs. Of course they're not feeding themselves at minimum wage so it's not a big lose but it looks bad on paper. The administration can not do something if the numbers look bad.

The real thing to do would be to cut taxes on minimum wage workers which would put more money in their pockets but then we'd need to raise taxes on the richest Americans, which is something else that the administration can't do.

Walmart has done some brilliant things in cutting costs but recently they've ran out of new ideas and paying off politicians to increase thier profits. We all know that.

Lenny, the moves by the unions here in quebec would have seen hourly wages for "floor staff" increase at least 20% over the term of the contract, with major "shop rules" being put in place. It would not have been out of line to expect to see $15/hour staff stocking shelves, which just ain't gonna cut it at a discount retailer. No inflation of your position, it is what it is (the store was closed, now Walmart is being dragged in front of the labor relations board).

GM is suffering greatly from market share losses, but unlike a normal business that could easily adjust it's work force and manufacturing facilities, GM is bound be insane work rules, job counts, and legacy costs that pretty much wipe out any chance for a profit. Most of the contracts are written to maintain jobs and benefits, with few provisions for business down turns. GM is still paying for benefits granted in the 60's and 70's, long before competition came to the US market place. Yes, years of bad management and bad product have left them in a bad position, but Ford is also facing similar problems. The auto industry is one of the last big smoke stack industries that have survived in the US "as they were", but the pressure is there and something will give.

Minimum wage is a really difficult situation. If you make it too high, business cannot compete. If you make it too low, people cannot afford to live on that basic wage. A company like a WalMart of a McDonalds would not work the same way as it does if the basic wage paid got to be too high.

That you said there was a lineup of people wanting to work at Walmart new each week tells me that the job demand far outstrips the salary that is being paid. If the jobs were not acceptable, people wouldn't show up for them. It's pretty hard to arge supply and demand, even int he job market.

As for the medical issues, I think you need to look at your federal government to find out why this is a problem. Putting the weight of health care on individuals and companies is, in my mind, a major flaw of the United States, where more Americans live without health coverage than live without a car, a color TV, or a cell phone. Some things are just a little far out of whack.

Alex

Alex