Regarding the Walmart thread

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 1292 Location: Brand Central

So I'm not accused of 'threadjacking' the Walmart thread, I'll start another in reply to the premise:

This will probably be unpopular here, however... the following statements are simple basic economic truth:

- Higher wages equal fewer employment opportunities due to higher costs.

- Higher costs equal higher prices and lower sales.

- Unions typically remove or hinder the flexibility that many business require to be successful in a competitive market (See: GM, Chrysler, Ford). When the Big 3 (plus AMC til they went under) had only to compete with each other in the US, the system and market could support the interdependent auto maker/union system created in the post WWII era.

NOW:

That said... In the past unionization was instrumental in helping create safer, better workplaces. Labor Day exists to celebrate the achievements of the efforts of labor organizers in making the workplace a far better place than was described in say, Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"

The problem is, in today's global environment, heavy handed union work rules, featherbedding and such similar tactics make it impossible for the host companies to compete effectively, even in their home markets.

A similar effect is occurring in the EU as trade barriers and subsidies are removed.

Does this mean unions are a bad thing?

No, and thats not my point here. This means that they have to change to be effective and have a purpose in today's marketplace of ideas. If you remove public sector employees from the equation, unions have shrunk dramatically in membership (and therefore relevance) since the 1970s.

With most (if not all) of what they have stood for enacted into law, they need a new purpose in life, and I'm not sure they have found it yet.

Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 1634

Joined: 08 Jul 2003 Posts: 4780

agreed,need money to spend on the economy,where is it going to come from?

You used to be able to make enough to live off something like retail but you can't.

And the cannot compete argument is comparing apples and oranges.In non union over seas countries the employees or workers unfortunetly have to spend most of their money on food but NOT on stuff like homeowners insurance,auto insurance,utilities that work,health insurance-their paycheck doesn't cover what is a basic standard of living here.I'm not even talking cable,big screens or ice makers.

I saw a show on outsourcing where a call center supervisor in India going to work in nice clothes in a air conditioned corporate office go home to basically a hut,probably squating.

And the cannot compete argument doesn't work for factory costs as well because we have those pesky things called pollutions laws,safety regulations and privately owned business and not psuedo franchises for the military.

Joined: 06 Oct 2004 Posts: 102 Location: mid-west

In my opinion, having a point of view is not thread jacking. Please feel free to post your replies in the walmart thread. Smile

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1946

Well, Welcome Back Tigerlily. Like to see your posts. Smile

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 1292 Location: Brand Central

Well, some of the points you make are ones I agree with, but for different reasons...

You cannot compare apples and oranges, and yet the market has those two competing economically. The high cost (relatively) US market competes with the (relatively) low cost markets of India and other places... and loses.

Even within the US you see low cost states draining away investments in capital (SC, MS, TN & AL vs. MI, OH, PA as examples) for import car manufacturer's plants.

So, for some time, the challenge for unions is to move away from their traditional adversarial role and to a more collegial working relationship with the companies who employ their members in an effort to save what they have in terms of employment opportunities. In fact, 'sticking it to the company' is really just 'sticking it to yourself', as companies can move their operations elsewhere easily... although perhaps not as successfully as they or their customers would like (see: unintelligible call center conversations)

The call centers will get better with time, and in time it may be harder, if not impossible, to detect foreign centers as their language skills improve. Customers hate call centers and phone trees, and when you add a thick foreign accent to the mix, you have serious anger as a reaction.

That customer dissatisfaction seems to be a wedge issue unions could be using to their advantage, but they have not exploited it. I wonder why they have not embarked on a PR campaign on this matter.

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 1292 Location: Brand Central

Tiger: Sorry, gun shy a bit here. I keep getting my head bit off when I have dared render opinions that are not sanctioned! LOL

Joined: 06 Oct 2004 Posts: 102 Location: mid-west

Well that's not much of a discussion then is it. Were you acting like a dick when you disagree? Razz

Hey USA! How are you?

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1946

Doing good Tigerlily. Working us to death at Sears. Very Happy

Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 139

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 1292 Location: Brand Central

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:10 am Post subject:

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 1292 Location: Brand Central

Joined: 06 Jul 2003 Posts: 6727 Location: Central CA

I don't think unions are any threat to any of the major retailers nor am I inclined to belive that who sits in the White House has any bearing whatsoever on it.

That IS what the Walmart press release was all about, right? An attempt by a major corporation to influence the outcome of an election by veiled threat and innuendo?

I've said it before and I'll say it again... unions are NOT for retail... especially with the work force in that sector today. Retail employees, given the largely itinerant or temporary and/or part time nature around which the job revolves today are simply not targets for organization.

Hell, you can't find five people in the same store to agree with each other on what needs to be done, so how are you going to get 300 thousand people nationwide to?

Then you have the simple fact that rich Democrats... as they've proved repeatedly over the past two years... are no more inclined to do anything to actually improve the lot of the lower income working classes than rich Republicans are. They make their money the same way Republicans do.

We can talk about the merits of unionization in retail or more to the point, the lack thereof until the cows come home... won't make any difference. And in fact, I suspect that most of us would agree on the basics, albeit for varying reasons.

But Walmart? For years people have been claiming that they were the great Satan who had run all the mom & pops out of business and shut down "Main Street America" and they had absolutely no credibility with anyone. Now they're providing anti-labor talking points to get their guy elected and people are suddenly taking them seriously? What's the difference between bulldozing Main Street America and bulldozing their own work force?
Mr. Green

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 1292 Location: Brand Central

Well.

I was with you 100% until the last paragraph.... You can dispense with the innuendo there.

I still think Walmart sucks, and their tactics here are really sleazy, even if they are supporting 'my guy' however implicitly.

I removed my comments from the other thread since I wanted to (surprise!) comment on tangental issues that the initial comments raised in my head.

My musings were directed at the reality of unionization and whether they are good or bad for the economy and workers as a whole, and I framed a discussion with pros and cons here...

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:35 am Post subject:

Joined: 06 Jul 2003 Posts: 6727 Location: Central CA

Innuendo? What innuendo did you get from that last paragraph? That is EXACTLY the reasons most people who hate Walmart... including me for that matter... give for hating Walmart. Geez, you just LOOK for crap, don't you?

And is your idea of innuendo anything like the following, a version of which you pop up with on roughly a weekly basis these days, even though nobody has said boo to you in days now?

Joined: 09 Feb 2008 Posts: 1292 Location: Brand Central

If I misread the meaning in the last paragraph, then my bad. Guess I just got used to being the 'bad guy' *wink*

And the other line you quoted was intended as a bit of a self-depreciating joke.

Joined: 08 Jul 2003 Posts: 4780

excellent point,unions not for retail in todays enviorment

And who's fault is that,it is the employees themselves who let people convince them that this a temporary job,you can't make a living off this etc and YET;Managers and longtime employees tend to perpetuate that myth in the name of their own job security.

There is money to made and there is more money that can be made.But it is the execs,board members and district level managers tend to be the only ones making that money.How the heck did they get 20-30 years with one company.Too many have tunnel vision or never worked in retail in a time when you could make a minimal living.

Going into the conversion of 02 we had several people in one department averaging 14-16$ per hour and believe you me be it store management or associate there were no brain surgeons in the bunch.But for Sears that's where it literally all fell apart-forcefully.

The big corporate store ie the likes of Walmart,Home Depot and Target have helped perpetuate the myth.The retail rookies don't know any different.And in retail especially you have a lot of new citizens who really don't know any better.The young folk is just as bad they were supposedly educated here,in US history-I remember watching the old reel to reel history films of strikes being broken up in like the 1930s,I don't think many today don't even know ANY history on unions other than the screen actors guild or these players associations.

If enough generations of employees are never even exposed to even the chance of a union let alone participate in one no one will even stand up for their rights let alone try to start a union.Just look at some of the legitimate complaints here-everyone should know where and how to complain ie OSHA ,DOL etc.

Even Home Depots Frank Blake who took over after Nardelli raped HD said turn-over went down and sales went in many categories.What did he do-he hired FULLTIME 35-40 hour a week employees paid more than many like Sears.Sick Sig Nardelli reduced fulltimers and benefits and the bottom dropped out of HD sales by 2006.

Yeah retail sucks but it wasn't always that way and it does not have to be that way.

Joined: 06 Jul 2003 Posts: 6727 Location: Central CA

	Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1