Originally Posted By Dabob2 <In the past they were benevolent, mostly because of the precedents set by trade unions. > Well, it depends on what era of "the past" we're talking about. For the last 3/4 or so of the 20th century, yes. Unions helped level the playing field big time. Workers and unions had plenty of battles, but at least the playing field was relatively level, and even workers in non-union industries enjoyed the benefits that eventually made their way into law - 40 hour work week, weekends (previously an unknown concept), child labor laws, health and safety laws, etc. etc. During the robber baron age and before, when owners held all the cards, workers were often in very bad straits indeed. This was particularly true in areas where one industry dominated (coal mining, say) and workers had to work ridiculous hours for wages that would barely keep them alive, and weren't even paid in cash, but in company "scrip" only good at the company store, which charged inflated prices for basic goods and guaranteed the workers could never save anything or get ahead. And if people tried to unionize, they brought in the goons.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>You are the one that specifically asked about Walmart as if they were the only ones doing that.<< Walmart is the poster child for such shenanigans. I didn't get the impression that William was singling them out. We all know that Target is doing it too. >>They provide a lot of goods to people that otherwise would not be able to afford many things.<< Ironically, most of them COULD afford them if it weren't for our Walmarted economy. >>They also provide employment to many people otherwise unemployable<< Horse foofie. >>because they are not paid the same level as CEO's it is felt that they are taking advantage of employees.<< This kind of GOP-feverish-BS talk is so last October. >>They have enabled a lot of people to actually raise their standard of living.<< But we weren't discussing the Walton family, were we. For every one person whose standard of living actually improved courtesy of Walmart, I can show you hundreds that went the other way, whether as a Walmart employee, or an employee of another company doing business with, or competing with Walmart.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost <<<Walmart is the poster child for such shenanigans. I didn't get the impression that William was singling them out. We all know that Target is doing it too.>>> Well, apparently, I did! <<<Ironically, most of them COULD afford them if it weren't for our Walmarted economy.>>> Interesting statement! I wonder if you can explain how? <<<Horse foofie.>>> I guess you told me! <<<This kind of GOP-feverish-BS talk is so last October.>>> Damn where were you when I was deciding who to vote for...now I feel I got it all wrong. <<<But we weren't discussing the Walton family, were we. For every one person whose standard of living actually improved courtesy of Walmart, I can show you hundreds that went the other way, whether as a Walmart employee, or an employee of another company doing business with, or competing with Walmart.>>> Things were affected by Walmart indeed, but, you have your numbers reversed. It should be for every one person that was negatively impacted hundreds went the other way. The only people that were totally destroyed, if that is the proper word, were Mom and Pop establishments who either didn't have much in the line of help or if they did payed the same low rates of pay and had no chance or ability to offer benefits. Those "employees" that were rendered jobless by a Walmart coming into the area were the ones hired by Walmart in the end. Most all the mainstream department stores that existed before Walmart, still exist today. You want to make someone a poster child try Home Depot or Lowes...they put many medium sized business out. The ones that Walmart "put out of business" were in a very weak position to begin with.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Interesting statement! I wonder if you can explain how?<< Oh come on now. Higher wages = more purchasing power. Manufacturing jobs in the US instead of China = more purchasing power. >>I guess you told me!<< Some statements don't deserve any further rebuttal than that. >>It should be for every one person that was negatively impacted hundreds went the other way.<< Like this one. But here goes anyway. You're focusing on the mom and pop store aspect of it, but that's not even 1/10th of the effect Walmartization has had on the economy. The primary thing Walmart did was make it literally impossible to manufacture so many consumer goods in the US. THOSE are the jobs that are really gone as a result of Walmart. Walmart LITERALLY dictates whether so many other businesses live or die in this country. They LITERALLY dictate everything from prices to distribution to package design and size. And you do what they say or you go under. And if they say they are only going to pay $X for your product, and that means you have to close your American factory, outsource to China and drop your quality, then you either do it or close the doors. All the rest of American retail, combined, can't support a high-volume mass-produced consumer goods based business without Walmart's support, and Walmart's support comes only with Walmart's control. So yes, their insistence on lower prices AT ALL COSTS has most definitely had a negative effect on hundreds of Americans for every 1 that has benefitted from it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>but because they are not paid the same level as CEO's it is felt that they are taking advantage of employees<< Uh ... no. Some people are upset because WalMart doesn't pay their employees a living wage.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Well, it depends on what era of "the past" we're talking about. For the last 3/4 or so of the 20th century, yes<< Yup, that's the past that I meant. Also, +1 for post #24 as well.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Walmart LITERALLY dictates whether so many other businesses live or die in this country. They LITERALLY dictate everything from prices to distribution to package design and size. And you do what they say or you go under. And if they say they are only going to pay $X for your product, and that means you have to close your American factory, outsource to China and drop your quality, then you either do it or close the doors. All the rest of American retail, combined, can't support a high-volume mass-produced consumer goods based business without Walmart's support, and Walmart's support comes only with Walmart's control.>> Absolutely spot on assessment. Here's yet another in a string of countless reasons why WalMart is B-A-D: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/26/1164800/-Walmart-clothing-found-in-Bangladeshi-factory-after-fire-that-killed-112" target="_blank">http://www.dailykos.com/story/...lled-112</a> <> Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM PST Walmart clothing found in Bangladeshi factory after fire that killed 112 by Laura ClawsonFollow for Daily Kos Labor Two days after Saturday's fire at a Bangladeshi garment factory that killed at least 112 people, Walmart was neither confirming nor denying that the factory was one of its contractors, saying that it just wasn't sure whether Tazreen Fashions, Ltd. made Walmart clothes. But pictures taken after the fire showing clothes from Walmart's Faded Glory label appear to settle that question. Reminiscent of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, the Bangladeshi factory lacked enough emergency exits, and some of the 112 people who died did so after jumping out of the eight-story building to escape the fire. Walmart had given the factory an "orange" safety rating in May 2011, which means that even by Walmart's low standards, there were significant risks. Walmart is touting that inspection program, and saying that it has cut ties with 50 factories in Bangladesh recently. But, Josh Eidelson writes: "n a Monday interview, Workers Rights Consortium Executive Director Scott Nova said Walmart’s “culpability is enormous. First of all they are the largest buyer from Bangladesh” and so “they make the market.” Nova said Bangladesh has become the world’s second-largest apparel supplier "because they’ve given Walmart and its competitors what they want, which is the cheapest possible labor costs.” “So Walmart is supporting, is incentivizing, an industry strategy in Bangladesh: extreme low wages, non-existent regulation, brutal suppression of any attempt by workers to act collectively to improve wages and conditions,” Nova told The Nation. “This factory is a product of that strategy that Walmart invites, supports, and perpetuates." Thousands of garment workers protested Monday, demanding justice. Justice, of course, is one of the things that Walmart's elaborate system of contractors and subcontractors is meant to evade. Walmart gets to say that it isn't responsible for the outcome of its push for cheaper labor, because that's all the fault of the contractor. Meanwhile, consumers have no way of knowing which Faded Glory clothes were made in sweatshops that endanger the lives of workers and which were made in sweatshops that merely keep their workers impoverished. <> No. Excuse. What.So.Ever.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I thought the term "WalMart" became negative when the news media reported their full time employees were also eligible for food stamps and government medical assistance. I meant to listen to the radio this evening for a report about this specific topic: the true cost of cheap consumer goods. In the news blurb they used WalMart as the reason I meant to remember to tune in...WalMart has temporary factory workers that have been temporary for over 5 years, etc, giving them no reason to provide any benefits. This was on NPR Public radio tonight at 6:00 p.m. in my area. Recently i am trying to enforce the message I want to send by refusing to do business with these companies. I am learning to live without "stuff". It is time for the individual consumer to recognize that every single dollar has power to make a change. Reading in the news that Black Thursday was a financial bonus for the companies that chose to open on Thanksgiving....gives them all the more reason to open again next Thanksgiving with more companies joining in. Seriously I find it hard to believe most of these shoppers do not have a relative that is affected by these poor insensitive work standards.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Reading in the news that Black Thursday was a financial bonus for the companies that chose to open on Thanksgiving....gives them all the more reason to open again next Thanksgiving with more companies joining in. Seriously I find it hard to believe most of these shoppers do not have a relative that is affected by these poor insensitive work standards.<<< I agree, and was surprised at some I know who chose to go shopping on Thanksgiving. Having kids still in school, I would not be at all surprised if one or both work retail at some point during high school or college. If the trend continues retail establishments will soon be open all day on Thanksgiving, as some Old Navy stores already were this year. I will be p.o'd at the people I know who shopped Thanksgiving if my kids have work Thanksgiving day some year.
Originally Posted By ecdc As I mentioned on another thread, I work as a manager in a call center. It would be hilarious, if it weren't so sad, how many people call my reps on Thanksgiving or Christmas and ask, "So why do you have to work today?"
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Just when you thought the heartlessness couldn't get any more twisted: <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/11/26/1239371/fox-host-people-who-died-in-walmart-factory-fire-should-be-thankful-they-had-a-job/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/polit...d-a-job/</a> <> Fox Host: People Who Died In Walmart Factory Fire Were Thankful For Their Jobs By Zack Beauchamp on Nov 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm The 129 Bangladeshis who died in a fire caused by poor fire safety conditions in their garment factory should be thankful for their jobs, according to Fox Business host Charles Payne. Speaking with Neil Cavuto on Fox News this Monday, Payne excused this Sunday’s fire as a rare event and labelled all critics of the unsafe conditions that contributed to the tragedy as anti-Capitalist: PAYNE: It is tragic. I don’t think something like this will happen again. Don’t think that the people in Bangladesh who perished didn’t want or need those jobs, as well. I know we like to victimize everyone in this country, particularly when it comes to for-profit motivation, which is being assaulted. But, you know, it is a tragedy but I think it is a stretch, an amazing stretch, to sort of try to pin this on Walmart but, of course, the unions in this country are desperate. [link to video of the broadcast] The Bangladeshi factory in question, Tazreen Factories, had no functioning extinguishers, locked the exits, and employed managers who told factory workers to go back to their stations when the fire alarm went off. Since 2006, over 200 people have died in Bangladeshi garment factories as a consequence of the substandard safety precautions prevalent in their factory. Some believe companies like Walmart — whose brands were found in the burnt factory — would move if production at the faculty were more expensive; that is, if things like basic safety precautions were implemented. During his defense of the factory, Payne referred to himself as “a spokesman for capitalism and the American Dream” and said “for a lot of people, this [Walmart business practice] is a step in the right direction.” <> WTF is wrong with these idiots on Fox? Do they torture small animals in their spare time for fun? Geez Louise! What an immoral bunch of a-holes!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Wow. There really are people out there who see other human beings as nothing more than numbers on a balance sheet, and would be happy going back to conditions that are downright Dickensian, with no protections, owners holding all the cards, and ruthlessly enforcing that Every time I think perhaps this view is overstated, I read something like this, and the response from the Fox asshat. Damn.
Originally Posted By ecdc I think this attitude is, sadly, pretty prevalent among a lot of Americans. I don't think it's rooted in maliciousness (maybe for this Fox News clown it is) but in a naive view of American capitalism and employment. For whatever reason, Americans seem to need to think that most people other than them are lazy. They are the hard worker, they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (blind to the vast number of opportunities they had that they take for granted), and these "others" who would dare to complain about, well, anything relating to their job, are just lazy freeloaders. It's kind of strange, but I see it all the time and hear this attitude almost daily in my own workplace. I get it, it's an ethically tricky thing. Are people entitled to employment? Not really, and yet, without they can't really survive, not in any meaningful way. But to just constantly take this attitude towards workers (which the same people who often display this attitude are) that says be grateful, and if anything bad ever happens, suck it up, is just odd. Really? Greed never happens? Companies are never liable for anything? That's really how it sounds.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck The problem is that these people have stopped thinking for themselves. They simply resort to the party line to sort out any societal or political issues. Guilt, and such trivialities as facts and common sense are cast aside in an unnatural devotion to the conservative mantra.
