Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

How are retail like Wal-Mart and a lifeguard position so much of a strech of a comparison? Both are mainly designed as a part time job, not as a career, although some people do make it as a career. I too am a student, with bills to pay and well a part-time job is good to have while I earn my degree (BA Honours in Polictical Studies and International Devleopment Studies).

I fail to se ehow retail and lifeguarding are so much of a stretch, just because I don't do the exact same job as you, I am still providing some sort of service, as you are. Its ment as mainly a part time field, as is retail, I get no benifits at all (unles syou count a membership to the Y I work at).

Tell me how they are so difference, and the reason that you shoudl make more than me?

At 9/19/05 10:46 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Tell me how they are so difference, and the reason that you shoudl make more than me?

Rugby, you're bustin my balls here man. I gave you a whole paragraph outlining the differences. I'll break it down for you further:

1) Lifeguarding is a specialized job, as compared to working retail. What this means, is that you have personally sought out courses and functions in order to obtain the position. You have paid money (a fairly large sum of it) to join the ranks. The people who enter retail chains like Walmart are usually not very well off. I am generalizing here, and saying that I think most of them would not have 400-500 bucks to spend on "cash training". This means that they probably don't have an invested interest in the job, but are simply working it to sustain themselves.

If you have the cash to spend on lifeguard courses, I'm sorry, but you are not hurting too bad in the financial department buddy. And if you are, then obviously you WANT to be a lifeguard if you're putting this much cash into the program, which means you know the risks, know the pay, know the field, and are making a personal choice to do so. Becoming a lifeguard is not a job you seek out of necessity, in this sense. If the job was undesireable, would you logically do these things?

2) The realm of competition. In retail, you have competitors to which you are trying to outbuy. You are also selling a product to the consumer (which involves many responsibilities). In the world of Lifeguarding, you have no competitor (aside from other employees who want your job). Now then, many other chain stores, like Walmart, provide a union for their employees with relatively no backlash. However, because of Walmart's profits, they are able to expand, and put businesses (ones that provide a union) into bankrupcy. Where do the employees of those bankrupt businesses then have to turn. Because of the limited positions available in other chain stores (due to lack of expansion in comparison to WalMart), they then may have to work at a Walmart store. So, for working the exact same job (relatively), they are getting a lower wage and no benefits. How is this fair. This is one reason why we have to put into action restrictions on businesses like WalMart, to prevent the eventual take-over, which then leaves society in a worse state (for the workers).

3) Why should a WalMart employee get paid more than a lifeguard? I'm not arguing that point. If I were though, it would coincide with my first point about necessity over a pure want. If you disagree with the practices of "unfair wages/benefits" of lifeguards, and have valid reasons as to why conditions should be better for lifeguards, then by all means, say something about it. The only thing that Lifeguarding doesn't have over retail, is that by having the pay as it is, there is no societal backlash that becomes a result of "poorly paid lifeguards". If you can show me how there is some sort of significant harm that is being to society, then show it to me, and I will also believe in the cause for Lifeguards along with WalMart employees (it isn't a case of one or the other, you can fight for more than just one cause).

At 9/19/05 12:24 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: 1) Lifeguarding is a specialized job, as compared to working retail.

Most people who take this training spend this money over a period of several years, since different required courses have different age limits. Its generally not done in all one shot, although some do. The majority of lifeguards are students who have usually large debts.

The people who enter retail chains like Walmart are usually not very well off. I am generalizing here

Again I would disagree on this with you, but I may be wrong. Most people workign in Wal-Mart are young people who have no experience or specific job training, so enter into a field that requires no specialized skills or experience and all training is on the job.

This means that they probably don't have an invested interest in the job, but are simply working it to sustain themselves.

Just because we spent money to get the specialized skills required for such a job doesnt mean we are neccisarily interested in the job in they way I think you imply. It allows us to enter a job market where our skills are very rare to find and we are in high demand (there is a shortage of lifeguards who are willing to work at a pool year round, most either do it only in the sumemr or dont use it as a lifeguard at all, but maybe swim coach or just on a resume). Many of the year round lifeguards are doign it so we can pay our books, food and other living costs, to keep our massive debts down.

I'm sorry, but you are not hurting too bad in the financial department buddy.

Like I said, its generally spread out over a number of years. How much do people spend on a junker car? Or on other non-neccisties like video games or the bar?

And if you are, then obviously you WANT to be a lifeguard if you're putting this much cash into the program,

If you work at walMart you are making a personal choice to do so. There are plenty of other retail jobs, as well you can always enter the food service industry and many other jobs. I worked inr etail before and I didnt have a union, and I made about 50 cents more than minimum wage because I was incharge of the store on weekends.

Becoming a lifeguard is not a job you seek out of necessity, in this sense.

Like I said, many people take it because it is a marketable skill. Besides some of our trainign is transferable to other industries (by law every work place is required to have x amount of employees working at a time with first aid, depending on how many people are working, and who better than a lifeguard?).

2) The realm of competition. In retail, you have competitors to which you are trying to outbuy. You are also selling a product to the consumer (which involves many responsibilities).

We have to sell a product as well. If you teach swimming lessons you have to work your butt off to provide excellent service to satify both the parent and child at the same time. If not they wont come back and thats one less paying customer. Even just lifeguarding we have to make people feel safe, be presentable and provide excellent customer service by making their swim as pleassant as possible (make sure other patron are not being disruptive etc). If people dont feel safe or comfortable when they swim there is always the pool down the street for them.

In the world of Lifeguarding, you have no competitor (aside from other employees who want your job).

The pool has competion, that new city pool built aroudn the corner, or private gym down the block. Many communities have pools competeing with eachother, and the more patrons you loose to the other pools the fewer guards you need. And believe it or not,s ome pools actually do go under, the profit margin on a pool is razor thin.

Now then, many other chain stores, like Walmart, provide a union for their employees with relatively no backlash. However, because of Walmart's profits, they are able to expand, and put businesses (ones that provide a union) into bankrupcy.

Im sorry but just because walMart move into town doesnt mean every other box store is gonan shut down. In Peterborough (pop 70 000) we have a WalMart and we still have other box stores up and running in the city. In Hamilton (pop 500 000) We have 2 WalMarts, a Costco, Zellers and a bunch of others allw ithin a few km of each other and alla re still up and running for years now.

Where do the employees of those bankrupt businesses then have to turn.

How many retail outlets provide part time employees with medical or dental benifits? And just because Zelelrs closes, doesnt mean the only place to find work is WalMart. There are fast food outlets still hiring, smaller shops and dozens of othe rplaces still lookign for employees.

How is this fair.

Businesses are profit maximizers. Why shoudl they have to do what would undercut their bottom line?

3) Why should a WalMart employee get paid more than a lifeguard?

So youa re saying that if you were to argue this point you would say its because we want to lifeguard and not we need a job. How much do people spend on getting other special quals to get a job at a warehouse driving a forklift or a BobCat? How many people spend money to get certified to work with chemicals so they can be a janitor? Do you think these people do these jobs because they want to?

If you disagree with the practices of "unfair wages/benefits" of lifeguards, and have valid reasons as to why conditions should be better for lifeguards, then by all means, say something about it.

I think its unfair that a specialized job that requires a minimum of 100 hours of training to apply for the job (usually more as most pools hire lifeguards who can also teach swim lessons) to the 16 year old high school kid living with their parents working at WalMart, Zelelrs or Costco greeting peopel as they come in or scanning in a persons chocolate bar.

How many part time jobs put poeples lives in the employees hands? How many jobs have a standard of care as higha s ours. You screw up badly at your job, the company looses some money and you get fired. If I screw up badly at my job, someone dies and I get sued or possibly go to jail.

The only thing that Lifeguarding doesn't have over retail, is that by having the pay as it is, there is no societal backlash that becomes a result of "poorly paid lifeguards".

Purely because there are so few of us. How big do you think the backlash is for fruit pickers, the people who hem jeans at the mall?

At 9/19/05 02:52 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Most people who take this training spend this money over a period of several years,

And yet, it takes 100 hours of training before you can be certified, right? Well, some people don't have 100 hours to wait before they can even begin working. They need money, and hence, turn to retail.
And if these students are so hard done, trying to work off debt, why don't they find a job that actually pays. Again, Self-interest?

Most people workign in Wal-Mart are young people

Ah okay, so it's alright to give them no rights if their young. I get it. And frankly, I see a lot of older employees that work with the company too (and the elderly in our society are usually the poorest). What about them?

It allows us to enter a job market where our skills are very rare...

You're going to have to explain by another means, because it still sounds like you're saying you become a lifeguard for other motivations other than survival (in terms of finances).

Like I said, its generally spread out over a number of years.

Ah, good to know.

If you work at walMart you are making a personal choice to do so.

Of course it's a choice. But when the market for WalMart does expand (based on current trends), there will be a higher demand for employees. And frankly, finding a job is a difficult thing. It's not like you can walk up to any retail store and say "hey, give me a job" and it happens.

Like I said, many people take it because it is a marketable skill.

Right, Self-Interst. I just wanted to make that clear.

Even just lifeguarding we have to make people feel safe, be presentable and provide excellent customer service by making their swim as pleassant as possible (make sure other patron are not being disruptive etc). If people dont feel safe or comfortable when they swim there is always the pool down the street for them.

Right, so you basically have to do your job. I suspect that if you aren't doing your job, you get fired. I guess that's why they call it a job. So, congradulations on linking up a retail job with a lifeguard job! However, that doesn't make the jobs similar in nature.

The pool has competion, that new city pool built aroudn the corner, or private gym down the block. Many communities have pools competeing with eachother, and the more patrons you loose to the other pools the fewer guards you need. And believe it or not,s ome pools actually do go under, the profit margin on a pool is razor thin.

I wonder what the comparison rates of pool closings to retail store closings would be. Oh, I'm sure they're pretty much the same. *cough*

Im sorry but just because walMart move into town doesnt mean every other box store is gonan shut down.

Who cares about the damn box stores, what about the privately owned businesses. Instead of having family businesses, we are sending the majority of the wealth up the pyramid. What do you suppose the societal backlash is for this?

How many retail outlets provide part time employees with medical or dental benifits? And just because Zelelrs closes, doesnt mean the only place to find work is WalMart. There are fast food outlets still hiring, smaller shops and dozens of othe rplaces still lookign for employees.

For the meantime. However, is it just me or have you noticed that WalMart is branching out into some very odd directions. Some of them now carry groceries. The variety has certainly gotten better. How long will it be before they expand into specialty items?

And you're right. If a business like Zellers closes, that only puts 70,000 people out of work in Canada alone... but yeah, that's not a big deal. It also helps Americanize Canada, which I'm sure a lot of us Canucks love the idea of. Forget about our Canadian based stores, let's pump more cash into America's economy.

Businesses are profit maximizers. Why shoudl they have to do what would undercut their bottom line?

You're right. I say we hire some third World children to take their spots. Okay, so I guess our Ethics only goes so far. Perhaps our own citizens is where we draw the line.

So youa re saying that if you were to argue this point you would say its because we want to lifeguard and not we need a job. How much do people spend on getting other special quals to get a job at a warehouse driving a forklift or a BobCat? How many people spend money to get certified to work with chemicals so they can be a janitor? Do you think these people do these jobs because they want to?

Are the majority of these people covered under a plan (obvious answer)? If so, then I believe Lifeguards should have a union. So Rugby, go out into the streets and start protesting, cause I believe in your cause to improve work conditions for Lifeguards. And with that said, I still support unions for WalMart employees at the same time.

I think its unfair that a specialized job that requires a minimum of 100 hours of training to apply for the job (usually more as most pools hire lifeguards who can also teach swim lessons) to the 16 year old high school kid living with their parents working at WalMart, Zelelrs or Costco greeting peopel as they come in or scanning in a persons chocolate bar.

And Lifeguards can't be be teenagers, right? Lifeguards can't be kids in highschool, living with mommy and daddy. Hmmmm....

Also, what do lifeguards do most of their day. Are you doing much of anything aside from just sittin on your ass and blowing your whistle the occasional time while basking in the sun.
I can downplay being a lifeguard just as easily as you can downplay what it's like to work in retail.

But like I said, I support most any job to have a Union of some kind. For me, it's not an "either/or" scenario. I think Lifeguards and WalMart employees both deserve Unions.

Purely because there are so few of us.

So, in other words, there is no significant backlash for Lifeguards. I guess that explains why I have a larger interest in WalMart, because it can cause a significantly larger amount of damage. But it's always interesting to learn about different fields.

This arguement is clearly going no where,a nd is kinda off topic. Just want to point out one thing, how are amrketable skills and self-interest the same? Evenone tries to get some kind of marketable skill to give them an "edge" over the next person, whetehr it be through extra-cirricular work, job experience or training.

You asked for another means though and I will give you one. Its all supply and demand, if everyone on you block knows how to make lemonaid and opens a lemonaid stand, are you also gonna open alemonaid stand, or would you want to learn to make smoothies and open a smoothie stand?

Its just about entering a market that has a smaller supply of workers. Similar to BeFells idea, anyone can technically work at WalMArt, only a few people can work at a pool.

And since this arguement is going no where, I will elt you reply to this and let it die, unless you really want a reply, but Im not gonna do a 6500 character reply again.

At 9/18/05 08:09 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: This one may seem to support your argument, until you read near the bottom:
"Last month, after Saguenay employees voted to unionize, the company announced that because the store was unprofitable, it would close in May."

I have heard this too many times to count. Because WalMart is such a large super-chain, anytime people vote to unionize, Walmart simply states that they're just as willing to close down, and rebuild in an adjacent city where they won't have to worry about those pesky human rights (honestly, some people have the nerve to want basic pay and some sort of health coverage... geez!).

Thats bullshit. You cannot blame a company because the workers are too pathetic to coordinate a unionization. Thats the reason unions exist, because if you do something alone you will be fired. If they want to succeed they have to get other stores to join them immedeatly.

In the early 1900's people were threatened with murder and violence, not the least of which bieng fired, when they unionized. But they kept working at it. Wal-mart employees just suck.

FYI, 'basic pay' and health coverage are not human rights. Never have been. There are people who don't have real human rights, you make light of thier plight when you compare thier situation to wal-mart workers.

I'm gonna have to go with JoS on this. Labor is just like any other resource.

The larger the supply for any resource, including labor, the lower the price (wage) for that resource is going to be. Obviously, as JoS has pointed out, nearly everybody can work at Wal*Mart, but few people are certified lifeguards. The chart below shows how, even when there is a lower demand for lifeguards than there is unskilled labor, the supply is also lower for lifeguards. Their market wage is subsequently higher. It's simple supply and demand economics.

I got to stop with all the charts before I turn into Ross Perot.

At 9/19/05 04:38 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: You asked for another means though and I will give you one. Its all supply and demand, if everyone on you block knows how to make lemonaid and opens a lemonaid stand, are you also gonna open alemonaid stand, or would you want to learn to make smoothies and open a smoothie stand?

Awww, that's adorable. Comparing Wal-Mart to a lemonade stand.
I would make a slight alteration though, if I may.

Say you want to open a concession stand (as you have said). Well, what if the kid down the block sells hotdogs, sodas, baked goods, fruit, etc at prices that there simply is no way for you to compete with. I would say that your chances of opening up a concession stand are slim to nil. So, maybe you decide to invest in a shoe shining stand. It goes well for about a week or two, until that brat down the road does the exact same thing, and is offering a lower price. Well, there goes all your invested money down the drain.

Its just about entering a market that has a smaller supply of workers. Similar to BeFells idea, anyone can technically work at WalMArt, only a few people can work at a pool.

But again, what does this have to do with the comparison of how WalMart treats it's employees compared to other retail stores? What does it have to do with the downfall of the retail economy?

And since this arguement is going no where, I will elt you reply to this and let it die, unless you really want a reply, but Im not gonna do a 6500 character reply again.

*shrug* I won't twist your arm over it.

At 9/19/05 05:55 PM, Jimsween wrote: If they want to succeed they have to get other stores to join them immedeatly.
In the early 1900's people were threatened with murder and violence, not the least of which bieng fired, when they unionized. But they kept working at it. Wal-mart employees just suck.

You do realize that WalMart currently has approximately 1,700,000 employees right. That's a large number of people to gather together to form a union. The earlier unions were forged by smaller groups, which made it easier to ban together for a cause. Also, the living conditions were deplorable in the past, and that's why they formed unions in the first place. 100 years later, I think we can still improve on the system, don't you? Or are we only to settle, and allow the number of people living below the poverty line to increase as it is.

FYI, 'basic pay' and health coverage are not human rights. Never have been. There are people who don't have real human rights, you make light of thier plight when you compare thier situation to wal-mart workers.

Oh please, don't give me that sack of shit for an answer. Yeah, I don't stand for "real human rights". Tell me Jim, seeing as you seem to know me so damn well, what is it that you have done personally in your life to benefit human rights for others? Gone to any protests/rallies for causes? Researched in great detail about the sufferings of other human beings (I'm talking months, not five minutes on the interweb). Hmmm? Have you? Well guess what genius, I have. So don't feed me your bull about me disgracing human rights. I fight injustice on all fronts, whether it's on our own soil, or half-way across the world.

And FYI, "basic pay" and "health benefits" aren't the bare minimum of human rights. I'm saying, that if we can see that it's achievable in other retail stores (or companies in general), then it should be. What would be so bad about it if it were to happen?

At 9/19/05 06:17 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I'm gonna have to go with JoS on this. Labor is just like any other resource.
It's simple supply and demand economics.

Please, can -somebody- tell me they understand at least where I'm coming from when it comes to society and the economic decline when we allow massive stores like WalMart to put out of business, their competitors, who DO offer a good salary and health benefits. Am I the only one who see's the trend that if we continue to short-change our employees in the present, than it could possibly maintain or lead to an increase in this employment trend, causing future generations to work in stores that adhere to the same practices as WalMart does today.

It's all well and good to look at the charts and graphs that illustrate supply and demand ratios (which do make perfect sense when you're looking at that variable), but what you're missing in those graphs, is the alteration that is occuring over time in mainstream society as a whole. You're missing the outcomes and consequences.

Now if this idea makes no sense, please, someone point out the faults in my main argument so I can at least be assured that my fears are all for nothing.

At 9/19/05 11:30 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Say you want to open a concession stand (as you have said). Well, what if the kid down the block sells hotdogs, sodas, baked goods, fruit, etc at prices that there simply is no way for you to compete with. I would say that your chances of opening up a concession stand are slim to nil. So, maybe you decide to invest in a shoe shining stand. It goes well for about a week or two, until that brat down the road does the exact same thing, and is offering a lower price. Well, there goes all your invested money down the drain.

Yes...that's called 'competition'. It's encouraged in America, because it's good for the consumer.

At 9/19/05 05:55 PM, Jimsween wrote:

And FYI, "basic pay" and "health benefits" aren't the bare minimum of human rights. I'm saying, that if we can see that it's achievable in other retail stores (or companies in general), then it should be. What would be so bad about it if it were to happen?

Basic pay may be a right...health benefits aren't. No one has a right to free health care.
No laywers, sentators, or wal-mart employees.
No one, anywhere, should get something for nothing. If you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it. Period.

At 9/19/05 11:38 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Yes...that's called 'competition'. It's encouraged in America, because it's good for the consumer.

If you look at what behaviours are encouraged by America when it comes to capitalism, then you could use the same argument to encourage the outsourcing of jobs to employees in poorly developed countries who have next to zero benefits. America sometimes doesn't always know what's best.

Basic pay may be a right...health benefits aren't. No one has a right to free health care.
No laywers, sentators, or wal-mart employees.
No one, anywhere, should get something for nothing. If you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it. Period.

Minimum wage is a right, "basic pay" as it was described earlier and health benefits aren't. Either you misread what I wrote, or I wasn't clear enough.

At 9/19/05 11:30 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Say you want to open a concession stand (as you have said). Well, what if the kid down the block sells hotdogs, sodas, baked goods, fruit, etc at prices that there simply is no way for you to compete with. I would say that your chances of opening up a concession stand are slim to nil. So, maybe you decide to invest in a shoe shining stand. It goes well for about a week or two, until that brat down the road does the exact same thing, and is offering a lower price. Well, there goes all your invested money down the drain.

So, what do you do to that brat down the road? Call the cops on him to force him to raise his prices? Or specialize in something that he can't provide?

Please, can -somebody- tell me they understand at least where I'm coming from when it comes to society and the economic decline when we allow massive stores like WalMart to put out of business, their competitors, who DO offer a good salary and health benefits. Am I the only one who see's the trend that if we continue to short-change our employees in the present, than it could possibly maintain or lead to an increase in this employment trend, causing future generations to work in stores that adhere to the same practices as WalMart does today.

Don't you see the connection here? One of the reasons why Wal*Mart is so successful is they're not extorted by unions into paying inflated wages over what the market dictates! When you have competitors being forced to pay higher wages than what they would normally pay, then of course they're going to go out of business when competing against a store that pays the market wage.

Yes, how dare Wal*Mart institute a policy of paying it's employees according to how much their work actually is worth! And how dare Wal*Mart actually try to run as a business than serve as a defacto welfare department!

At 9/19/05 11:51 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: So, what do you do to that brat down the road? Call the cops on him to force him to raise his prices? Or specialize in something that he can't provide?

It then becomes a cycle. Due to the profits he is achieving with his business, it then becomes hard to find something to specialize in that he won't eventually invest in as well.

The only way to actually make your way into beating him, is to create good customer service. Due to his lack of training in his workers (which he would need to hire on to sustain his business), it would then become viable to have employees that become specialized in a field, and would be able to support the supply and demand. However, all of this takes time, and money, which some (or maybe a lot) people just don't have.

When you have competitors being forced to pay higher wages than what they would normally pay, then of course they're going to go out of business when competing against a store that pays the market wage.

Not entirely true. As was compared before, Costco (another box-retailer store) has a Union for it's employees. We get paid well, and have coverage. There are some guys there, that have worked for 5-10 years, and are breaking the 40k mark. And still, Costco makes an incredible amount of money. So it is a possibility.

Another company that has managed to create success with third world countries and the cocoa industry is Fair Trade. They sacrificed some profits that would go to the top normally, and invested in good pay along with benefits. So far, as I understand, they are also being very profitable. It's only a matter of sacrificing a little bit of greed in order to make a better situation.

The workers are happy because of the amount they are making in comparison to other companies that also deal with importing goods from other nations.
The Customer is happy in knowing that they are buying from a reputible corporation that cares for it's workers.
The Corportate suits are happy because they are making profits.

No downside.

Yes, how dare Wal*Mart institute a policy of paying it's employees according to how much their work actually is worth! And how dare Wal*Mart actually try to run as a business than serve as a defacto welfare department!

Who determines the worth of an employee or their job? As I've mentioned, some companies value their employees, and trade off a little extra "profits" to provide for their workers. This helps in creating employees who are equally qualified to work in a WalMart to get above the poverty line and make a decent wage while being covered.

However, if stores like WalMart continue thier trends, they may undercut these presently successful companies, and put a lot of people out of work. They then have to find a job that will accept them for their skills, and who will be waiting to accept them with their newly gained profits... the WalMarts. So because of Walmart, an employee had to get laid off of a job that they will come to work in, only for less salary and no benefits.

This is why things need to change soon, before the WalMarts get a chance to take over, and it becomes too late to act.

Wages are determined by two things, supply and demand and the degree of skill required. Why do you think lawyers or doctors make hundreds of thousands of dollars, while Marie Anne makes minimum wage cleaning hotle rooms?

Unskilled labour will always be cheap, becasue its high in supply and is unskilled.

One thing I dont like about the union process is the union is allowed to send in reps whenever they want to try and sell the employees on becoming a union, tell them why they shoudl unionize, but if a company wants to tell employees why they should unionize its a bad thing.

At 9/20/05 12:11 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Not entirely true. As was compared before, Costco (another box-retailer store) has a Union for it's employees. We get paid well, and have coverage. There are some guys there, that have worked for 5-10 years, and are breaking the 40k mark. And still, Costco makes an incredible amount of money. So it is a possibility.

Well, Costco isn't exactly a direct competitor to Wal*Mart--it would be better to compare to other wholesale stores.

Warehouse clubs pay more because more skills are needed. Customers pay to shop there, so employees have to have above-average customer service skills. Moreover, product units are larger, and require more strength to lift and stock, another requirement.

I work at Sam's Club--no union (of course). The conditions are similiar to what you describe for Costco. I know many people that have several years with the company in just cashier positions that make 40k or more. Heck, last year, I made $17,000 working part time, just a half year after I started.

Another company that has managed to create success with third world countries and the cocoa industry is Fair Trade. They sacrificed some profits that would go to the top normally, and invested in good pay along with benefits. So far, as I understand, they are also being very profitable. It's only a matter of sacrificing a little bit of greed in order to make a better situation.
The workers are happy because of the amount they are making in comparison to other companies that also deal with importing goods from other nations.
The Customer is happy in knowing that they are buying from a reputible corporation that cares for it's workers.
The Corportate suits are happy because they are making profits.

No downside.

Of course. Happy employees are good for business. And Wal*Mart's low pay shows in it's employees. I can't remember the last time I've seen a smile on a Wal*Mart employee's face. Or answer my question and provide decent help.

Just because there are more Wal*Marts popping up, though, doesn't mean they're going to take over. Many people have grown dissatisfied with Wal*Mart's business practices, and have curtailed shopping there. There wasn't anywhere near the large anti-Wal*Mart crowd ten years ago that there is today.

Who determines the worth of an employee or their job?

The employer, of course.

As I've mentioned, some companies value their employees, and trade off a little extra "profits" to provide for their workers. This helps in creating employees who are equally qualified to work in a WalMart to get above the poverty line and make a decent wage while being covered.

You've already said that one of the ways to compete with Wal*Mart was to offer better service. And I've already pointed out that higher wages make happier employees, which leads to better motivation and -- better service. Boom! There's your answer! Higher wages means better competition! If you pay higher than Wal*Mart, you're going to get the cream of the labor force coming to you, and the ones you reject end up going to Wal*Mart, to tick people off about the comparatively bad service they provide. This sends more people to your store, to get better service, which gives you more income and allows you to raise your pay and benefits even more, attracting even better employees, and subsequently, better service, and ultimately, better business.

Allright...this is kind of random but this honestly happened in my Walmart in Danville, VA (the first super-Walmart built) the other day. Maybe someone can use this and strengthen their arguements or something.

(this is part of the e-mail from my mother--I didn't bother editing)
Joel just called me and told me to pass the word to all my friends. He spoke to one of his Danville cop friends and her niece was attacked at Walmart this week. There is a new gang initiation where the new member is supposed to stab a woman 10 times and cut her nose off, then steal her car. Joel's friends niece was stabbed 17 times and her nose cut off IN OUR WALMART PARKING LOT! She is 17 years old and was just getting off from Chic-fil-a and ran by Walmart to pick up a few things. Joel said we need to be VERY CAREFUL wherever you are and especially at night.

Teen stabbed at Wal-Mart

By JONNELLE DAVIS
Register & Bee staff writer
September 19, 2005

DANVILLE, Va. - An early morning stabbing in the Wal-Mart parking lot sent one teenager to the hospital on Sunday and another to the local juvenile detention center.

A 17-year-old female suffered severe facial and neck injuries when she was attacked inside her vehicle at Wal-Mart on Mount Cross Road.

Danville police obtained a petition for aggravated malicious wounding against a 15-year-old male accused of the crime. Police are not releasing his name due to his age, but did say he is cooperating with the investigation. He is being held in the W.W. Moore Detention Center pending a hearing.

Bennie Brooks of Blanch, N.C., identified the girl as his granddaughter, Amy Brooks. Brooks, a senior at Bartlett Yancey High School in Yanceyville, N.C., underwent surgery at Danville Regional Medical Center on Sunday morning.

Bennie Brooks, who received a call about his granddaughter around 8:30 a.m. Sunday, said he believes she is going to be OK. A bystander with nurse’s training treated Brooks until the Danville Life Saving Crew arrived.

As of late Sunday afternoon, police had not established a motive for the attack, nor a relationship between the two teenagers.

Police received the call about the stabbing just after 1 a.m.

On his way to the scene, officer David Ferguson noticed a male running across Piedmont Drive to Movie Starz on Mount Cross Road. Ferguson chased the young man, catching him in the parking lot of Allied Home Mortgage. Police said the boy’s clothes were stained with what appeared to be blood.

Police said the boy approached the young woman from the rear of her car, parked on the east side of the Wal-Mart building. He stabbed her several times while she was sitting inside the vehicle, and dragged her out before fleeing, according to police.

Danville Police Capt. C.K. Wiles would not say whether the boy had followed the girl from inside the store, what type of weapon she was stabbed with, or if the weapon was found on the boy at the time he was taken into custody.

The Danville Police Department asks that anyone who may have seen anything related to this incident call Danville Crime Stoppers at (434) 793-0000, or e-mail crimetips@ci.danville.va.us. Information given will remain confidential. Those who call Crime Stoppers may be eligible for a cash reward of up to $1,000.

At 9/20/05 12:19 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Unskilled labour will always be cheap, becasue its high in supply and is unskilled.

But why do we set the bar so low that it doesn't even meet the bar of "standards of living"? If a WalMart employee made it at, or above this level with thier pay, I would be satisfied (and that goes for anyone who works and doesn't make the "standards of living" level).

One thing I dont like about the union process is the union is allowed to send in reps whenever they want to try and sell the employees on becoming a union, tell them why they shoudl unionize, but if a company wants to tell employees why they should unionize its a bad thing.

Doesn't that just ensure that the proper information on what makes a Union is given to the employees? After all, who's more likely to be truthful and knowledgable about Unions, a Union Rep, or the person that stands to lose profits if a Union is formed.

At 9/20/05 12:41 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Well, Costco isn't exactly a direct competitor to Wal*Mart--it would be better to compare to other wholesale stores.

True enough, I considered that afterwards, so I'll continue with other chain stores like Zellers. I think I made the connection of Costco to WalMart initially because Rugby was comparing Lifeguarding to WalMart... the connection seemed closer back then.

Warehouse clubs pay more because more skills are needed. Customers pay to shop there, so employees have to have above-average customer service skills. Moreover, product units are larger, and require more strength to lift and stock, another requirement.

Frankly, the skills I obtained from Zellers (which is similar to MalWart... errr *WalMart), are pretty much the same skills I need at Costco. If anything, I say that I needed more skills working the position I was at when I was with Zellers, than the position I'm working now. Though, the main difference is volume. We didn't have nearly as many customers, but then again, I lived in a small city before, and now I work in the Nation's Capital, so the volume change makes sense.

Also, the weight of our bulk products has nothing to do with the skill ability of our employees. I would has that about half the people that work the same job as I do at Costco are women. And I'm not talking muscular women, I'm talkin some slim chicks (fine too... but uh, that's getting off topic).

Just because there are more Wal*Marts popping up, though, doesn't mean they're going to take over. Many people have grown dissatisfied with Wal*Mart's business practices, and have curtailed shopping there. There wasn't anywhere near the large anti-Wal*Mart crowd ten years ago that there is today.

And yet, WalMart is still making large profits, while stores like Zellers (who provides benefits for their employees) are not experiencing a rise in sales. Maybe a lot of people are full of talk, but still buy at WalMart because of the selection/prices.

The employer, of course.

True, and it does make sense that they should have this power. But when your employer is sitting fat, while you're trying to make ends meat just to pay the bills and stay off the streets, is it still fine for the employer to determine the worth of their employees. I guess part of my beef is with the overall payment of minimum wage, seeing as how working a full time job at minimum wage won't get you above the poverty line. I just pick on WalMart because of most of the issues I have expressed.

You've already said that one of the ways to compete with Wal*Mart was to offer better service.

Yes, but that only works if you have the same (or close) selection that WalMart does. There aren't many retail chains that are rich enough to both provide good customer service as well as the Variety that WalMart provides. When I worked at Zellers, people would always say they loved shopping there because the employees were helpful and friendly, but said they shop more at WalMart, simply because they had what the customer wanted. As a result, Zellers (IMO) will be closing down operations in the near future.

So it's all well and good to hear "I love shopping here", but words don't pay the bills for the company.

At 9/20/05 01:14 AM, Iceman_of_doom wrote: Allright...this is kind of random but this honestly happened in my Walmart in Danville, VA (the first super-Walmart built) the other day. Maybe someone can use this and strengthen their arguements or something.

Ummm, I would say that this was merely an isolated incident that has nothing to do with WalMart being a positive or negative influence. The company shouldn't take responsibility for all the dumbassed things their employees might do of their own free will. Now, if this was a practice that the majority of WalMarts participated in, then yes, I would have an argument that WalMart is run by Satan himself lol
Too bad for the girl though.

Its not WalMarts fault if the government does not set minimum wage at a living wage level.

And the Union also styands to gain if the store joins the union, so they have a stake in it oo. If the store joins the collect union dues. So of course they will do/sya whatever they want to get the people in the union, just like WalMart wants to keep them out of the union.

The union is not purely in it for the "good of the employees", they are also in it for the good of the union.

At 9/20/05 12:43 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Its not WalMarts fault if the government does not set minimum wage at a living wage level.

Of course not. The problem I have with them is that they are taking out stores that do provide good services to their employees, despite the fact that it's a "low-skill" job. It just sustains poor income in our society, which I think we need to change. One way to try and battle companies that provide poor services to their workers, is through word of mouth, which is why I do not approve of the idea behind this thread. It's basically just encouraging the negative aspects of Capitalism, which I don't agree with.

And the Union also styands to gain if the store joins the union, so they have a stake in it oo. If the store joins the collect union dues. So of course they will do/sya whatever they want to get the people in the union, just like WalMart wants to keep them out of the union.

Good point. Personally, I would say it's still better for the Union to send in reps, simply because while they do benefit from the company joining a Union, it's also beneficiary to the workers. Perhaps conferences should be created where the Union Reps and the Store Managers or Reps could provide both sides of their view to the staff simultaniously. This way, it may ensure that there are no lies being given to the employees, and it creates an environment where the workers can hear both sides of the argument, and then decide on which one sounds most appealing.

At 9/19/05 02:18 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

At 9/19/05 01:19 AM, BeFell wrote:

BeFell, not everyone in the world can be scientists, there simply isn't enough positions. The fact is, we need people to work these jobs in our society. Getting an education can be a difficult thing to obtain (especially depending on what country you live in). What about the people born into poor families (I should know, I'm one of them). Well, some of us had to make money to get where we are today, and if that means working a job along the lines of retail to do it, then so be it. I'm able to work towards a better career, simply because of our government. As it stands, I'm 30k in debt (approximately), and I still have two more years of University to only obtain my BA with Honours (so add on another 20k). Can you say that a lot of people in America have access to the tools that would allow them to get a higher education? (Honestly, I would like to know).

Absofuckinglutely. I'm working at McDonalds for seven dollars an hour, I'm recieving 4,000 a year in financial aide from the federal government and my wife and I took out a loan to cover the rest. Now why on Earth can no one else take advantage of these same opportunities? Hell you don't even have to have a college education to get a better job than those found at Wal*Mart it just takes time build up a good enough reseme and too work hard enough to move up. Wal*Mart is a place where high schoolers and college students or senior citizens work to get a little extra income. It shouldn't be a place where adults with families to raise try to make careers. There are plenty of jobs out there that provide benefits and much higher salaries that anyone could work at if they just invested a little bit of time and an insignifacant amount of money. I know for example that there is a shortage of truck drivers, truckers make pretty good wages and usually get benefits, why are these people willing to lose money to go on strike but they won't spend less to take truck driving classes? There are hundreds of different careers out there, people who work dedicate their lives to Wal*Mart are just settling. Why on Earth should they get to demand the same salaries of people who put in the effort to specialize? Or even if their too lazy to do that, in your other arguments you mentioned various other places that do offer unions for people with no skills, why don't they work there?

Also know that my boss (at Costco) has her Masters in the field I'm taking (Criminology). Why is she working in a job like Costco then. Hell, I had to know too, so I asked her. She said that at the time when she recieved her education, the availability for positions was extremely limited. Costco provided her a job, at about the same pay that she would recieve working in her field. In fact, I would say that almost all the employees at my job have some form of post-secondary education, or are in the process of obtaining it. So why can't we encourage the same from WalMart?

Because Wal*Mart isn't a charity service. Honest to God if you earn a degree and you can't get a job in that feild you should probably look into moving or you should have did a little bit more research on feild you selected before you dedicated 4 years and thousands of dollars to it. This argument of yours just makes me doubt the intelligence of these people even more.

Awww, isn't that sweet of you to stereotype in a vain attempt to make a pathetic argument stronger. You can be so adorable.

What stereotype? Cletus the slackjawed yokel can do the same jobs at Wal*Mart just as well as someone with a PhD. There is no specialization in that field and anyone can do it.

Tell you what, we can (and do) outsource our jobs to people that will do it for pennies an hour. Is that right? Is that a good thing?

Oh you don't like outsourcing? Well here's a little economics lesson for you, if you force American businesses to to increase the wages that they pay their employees and cut into their profit margins don't you think they will go accross the ocean and get some cheap labor. If we do it your way sure people working those positions could make more money they just wouldn't have jobs anymore. Even you passed a law preventing outsourcing one of two things would happen. Either they would close down because they can't make any profit so their is no point of being in business meaning no more jobs or they replace the overpaid workers with automated systems which are kind of expensive but still cheaper than paying people something they don't deserve. Have you ever seen a self checkout? I guarantee you would see a hell of a lot more if Wal*Mart started paying higher wages?

Ask yourself a question Beefy: Why is it, that a country such as America is one of the richest countries in the world (and climbing) and yet the number of people living below the standards of living, or poverty line, is increasing at the same time? Well, of course, there are MANY variables to consider. One of these variables though, is that we're allowing companies to short-change our own people (and other people) in the name of profits. Perhaps I'm one of the only people in this hemisphere that has an issue with this. Maybe I'm insane, and think that a multi-billion dollar industry should have the obligation to supply some sort of union to it's workers.

Corporations are not fucking charities. They exist for one reason and one reason only, to maximize profits for their shareholders. The fact that they supply jobs for people is merely a means to an end it has nothing to do witht their reason for staying in business. If you try to make their business providing extravegent incomes and making the world a happy place they will probably just shut down and move to another country. Then our economy tanks and nobody gets to live above your little "living standard." Good job. Of course you would probably like to see a socalalist system where everyone gets the same amount no matter how much they put in. Do you know what that leads to? Everybody doing damn little or nothing at all but still getting benefits, how long do you think we could last like that?

What I'm basically trying to say here is sit down and reason through your arguments before you start spouting stupid ignorant opinions like an arrogant jackass. And get a fucking clue on how the world works, you're in college take an econ class.

At 9/19/05 11:30 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: You do realize that WalMart currently has approximately 1,700,000 employees right. That's a large number of people to gather together to form a union. The earlier unions were forged by smaller groups, which made it easier to ban together for a cause.

You don't need all of the stores, just enough that they wouldn't be able to shut down. The earlier unions had to be formed by word of mouth, now we have things like the internet and television, theres no reason they can't do it other than lack of initiative.

Also, the living conditions were deplorable in the past, and that's why they formed unions in the first place. 100 years later, I think we can still improve on the system, don't you? Or are we only to settle, and allow the number of people living below the poverty line to increase as it is.

Yes. There is no point in the government aiding unions, if they are going to aid unions they might as well just pass laws to force Wal-Mart to raise wages. When unions are given too much support, our workers become overpaid and underqualified, thats why America loses jobs to India and China. It's not as simple as give everyone money and then everyone is happy.

Oh please, don't give me that sack of shit for an answer. Yeah, I don't stand for "real human rights". Tell me Jim, seeing as you seem to know me so damn well, what is it that you have done personally in your life to benefit human rights for others? Gone to any protests/rallies for causes? Researched in great detail about the sufferings of other human beings (I'm talking months, not five minutes on the interweb). Hmmm? Have you? Well guess what genius, I have. So don't feed me your bull about me disgracing human rights. I fight injustice on all fronts, whether it's on our own soil, or half-way across the world.

Are you fucking kidding me? Don't get your panties in a bundle. I never said you don't stand for real human rights, I said when you call those things human rights, you make the term human rights mean nothing. That doesn't neccesarily hurt the cause for human rights, but its annoying and retarded because we will have to make new words just because some dumbshit wanted to make a point by being 'edgy'.

And FYI, "basic pay" and "health benefits" aren't the bare minimum of human rights. I'm saying, that if we can see that it's achievable in other retail stores (or companies in general), then it should be. What would be so bad about it if it were to happen?

I never said it is bad. I'm saying, if it's going to happen, it needs to happen because the employees do it themselves. At no point in human history has government assistance of unions worked out well. It's the same as corporate welfare, we all get fucked in the end. People need to be fired, people need to be poor, people need to lose thier pention, I figured that should be more clear now than ever but apperantly not.

At 9/21/05 10:57 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 9/19/05 02:18 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

At 9/19/05 01:19 AM, BeFell wrote:

BeFell, not everyone in the world can be scientists, there simply isn't enough positions. The fact is, we need people to work these jobs in our society. Getting an education can be a difficult thing to obtain (especially depending on what country you live in). What about the people born into poor families (I should know, I'm one of them). Well, some of us had to make money to get where we are today, and if that means working a job along the lines of retail to do it, then so be it. I'm able to work towards a better career, simply because of our government. As it stands, I'm 30k in debt (approximately), and I still have two more years of University to only obtain my BA with Honours (so add on another 20k). Can you say that a lot of people in America have access to the tools that would allow them to get a higher education? (Honestly, I would like to know).

Now why on Earth can no one else take advantage of these same opportunities?... It shouldn't be a place where adults with families to raise try to make careers... Why on Earth should they get to demand the same salaries of people who put in the effort to specialize?

1) Fact is, it's wrong to presume that everyone is the same in life. We are all for equality, but a fact of life, is that we don't all function equally. We have different biology, different backgrounds, different social factors. Not only that, but we need people to fill these positions in our society. If everyone strived to become specialists, where would our garbage disposal workers be, our waiter/waitresses, our retailers...

2) It "shouldn't" be, but it is. After all, who runs the store during the daytime? Teenagers are at school, college students might have classes, and the elderly aren't necessarily fit to work certain positions (hence why most of them are door greeters). It's also a matter of supply and demand, as was mentioned earlier. As WalMart expands, it needs employees. So people are forced to go to the places where jobs are needed. Not everyone can work in a position (as it stands) where they are guarenteed to work under a Union.

3) I'm not saying they should make the same amount as people who are specialists, I'm saying they should get paid enough to reach the standard of living.

This argument of yours just makes me doubt the intelligence of these people even more.

What if you have a passion for the field though. What if you love the information, but there just isn't a large market? Are you to deny your life passion just because of it, or should you pursue it anyways. That's why I'm in criminology. It's a specialized and elite field, but I love it. I haven't found another program that has opened me up so much to the world as this program has. Not all of us live for greed, some of us live for life.

What stereotype? Cletus the slackjawed yokel can do the same jobs at Wal*Mart just as well as someone with a PhD. There is no specialization in that field and anyone can do it.

I was using the context. You appeared to be stating that the people who work these kinds of jobs are morons.
But, I might have read too much into it, so my mistake if I did.

Oh you don't like outsourcing? Well here's a little economics lesson for you, if you force American businesses to to increase the wages that they pay their employees and cut into their profit margins don't you think they will go accross the ocean and get some cheap labor... Either they would close down because they can't make any profit so their is no point of being in business... I guarantee you would see a hell of a lot more if Wal*Mart started paying higher wages?

1) Outsource jobs to fill the positions of cashiers in our countries? How does that work?

2) If WalMart were to go out of business because of the additional money they need to spend on their employees, it's their own fault for spreading themselves too thin. Rugby started this thread talking about how low the net income of WalMart is. That's because they put much of their profits into buying more products and building new stores, instead of providing for their own workers, the people who actually keep them operational.

3) I can guarentee you that machines would never replace humans entirely in a business that relies on customer service. If WalMart made the switch, I predict that they would go out of business within 5 years because of this move.

Corporations are not fucking charities...Of course you would probably like to see a socalalist system where everyone gets the same amount no matter how much they put in. Do you know what that leads to? Everybody doing damn little or nothing at all but still getting benefits, how long do you think we could last like that?

1) If you did your research, you would see that there are companies that exist that supply fair wages to their people, and claim they are not charities, but businessmen.
Do yourself a favour, and research "Fair Trade" to find out more. They work with 3rd world countries. However, what sets them apart from the others, is that they provide good pay, a healthy work environment, benefits, and back-up revenue in case a natural disaster strikes the area, wiping out crops. They then use the money to rebuild the area and replant so the people can maintain their income instead of leaving them (like other companies in their field of work would do). I once made a thread on the subject, but that was a long while ago, so it's gone.

2) No, I'm not a socialist, thank you very much. I believe in a system that has a fine balance between Socialism and Capitalism.

What I'm basically trying to say here is sit down and reason through your arguments before you start spouting stupid ignorant opinions like an arrogant jackass. And get a fucking clue on how the world works, you're in college take an econ class.

I was going to say the same thing to you Beefy
=)

Actually, no I wasn't, because I'm not a dick and I actually listen to your arguments and consider them, believe it or not. If you look back, whenever someone raised a good point, I would tell them this.

Wal Mart gripe of the day: Their guacamole is in the frozen meat section. Frozen guacamole? WTF?

At 9/21/05 11:10 PM, Jimsween wrote: You don't need all of the stores, just enough that they wouldn't be able to shut down. The earlier unions had to be formed by word of mouth, now we have things like the internet and television, theres no reason they can't do it other than lack of initiative.

There have been many programs listed on the WalMart issue. There have also been many books/articles written as well. As for the internet, how many employees will surf the net to find sites where a few employees posted, "Let's make a Union!" IMO, these methods are not efficient.

Yes. There is no point in the government aiding unions, if they are going to aid unions they might as well just pass laws to force Wal-Mart to raise wages. When unions are given too much support, our workers become overpaid and underqualified, thats why America loses jobs to India and China. It's not as simple as give everyone money and then everyone is happy.

Again... lose cashier jobs to people outside the country? Now, as the Beef-ster pointed out, the stores might close down and open shop in these countries. What would be so wrong about that? It would make room for the stores with Unions to expand and fill the void once more people shop at their stores.

But would WalMart really relocate when it stands to lose an entire country (a developed country at that, AND where it's roots are). Possibly. Or would they continue to try and compete in this economy.

Are you fucking kidding me? Don't get your panties in a bundle. I never said you don't stand for real human rights, I said when you call those things human rights, you make the term human rights mean nothing. That doesn't neccesarily hurt the cause for human rights, but its annoying and retarded because we will have to make new words just because some dumbshit wanted to make a point by being 'edgy'.

Human Rights cover so many aspects of a society, you can't make them mean nothing. So are we only to talk and strive to conquer the "major human rights issues"? I'm trying to find a resolution or possibly an explanation to our countries poverty rate. Is that not important?

If you find it annoying and retarded, then do yourself a favour. Don't post/read these threads. I'm not forcing you to read my opinions, am I? If you don't like the topic, go to another thread.

I never said it is bad. I'm saying, if it's going to happen, it needs to happen because the employees do it themselves. At no point in human history has government assistance of unions worked out well. It's the same as corporate welfare, we all get fucked in the end. People need to be fired, people need to be poor, people need to lose thier pention, I figured that should be more clear now than ever but apperantly not.

Yeah, you're right. Let's do nothing about it. That way, we can ensure that things will never change for the better. I also find it humorous that you say "I never said it was bad", but then go on to explain why it's a bad thing. lol

Also, your attitude of "they need to do it themselves" is pretty lame. There are so many positive changes that have happened in the past, because people outside of the circumstance stepped in. Anything from slavery to international poverty. Apathy is the worst enemy to human advancement.

At 9/22/05 12:59 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

At 9/21/05 10:57 PM, BeFell wrote: Now why on Earth can no one else take advantage of these same opportunities?... It shouldn't be a place where adults with families to raise try to make careers... Why on Earth should they get to demand the same salaries of people who put in the effort to specialize?

1) Fact is, it's wrong to presume that everyone is the same in life. We are all for equality, but a fact of life, is that we don't all function equally. We have different biology, different backgrounds, different social factors. Not only that, but we need people to fill these positions in our society. If everyone strived to become specialists, where would our garbage disposal workers be, our waiter/waitresses, our retailers...

My guess would be people in training to specialize or those who don't have the iniative too, you know kind of like the way it is now.

2). Not everyone can work in a position (as it stands) where they are guarenteed to work under a Union.

Nobody is forced to work anywhere. Believe it or not all of the people working at Wal*Mart right now actually asked for that job and have the ability to leave any time they like.

3) I'm not saying they should make the same amount as people who are specialists, I'm saying they should get paid enough to reach the standard of living.

This argument of yours just makes me doubt the intelligence of these people even more.

Are they starving to death? No, you're bitching because they can only afford two cars and the basic cable package.

What if you have a passion for the field though... Not all of us live for greed, some of us live for life.

Then don't bitch about not getting paid enough because you were too stupid to pick a field that could give you your desired income level.

I was using the context. You appeared to be stating that the people who work these kinds of jobs are morons.
But, I might have read too much into it, so my mistake if I did.

I work at McDonalds, I know that any idiot could do my job.

Oh you don't like outsourcing? Well here's a little economics lesson for you, if you force American businesses to to increase the wages that they pay their employees and cut into their profit margins don't you think they will go accross the ocean and get some cheap labor... Either they would close down because they can't make any profit so their is no point of being in business... I guarantee you would see a hell of a lot more if Wal*Mart started paying higher wages?

1) Outsource jobs to fill the positions of cashiers in our countries? How does that work?

Self checkout.

2) If WalMart were to go out of business because of the additional money they need to spend on their employees, it's their own fault for spreading themselves too thin. Rugby started this thread talking about how low the net income of WalMart is. That's because they put much of their profits into buying more products and building new stores, instead of providing for their own workers, the people who actually keep them operational.

Now if Wal*Mart were too shut down because people like you forced them out of business would that help or hurt all of those meanial labor folks whom you claim can't get a job anywhere else?

3) I can guarentee you that machines would never replace humans entirely in a business that relies on customer service. If WalMart made the switch, I predict that they would go out of business within 5 years because of this move.

Bullshit, it's happening all over the place. People don't give a shit about somebody asking them how their day was at the register they just want to get out of there as quickly as possible.

Corporations are not fucking charities...Of course you would probably like to see a socalalist system where everyone gets the same amount no matter how much they put in. Do you know what that leads to? Everybody doing damn little or nothing at all but still getting benefits, how long do you think we could last like that?

1) If you did your research, you would see that there are companies that exist that supply fair wages to their people, and claim they are not charities, but businessmen.
Do yourself a favour, and research "Fair Trade" to find out more. They work with 3rd world countries. However, what sets them apart from the others, is that they provide good pay, a healthy work environment, benefits, and back-up revenue in case a natural disaster strikes the area, wiping out crops. They then use the money to rebuild the area and replant so the people can maintain their income instead of leaving them (like other companies in their field of work would do). I once made a thread on the subject, but that was a long while ago, so it's gone.

Fair Trade is a marketing ploy that cold hearted capitalist executives came up with because their customer base was threatening to boycott them. These corporations aren't trying to save the world they are just trying to retain their customer base. Maybe you could get the same effect at Wal*Mart but I doubt it. The people who drink high end coffee are liberal douchebags and the people who shop at Wal*Mart want the cheapest possible price.

At 9/22/05 02:00 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 9/22/05 12:59 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

At 9/21/05 10:57 PM, BeFell wrote: Now why on Earth can no one else take advantage of these same opportunities?... It shouldn't be a place where adults with families to raise try to make careers... Why on Earth should they get to demand the same salaries of people who put in the effort to specialize?

1) Fact is, it's wrong to presume that everyone is the same in life. We are all for equality, but a fact of life, is that we don't all function equally. We have different biology, different backgrounds, different social factors. Not only that, but we need people to fill these positions in our society. If everyone strived to become specialists, where would our garbage disposal workers be, our waiter/waitresses, our retailers...

My guess would be people in training to specialize or those who don't have the iniative too, you know kind of like the way it is now.

Again, you're in the mindset that EVERYONE has the ability or intelligence to achieve greatness, when I'm saying that this ideology (although "politically correct") is wrong. You're right in that there will be positions for those who are in the process and those who lack initiative, but there are other people besides them (ie. The elderly, which represent a large portion of people living below the poverty line).

Nobody is forced to work anywhere. Believe it or not all of the people working at Wal*Mart right now actually asked for that job and have the ability to leave any time they like.

And go where? I would say that a lot of people end up working at WalMart because there were no other jobs available. You yourself work at Micky D's. Can you say that you're completely satisfied with the employment?

Are they starving to death? No, you're bitching because they can only afford two cars and the basic cable package.

I'm going to take a stab here and say that you've never lived below the poverty line. I could be wrong now.

For me, I have lived it growing up, and let me tell you, I WISH our biggest concern was that we could only afford two cars and the basic cable package. My mother had to work 3-4 jobs at a time to keep us afloat. The other large portion of people that live under the poverty line are single mothers, despite the stereotype that we have of the regulars from Jerry Springer.

Then don't bitch about not getting paid enough because you were too stupid to pick a field that could give you your desired income level.

A passion isn't something that you necessarily "choose", it's just what feels natural. Also, trends change. You may go to school because you love a topic and research to find out that there are many openings for it. Once you've graduated, the market may have influxed, and suddenly, all those jobs you hear about are gone. This happens to a lot of people that graduate.

I work at McDonalds, I know that any idiot could do my job.

I see you aim high then. But at least I can credit you with knowing.

Self checkout.

Being someone who has worked in the retail business for the past 5 years, I can tell you this idea will not work. Think of automated telephones. People HATE them, and just want to talk to a human being. It's the same when you're buying a product, or have a question when you reach the register.

Now if Wal*Mart were too shut down because people like you forced them out of business would that help or hurt all of those meanial labor folks whom you claim can't get a job anywhere else?

If WalMart closed down (which they wouldn't do, they would simply have to adapt), It would allow other stores which already have unions to expand due to the increase in sales.

Bullshit, it's happening all over the place. People don't give a shit about somebody asking them how their day was at the register they just want to get out of there as quickly as possible.

Again, being someone who works the biz, I would have to disagree. We're a social being if you didn't notice, and computers cannot suppliment that in a business that is BASED on customer service.

Fair Trade is a marketing ploy that cold hearted capitalist executives came up with because their customer base was threatening to boycott them. These corporations aren't trying to save the world they are just trying to retain their customer base. Maybe you could get the same effect at Wal*Mart but I doubt it. The people who drink high end coffee are liberal douchebags and the people who shop at Wal*Mart want the cheapest possible price.

Does it really matter? Are the employees still not living a better life because of it?

Again Beefy, you're stereotyping. I'm sure there are PLENTY of non-"liberal douchebags" that buy high end coffee because of the sheer fact that it's more expensive and makes them look cool while they sip away at their double double, just as I'm sure there are plenty of uninformed people who shop at WalMart without knowing the economic effects it's having on our society, and would begin to shop at other places because they endorse the ethical boss/employee treatment and relationship.

Unions, although in some instances can good, in others can be very bad.

I will give you two examples using the steel industry since thats what my hometown revolves around, and the Steelworkers Union is a big and powerful union.

There are two steel mills in Hamilton. One is the most profitable steel mill in North America at the moment, has equal and in many cases higher wages than the other mill. Its benifit package is complete (full Rx, dental and partial optical for employees and dependents, spouse and kids). The othe rmill has a similar package, although is haviong much trouble with the pension (not enough cash). One is under bankruptcy protection and has a union, the other is not a union.

Wanna guess who is more profitable and has better wages and benifits plus has guarentted pensions for all its employees in a seperate account that cannot be used by the company? If you guessed the one without the union you are right, even though its a smaller mill.

Want an example of how a union has lost the job of every employee at a steel mill in the US? This isnt one of those companies closing up because a union came in. The union in this mill went on strike, despite warnings that if they did strike the entire plant woudl go have to close up shop and the company would go under, even if they were only on strike for a few days. Despite warnings from the company of exactly what would happen and why they refused to budge and two days after they put their workers on strike the oven collapsed (its several thousand degres during operation which causes the brick to expand, without employees it has to be turned off and the brick cools and the whole thing collapses). The company was unable to afford to rebuild the oven without any cash coming in (no oven no steel) so they went under and every employee lost their job.

At 9/22/05 06:18 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Wanna guess who is more profitable and has better wages and benifits plus has guarentted pensions for all its employees in a seperate account that cannot be used by the company? If you guessed the one without the union you are right, even though its a smaller mill.

Well, as you said, the employees have great pay and benefits, so they don't really need a union. I'm saying that companies who don't provide for their employees should get a visit from the Union Reps.

The company was unable to afford to rebuild the oven without any cash coming in (no oven no steel) so they went under and every employee lost their job.

I'm a little confused about the circumstance. So the Mill was still in operation, despite the fact that the workers weren't working?

Also, I don't really see how this one mill compares to a multi-billion dollar company like Walmart, who -should- have the funds to provide a better work environment for their employees.

Personally, I don't think Walmart HAS to have a Union, they just need to provide for their employees better by providing a decent pay and offer some benefits to their workers. Unfortunately, I think it's going to have to take a Union to make WalMart do this, because they don't seem to want to do it on their own (of course, because they would lose some profits).

At 9/23/05 12:19 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

I'm a little confused about the circumstance. So the Mill was still in operation, despite the fact that the workers weren't working?

No, they went on strike, two days later the oven cooled to the point of collapse, so even if the strike was ended that minute they wouldnt be able to make steel or afford to build a new oven so they had to close up shop and sell off their assets.

The point is the union may think they are doing a good thing, but they only look at one side, the workers side, never at the business aspect of it. It could very well be that if WalMArt provides these benifits and pay raises they may not be able to afford to stay in operation and have to close up. Health insurance can be expensive, plus pay raises for everyone, how much of that $7000 per employee they will loose? Pay raise for every fulltime employee and benifits, you could be lookign at $5000 a year or more, depending on the size of this pay raise.

So it is entirely possibly that a WalMart cannot make money with a union and they arent bluffing when they close a store after it unionizes. We have to look at the business side as well. If we dont a few employees may benifit for a short while, then everyone is worse off after. We always look at how bad the employee has it, but we never stop to really think, how much can the business really afford, we only think how much shoudl we give them, not how much can we give them.

This is why WalMart needs to stop expanding for a bit as well as temporarily stop adding more products to their selection (oh the horror). Now, I don't have all of WalMart's figures and facts stacked in front of me, outlining where all their costs go... however, based on what I have seen, more WalMarts seem to be built every year, and they are expanding their market of products to outbuy all of their competitors, and to expand into other markets. I think they can afford to take some downtime, and place some of their finances towards their employees.

Remember, their net profit comes after all their expenses. But how much of their expenses go towards growth? I can imagine a FAIRLY heavy amount (purely based on my own personal observations). And if they actually put money into their employees, perhaps they will recieve a return of better customer service from their workers, which in turn will probably make them more money in the future, seeing as many people don't prefer to shop at WalMart due to this weakness in their company.

So as much as I would like to shed some big sloppy emo tears for WalMart and how they are so disadvantaged, I think I'll be able to pull myself together.
______________________

Decided to check out Walmart's websites just to see what's going on.
Kinda hard to see what else they could add. They have everything, INCLUDING the kitchen sink:
http://www.walmart.c..at=121828&path=0

The latest in net incomes:
http://www.walmartst..8298&catID=-8248

And, if you wish, the site that shows all the recent store openings from 2003-2005:
http://www.walmartst..ontentCatDisplay.jsp

From January 2005-September 2005:

Sam's Club stores = 17
Walmart Discount Stores and Super Centers = 223
Walmart Neighbourhood Markets = 18 (this one doesn't have a September listing)

So, in a matter of about 9 months, WalMart has opened 258 new stores in total in the United States.

*shrug* Take away from this what you will.

One WalMArt stores are realitivly cheap to open. One the construction isnt anything fancy, just one big empty room really. Two the land they buy is usually dirt cheap (notice mosty stores are on the outskirts of town). Third, the cost of construction is generally absorbed by the new store. BEsides If it would cost them more money to open a store than they woudl get in return they would not open a new store.

Why would one open a new store if they will loose money? Besides this is additional jobs for people who can only work at WalMart. The amount spent on expansion would probally not be enough to cover this raise as there are thousands of WalMArt employees. TYhey are the single largest employer of unskilled labour in the US.