I dunno, it was a toss-up for me between the Adelson quote and the one from the Champber of Commerce about it being nearly Armageddon but I went with the Armageddon bit.

So much hyperbole, so few brains.

There are so many uncontroled dickweeds popping up. Order your FDL Dickweed control now.
Clean the political environment and clear the air at the same time.

Yeah you get to join a union but also you (the worker) lose the ability to move up because of seniority and you just become a part of a group. America was built and grows by individuals breaking out of that mold and working harder and striving for excellence because they will be rewarded for it but in a union it is not really possible. Yes it helps the lower end of the bell curve get more money but it also takes money and opportunity away from the hardest workers that actually deserve the higher pay and benefits.

I know plenty of union members who are productive, creative, strong, courageous and not the bottom of the bell curve. Belonging to a group does not mean you give up on the American dream. It means you see it differently. Unions insure that workers don’t end up being treated like Walmart employees.

Walmart employees that just got a $2 billion bonus from the company to thank them for their success????

Where are his casinos? If their in Vegas, their unionized. Maybe that’s why he’s pissed; the unions are detracting from his profits from the fools who think they can get rich quick.

I’m a union worker and yes there are benefits without a doubt but my ceiling for opportunity is limited. Union contracts supersede US law for the most part. This is the biggest reason why you see that stats showing legal complaints against union shops down because it all goes through the union and gets drug out though there it has to be really bad to go outside it.

Yes many of my coworkers are great hard working people but its like in school, I wasn’t insulting people. In a union everyone gets a B-. The people that either just get it or work their ass of and deserve an A+ still get the B- and vice versa for those who either struggle or just don’t care and deserve and F. This kills incentive and the quality of that B- gradually slips to a lower level because the hardest workers see it doesn’t pay to work harder and why would the strugglers and those who don’t care try harder when they already get the benefits?

he has some in vegas but he is global as well

Got a link for that?

All I can find is something from 2 years ago where the “bonus” was $500M and amounted to $641 per worker.

So let’s say that it is now 4 times that much. WOW! A whole $2400!

How much did WalMart pay Lee Scott last year?

Union contracts supersede US law for the most part.

No. Union contracts have to comply with US law. But they can have provisions that protect the worker, above and beyond the basic requirements of US law.

That’s one of the reasons why the businesses in so-called “right to work” states fight unions so desperately as they have to treat workers with some level of respect.

BENTONVILLE, Ark. (AP) — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has announced it has paid $2 billion this year to its U.S. employees in bonuses, merchandise discounts and retirement contributions.

The world’s largest retailer said Thursday that $934 million of the money went toward bonuses, averaging to $666 for each of the company’s $1.4 million domestic workers.

Wal-Mart Chief Executive Officer Mike Duke said $789 was paid in profit sharing and 401(k) contributions and the remainder went to the employee stock purchase plan and merchandise discounts for workers.

In a letter, Duke congratulated employees for Wal-Mart’s recent successes in an economic environment that has its competitors struggling.

I saw it earlier but I just got this off Yahoo finance, under new articles on Walmart

How much does the average Walmart worker take home?

Unions can pass contracts that they can be allowed to work longer hours than allowed by law or different schedules. We have it, it was passed by our people most like it but again some don’t and the new people don’t have a choice.

The worst is some thing that just happened at my place. A electrician’s father passed away and according to the contract he gets 3 consecutive days with pay in this case because it is his father. He found out at work and left like a normal person and took his three days and now the company won’t pay and are causing trouble because the father has been cremated and isn’t having a service for a month. The person can’t take the days off with pay until the service. This is crap all over only one moron HR lady is causing a fit but the Plant Manager and everybody else says it shouldn’t be an issue but the wording in the contract doesn’t allow them to do what is actually right. This is whats wrong he shouldn’t have to deal with this unnecessary stuff when he is dealing with his father’s passing

OK,
1.4 Million workers split $934M for an average bonus of $666 (ironic figure that). Probably roughly 2 weeks take home pay.

$789M for profit sharing and 401K contributions? That sounds like a lot but not really. I wonder what CostCo and Target paid in those areas?

And the balance for ESOP and merchandise discounts?

Please.

So you’re blaming the union because the company is managed by a**holes? I’m sorry but if the company wanted to treat this person with respect and not be a**es, they can do so.

It sounds like an awful convenient crutch to claim “but the contract won’t let us do the right thing.”

Grieve it and find out how quickly the company backs down.

I’m not sure, I worked their for 3 weeks and didn’t like it so went to McDonalds which is prolly one of the best businesses in the world ( in my opinion) I started at $8/ unloading truck, part time which was pretty decent. I own a duplex and my tenant upstairs works their and seems to be getting by ok, she just bought a new GPS for her car, also with her discount on all stuff from the store which definitely helps. And my neighbor also just started working their 2-3 months ago because they were so strong they were hiring

They are, they have to. It’s not that they don’t want to do the right thing, they legally can’t that’s the bullshit of it all

A New Yorker article quoted Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democratic Party congresswoman who once worked for Adelson as VP of Legal and Governmental Affairs, that Adelson told her “Democrats were with the union and he wanted to break the back of the union, consequently he had to break the back of the Democrats.” Congresswoman Berkley said that Adelson “seeks to dominate politics and public policy through the raw power of money”. The Boston Globe stated Adelson has “waged some bitter anti-union battles in Las Vegas”. .”

But the Adelson “brand” is facing serious problems, both because of the declining economy, but also internally:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/41012352.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…..refer=home

Besides the Sands (Venizzio) Adelson has casino interests in Macau and Singapore. These too have been hit hard by the recession, although in Singapore he’s the only pony in town (legally).

That is above and beyond what they already offer, that sounds pretty good to me.

I think Obama might do that himself. After Nancy’s definition of what being American was yesterday, Obama said that illegals should get to join unions. That whole Union members thing about protecting American jobs and American citizens having those jobs might get them a lil razzeled

Sorry, but I just can’t believe that. You’re saying that the Company claims they want to do the right thing and the folks at the union want the company to do the right thing and everyone wants to do the right thing but damn-it-all, this nasty ol’ contract just won’t let us do the right thing.

Sorry but someone is blowing smoke on that one.

Of course Walmart was taking away with one hand what they gave back with the other.

http://walmartwatch.com/press/…..ment_fine/

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_11777678

It is illegal, thats the thing, they CANNOT ignore the contract without going though the appropriate hurdles, that’s just the way it is.

…without going though the appropriate hurdles…

And there is your answer.

Not that they couldn’t.

They wouldn’t.

yes they do have some troubles but also they employee 1.4 million people domestic workers, that is pretty great for a lot of people and the communities they live. I think the good they do far outweighs the bad. The government and educations system could help but making information much more available and accessible to know the rights that people have as employees as well as owners operators.

no they have to go through the grievance process and that takes time, that is what “has” to be done then it will be agreed a pon no problem but it shouldn’t be an issue and that’s what I’m saying

A contract is not legal if it contains illegal provisions…by either side. That’s simply one of the most fundamental concepts. That provision of the contract is not enforceable and it might void the whole contract.

One can increase the protections or salaries construed by law. Workers frequently think that there is a 40 hour work week, but that’s not true. Workers can work far more hours…for example, during inventories or if they have certain jobs (e.g. medical interns). The 40-hour work week is the result of Union contracting, and the recompense for variations away from that is overtime pay.

BTW…despite the claims that Walmart actually supported the increase in Federal minimum wage…their campaign contributions suggests the contrary.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/94878

And how many people would be employed in the small towns of America if WalMart hadn’t come in to town and destroyed a lot of the small local businesses?

I grew up in a small town that had two or three of just about every type of business going, men’s stores, women’s stores, shoe stores, hardware, department stores, 5 and dime, drug stores, and so on.

Since WalMart has come in to that town, 3/4s of those stores are no longer in business.

WalMart’s 1.4 million workers nationwide is a smoke screen.

Yes I know this, I am a landlord and make this very clear because it is very relevant. If both sides agree though it is allowed because supposedly it was agreed on by everyone in the union and the company.

Yes labor laws vary wildly from state to state to federal to OSHA. France law has something like can’t work more than 36 hours a week in most cases and guaranteed 5 weeks vacation. I just want the freedom to work when I want on my own terms not fit into a mold chosen by those before me and around me. I know in life if I work harder and focus harder on my goals I WILL be more successful than the person next to me. How come it can’t be that way on the job. It’s a loss of freedom not more, looking from the other perspective shows us this.

That is nice about the minimum wage, the walmarts by use start at more than minimum wage from all the people I’ve talked to that work there.

How many smaller businesses did they put under when they moved into those communities and regions. That’s the actual cost…regionally, not in one community. Walmart cuts into the profitability of hundreds of different small businesses when they enter an area. The town they establish themselves does gangbusters…and they often are more than happy to offer land at cheap prices or offer tax breaks, reduced fees for “services” (roads, sewage, electrical installation, etc.). But if you run a Mom-and-Pop in an area within 10 miles, or a clothing outlet, or any of a dozen other types of stores (from sporting goods, to electronics, to clothing, to photo)…you may have to shut your doors. So the net cost to employment and business growth in the region may actually decline. There are costs to the business realtors who now have empty shoplots, and the tax base declines in the surrounding communities.

It’s similar when a merger happens…say Wa-Mu and Wells-Fargo. Did that result in more employees or less? More outlets or less? more competition on keeping cost of services down, or less? It’s certainly more “efficient”…but efficiency isn’t necessarily what generates the most jobs, the most salary output, and the most total (rgional) community development.

I understand this as well but those people also then have a new job opportunity at this walmart. or one of the businesses that Walmart brings to the area by being who they area. They also pay taxes to help support the tax base in the area which take some burden off other businesses and people.

Walmart creates competition. Instead of these small businesses not competing with anyone they have walmart to compete with. This forces these small businesses to adapt and those that don’t are usually the ones that fail. Plumbing stores take out the nitch needs and expertise needed in the area. There are many success stories about this. Walmart actually benefited these businesses, I’m not saying they didn’t struggle but it did help them

That’s what the grievance process is there for.

Yes it takes time.

But that’s why the process is there, for when Management is trying to be a**holes. Grieve it and the worker will win in the case that you have described.

And management manges to p*ss off the workers because they can. win win all the way around.

Let’s ask Sad4 if said employee who’s gettin screwed cleared his timeoff with HR, or just went out without HR approval?

Ya think if it went thru HR in the FIRST place they wouldn’t have TOLD him about the service provision?

I’m reading a lot of apologetic nonsense that adds up to shilling for Da Man . . . one of Rove’s Pupils, no doubt?

WalMart doesn’t bring new businesses to the area.

And the workers who lived and worked in the area and the entrepreneurs who built those small town businesses spent most of their money locally. They did not send ti to Bentonville, AR.

The salaries for those small businesses were better than what WalMart pays. It was local so they understood the local needs.

But I guess you don’t really believe in that entrepreneur experience after all if you don’t understand this.

Yes he had permission. It’s though FLMA as well but this is being held up by contract language that is all

Instead of these small businesses not competing with anyone they have walmart to compete with. This forces these small businesses to adapt and those that don’t are usually the ones that fail.

Did you miss my point that there was already competition in the small towns?

My hometown had two competitive Men’s clothing stores. At least four Women’s clothing stores. A JC Penney, 2 five and dime, 3 drug stores, 3 hardware stores, a couple of other dry goods stores (dollar general type), a couple of shoe stores (and since both the Mens and Womens stores sold shoes as well) there was plenty of competition.

WalMart came in, and now there’s one struggling Mens Store, one Womens store, One hardware remaining, a five and dime etc.

There was competition that WalMart destroyed.

But they brought lower paying jobs so everyone should be happy, right?

“Yes I know this, I am a landlord and make this very clear because it is very relevant. If both sides agree though it is allowed because supposedly it was agreed on by everyone in the union and the company.”

You are a landlord and writing leases that violate the law? Simply because you and the tenant agree? Or put them in sub-standard conditions? Lemme tell you…you better see a lawyer since what you are doing is NOT legitimate. How many people illegally stay in garages or have too many tenants in a building because they need accomodation and the landlord is willing “to make a deal”? You can’t violate code or basic law on a gentlemans agreement. You may not have someone squeal on you…but it’s still illegal.

Would it be better if Walmart was Unionized? Their product costs would go up and the people could actually be worse off. Walmart could start contract negotiations at the very bottom, very minimum and not give bonuses and rewards, 401k match, or discounts on products. They have the ability to do generous things like this where my company can’t because then they lose leverage at the next negotiations so they wait til then because it will be pushed then.

Look at the Entrepreneur spirit in France. This is the direction we seem to be wanting to go but their economy is horrible. Growth is dismal. Workers are striking again. Starting a business and innovation is very difficult there. Like I said earlier they have 5 weeks of required paid vacation a year and other “great” things but look at what they sacrificed. I want opportunity for the future not security

Walmart (and other big boxes) use the economy of scale. They will slash prices and use other techniques when they enter a market to eliminate the competition. Once established, and their competition is eliminated, their prices increase. I challenge you to show any study in which there is an increase in the regional employment and businesses (scaled to population size growth) that compete with the big box corporate once they enter the market.

No I am a very good landlord. I was saying that many people don’t understand a great deal about contracts and leases so I explain mine for 45min – 1 hour, so that down the road they can protect themselves and others they know. I share all the traps and scams others can try to pull because I am doing everything right. I can’t make money and provide a needed service and help people by doing everything properly and legally so why would I do it any other way

I guess one area where I see a lot of disagreement in theory is this. I think if everyone has a job even at lower pay, it builds a solid sustainable base. If their is a surplus of jobs, even low paying, supply and demand’s role comes into play and naturally brings wages up to attract new or better workers. The companies grow stronger and the ease of entry to start up new businesses is greater.

The other theory seems to be force wages and benefits to be higher. Then workers have more money to spend in the community thus growing the base. This in my mind makes it harder for new businesses to start, like in France where they also don’t hire as much because it is pretty much a lifetime guaranteed job. This just doesn’t seem sustainable, it puts the rewards now and we have to work for how long?? to make it sustainable. It reminds me of credit cards. You get your new couch now but end up paying more and limiting your future buying power and limiting your credit.

Look at the Entrepreneur spirit in France. This is the direction we seem to be wanting to go but their economy is horrible. Growth is dismal. Workers are striking again. Starting a business and innovation is very difficult there.

France has very large corporations, particularly in the retail sector. And France, before this happened, had a thriving entrepreneurial spirit (that’s where the term came from…it is French, after all). It’s the big corporations that reduce, through hyper-efficiency and market consolidation, the ability of small merchants to enter the market. Most “entrepreneurs” today are actually corporate money men, who throw cash at some small inventor or marketer, in the hope that they can “absorb” the product later…as a “product line” sold exclusively through their store or corporation.

I think it’s more than a little absurd to be arguing the wonders of big corporations when we can see what has happened because of the retreat of regulation, the decade of the largest corporate consolidation and mergers in ghistory, six years of the lowest corporate and individual tax rates in modern US history. Imagine what the situation would be without those Depression-era reforms of SSI, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance?

I can’t make money and provide a needed service and help people by doing everything properly and legally so why would I do it any other way

????

I can…. sorry

Of course, you realize that slavery fits your definition. After all, it was life time employment that included room and board.

Or maybe the old coal mining towns where everyone had a job but they all owed their existence to the town owner and the company storeas it was a funny thing how they just could never quite get out of debt.

The inventor gets his too. Look at Bill Gates, he knew what his angle was when dealing with IBM, his keeping the rights in his deal with them in the beginning made him and Microsoft what they are today. Knowledge is definitely power and that should be the focus.

Yes people who utilized the regulations properly made a lot of money. Many people also took uninformed decisions and lost a lot of money. Deregulation in the mortgage industry lowering standards ( to help low-middle and low income people) got us into lots of trouble and that was pushed from the left. Yes those reforms are nice and help. I just hope we don’t follow with the dramatic increase in taxes across the board like also followed and extended the depression.

I will admit that there are certain stupid things in France that are stifling to job growth. But many of these are cultural. For example, there is the law against having any shops open on Sundays. This is clearly based on religious restrictions that are largely long forgotten.And in many places stores must close by 9 PM. Many close at 5 PM. That clearly impacts both employment and actually consolidates wealth into the hands of a few workers. The laws are kept in place because it’s generally thought that it doesn’t impact actual spending (since the products will, they think, be bought anyway…just during the limited operating hours). But one can hire fewer workers, Non? And make just as much money.

Who keeps such laws in place? Small family run stores who don’t want to hire non-family members (i.e. immigrant kids) to work hours when they are not in the store.

Yeah that’s what I’m saying is bad my first paragraph was what I agreed with thanks for taking my side

Gotta go bowling, I’ll read what’s left when I get home. Thanks for the chat it was enjoyable

Deregulation in the mortgage industry lowering standards ( to help low-middle and low income people) got us into lots of trouble and that was pushed from the left.

This is an utter myth. Deregulation in the mortgage industry was pushed by the mortgage industry and the RIGHT WING. ACORN and most urban Congresspersons and State Representatives actually were calling for laws restricting predatory lending and requiring limits on who could obtain loans soon after Glass-Steagall was destroyed by Phil Gramm. There were efforts to get MANDATORY mortgage and bankruptcy counselling introduced to any low or middle class loan applicant. These efforts were constantly blocked by the House and Senate Republicans.

The banks (or whomever subsequently acquired the “paper”) owned the house…and they believed that in a future “hot” deregulated market, even if one person foreclosed, there would always be another “mark”. And under the new bankruptcy laws those that foreclosed would not be able to simply walk away. There was no longer such a thing as a clean break…one could have salaries dunned and ones payments could extend out over decades.

I am not agreeing with you at all if you think that slavery is a good thing which seems to be what you are saying.

I actually think it is a good thing for workers to band together and force management to treat them with respect, to pay living wages, and to forcibly raise the living standards for all if that is what is required.

You sound like you would have fit right in in the 1850s south.

But, since she mentioned El Rushbo, I’d like to see an award given to him.

I’d like to take a moment to thank Sad4America. a-the conversation was interesting b-you’re wrong on almost every one of your points.

If we don’t listen to opposing–or differing–points of view, we cannot learn.