Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
35 online now:
driewerf, Son Goku (2 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,189 Year: 12,937/23,288 Month: 662/1,527 Week: 101/240 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wal-Mart files US labor charge against union
Phat
Member
Posts: 14612
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


(4)
Message 1 of 12 (680047)
11-17-2012 11:59 AM


The retail giant and my labor union are preparing to do battle. We believe that wal mart workers have the right to be unafraid to organize, and that by organizing they can secure better wages, benefits, and working conditions. The giant counters that "We are taking this action (an unfair labor charge against the union)now because we cannot allow the UFCW to continue to intentionally seek to create an environment that could directly and adversely impact our customers and associates..."

The union counters that "There's nothing in the law that gives an employer the right to silence workers and citizens.".

Personally, i am pro union, since without them I would not have the wages and benefits that I now enjoy and that at age 53 I cannot be expected to compete globally with ambitious and educated 20 somethings that will work for less...given that it is their only opportunity. The world needs organized labor, or else corporations will divert most of the profit to their stockholders and upper management. Bottom line: Corporations are not people...they are certain people.

Wal-Mart files US labor charge against union

Edited by Phat, : added link


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 12:56 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 11 by rueh, posted 11-18-2012 9:44 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 12 (680062)
11-17-2012 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
11-17-2012 11:59 AM


They should make the people stop protesting and Wal*Mart should use whatever workers they want. If Wal*Mart isn't cool about it then people should stop working and shopping there. Next they should lose enough business to make them smaller or even fail. Then we shouldn't have the problem anymore.

But that doesn't work because people won't stop shopping there because their prices are so low. The people need to wake the fuck up. I don't think that standing out front with signs does much of anything. Wal*Mart is obviously too big and getting evil. It sucks that the people need the court system to figure this one out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 11-17-2012 11:59 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2012 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 12 (680073)
11-17-2012 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2012 12:56 PM


They should make the people stop protesting

Who are "they" in this case, and what law should they use to silence the protest.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 12:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 2:34 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 12 (680075)
11-17-2012 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NoNukes
11-17-2012 1:53 PM


They should make the people stop protesting

Who are "they" in this case, and what law should they use to silence the protest.

Wal*Mart is filing charges that the protesters are violating the NLRA.

Or they could just be arrested for trespassing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2012 1:53 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 11-17-2012 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 7 by Omnivorous, posted 11-17-2012 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18764
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(2)
Message 5 of 12 (680080)
11-17-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2012 2:34 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Or they could just be arrested for trespassing.


Or WalMart could put up big signs saying, "Buy something or get out!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 2:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 2:47 PM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 12 (680082)
11-17-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ringo
11-17-2012 2:42 PM


Or WalMart could put up big signs saying, "Buy something or get out!"

From the article:

quote:
Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart said that anyone who is not an employee is prohibited from coming onto its owned or controlled parking lots or other facilities to solicit, hand out literature or otherwise engage in any demonstration.

Its private property. The protesters should leave if they're asked.

Heh, I don't even think you can really be convicted for running those stop sign.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 11-17-2012 2:42 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 11-17-2012 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(5)
Message 7 of 12 (680084)
11-17-2012 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2012 2:34 PM


I'm stickin' with the union
CS writes:

Or they could just be arrested for trespassing.

I suspect Wal-Mart has waited this long only because arresting minimum-wage earning people on Medicaid (no benefits, since Wally will only give them part-time hours) during the holidays is not a hearts-and-minds winning move.

Cracking Wal-Mart's union-busting wall would be worth some civil disobedience time in jail. They have a long history of intimidating workers who try to organize; the NRLB has been largely ineffectual against this tactic.

I suppose they could force the picketers to the public right-of-way or sidewalk, with great publicity for the protests and little to no positive effect for WallyWorld.

Personally, I don't shop there: they suck the life out of small towns and rural communities, replacing small businesses with minimum wage dead-end jobs, while selling goods produced by the lowest bidder. What real savings they offer are often paid for by abusive labor conditions in other countries.

If they start arresting folks, I may have to join the picket line.

"You can't scare me, I'm stickin' with the union."


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 2:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 4:13 PM Omnivorous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18764
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 8 of 12 (680091)
11-17-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2012 2:47 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Its private property.


It's licensed by the community. If WalMart has to accept community standards for health and safety, etc. why not free speech too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 9 of 12 (680101)
11-17-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Omnivorous
11-17-2012 2:56 PM


Re: I'm stickin' with the union
I suspect Wal-Mart has waited this long only because arresting minimum-wage earning people on Medicaid (no benefits, since Wally will only give them part-time hours) during the holidays is not a hearts-and-minds winning move.

Cracking Wal-Mart's union-busting wall would be worth some civil disobedience time in jail. They have a long history of intimidating workers who try to organize; the NRLB has been largely ineffectual against this tactic.

I suppose they could force the picketers to the public right-of-way or sidewalk, with great publicity for the protests and little to no positive effect for WallyWorld.

Sure, I'm for whatever is worse for Wal*Mat.

Personally, I don't shop there: they suck the life out of small towns and rural communities, replacing small businesses with minimum wage dead-end jobs, while selling goods produced by the lowest bidder. What real savings they offer are often paid for by abusive labor conditions in other countries.

I don't think people should be rallying for making Wal*Mart a better place to work, they should be working to destroy it altogether.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Omnivorous, posted 11-17-2012 2:56 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Omnivorous, posted 11-17-2012 6:19 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(1)
Message 10 of 12 (680119)
11-17-2012 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2012 4:13 PM


Re: I'm stickin' with the union
CS writes:

I don't think people should be rallying for making Wal*Mart a better place to work, they should be working to destroy it altogether.

Same-same, GI.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 2290 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 11 of 12 (680178)
11-18-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
11-17-2012 11:59 AM


I really don't know who I would side with on this one. I am not a fan of either party. I hate walmart. Their low prices ( if you can even call it low nowadays) are bought on the backs of foreign labor. But I don't like unions either. I realize that unions are vital for securing the wages and benefits of workers but they also raise prices and seem to be structured for the greater benefit of union leaders and in many industries stagnate production. I guess in the end I will just continue buying from my local mom and pop stores while they are still around.

Edited by rueh, : No reason given.


'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
It takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 11-17-2012 11:59 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ramoss, posted 11-18-2012 1:02 PM rueh has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3177
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(10)
Message 12 of 12 (680207)
11-18-2012 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by rueh
11-18-2012 9:44 AM


But, what have unions done that have benefited you?

1. Unions Gave Us The Weekend: Even the ultra-conservative Mises Institute notes that the relatively labor-free 1870, the average workweek for most Americans was 61 hours — almost double what most Americans work now. Yet in the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, labor unions engaged in massive strikes in order to demand shorter workweeks so that Americans could be home with their loved ones instead of constantly toiling for their employers with no leisure time. By 1937, these labor actions created enough political momentum to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, which helped create a federal framework for a shorter workweek that included room for leisure time.

2. Unions Gave Us Fair Wages And Relative Income Equality: As ThinkProgress reported earlier in the week, the relative decline of unions over the past 35 years has mirrored a decline in the middle class’s share of national income. It is also true that at the time when most Americans belonged to a union — a period of time between the 1940′s and 1950′s — income inequality in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the history of the country.

3. Unions Helped End Child Labor: “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time.

4. Unions Won Widespread Employer-Based Health Coverage: “The rise of unions in the 1930′s and 1940′s led to the first great expansion of health care” for all Americans, as labor unions banded workers together to negotiate for health coverage plans from employers. In 1942, “the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering “fringe benefits” – notably, health insurance.” By 1950, “half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another.”

5. Unions Spearheaded The Fight For The Family And Medical Leave Act: Labor unions like the AFL-CIO federation led the fight for this 1993 law, which “requires state agencies and private employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for workers to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own illness.”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by rueh, posted 11-18-2012 9:44 AM rueh has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020