Walmart

this strike makes me happy as a walrous )

 

I think this statement is a gross exaggeration.

 

Toys R Us lock their overnight employees in the store too.

 

I can surely imagine other Mega super markets following Walmart's example, but other stores, regular super markets, service industries and factories not so much.

 

don't blame them at all. being someone who used to work at a franchise where i remember my then manager telling me that the company had a problem paying the employees anything past minimum wage and yet expected them to do long hours like slaves, i can see why they would do that. they are people. not robots.

you have these ceos up in the food chain basically crying about their workers having health insurance expecting them to be happy about having a job where they're getting underpaid. NO.

 

I'm on my phone at moment but I believe that Foxconn is the world's largest employer

 

I worked for them in my "younger days" and most of the some of the stuff listed was in no way true (at least in my case). From what I understand, Walmart Canada is run a little different from other countries so maybe that's why I've never seen some of the stuff listed.

I've always made more than minimum wage there, even when I was hired I was making more than minimum wage. It wasn't a huge step up but it was better than what I was making before.

They never locked store employees in the store overnight. The doors were locked to keep the public out because the store was closed. The doors could still be opened from the inside. People would routinely leave on their breaks.

I'm not sure what the the daytime staff were treated like but the night staff were nearly all full time. The only part timers were part time because they requested it because they were going to school or something like that.

I've never encountered any kind of wage theft.

They had a profit sharing thing too where if the store did well every employee would get a bonus which was anywhere from $500-1200 at year-end.

They had a retirement plan that they contributed to but I quit after about 5 years so I got a nice cheque for about $1500 when I left.

It definitely isn't an ideal career choice but I wouldn't say that they treated me unfairly. I've since moved onto bigger and better things but if shit hit the fan and I lost my job and couldn't get another I'm fairly certain I would be able to get one at Walmart.

Could I live off it? Yes if I made some changes to my current lifestyle but if necessary I could. Mind you, I'm a single guy with no kids to take care of so I could see it being a problem for someone with a family.

I'm not saying a lot of the stuff mentioned above doesn't happen, just that I've never experienced it while working there. Do I think Walmart is good for the local economy? Most definitely not despite what their propaganda would have me believe but I have always considered them to be a decent employer.

 

I work at a Subway inside a Walmart. I would love it if no one came in because of this :3 Not looking forward to working tomorrow...

 

I hope the strike happens. I also hope nobody gets trampled.

 

Their practices don't actually sound that horrendous to me. Many people work the minimum wage, and barely anybody offers heath insurance anymore, and I've never heard of it being offered to part-time employees anywhere. I understand why they may wish things were different, but I think a strike is a little over the top, especially since I doubt the validity of a lot of what's in that article.

Even if it is true, Walmart definitely has the money to be able to do better for it's employees, but if you don't like the way they do things, don't work there. In general, chain stores treat their employees way better than small businesses, and have a lot more benefits open to them. I make $11/hour after working at the same place for 8 years, have gone to school for my career, work 10-12 hour days (6 days a week), get my paycheck doctored by my boss, work holidays, and certainly don't get any benefits. But I love my job and would never want to do anything else, so those drawbacks are worth it to me. If they were that big of an issue, I would find another job.

 

People can't always get their ideal jobs. Also, sex discrimination.

 

1) I think it's pretty much the same all over, so regardless of where you work, there's going to be an aspect that's not ideal.

2) Beggars can't be choosers. If you are that desperate for a job, then why are you complaining about the one you have? It's better than nothing. Sorry needshelp, but that's how I feel. I'm not saying there's anything bad about taking a job you don't like just to pay the rent. Trust me, I understand that it's a necessity sometimes. But it doesn't change my views.

 

Choosing between starvation and working a horrible job isn't a choice at all. The people who run businesses love high unemployment rates because it allows them to put all sorts of onerous conditions on their employees (low wages, long hours, no benefits, restrictions on their life outside of work) and if anyone complains they can say, "Well, if I fire you right now I can get ten applicants who will all work for even less than what I pay you."

 

So then the truck system was an ethical arrangement because it was better than nothing? I'm sorry, but I find that to be an extremely harmful view. We are right to call on employers to be more ethical. Also, this:


[youtube]zUpTJg2EBpw[/youtube]

 

That's exactly what I'm saying though...sometimes you've got to take a horrible job just to pay the rent. You know it's not your ideal job even before you start...but you still decide to strike because it isn't ideal? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I'm confused as to how the items you listed (low wages, long hours, no benefits, restrictions on their life outside of work, being told you'll be fired and they'll hire somebody cheaper) are different at almost any other company. Maybe it's just the places my friends, family and myself have worked at, but I've seen very few exceptions.

Pret- If there was a major ethical issue then of course that would be a different matter. For example, I was inappropriately touched continuously by a previous employer when I was 14. Obviously, that's not ok. But I don't really see Walmart's treatment of their employees as unethical, with the exception of the wage theft (which my co-workers and I have dealt with for several years. Our time cards go in every other week, so we take pictures of them before handing them, and figure out the calculations ourselves. When he gives us our paychecks for the wrong amount, claiming that he's destroyed the time-cards already, we show him the pictures with the correct calculations. The difference is usually $400-$500 a month). But even that just doesn't seem like an issue that's going to be solved by a strike. If multiple law-suits (although most of them have been against companies that are affiliated) have not stopped them, then why would a strike?

All the other issues are caused by individual people (usually managers), not by Walmart.

I guess I just don't see it as that different from almost every other business in America. I'm not saying that they're the perfect employer, of course I'm not. They most definitely could improve- I just don't think a strike is the right way to go about things.

 

Employees have basically three recourses to protest their employer's behavior after asking nicely doesn't work: resigning, filing a lawsuit, and striking. Resigning in protest can be risky in a number of ways that I don't think I have to go into. Filing a lawsuit can help, but not if the company can massively outspend the workers and doesn't garner much publicity until it makes it into a major court.

Striking draws attention. It forces people who use whatever service is being provided to recognize that the company is mistreating its workers, it impacts the company's bottom line, it means that workers who choose not to strike will face a strong negative reaction from their coworkers (which can't, by definition, happen in a mass resignation), picket lines can prevent the store from being able to open even if it wants to.

The threat of a strike is what allows unions to negotiate for better working conditions, pay, and benefits for their members. The decline of unions is one of the worst things to happen in America in the past four decades.

 

I'm pro-union (in fact my late mother founded one), I'm not saying I'm not. Strikes can do great things...I just don't see how this situation calls for one.

I'm saying that their situation is exactly the same as the majority of workers across the United States, and is undoubtedly better than that of the majority of people across world...so I don't understand the need to strike. Maybe they can get what they want for a little bit, but people don't change (especially those who are at the top of the heap), and things are going to slide right back to being exactly how they were before.

 

Because that's how you make change happen. Being a low-level employee doesn't need to suck. It's never going to be fun, but there's no reason that people shouldn't be able to earn a decent wage and have reasonable working conditions. The only way to get things to improve is either to get the government to create and enforce working condition standards and a minimum wage, or to get your employer to do it. The latter can actually be easier. We didn't get laws enshrining minimum wage, child labor restrictions, safety requirements, and so on until after workers demanded it from their employers.