It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dreams n chains
Originally posted by jefwane
Wal-Mart vs Unions is like watching Stalin vs Hitler in a knife fight. You don't know who to root for, and the best possible outcome is that they kill each other.
You summarized that so perfect!
Anyhow... anyone doing a little research on this union, The United Food and Commercial Workers, will quickly learn what a money grabbing scam they are. They are known for being the union that has made unions look bad and turn people off from unions. NEVER fall for that alleged "union".
I speak from personal experience with them in north Florida nursing homes. They are money grabbing useless corporate ass-kissers that could not care less about human rights.
Originally posted by HIWATT
This company has had over 60 years to "metastasize", and boy has it ever... it's the beast that keeps on devouring.
Gluttony doesn't even begin to describe it's appetite.
If you haven't seen it, you all should watch The High cost of Low Price
I'm not a union fanboy by any means, but when a company gets to be big enough whereby it can just plow through small business and opposition at will regardless of the lives destroyed and impact that creates - something needs to be done.
To think that this started out as a five and dime is disgusting.... I see this "growth" as a disease, not success.
Originally posted by jefwane
Wal-Mart vs Unions is like watching Stalin vs Hitler in a knife fight. You don't know who to root for, and the best possible outcome is that they kill each other.
Originally posted by Stuship
I've read this thread out of curiosity but as an person who started as a cart pusher 18 years ago with Walmart, now having worked in 15 different facilities, I can say without a shadow of a doubt you all are wrong.
However, you are entitled to your opinion in a free society, however ill-informed it may be.
My personal favorites are all the wrong benefit comments, including from the guy in the video. Those are priceless.
What you fail to realize is the vast majority of Walmart employees know the truth, they see these people as annoyances, you can't honestly believe Walmart got to having 1.4 million employees because they treat people poorly.
If you believe that, then I have a few more UFO links to show you.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by HIWATT
Please forgive my confusion about your post, maybe you can help me out.
It sounds like your saying that small town America was doing perfectly well with suitable employment for everybody. Then Wal-mart arrived and put out "help wanted" ads. Workers flocked to Wal-mart from their existing suitable employment, and the store's doors opened.
The citizens of the town, who had been perfectly happy patronizing small local stores, suddenly flocked to Wal-mart instead. The local business, at which no one wanted to shop any more, closed.
I suppose it was a bad result for the small businesses, none of which were unionized either, but to scold Wal-mart in this? I don't see it yet.
Originally posted by Jordan River
Dear God, why am I pro union? They save jobs and look after the average joe. What are wrong with unions, my dad was in one (Chrysler )
Originally posted by Stuship
I've read this thread out of curiosity but as an person who started as a cart pusher 18 years ago with Walmart, now having worked in 15 different facilities,
Originally posted by CranialSponge
Why bother unionizing ?
All you'll do is slowly kill the beast and ultimately put good paying jobs down the toilet (what is otherwise right now crappy wages).
Why would you allow these poor unemployed folks of the country to acclimatize to good paying jobs only to slowly lose them down the road ? WallyWorld would no longer be able to offer such low low prices with such high high unionized wages/benefits/pensions, thus killing the evil beast anyways because they would no longer be able to compete and meet customer demands.
So why not skip past all the rhetoric and go straight for the jugular now while the going is hot ? It would be the more humanitarian thing to do, no ?
Everybody walk off their jobs, everybody stop shopping there, and shut em down.
All these greedy capitalist pigs are doing is making our lives miserable anyways. I say shoot the beast now !
Originally posted by ripcontrol
Walmart files US labor charge against Union
OUR Walmart is not a union, though the thousands of Walmart employees it says are members do pay $5 monthly dues.
of note they collect member dues
A wage standard equivalent to $25,000 for a full-time, year-round employee would lift 734,075 people currently in poverty – including retail workers and the families they support – above the federal poverty line.
An additional 769,191 people hovering just above poverty would see their incomes rise to above 150 percent of the poverty line.
A wage standard at large retailers equivalent to $25,000 per year for full-time, year-round workers would increase GDP between $11.8 and $15.2 billion over the next year.
As a result of the economic growth from a wage increase, employers would create 100,000 to 132,000 additional jobs.
Assuming that workers do not save money out of their wage income, the additional retail spending by employees and their families generated by the higher wage would result in $4 to $5 billion in additional sales across the retail sector in the year following the wage increase.
If retailers pass half of the costs of a wage raise onto their customers, the average household would pay just 15 cents more per shopping trip—or $17.73 per year.
If firms pass on 25 percent of the wage costs onto their customers, shoppers would spend just 7 cents more per shopping trip, or $8.87 per year.
Higher income households, who spend more, would absorb a larger share of the cost. Per shopping trip, high income households would spend 18 cents more, for a total of $36.80 per year. Low-income households would spend just 12 additional cents on their shopping list, or $24.87 per year.
Originally posted by ripcontrol
This is just after the UNION caused hostess to close during Bankruptcy... and the union does play dirty....
I think there is a huge chess game going on here between the fools on both sides vying for control...So short after the election ...
So far- 18500 jobs gone to the chess game....
What does that mean? It seems that you are saying, if I may offer my translation, that when Wal-mart moves into town, workers from the small shops leave and go to work for Wal-mart. The reason they leave is that small town shops have higher overhead.
MalWart moves into town, and that = migration of unskilled labour, as lesser companies cannot compete with the "underhead" they are faced with.
Might I ask you to consider broadening your thoughts on the Hostess issue a bit? The New York Times printed a different analysis of it.
You really should learn a little more about the Hostess bankruptcy before you go blaming it all on the union. If you do a little research into the subject, you'll learn that the situation actually resembles some of the Bain Capital, buy-out / drive the Co. into bankruptcy deals, that were exposed during the election campaign. You know, where in the end, the CEOs walk away with huge bonuses while their debtors get stiffed and their employees lose their livelihoods and have their pensions stolen.
While Bain has nothing to do with Hostess, another private equity firm does: Ripplewood Holdings. That firm took control of Hostess as part of a bankruptcy process in 2009.
No tears need to be shed for Ripplewood and its investors, but they weren’t part of a get-rich-quick scheme either.
Ripplewood, which was founded by Timothy C. Collins, a major Democratic donor, is expected to lose most, if not all, of the $130 million or so it invested in Hostess. The company’s lenders, led by Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital, are not expected to fare well either.
When Mr. Collins originally looked at Hostess, he was trying to make investments in troubled companies with union workers. He was convinced that he could work with labor organizations to turn around iconic American businesses, and he hoped Hostess would become a model for similar deals.
Early on, Mr. Collins sought out Richard A. Gephardt, the former House majority leader, who had become a consultant on labor issues, to help Ripplewood acquire Hostess and work with its unions.
While Ripplewood sought significant concessions from the unions in 2009, some insiders and outside analysts privately suggested that Ripplewood did not fight hard enough for even greater givebacks from the unions in the bankruptcy process — savings worth $110 million — perhaps as a function of Mr. Collins’s relationship with Mr. Gephardt.
Ripplewood’s luck — and its investment thesis — could not have been worse. With the sputtering economy, the increase in commodity costs, pressure from competitors that were consolidating and out-of-whack labor costs, Hostess’s fate seemed assured from nearly the beginning.
Having said all that, Ripplewood’s management was far from a model for the industry. For at least the first year of the new ownership, Ripplewood charged Hostess management and consulting fees, according to people briefed on the payments, which were “in the millions of dollars.” As Hostess’s balance sheet worsened, Ripplewood stopped seeking the payments, these people said.
Worse still, Mr. Gephardt’s son was added to the board of Hostess and paid an annual fee of $100,000.
Perhaps the most egregious sin of Ripplewood’s oversight of Hostess was the increase in management’s compensation at the same time it was seeking to cut employee compensation.
Frank Hurt, the president of the union that went on strike, said, “Our members are on strike because they have had enough. They are not willing to take draconian wage and benefit cuts on top of the significant concessions they made in 2004 and give up their pension so that the Wall Street vulture capitalists in control of this company can walk away with millions of dollars.”
Unless a compromise is reached, Hostess’s employees are likely to lose their jobs soon. And either way, Ripplewood isn’t going to walk away with millions of dollars. So much for being Bained.
Having said all that, Ripplewood’s management was far from a model for the industry. For at least the first year of the new ownership, Ripplewood charged Hostess management and consulting fees, according to people briefed on the payments, which were “in the millions of dollars.” As Hostess’s balance sheet worsened, Ripplewood stopped seeking the payments, these people said.
Worse still, Mr. Gephardt’s son was added to the board of Hostess and paid an annual fee of $100,000.
Perhaps the most egregious sin of Ripplewood’s oversight of Hostess was the increase in management’s compensation at the same time it was seeking to cut employee compensation.
Unless a compromise is reached, Hostess’s employees are likely to lose their jobs soon. And either way, Ripplewood isn’t going to walk away with millions of dollars. So much for being Bained.
Hostess Brands will ask a bankruptcy judge on Monday for approval to shut down the company and pay $1.75 million in executive bonuses.
Even as it blamed unions for the bankruptcy and the 18,500 job losses that will ensue, Hostess already gave its executives pay raises earlier this year. The salary of the company’s chief executive tripled from $750,000 to roughly $2.5 million, and at least nine other executives received pay raises ranging from $90,000 to $400,000. Those raises came just months after Hostess originally filed for bankruptcy earlier this year.