Walmart says "F*CK YOU!" to unions....

[Qdrop]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51521-2005Apr13.html?nav=hcmodule

Wal-Mart Leaves Bitter Chill
Quebec Store Closes After Vote to Unionize

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page E01

JONQUIERE, Quebec -- The baby buggies are all gone. In electronics, only "Le Gros Albert" and a few other leftover DVDs remain. A few pairs of pink boots are left in the shoe department. Over in household goods, red and yellow liquidation tags dangle beside thin skillets as Wal-Mart prepares to close.

The retailing behemoth, whose $10 billion annual profits are based on low prices, low expenses and its relentless pace of store openings, announced it will shut the doors here May 6 after workers voted to make this the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America.

The closure will leave 190 bitter employees out of work, the town uneasy over the future of unions, and the mayor angry at the company. Supporters of organized labor also say it serves as a warning for workers at other Wal-Mart stores who might contemplate defying founder Sam Walton's sharp distaste for unions......
------------------------

i'm not much of a union supporter in this day and age either, but i think this just goes to show the unbelievable power that walmart has. If you don't do exactly what they say, they will fuckin bury your town.

[ASsman]

Hahahahahah! I have lost all respect for Canada. They are no better, which makes the worse.

And uh, this will actually create more jobs. Just needs some money to start off. Not a great way to get rid of cancer, but sometimes you have to lose a leg and start of worse than you begun.

[Qdrop]

at least that towns "ma and pa" shops will survive.

and competition will survive....

[ASsman]

at least that towns "ma and pa" shops will survive.

and competition will survive....
Shhh, don't say that too loud. Enigma might come in.

[SobaViolence]

of course people from Québec would unionize. that is the epicentre for anticorporate socialism in Canada.

they did what the rest of us drones should do, demand rights.

[FunkyHiFi]

For those that didn't see it the first time:

"Is Wal-Mart Good For America?" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/)

You can watch the entire show online. And props to PBS for having the nutsack to air programs like this and many others (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/) like it.

[STANKY808]

And props to PBS for having the nutsack to air programs like this and many others (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/) like it.

Maybe not for too much longer...

"...The latest such addition was the September debut of PBS' "Journal Editorial Report," a roundtable discussion of the week's stories led by Paul Gigot, editor of the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page. During the 30-minute show, Gigot is joined by other members of the paper's editorial-page staff to analyze news and share opinions.

PBS first came under fire for lurching right after it gave conservative CNN commentator Tucker Carlson his own slot in the public-affairs programming lineup in June. Some viewers perceive an additional insult because PBS' best-known liberal show, "NOW with Bill Moyers," will slim down to a 30-minute format when Moyers, who plans to retire in December, hands it over to his ideologically neutral cohost David Brancaccio. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides much of the funding for PBS' programs, also is considering a new cultural issues show that would pair conservative radio host Michael Medved with a liberal cohost, according to published reports.

While the new programs triggered an avalanche of disapproval from left-leaning media critics, PBS executives insist they are not "stacking the decks" to favor conservatives. "Public television is designed to be a forum for all viewers and a diversity of opinion," says spokeswoman Lea Sloan. "It's our mission--our obligation--to serve every part of our audience, and that's what we think these shows accomplish."

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3791

[Whois]

^When PBS starts airing Michael "The Savage" Weiner then we'll know things are really bad.

[Qdrop]

Maybe not for too much longer...

"...The latest such addition was the September debut of PBS' "Journal Editorial Report," a roundtable discussion of the week's stories led by Paul Gigot, editor of the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page. During the 30-minute show, Gigot is joined by other members of the paper's editorial-page staff to analyze news and share opinions.

PBS first came under fire for lurching right after it gave conservative CNN commentator Tucker Carlson his own slot in the public-affairs programming lineup in June. Some viewers perceive an additional insult because PBS' best-known liberal show, "NOW with Bill Moyers," will slim down to a 30-minute format when Moyers, who plans to retire in December, hands it over to his ideologically neutral cohost David Brancaccio. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides much of the funding for PBS' programs, also is considering a new cultural issues show that would pair conservative radio host Michael Medved with a liberal cohost, according to published reports.

While the new programs triggered an avalanche of disapproval from left-leaning media critics, PBS executives insist they are not "stacking the decks" to favor conservatives. "Public television is designed to be a forum for all viewers and a diversity of opinion," says spokeswoman Lea Sloan. "It's our mission--our obligation--to serve every part of our audience, and that's what we think these shows accomplish."

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3791

i see absolutley nothing wrong with this.
*applause*

[EN[i]GMA]

at least that towns "ma and pa" shops will survive.

and competition will survive....

Wal-Mart doesn't kill competition, consumers do.

Obviously those "Ma and Pa" shops aren't worth very much the popular majority, so why save them?

You don't think people are intelligent enough to make the correct decisions regarding where they purchase their sundries and groceries?

I say, if Wal Mart really is that bad, and 'ma and pa' shops really are that good, let people reap what they sow.

[EN[i]GMA]

For those that didn't see it the first time:

"Is Wal-Mart Good For America?" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/)

You can watch the entire show online. And props to PBS for having the nutsack to air programs like this and many others (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/) like it.

Pretty good show, but I really wasn't convinced that Wal Mart was all that bad.

Isn't the guy from Cato correct, that jobs lost are offset by reduced prices on items?

Why is unemployment currently so low?

[valvano]

anybody else here work in a highly competitive cut throat industry in which recent attempts to unionize has failed heavily?

if so, advise, and i will continue on with my post

[Qdrop]

GMA']Wal-Mart doesn't kill competition, consumers do.

Obviously those "Ma and Pa" shops aren't worth very much the popular majority, so why save them?

You don't think people are intelligent enough to make the correct decisions regarding where they purchase their sundries and groceries?

I say, if Wal Mart really is that bad, and 'ma and pa' shops really are that good, let people reap what they sow.

because, look at the target demographic of Walmart's customers: middle to lower income consumers who NEED lower prices...price is the most important.

a conglomerate like walmart has the deep pockets and retail-bullying price control that enable it to sell cheaper than any smaller competitor.
the potential consumers will flock to walmart for the lower prices (with tight budgets, how can you not?)...running the smaller businesses out.

the problem lies 2-fold: HOW does walmart get those low prices?...and....what does the loss of market competition in the retail service ULTIMATELY do to the customer?

walmart gets those low prices by buying products directly from asian markets for very very cheap (taking business away from domestic producers) and, more importantly, forces all domestic producers to sell to walmart cheaper and cheaper every year..OR THEY WON'T STOCK THEIR PRODUCT ANYMORE. many of these producers rely on giant retailers like walmart to survive...retailers like them are over half of thier outlet!
so how do these producers lower their prices?....they send their labor over seas (killing US job forces), cut benefits, and force THIER materials suppliers to cut their prices. HOW? in the exact same way....
it's a vicious chain effect....
and the US loses...

and do i need to explain what happens ultimately when industry competition suffers?...the customer gets fucked.....price gouging, ect.

[Qdrop]

anybody else here work in a highly competitive cut throat industry in which recent attempts to unionize has failed heavily?

if so, advise, and i will continue on with my post

unionization has repeatadly failed at my companies plants...basically due to lack of interest...
we treat our workers fuckin great.....

unions, in this day and age...are largely extorting, production reducing safety nets for the lazy.
and i say that from personal experiance....

[yeahwho]

unions, in this day and age...are largely extorting, production reducing safety nets for the lazy.
and i say that from personal experiance....
Be sure to mention that to the first responders when you have a medical, fire or crime to call in @ 911. Unions get a bad rap.

Unions are not the safety net of the lazy. The perception that all union workers is lazy is the perception "Big Business" would love to sell. Of course all the extortion stops at the corporate level, right?

Unions, like CEO's, are a necessary evil. Watch wages for workers shrink in proportion with representation shrink. I am Pro Union.

[STANKY808]

GMA']Pretty good show, but I really wasn't convinced that Wal Mart was all that bad.

Isn't the guy from Cato correct, that jobs lost are offset by reduced prices on items?

Why is unemployment currently so low?

Sounds great! You loose your job at the local department store cause walmart came to town. But don't fret cause on your very limited income, you can shop at walmart! Seems like a downward spiral to me.

And given how the unemployed are counted...

"Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. "
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5

"U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.......10.4 (for March '04)"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

I know they're old numbers but perhaps the usual unemployment numbers are deceiving?

[Qdrop]

Be sure to mention that to the first responders when you have a medical, fire or crime to call in @ 911. Unions get a bad rap.

Unions are not the safety net of the lazy. The perception that all union workers is lazy is the perception "Big Business" would love to sell. Of course all the extortion stops at the corporate level, right?

Unions, like CEO's, are a necessary evil. Watch wages for workers shrink in proportion with representation shrink. I am Pro Union.

okay, i'll reduce my statement to this: in MY experiance, with the unions and factories I have had experiance with, unions are nothing short than what i stated: extorting, efficiancy reducing, safety nets for the lazy.

if you have had the opposite in experiance, that's great.

[yeahwho]

okay, i'll reduce my statement to this: in MY experiance, with the unions and factories I have had experiance with, unions are nothing short than what i stated: extorting, efficiancy reducing, safety nets for the lazy.

if you have had the opposite in experiance, that's great.

Will I have a union card (even I have to work sometimes), my dad is a firefighter, my education is being paid for with those wages and I just cannot remember the last time I came home from work without aches, pains and grime all over me. But the paycheck is sweet.

I've been raised in a different situation, I am Pro Union because of this. Seattle and Washington State in general is a Unionized workforce, Shipping, Longshoremen, Boeing and most, not all got 3.5 to 4.5% raises this past year plus their COLA's. WA.ST. continually has the lowest unemployment figures and highest paid wages in the Nation. We're booming up here with all those lazy bastards.

[ASsman]

Muh, I'm leaving before this turns gay.

[EN[i]GMA]

because, look at the target demographic of Walmart's customers: middle to lower income consumers who NEED lower prices...price is the most important.

a conglomerate like walmart has the deep pockets and retail-bullying price control that enable it to sell cheaper than any smaller competitor.
the potential consumers will flock to walmart for the lower prices (with tight budgets, how can you not?)...running the smaller businesses out.

the problem lies 2-fold: HOW does walmart get those low prices?...and....what does the loss of market competition in the retail service ULTIMATELY do to the customer?

walmart gets those low prices by buying products directly from asian markets for very very cheap (taking business away from domestic producers) and, more importantly, forces all domestic producers to sell to walmart cheaper and cheaper every year..OR THEY WON'T STOCK THEIR PRODUCT ANYMORE. many of these producers rely on giant retailers like walmart to survive...retailers like them are over half of thier outlet!
so how do these producers lower their prices?....they send their labor over seas (killing US job forces), cut benefits, and force THIER materials suppliers to cut their prices. HOW? in the exact same way....
it's a vicious chain effect....
and the US loses...

and do i need to explain what happens ultimately when industry competition suffers?...the customer gets fucked.....price gouging, ect.

But if this didn't happen, the poor wouldn't be able to buy any of these products at all and run the risk of starving.

Do you know what percentage of U.S. retail is comprised of Wal Mart?

Did you know it's losing market share due it's shitty products?

Why isn't unemployment higher?

Why isn't this doom scenario coming true?

[EN[i]GMA]

Sounds great! You loose your job at the local department store cause walmart came to town. But don't fret cause on your very limited income, you can shop at walmart! Seems like a downward spiral to me.

And given how the unemployed are counted...

"Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. "
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5

"U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.......10.4 (for March '04)"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

I know they're old numbers but perhaps the usual unemployment numbers are deceiving?

Unemployment has been counted this way forever, why complain now?

And this:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.......10.4

is somewhat misleading as a lot of them are quasi-employed.

The effect isn't as pronounced as you make it out to be. Jobs are leaving, jobs are being created, it's all very subtle.

To make a blanket statement that jobs are leaving or that wages or going down doesn't do much unless it's supported by evidence.

Remember, money is cyclical, your expenditures are someone elses wages, so increased purchasing (Aided by lower prices) increases total wages, in effect, speeds up the circulation of money between people, enriching more people in the process.

[yeahwho]

Muh, I'm leaving before this turns gay.

Everything is beautiful, in it's own way. /\
The AFL-CIO's (http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/walmart/) POV.

[EN[i]GMA]

Be sure to mention that to the first responders when you have a medical, fire or crime to call in @ 911. Unions get a bad rap.

Unions are not the safety net of the lazy. The perception that all union workers is lazy is the perception "Big Business" would love to sell. Of course all the extortion stops at the corporate level, right?

Unions, like CEO's, are a necessary evil. Watch wages for workers shrink in proportion with representation shrink. I am Pro Union.

Do you know how corrupt labor unions are?

They're as bad as big business, because they ARE big business.

What have labor unions done for the worker recently (Other than their own)?

What's the percantage of workers in unions?

Why is it so low?

[ASsman]

Everything is beautiful, in it's own way. /\
The AFL-CIO's (http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/walmart/) POV.
Yah, this is "I want to shove a pencil up my nose as far as it goes" beautiful.

[yeahwho]

Yah, this is "I want to shove a pencil up my nose as far as it goes" beautiful.

It's a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" type of Beautiful. If you don't leave this thread soon, someday you'll shove put that pencil elsewhere.

Thread is now officially Ghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

[yeahwho]

GMA']Do you know how corrupt labor unions are?

They're as bad as big business, because they ARE big business.

What have labor unions done for the worker recently (Other than their own)?

What's the percantage of workers in unions?

Why is it so low?

You are out of your mind. Do you think big business is the home of the sacred? Did you read todays headlines (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml%3Ftype%3DtopNews%26storyID%3D818 6105), same as every fucking day of the week, different business, same crime. WTF are you trying to tell me? I've been through this before with you, you take your non-union job and enjoy it. Do whatever you want to do, but don't tell me all about how Unions are corrupting the workplace. What was the workingmans cut in todays scandal?

[Jasonik]

Roll back that muumuu, sexy lady!
Paul McMorrow (http://www.weeklydig.com/index.cfm/issueID/87eceb2a-4e53-4709-88c9-e96136829eb3/fuseaction/Article.view/issueID/87eceb2a-4e53-4709-88c9-e96136829eb3/articleID/07ee8dbb-6b94-4e81-afa3-74eac18d5aab/nodeID/4b1339d1-be3a-44a2-be8b-1484963a003a)
Having destroyed all aspects of the localized economy, Wal-Mart has moved on to savaging other big-box corporations. The first target in this latest assault on decency appears to be TGI Friday's, as Wal-Mart may soon supplant the restaurant chain as the haunt for obese, middle-aged divorcees. This transformation is already in full swing in Germany, where, according to CNN, all 91 stores host weekly “Singles Shopping” nights. Would-be lovers attach large bows to their shopping carts, then teeter and waddle sweatily around the aisles of cheap retail goods, looking for similarly available bargain shoppers. For those who lack even these minimal social skills, stores set up “flirting points” “stacked with 'romantic' merchandise such as chocolates, wine and cheese to somewhat ease that first awkward step.” What? No cut-rate animal lard to slather on each other's distended nipples? Sorry. Singles Shopping nights will now be tested in the UK, South Korea and Puerto Rico, and may come stateside soon.

[EN[i]GMA]

You are out of your mind. Do you think big business is the home of the sacred? Did you read todays headlines (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml%3Ftype%3DtopNews%26storyID%3D818 6105), same as every fucking day of the week, different business, same crime. WTF are you trying to tell me? I've been through this before with you, you take your non-union job and enjoy it. Do whatever you want to do, but don't tell me all about how Unions are corrupting the workplace. What was the workingmans cut in todays scandal?

Are labor unions currupt or not corrupt, to varying degrees?

[Schmeltz]

I don't know about anyone else, but when we voted for a labour union at my first job we got a vastly expanded benefits package, a better safety package, a hefty pay raise, and since I'd been working there before the union was implemented I got a fat backpay check too. The dues didn't even come close to making a dent. In my experience, unions work.

Now I work at a place that has no union - but it would be next to impossible to implement one there efficiently, and I get treated very well, so it's all good. As I've said before, it comes down to the social process of negotiation between different groups in society. Why is the percentage of workers in unions low? Because unions don't really represent a necessary negotiating tool in that process anymore. The battle has been won - now good treatment of workers is a matter of course, while the abuses that organized labour sought to prevent have been eliminated (at least from our society). Unionism, as an important bargaining chip used by one social group, has produced benefits even for those not directly involved with it. And don't think even for a second that unionism wouldn't flare back up with a vengeance if workers' rights began to be significantly eroded.

Yes, labour unions can be corrupt, just like any other human institution. What is your point? That unions should all be disbanded because they're open to corruption? In that case, we'll have to dismantle the free market entirely, not to mention civilization itself.

[EN[i]GMA]

Roll back that muumuu, sexy lady!
Paul McMorrow (http://www.weeklydig.com/index.cfm/issueID/87eceb2a-4e53-4709-88c9-e96136829eb3/fuseaction/Article.view/issueID/87eceb2a-4e53-4709-88c9-e96136829eb3/articleID/07ee8dbb-6b94-4e81-afa3-74eac18d5aab/nodeID/4b1339d1-be3a-44a2-be8b-1484963a003a)
Having destroyed all aspects of the localized economy, Wal-Mart has moved on to savaging other big-box corporations. The first target in this latest assault on decency appears to be TGI Friday's, as Wal-Mart may soon supplant the restaurant chain as the haunt for obese, middle-aged divorcees. This transformation is already in full swing in Germany, where, according to CNN, all 91 stores host weekly “Singles Shopping” nights. Would-be lovers attach large bows to their shopping carts, then teeter and waddle sweatily around the aisles of cheap retail goods, looking for similarly available bargain shoppers. For those who lack even these minimal social skills, stores set up “flirting points” “stacked with 'romantic' merchandise such as chocolates, wine and cheese to somewhat ease that first awkward step.” What? No cut-rate animal lard to slather on each other's distended nipples? Sorry. Singles Shopping nights will now be tested in the UK, South Korea and Puerto Rico, and may come stateside soon.

Holy shit, now Wal Mart's helping fat people out!

What the fuck are they going to do next?! Treat gay people like they're human!?

Honestly, if anyone is stupid enough to look for love at a Wal Mart packed full of fat people, by all means that them.

Do you really dislike personal freedom so much that you want to take away people's right to act like dumbasses?

[EN[i]GMA]

I don't know about anyone else, but when we voted for a labour union at my first job we got a vastly expanded benefits package, a better safety package, a hefty pay raise, and since I'd been working there before the union was implemented I got a fat backpay check too. The dues didn't even come close to making a dent. In my experience, unions work.

Now I work at a place that has no union - but it would be next to impossible to implement one there efficiently, and I get treated very well, so it's all good. As I've said before, it comes down to the social process of negotiation between different groups in society. Why is the percentage of workers in unions low? Because unions don't really represent a necessary negotiating tool in that process anymore. The battle has been won - now good treatment of workers is a matter of course, while the abuses that organized labour sought to prevent have been eliminated (at least from our society). Unionism, as an important bargaining chip used by one social group, has produced benefits even for those not directly involved with it. And don't think even for a second that unionism wouldn't flare back up with a vengeance if workers' rights began to be significantly eroded.

Agreed.

I support unionism as a free and voluntary exchange among men, but I heartily dislike unions when they resort to using the government to coerce companies for them.

That's where I draw the line.

[Schmeltz]

A union getting a government to coerce a company is as free and voluntary an exchange as any other in society. You've got three social actors - union, government, company. They interact with one another on the basis of a multilayered discourse negotiated in economic, cultural, political, maybe even military terms. The degree to which they extract rights and concessions from one another in defining their relationship is dependent on all of these. If the union and government team up to benefit themselves at the expense of the company, it's a product of that negotiated social discourse: companies happen to occupy the weakest position. It's as free as anything else we've dreamt up, because every model of civilization ever produced has worked in the exact same way.

Of course that's a very simplistic scenario and the element of change, since the discourse is subject to constant redefinition, is crucial to understanding how the model works in real life. But you get the idea.

[EN[i]GMA]

A union getting a government to coerce a company is as free and voluntary an exchange as any other in society. You've got three social actors - union, government, company. They interact with one another on the basis of a multilayered discourse negotiated in economic, cultural, political, maybe even military terms. The degree to which they extract rights and concessions from one another in defining their relationship is dependent on all of these. If the union and government team up to benefit themselves at the expense of the company, it's a product of that negotiated social discourse: companies happen to occupy the weakest position. It's as free as anything else we've dreamt up, because every model of civilization ever produced has worked in the exact same way.

Of course that's a very simplistic scenario and the element of change, since the discourse is subject to constant redefinition, is crucial to understanding how the model works in real life. But you get the idea.

Extortion is not implied in any social contract.

Any 'social contract' that condones extortion via government coercion is not worth upholding.

You cannot rightfully allow government to dictate high wages (At the expense of non-union labor, mind you), overeaching benefits, and draconian labor laws anymore than you can allow slave labor, sweatshops and corporate dissolution of mutual contracts.

Just as government pimping labor for 'big business' is no way condoned by any social contract, goverment propping up labor and kicking 'big business' in the nuts is not allowed.

When you open the social contract up to this kind of interpretation, you're allowing egregious curtailments to be enacted on the rights and liberties of minorities or whatever group is villified by the designees of this sham of a contract.

[yeahwho]

GMA']Are labor unions currupt or not corrupt, to varying degrees?
To varying degrees everything is corrupt, but in proportion to Corporations, Big Business et;al....Unions are miniscule in corruption. Check out the damn newspapers, unions have been regulated to the nth degree since the '70's, completly shutdown by our goverment in many cases. The Hart Taftley act is just one of many Union Busting laws put into effect since the last big "Uninon Scandal Days'.

Now go to your media and find all that AFL-CIO corruption, it isn't there. Now go to your media and look for Corporate corruption "Whoa"! It's all over the map. Your living in a mythical land of yesterday.

I have a union card, nobody I work with has any criminal records or RICO investigations going. The Union leadership is scrutinized by the US Attorneys office before they can hold the job. It's all pretty much on the up and up. We as a group of men and women let them negotiate our wage package and work rules. The place I work for actually wants it that way.

Wander over to the cop shop and fire dept. and let them know all about your knowledge of unions and their corrupt ways. Then come back and post to us how they see it.

[valvano]

i work in the ltl trucking business (ltl stands for less than truckload), trucking is highly, highyl competitive. you got 100 other carriers ready to take your customers freight from you, many willing to do it at a loss, just to help pay their fixed cost. add to that fuel cost (especially if you dont hedge against fluctuations), taxes, permits, equipment, labor, etc, and its expensive. its truly cut throat.

prior to the 80s it was regulated. you had to bid on certain routes based on certain tariffs (rate schedules). it was profitable. then came deregulation.....

of the 100 largest trucking companies around when deregulation hit, only 4 remain, thanks to unions (i work for the largest non union carrier)

the teamsters failed to realize that if they didnt adopt to this new economic environment they would fail. strict work rules, wages way above the going driver rate, forced contributions to a failing retirement and pension fund, have driven many, many unionized carriers out of business. just over the past years we've seen cf, usf, etc shut down. the owners just couldnt keep operating at the losses they had, mainly due to the competitve pressure from non union carriers.

i love seeing unions strangle businesses with crazy work rules, money losing pension plans, and highly inflated wages scratch their heads and wonder why businesses move over the border and over seas.

now walmart, i hate walmart. we are a carrier for walmart. they squeeze us just like they do all their vendors. and they can do it because they control so much traffic volume. but i've posted before they are like economic solient green. they kill you economically and move your jobs overseas, then because you are so poor you have no choice but to shop there. you feed the monster that kills you in an endless cycle, ala soilent green

unions had their place, they have failed to adjust to changing economic conditions and the new global economy, their death is fully justified

[Schmeltz]

You cannot rightfully allow


You are proceeding from a basis of morality without realizing that morality itself is dictated by the changing social discourse of the day. What do you mean you can't rightfully allow slave labour and sweatshops? That was the rule of thumb in many societies for thousands of years. There are societies in the world right now who allow those very things! And this is because those things were (and are) permitted by the social negotiation that informed the structure of those societies.

The social contract is never formal and never fixed. It changes as society changes, it condones whatever we allow it to condone and forbids whatever we think it should forbid. If a minority group or any other group within a society loses out in the process, it's because they're unable to effectively negotiate their position. Always. Blacks were made slaves in America until their position was renegotiated for the better, through a process that touched on every aspect of American society - economics, politics, warfare, religion, culture. Blacks could be made slaves again if the social contract was renegotiated to condone it, though it would of course be subject to all those same processes all over again. Anything is possible, it's only varying degrees of probability that matter - and which are hardly any basis for the kind of absolutist, dogmatic adherence to principle and ideology implicit in your post.

[Schmeltz]

Wow, a semi-intelligent post from valvano. I never thought the day would come. There's a fantastic real-life example of what I'm talking about - look at how the different actors in his post interact: on the basis of constantly changing, renegotiated social roles. Ba da bing.

[EN[i]GMA]

You are proceeding from a basis of morality without realizing that morality itself is dictated by the changing social discourse of the day. What do you mean you can't rightfully allow slave labour and sweatshops? That was the rule of thumb in many societies for thousands of years. There are societies in the world right now who allow those very things! And this is because those things were (and are) permitted by the social negotiation that informed the structure of those societies.

The social contract is never formal and never fixed. It changes as society changes, it condones whatever we allow it to condone and forbids whatever we think it should forbid. If a minority group or any other group within a society loses out in the process, it's because they're unable to effectively negotiate their position. Always. Blacks were made slaves in America until their position was renegotiated for the better, through a process that touched on every aspect of American society - economics, politics, warfare, religion, culture. Blacks could be made slaves again if the social contract was renegotiated to condone it, though it would of course be subject to all those same processes all over again. Anything is possible, it's only varying degrees of probability that matter - and which are hardly any basis for the kind of absolutist, dogmatic adherence to principle and ideology implicit in your post.

So you condone theft, murder, rape and anything else as long as this twised joke of a social contract supports it?

Tell me, what purpose does the social contract serve and how is it dictated?

[EN[i]GMA]

And there is an absolute set of morality, dictated by individual rights.

No I don't believe in God, but I do believe in my (And your) basic rights.

Tell me, do you always support the 'social contract' or just 'good' ones?

[Schmeltz]

Nice strawman you set up there, do you mind if I knock it down or would you prefer the pleasure? I don't personally condone any of those crimes, whether they're in the laws or not, no matter who accepts them or who doesn't. I simply accept the reality of how societies work. It's still possible to dissent from the discourse, you know - in fact, I would say that the individualist ability to do so constitutes the foundation of Western civilization (or, perhaps, the most important aspect of our social discourse).

What purpose does the social contract serve? In every society, it defines the conditions of morality under which social life can acceptably take place. How is it dictated? As I've said - through an ever-changing process of redefinition and renegotiation. In practical terms it is regulated through a society's official laws and unofficial social interaction.

Edit: look, you're doing it again! Where do you think the notion of "individual rights" comes from? It certainly isn't absolute across space and time - it's only absolute in your mind (and in mine too, before you go making more wild accusations) because it forms such an integral part of the social discourse that informs your life.

I support the good social contracts and admit to the reality of all social contracts, whether for good or ill.

[EN[i]GMA]

Nice strawman you set up there, do you mind if I knock it down or would you prefer the pleasure? I don't personally condone any of those crimes, whether they're in the laws or not, no matter who accepts them or who doesn't. I simply accept the reality of how societies work. It's still possible to dissent from the discourse, you know - in fact, I would say that the individualist ability to do so constitutes the foundation of Western civilization (or, perhaps, the most important aspect of our social discourse).

What purpose does the social contract serve? In every society, it defines the conditions of morality under which social life can acceptably take place. How is it dictated? As I've said - through an ever-changing process of redefinition and renegotiation. In practical terms it is regulated through a society's official laws and unofficial social interaction.

Edit: look, you're doing it again! Where do you think the notion of "individual rights" comes from? It certainly isn't absolute across space and time - it's only absolute in your mind (and in mine too, before you go making more wild accusations) because it forms such an integral part of the social discourse that informs your life.

I support the good social contracts and admit to the reality of all social contracts, whether for good or ill.

I wasn't setting up a strawman, merely taking your argument to it's logical conclusion.

I'll admit to the reality of social contracts, and I sorely wish to change them for the better, but I refuse to allow the 'social contract' to be used to in the name of criminal acts.

[Schmeltz]

That's a nice principled stand and all, but a big part of the social contract defines what is and is not a criminal act (on the practical social level, anyhow) so it's kind of moot. Remember, your vision of a better social contract may not conform to what others would consider a better social contract - so choose your methods of negotiation wisely.

By the way, my argument does not at all proceed to the "logical conclusion" that I personally support crimes, even if the social contract does condone them. There's nothing logical about that assumption whatsoever.

[EN[i]GMA]

That's a nice principled stand and all, but a big part of the social contract defines what is and is not a criminal act (on the practical social level, anyhow) so it's kind of moot. Remember, your vision of a better social contract may not conform to what others would consider a better social contract - so choose your methods of negotiation wisely.

By the way, my argument does not at all proceed to the "logical conclusion" that I personally support crimes, even if the social contract does condone them. There's nothing logical about that assumption whatsoever.

You just seem very reserved, almost fatalistic, about the actions of the society.

You don't have to condone them, merely be silent about them; the effect is the same.

[SobaViolence]

GMA']Holy shit, now Wal Mart's helping fat people out!

What the fuck are they going to do next?! Treat gay people like they're human!?

Honestly, if anyone is stupid enough to look for love at a Wal Mart packed full of fat people, by all means that them.

Do you really dislike personal freedom so much that you want to take away people's right to act like dumbasses?

exploiting weak/lonely people to get them in and shop is not help, you fool. it's taking advantage of them. and it sounds really gay.

[yeahwho]

unions had their place, they have failed to adjust to changing economic conditions and the new global economy, their death is fully justified
Not dead yet, but with the current inability for many to grasp the true nature of unionism, it could happen, till then, count me in!

[DroppinScience]

at least that towns "ma and pa" shops will survive.

and competition will survive....

In this case, you mean "Mère et Père" shops. :)

[Qdrop]

GMA']But if this didn't happen, the poor wouldn't be able to buy any of these products at all and run the risk of starving.
that's not true, walmart doesn't keep poor people fed.
their low prices just make it more attractive....


Do you know what percentage of U.S. retail is comprised of Wal Mart?
pretty fucking high, from what i heard.
if you know differant, please divulge and show the source.


Did you know it's losing market share due it's shitty products?
source?


Why isn't unemployment higher?
you know unemployment rates are collected in some pretty statistically queer ways, and are not perfectly reflective...
but, yes...i see your point.


Why isn't this doom scenario coming true?
well, it won't happen overnight....and it may not happen at all...
but just looking at this scenario playing out....it looks rather menacing.

just logically, small businesses and blue-collar workers will be adversally effected. they can't just go back to college and get computer/tech degrees and to accomodate the changing US employment landscape.

[EN[i]GMA]

exploiting weak/lonely people to get them in and shop is not help, you fool. it's taking advantage of them. and it sounds really gay.

And condescending to them is SO much better.

You're a case, you really are. Wal Mart can't exploit them but you sure as hell can pimp them out to back up your hatred for Wal Mart whenever it behooves you.

[ASsman]

Anyone up for some low calorie yogurt. Cause this thread is gay!

[EN[i]GMA]

that's not true, walmart doesn't keep poor people fed.
their low prices just make it more attractive....

Lot's of poor people shop for food at Wal Mart.


pretty fucking high, from what i heard.
if you know differant, please divulge and show the source.

I can't seem to find it right now.


source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/business/08walmart.html?ei=5090&en=af8d95bdca37c318&ex=1270612800&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=


you know unemployment rates are collected in some pretty statistically queer ways, and are not perfectly reflective...
but, yes...i see your point.

But they've always been collected in strange ways.

They're still a good indicator though, even if they are a bit arbitrary.


well, it won't happen overnight....and it may not happen at all...
but just looking at this scenario playing out....it looks rather menacing.

I don't see how.


just logically, small businesses and blue-collar workers will be adversally effected. they can't just go back to college and get computer/tech degrees and to accomodate the changing US employment landscape.

The U.S. economy used to be made up of 60% farmers.

Whatever happend to that? Don't you think there were droves of people lambasting industrialization, saying 'How can the US economy change?', 'things have always been this way'.

Why is everyone so fearful of change?

[Qdrop]

GMA']Lot's of poor people shop for food at Wal Mart.
that doesn't mean they'll starve without them.....



I can't seem to find it right now.
well, get back to me.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/business/08walmart.html?ei=5090&en=af8d95bdca37c318&ex=1270612800&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=
i didn't see anything about losing market share due to shitty products.

the article was about how walmart wants futher penatrate the market by adding higher scale products....to compete with target and Bed Bath & Beyond.


The U.S. economy used to be made up of 60% farmers.

Whatever happend to that? Don't you think there were droves of people lambasting industrialization, saying 'How can the US economy change?', 'things have always been this way'.

Why is everyone so fearful of change?
yes, but slowly removing solitary farmers and replacing with industry and big business meant thousands to millions of new jobs, higher tech and industrious.

now we are talking about removing large masses of industrial workers....and where will they go? what will they do?