100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: should walmart employees be allowed to be union? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't think the employees are notorious for voting down unions. The employees I know say that they are told they will lose their jobs if they vote for a union. I guess it just comes down to feeding your family. I try to avoid Walmart if I can. But when push comes to shove, it might be the only company that doesn't want bail out money. I thought it was illegal now for companies to fire you for talking about unionization it is. but once a union is formed and negotiations are held for higher pay. The entire workforce can be laid off in one fell swoop. Basically, it a renounce the union and you can keep your job thing. I didn't read all the responses, but I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about unions. Either way, any retailer unionizing would be catastrophic for the poor and hurt everyone. The UAW only boosts costs on cars. A union at a major retailer like Wally world or Target would raise costs on EVERYTHING in the store. If the wages are negotiated for even a $2 raise, that's still an almost 25% increase in labor costs at minimum wage in california. Over that in most of the country. Imagine if everything you bought in the store went up 10, 15, or even 20 percent overnight? How would that change your budget? What the hell are you babbling about? I am saying nothing about the costs of labor and cars other than that the UAW is limited to one industry and Wal-mart is not. you should try reading before you start going off. let's go with this... I've read the average non-management (who would not unionize anyway) wage at Wal-Mart is around $11 an hour. So, figure a $2 raise negotiated. That's still barely enough to put that employee at the poverty line for a family of four and it's already raised labor costs 18% and that only puts you at the poverty line. There are no other increses there. Imagine if they started demanding a "livable" wage and health benefits. In that case, Wally World is not going to absorb the costs... it will be passed directly onto consumers and being that the average Wal-Mart shopper is not exactly living in the hills, it's going to hurt more than it will help. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Sun 06/07/09 03:20 PM
|
|
I don't think the employees are notorious for voting down unions. The employees I know say that they are told they will lose their jobs if they vote for a union. I guess it just comes down to feeding your family. I try to avoid Walmart if I can. But when push comes to shove, it might be the only company that doesn't want bail out money. I thought it was illegal now for companies to fire you for talking about unionization it is. but once a union is formed and negotiations are held for higher pay. The entire workforce can be laid off in one fell swoop. Basically, it a renounce the union and you can keep your job thing. I didn't read all the responses, but I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about unions. Either way, any retailer unionizing would be catastrophic for the poor and hurt everyone. The UAW only boosts costs on cars. A union at a major retailer like Wally world or Target would raise costs on EVERYTHING in the store. If the wages are negotiated for even a $2 raise, that's still an almost 25% increase in labor costs at minimum wage in california. Over that in most of the country. Imagine if everything you bought in the store went up 10, 15, or even 20 percent overnight? How would that change your budget? What the hell are you babbling about? I am saying nothing about the costs of labor and cars other than that the UAW is limited to one industry and Wal-mart is not. you should try reading before you start going off. let's go with this... I've read the average non-management (who would not unionize anyway) wage at Wal-Mart is around $11 an hour. So, figure a $2 raise negotiated. That's still barely enough to put that employee at the poverty line for a family of four and it's already raised labor costs 18% and that only puts you at the poverty line. There are no other increses there. Imagine if they started demanding a "livable" wage and health benefits. In that case, Wally World is not going to absorb the costs... it will be passed directly onto consumers and being that the average Wal-Mart shopper is not exactly living in the hills, it's going to hurt more than it will help. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meh, my employer has the right idea. Make the company employee owned and the stock privately traded. The employer can't screw over the employees w/o screwing over the stock holders (who ARE the employees) and the employees (who are the stock holders) can't milk their employer for all it's worth if they want a good dividend. All with no chance of an outside buyout.
As it is, sales are up, number of locations is up, number of employees is up and not 1 employee has EVER been laid off in the 80+ years the company has existed. The only 2 things that can be said have gone wrong are the stock prices dropping (duh) and profits dropping off a bit (which corresponds with a drop in prices, we're still in the black and debt free). Unions don't work. Direct ownership by the workers does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meh, my employer has the right idea. Make the company employee owned and the stock privately traded. The employer can't screw over the employees w/o screwing over the stock holders (who ARE the employees) and the employees (who are the stock holders) can't milk their employer for all it's worth if they want a good dividend. All with no chance of an outside buyout. As it is, sales are up, number of locations is up, number of employees is up and not 1 employee has EVER been laid off in the 80+ years the company has existed. The only 2 things that can be said have gone wrong are the stock prices dropping (duh) and profits dropping off a bit (which corresponds with a drop in prices, we're still in the black and debt free). Unions don't work. Direct ownership by the workers does. Good idea. Welcome to the forums. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meh, my employer has the right idea. Make the company employee owned and the stock privately traded. The employer can't screw over the employees w/o screwing over the stock holders (who ARE the employees) and the employees (who are the stock holders) can't milk their employer for all it's worth if they want a good dividend. All with no chance of an outside buyout.
As it is, sales are up, number of locations is up, number of employees is up and not 1 employee has EVER been laid off in the 80+ years the company has existed. The only 2 things that can be said have gone wrong are the stock prices dropping (duh) and profits dropping off a bit (which corresponds with a drop in prices, we're still in the black and debt free). Unions don't work. Direct ownership by the workers does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meh, my employer has the right idea. Make the company employee owned and the stock privately traded. The employer can't screw over the employees w/o screwing over the stock holders (who ARE the employees) and the employees (who are the stock holders) can't milk their employer for all it's worth if they want a good dividend. All with no chance of an outside buyout. As it is, sales are up, number of locations is up, number of employees is up and not 1 employee has EVER been laid off in the 80+ years the company has existed. The only 2 things that can be said have gone wrong are the stock prices dropping (duh) and profits dropping off a bit (which corresponds with a drop in prices, we're still in the black and debt free). Unions don't work. Direct ownership by the workers does. doesn't that require a buy-in though? or is it just that the business pays out equal dividends as if the employees owned the appropriate amount of stock? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that would be called a co-op
co-ops are very familiar in Texas. Most cotton gins and processing facilities are co-op owned they are expensive to buy into but then using the facilities is cheap enough that you can recoup the money in ten years or so |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We don't buy into anything. Company policy dictates that all employees in good standing get a share of stock for every $190 of income. People that have worked for a decade and bought stock along with what they got free tend to make thousands every year in addition to pay.
Frankly I wished I worked for them 3 years ago when the stock split 5 ways.  Missed out on that jackpot. Still getting payed in stock AND money isn't 1/2 bad, no risk of layoffs ether. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We don't buy into anything. Company policy dictates that all employees in good standing get a share of stock for every $190 of income. People that have worked for a decade and bought stock along with what they got free tend to make thousands every year in addition to pay. Frankly I wished I worked for them 3 years ago when the stock split 5 ways. Missed out on that jackpot. Still getting payed in stock AND money isn't 1/2 bad, no risk of layoffs ether.
Ok, so basically on hiring you attain stock based on your salary and then on the end of employment, it goes back to the company? That makes a lot of sense. Personal responsibility for the success of the company you work for and the received divident is an amazing incentive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sounds like a fair profit sharing plan
good for them do you get vested shares after a certain amount of time or if you retire from there do you keep your shares as a pension as well |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After 3 years we become vested (I'll be Vested in October) after which point we keep what we have if we leave.
|
|
|
|
|
