Worker's "rights" / employer's rights

What say you?

  • Evil Corporations make too much anyway

    Votes: 12 9.7%
  • Without doing harm, companies should do as they see fit

    Votes: 62 50.0%
  • Maryland gov't should butt out, no "right to affordable health care"

    Votes: 77 62.1%
  • it depends (if it's MY ox being gored or not)

    Votes: 9 7.3%

  • Total voters
    124
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walmart isn't reposible for people's lives. If outside of work people don't make any efforts to improve themselves and are pretty much only fit for employment at Walmart, its their own fault that they get paid crappy wages with crappy benifits. Walmart at least employs a lot of people, much more than any socialist with their precious social conscience has ever done for anyone.
 
I have no respect for walmart here. They use Medicaid as their health insurance system; it's in the employment handbook.

Companies do not have an inalienable right to make money -- and more importantly, to make money through externalizing their expenses.

geekWithA.45 said:
Employees are free to contract for their labor as they see fit, either individually or collectively,
No, they're not. Not at Wal-Fart.

Technosavant said:
If these people were so hard up for such things, they can vote to unionize
I should point out that this has been tried. Do you see a Wal-Mart union?

Spot77 said:
Who are Wal Mart's most loyal customers? Their EMPLOYEES
Because they can't afford anything but the cheapest. Compare Ford's early strategy -- pay well, people can afford a car, the only good one on the market is a Ford, we get our money back. Walmart makes sure that the only place you can make ends meet is shopping at walmart. It's... twisted. Outright evil, maybe.
 
Chrontius, for you or for a corporation, there is an inalienable right to ATTEMPT to make money (profit). Otherwise, why start any business? And how many samll business, percentagewise, provide health insurance? Why would you think only a Wal-Mart would externalize health costs? For that matter, is not this externalization commonplace in Canada or Germany?

Wal-Mart employees ARE free to contract, inasmuch as there is no requirement that they work there. Other than management, the jobs are entry level. It is incumbent upon any person to learn and gain skills to move on to better days.

The lack of a union within any Wal-Mart store or within the Wal-Mart system has to do with the in-store politics among the employees and the strength of desire on the part of the employees. Same as any other effort at unionization.

AS far as employee-as-customer loyalty, I don't know. I prefer Big Lots, myself. :)

Art
 
There is no such thing as 'under pay'. You get the minimum the law gags business with and that's it. If you don't like it go elsewhere.

A truly evil business would put you in chains and beat you for not meeting quota.

Gordon Fink said:
Corporations—especially evil ones—often underpay their low-ranking employees, but there is no right to affordable health care. Insurance benefits are part of the overall compensation package an employer may offer, so certain percentages should not be mandated.

~G. Fink
 
No good option

I didn't vote in the poll because the choices laid out are all bent out of traditional thinking by recent economic developements driven by our grand and glorious Global Economy. In short, there are bigger problems to be fixed before we can honestly eddress these issues with individual employers.
 
The legislature should not replace employee organizations. An employer with as many as 10,000 employees is easily subject to formation of unions and forced negotiations with their employees. Discriminating against large employers merely on the grounds that health care is not provided seems really inappropriate to me. Where is the gratitude that jobs are created and that prices are kept low by well funded and efficient corporations? Smaller employers in the same market should not be excluded. I would say that there is more at issue here than health care costs to the State.

The worst part of it is that legislative action in this regard is inflationary. There is no free lunch here.

If WalMart's size and leverage is a problem, that should be addressed head on. I see this law as harassment and a terrible precedent. Next we will have minimum wage laws that apply only to WalMart. If you nullify WalMart's buying power advantage, prices go up for everyone. It is a backhanded way of the State raising taxes.
 
RealGun said:
The legislature should not replace employee organizations. An employer with as many as 10,000 employees is easily subject to formation of unions and forced negotiations with their employees. Discriminating against large employers merely on the grounds that health care is not provided seems really inappropriate to me. Where is the gratitude that jobs are created and that prices are kept low by well funded and efficient corporations? Smaller employers in the same market should not be excluded. I would say that there is more at issue here than health care costs to the State.

The worst part of it is that legislative action in this regard is inflationary. There is no free lunch here.

If WalMart's size and leverage is a problem, that should be addressed head on. I see this law as harassment and a terrible precedent. Next we will have minimum wage laws that apply only to WalMart. If you nullify WalMart's buying power advantage, prices go up for everyone. It is a backhanded way of the State raising taxes.

Most of this is probably true. Then again, when was the last time you saw a really good antitrust suit in the US of A?

Besides, there's more to it than the obvious.
The new Fort Wayne Wal-Mart’s 350 employees will exacerbate the costs to taxpayers. At some Wal-Marts, the company has supplied new employees with information on available social services. California estimated it paid $86 million annually in public assistance to Wal-Mart workers. Connecticut estimates Wal-Mart workers cost its low-income state health care program $5.4 million annually. More than 70 percent of Wal-Mart workers are women. Seventy-five percent of Wal-Mart workers earn under $10 an hour. Are these the kind of jobs Fort Wayne needs?

Wal-Mart claims that it provides health benefits to its workers. A part-time worker must work at Wal-Mart for a minimum of two years to be eligible for health benefits. When eligible, most Wal-Mart workers cannot afford health benefits that cost more than 20 percent of the average worker’s salary. Wal-Mart workers have no choice but to rely on publicly assisted health care. Even upper-management cannot afford the health benefits Wal-Mart “provides.”

Taxpayers in other communities around the country subsidize Wal-Mart under the guise of “economic development.” According to a recent report by the non-profit organization Good Jobs First, local communities have given Wal-Mart over $1 billion in subsidies in the form of free or reduced-priced land, infrastructure assistance, property tax abatements, state income tax rebates or exemptions, enterprise zone status, job training and worker recruitment funds, tax-exempt bond financing and outright cash handouts. How much money is the Fort Wayne/Allen County Economic Development Alliance doling out to Wal-Mart?

Don't gripe about welfare without griping about wealthfare.

Besides what I quoted, this article goes into the use of illegal immigrants as janitors, and holding its employees prisoner -- unpaid overtipe behind lock and key. Someone mentioned shackles for not meeting quota, and it's almost funny that they were so on-target :eek:
 
California estimated it paid $86 million annually in public assistance to Wal-Mart workers.
Out of a total funding of $18,345 million (plus a $4940 million shortfall), which is 0.47% http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/localassistanceest/may05/DetailTables.pdf.
Connecticut is $5.4/$5574 million (combined total of health/hospital + human services)= 0.10%. http://www.cga.ct.gov/ofa/Documents/BudHlts/BudHlts6-8-2005.pdf.

Employers of construction, landscaping, nannies, janitors, restaurants and bars, retailers that AREN'T headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas somehow are not evil, but The Great Satan Wal-Mart is. All have low-paying jobs at their core, some employ illegals. Apparently there is some difference I'm not seeing?

Most of this is probably true. Then again, when was the last time you saw a really good antitrust suit in the US of A?
:eek: :what: :rolleyes: Defined as: The Federal laws forbidding businesses from monopolizing a market or restraining free trade. http://www.stores.org/pdf/04TOP100chart2.pdf...there is some M&A (Federated/May + Macy's, ) amongst several names on the list, plus several names are held together by holding companies (Autozone+ Sears/Kmart= Eddie Lampert). There ARE other choices, and I doubt Tiffany's and WalMart have the same clientele. It ISN'T a monopoly, and there is no restraint of free trade (they aren't throwing up tariffs and subsidies).

There is no moral or legal defined "right to affordable health care." It is not in the Bible, nor the Constitution. If you don't like Wal-Mart, that's one thing...penalizing them for practices you don't agree with that OTHER employers use is simply wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top