Mall-Wart isn’t successful owing to “hyper-efficiency” unless you consider that to include dead peasant life insurance policies, lock-in workers, forced working off the clock, and other egregious violations where workplace safety and honest treatment are concerned.
Sam Walton is spinning in his grave knowing the boil on the face of America his company has become.
I was refering to “Supply Chain Efficiency” and they excel at that. Supply chain refers to the flow of goods from the vendor to the shelf and out the door. Most people have no idea how complicated this is and how Wal-Mart has revolutionized many supply chain practices (and yes, I am a supply chain consultant). They very well are hyper-efficient. Unions would jeopardize this efficiency at each step of the flow.
Have you ever asked yourself how many of these employees want to be unionized? Many don’t. Some people actually have ambitions and hope for advancement. They would prefer not to be locked into a union hierarchy where the only thing that matters is the length of time you have on the job. When a union comes into the store, they can kiss those dreams goodbye.
No argument that they’ve achieved efficiency-essentially using the same model as Dell.
If those employees have dreams of advancement, they’d best leave Mall-Wart. Mall-Wart awards the fastest rats, those who are willing to run the longest, hardest, even when the rewarded pellets are withheld. Pavlov would be proud.
When it comes to kissing dreams goodbye, I think of the Mom and Pop stores who used to populate Main Street in every little town before the whore from Bentonville arrived. How many stores were handed down from generation to generation, where customers were known by name, only to be shuttered when your model of efficiency arrived? That company is a pox on every community in which it infests itself.
Wait, you mean a union made excessive demands on a company, meeting those demands would have led the store to become unprofitable, so the store was forced to shut it’s doors? I am shocked I tell you, shocked. Good thing the workers at that store are unionized, that will at least protect their jobs…er, wait…
The unions would like you to think that. Maybe at one time that was true. But from my experience, the unions are a lot like the businesses they target. They seem to be in it for maximizing their revenues, and they show that by going after highly paid employees, not minimum wage types. Why that is, I can’t say, but I suspect it is for power the money brings, both in recruitment and lobying. And the money comes from big earners, not mimium wage employees.
Though unions do cover and organize some low-paying fields, they only seem to focus their efforts on industrial or semi-industrial fields and companies in which the employees already earn substantial wages. This has been true in the places where I’ve worked.
At the amusement park, where most of the thousands of employees made a few cents over minimum wage without any benefits, I never heard a word about unions.
The plant that had quite nice wages and envyable benefits had union recruiters showing up every few weeks to try to scare up interest.
So they award the hardest, fastest workers who are loyal to Wal-Mart? Seriously, isn’t that what you just said?
I’m extremely upset a Walmart in Canada is closing.
Truly.
Wesley Clark wrote
Happy day!
Now if we can just disband the teachers union.
about 5 or so years ago, the Meat Cutters at Wal-Mart unionized. A few months later, Wal-mart fired ALL of them and went to suppliers for thier meat.
[side-rant]
The meat at Wal-Mart is HORRIBLE… i bought a steak ONCE… it was brown on the underside when I got home. I havn’t bought a steak from there since.
[side-side-rant] Thier produce department is ever WORSE. Try finding FRESH fruit out of all the rotten fruit sometime.
[/side-side-rant]
[/side-rant]
I work at Wal-Mart, and part of our orientation was to sit through a video on how evil and corrupt Unions are.
Wal-Mart has a long history of heavy-handed elimination of Unionized workers.
That said…
Unions are greedy, worthless, liberal scum . If you think Union Officials (the upper ups) could give a FUCK about Joe Worker, you’re an easily lead sheep. (and liberal) The only thing they care about are Union DUES .
That said…
Wal-Mart Officals are the Evil of Evil. Worse than Bill Gates. Worse than Hitler.
(of course, so are MOST big business corporate officials)
Actually… that’s not true either…
There’s a 2nd store that unionized in Canada (don’t have the cite handy at the moment).
They are in danger of being closed too.
A better word might be “collectivized”.
So, why is it that Target seems to be doing alright with allowing unions to form in their shops? From the perspective of a customer, I’d say Targets are more consistently well run than Walmarts, at least in my area.
And let me guess: you get a good wage and health care benefits without having to (a) negotiate or (b) having a union negotiate for you. Those are some good reasons not to give a shit about the worker ants at the bottom of the ladder. :rolleyes:
This is so far removed from my sense of reality that I have to respond. The low paid employees are generally of such low skill requirements that the supply of them is overwhelming compared to the demand . Any company that employs these people for their minimal skills and gets unionized is facing oblivion. There are enough businessmen around to organise cheaper competition.
We had the only unionized fish processing plant on the east coast of Vancouver Island in my community. After 6 months of begging to get the employees to drop the union, they finally shut down and declared bankruptcy.
But unions work very well where higher skills, in government and where the private sector can reap huge profits. Look at the heavy construction industry, and government workers including teachers. Year after year we face threats of strike in our declining resource industries and government services in British Columbia that employ people in the $30/hour range plus benefits while our store clerks get a minimum wage around $8/hour and much less than 40 hours per week. It just isn’t right.
Yup. And it’s a crying shame that unions are associated with the lower classes, and thus are unpalatable to white-collar employees, because they’re the ones in the best position to demand better working conditions and compensation. I have nothing but contempt for my sysadmin co-workers who don’t blink when they’re asked to work lots of overtime/odd hours/etc. for no additional compensation.
You guessed wrong. I am a consultant but that amounts to high-level temp work. I work through a consulting firm but actually work full-time at only one of their clients. I have no benefits and I get paid an hourly wage that is way below market right now. Come to think of it, my job could be unionized if you were into that sort of thing but it would disgust me so much that people would smell burning rubber in the parking lot the second they made the announcement.
It took this job because I knew that I could increase my rate and responsibilities in a very short time by working hard. I prefer to stand on my own merits, sink or swim, thank you very much. I don’t want someone looking a chart to figure out my worth and I don’t want to have my compensation and benefits based strictly on how long I have kept the chair warm.
Yes, because it’s in Jonquiere, where no one buys anything, and therefore no stores will come along and take the place of Walmart. And the stores that don’t come along and take the place of that store certainly won’t be able to offer the same homogenized crap that Walmart sells. So those poor workers will have to work for smaller stores that will have to survive on smaller profit margins and offer, to make up for that, a better level of service. But those stores won’t exist, because without Walmart to provide jobs, noone in Jonquiere will buy anything.
one of us is being whooshed. I’m not sure which one, however.
I think it was you, but that’s rather the thing about being whoosed, isn’t it?
Your point (and I’m being reductive for the sake of brevity; if I misrepresent your position, I apologize in advance, and assure you it is inadvertant) is that these people are, ironically, worse off because now, instead of having poorly paying jobs, they have no jobs at all. My point is that, since Walmart was there not because they felt that would be a cool place to have a Walmart, but because they hoped to profit from people showing up and buying things. Even without Walmart’s presence, people will still want to buy things, and so other stores, lacking Walmart’s fastidiousness , will open, and then employ those people, perhaps even at higher wages. Even if any one of those stores pays lower wages, there are more likely to be several stores, instead of the single Walmart, therefore breaking the employment monopoly and obviating the need for a union.
I was mocking your overlooking the tendency of other stores to open. Was I whoosed?
Here ya go: