# We Have a Robber Baron on the Board! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 24, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061 "2005-12-24T05:35:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/81 "2005-12-27T00:16:34Z")
**Sam Stone** I’m calling you out on this, because it is such utter twaddle. > [@](#): > > In addition, when unions are allowed to deduct money from employees’ paychecks for use in political campaigns, the union gains an extra form of power, which is the power to influence elections and politicians and have laws passed that banefit them at the expense of others. Who the fuck do you think pays for those $200 a plate fund raising luncheons for the various politicos at every level of US government, you will find it is not the unions. You have the gall to complain of Unions trying to influence politics, (and usually this is in training, health and safety and discriminatory practices) and you give a complete free pass to the business owners who pay $100millions to politcos to do exactly the same. Bush isn’t known as an oil man for nothing, or has this little detail escaped you ? In the UK, you cannot have any deductions by the union without your consent, nor is union memebership ever a condition of employment, but, it is rare in certain sectors for employees not to join a union, simply because it offers legal protection in case of false accusations etc, even non-union supporting employees join for this reason alone. It is never in an employees interest to bring down the company he works for, it will jeopardise his pension, health plan, income and even his future employability. Employees simply do not walk out without seriously considering the effect that loss of income will have. How many businesses have failed because the son of the boss turned out to be an over-ambitious idiot ? The main reason for business failures has very little to do with unions, its poor cash flow and one company screwing over another by delaying payment. If you run your economy in a dog eat dog manner, such as in the US, for example with no right to healthcare, unemployment benefits, peremptory dismissal for any reason whatsoever, unpaid overtime, no pension provision, no sickness pay, undercut by illegal immigrant labour (which pretty much keeps the US economy afloat in certain states) then don’t be at all surprised at the response you get. Bad employers get undercut by worse employers and those in turn will be undercut by the worst, it is an almost immutable law of unfettered capitalism. Of course there is a balance to be struck, surprisingly it works best when the workforce are informed, understand the companies objectives, its performance, its markets and makes use of its workforce in a partnership. This isn’t to take away any of the managements right to manage, but it can be made so much easier for them to do so, I have seen workforces take pay cuts in order to keep their company afloat, and this on the trust that when times improve then this will be borne in mind in future dealings. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/82 "2005-12-27T00:21:34Z")
> [@bdgr](#): > > No, both sides get to negotiate on what is fair. Its not putting them at a disadvantage, just on a more even footing. The balance of power still goes to the employer…just not as one sided. Well, what if an agreement can’t be reached on what is fair? The unionized employees can strike, but can the employer simply fire them and not have their replacements harassed? If not, you’re imposing an obligation on one side and not the other, which strikes me as inherently unfair. I can understand the value of _trade_ unions, in which every member has some professional qualification (or is in the midst of an apprenticeship toward gaining said qualification). They collectively hold a monopoly or near-monopoly on a particular skill set and thus have the power to negotiate salary and benefit standards for their members. In return, they are obliged to maintain professional standards of their members; requiring training and ethical standards, for example. I’ve never understood, though, the value of a union made up of unskilled workers, nor why an employer would recognize the authority of such a union. The individual members can be too easily replaced. There are no specialized skills that they bring to the table and a demand of “pay us at this hourly rate or we’ll strike” invites, in a fair system, the reply of “I won’t pay you at that rate; so long.” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/83 "2005-12-27T01:13:55Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I’ve never understood, though, the value of a union made up of unskilled workers, nor why an employer would recognize the authority of such a union. The value is, it gives them a method of negotiation short of violence. People with no hope and nothing to lose are dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/84 "2005-12-27T01:37:37Z")
**Shag** , what if I, J. Businessguy, evaluate the situation and likely future trends regarding my business sector, and reach the conclusion that I have nothing or very little to fear from having my workers talk about organizing. Am I a wimp unworthy of respect because I don’t proceed to “crush” them at the first possible hint? Are you aware that your language about “crushing”, about “both eyes” , etc., by sounding so extreme, gets to obscuring your arguments? And that the bit about how you’d be able to find a reason to terminate anyone is suggestive that you have very low respect for the employees to begin with? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/85 "2005-12-27T01:38:19Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > On what basis should they have this right? You want to remove the freedom of association? Can the contract include to provisions forbidding employees from joining a political party? A church? Can employees be forbidden to talk between themselves about the issues they face in the company, too? To strike on the same day? Let me clarify - if people want to unionize on their own time, that’s fine. But the employer is under no obligation to recognize the union, and under no obligation to allow union ‘leaders’ to recruit for the union on company premises. If he wants, he can just fire the lot of them. > [@](#): > > I understand. Companies must be protected from the dangerous workers. If they’re left to their own devices, and are free to associate, they could…they could…make demands!!! :eek: Let’s come back to civilized times when unions were forbidden and striking or unionizing would get you fired and blackballed. That would be…err…robber barons era? You’re welcome to make all the demands you want. And I’m just as welcome to tell you that you’re fired and I’ll hire someone else. If my employment practices are so shoddy that I can’t find other help, then I’ll have to bargain with you. Look: If I go to work next week and start telling everyone that our company sucks and that everyone should quit, I’ll be fired. If I tell everyone to rise up and walk off the job with me so that we can demand more pay, I’ll be fired. If an employee is poisoning the work environment with complaints accusations, and being generally disruptive, the company is under no obligation to keep him employed. And if you’ll read my post, I explicitly said that employees should have the right to strike. But the employer also has the right to fire the lot of them should they do so, and he has the right to fire someone who, on company time or with company resources, attempts to organize a union. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/86 "2005-12-27T01:48:35Z")
> [@](#): > > I understand. Companies must be protected from the dangerous workers. If they’re left to their own devices, and are free to associate, they could…they could…make demands!!! In fact, they could make unreasonable demands - demands that destroy the company. Why do you think Wal-Mart fights unionizing so hard? Because if Wal-Mart employees unionize, it could bring down the company. Safeway here in Canada was almost destroyed by its union, which had negotiated salaries of up to $15/hr for box-boys and clerks back in the 1980’s when the industry standard was less than half that amount. Safeway almost went under until it negotiated with the union to create a ‘second tier’ of employees who did the same job but got half the pay, while the grandfathered union people got to keep their cushy pay and benefits. Or, look what’s happening to the big three auto workers, who have been giving overly-generous benefits to UAW workers for decades mainly because the UAW is highly protected, highly connected politically, and willing to use its muscle to shut down manufacturing by striking. Ford and GM are now at junk status, and their overly-generous health care benefit packages are bankrupting them. In the meantime, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are building better cars in the U.S. using American workers who are not unionized, and tens of thousands of union jobs are now being cut at the Big Three. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/87 "2005-12-27T02:24:12Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > **Sam Stone** > > I’m calling you out on this, because it is such utter twaddle. > > Who the fuck do you think pays for those $200 a plate fund raising luncheons for the various politicos at every level of US government, you will find it is not the unions. No, it’s people using their own money. > [@](#): > > You have the gall to complain of Unions trying to influence politics, (and usually this is in training, health and safety and discriminatory practices) and you give a complete free pass to the business owners who pay $100millions to politcos to do exactly the same. No, I have the gall to suggest that it’s wrong to FORCE people to donate money to parties they may not believe in. My wife pays money into a union which then takes a portion of that money and gives it to politicians to promote social policies which she finds abhorrent. It’s simply wrong. It also gives unions more power - half the Democratic party is in bed with one union or another, and it’s greatly distorting to American politics. > [@](#): > > Bush isn’t known as an oil man for nothing, or has this little detail escaped you ? Holy non-sequitur, Batman! > [@](#): > > In the UK, you cannot have any deductions by the union without your consent, nor is union memebership ever a condition of employment, but, it is rare in certain sectors for employees not to join a union, simply because it offers legal protection in case of false accusations etc, even non-union supporting employees join for this reason alone. If that’s true, it wasn’t the case in the 1970’s and early 1980’s when the unions were running amok. I recall the coal miners in Britain striking for insane pay increases in the 1970’s, then when the bottom fell out of the coal industry and Britain decided to close the pit mines, the miners not only went on strike, but they resorted to violence and even a murder. In Germany, the miners also went on strike, and the German government responded by subsidizing the mines with general revenue to keep the miners working in an industry which made no money, paid for by taxes on other working people. I imagine you think this was a good thing. > [@](#): > > It is never in an employees interest to bring down the company he works for, it will jeopardise his pension, health plan, income and even his future employability. But unions are bringing down Ford and GM, will bring down Wal-Mart if they manage to unionize, and have brought down all sorts of businesses. Individuals may see the folly of some of this, but when it rises to the union level there are politics and big money involved, and rationality is not always the order of the day. And if you think Unions always act rationally and consider the best interests of their employers and the public, I just need to point you to the recent transit worker’s strike in New York. A model of compassion and reasonableness that was, huh? > [@](#): > > Employees simply do not walk out without seriously considering the effect that loss of income will have. But of course, union members are often operating from a political philosophy that distrusts the market, believes that businesses make too much profit, and in general put the interests of the worker ahead of the interests of the company. And not being in a position to know how to run the business in the first place, they may simply not understand. > [@](#): > > How many businesses have failed because the son of the boss turned out to be an over-ambitious idiot ? I don’t know - name some. > [@](#): > > The main reason for business failures has very little to do with unions, its poor cash flow and one company screwing over another by delaying payment. It’s all the big bad company’s fault, huh? If they’re not busy screwing over the workers, they screwing each other over. Or maybe screwing over the public. The unions, on the other hand, believe in peace and harmony and fluffy puppies and justice and fairness and would never do anything to hurt anyone. > [@](#): > > If you run your economy in a dog eat dog manner, such as in the US, for example with no right to healthcare, unemployment benefits, peremptory dismissal for any reason whatsoever, unpaid overtime, no pension provision, no sickness pay, undercut by illegal immigrant labour (which pretty much keeps the US economy afloat in certain states) then don’t be at all surprised at the response you get. Nice wild characterization you’ve got going there. It’s the robber barons against the poor workers, right? It’s funny - my company isn’t unionized, and yet I have a generous health plan, a bonus plan, a retirement plan, and all kinds of perks. How do you think that happens? For that matter, why do you think the average salary at the non-unionized Wal-Mart is almost twice the minimum wage, and that Wal-Mart made it onto Forbes’ list of the 100 best companies to work for in America? > [@](#): > > Bad employers get undercut by worse employers and those in turn will be undercut by the worst, it is an almost immutable law of unfettered capitalism. Ah yes. The ‘immutable law’ of unfettered capitalism. In fact, this law is so pervasive that you’ll have no trouble at all providing cites which show that the most successful companies in the U.S. treat their employees the worst - right? > [@](#): > > Of course there is a balance to be struck, surprisingly it works best when the workforce are informed, understand the companies objectives, its performance, its markets and makes use of its workforce in a partnership. Which has nothing to do with unions. > [@](#): > > This isn’t to take away any of the managements right to manage So long as they manage in a way that the union approves of, right? > [@](#): > > I have seen workforces take pay cuts in order to keep their company afloat, and this on the trust that when times improve then this will be borne in mind in future dealings. So what? I never said that unions were unmitigated evil, either. In fact, I support them. My whole argument is that unions are fine so long as their power is checked by the power of the business to choose to fire them if it believes it must. The right to strike is a powerful weapon to hold against a business - but it should not be an absolute power. It is very difficult for a business to fire an entire workforce, but it must retain the right to do so if it feels it’s necessary, or else the power just swings too far towards the union. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/88 "2005-12-27T02:35:22Z")
> [@](#): > > **Sam Stone** : In fact, they could make unreasonable demands - demands that destroy the company. Why do you think Wal-Mart fights unionizing so hard? Because if Wal-Mart employees unionize, it could bring down the company. They would have to raise prices if they end sweat shop practices? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/89 "2005-12-27T02:38:06Z")
> [@](#): > > **Sam Stone** : In fact, they could make unreasonable demands - demands that destroy the company. Why do you think Wal-Mart fights unionizing so hard? Because if Wal-Mart employees unionize, it could bring down the company. They don’t need to be in business if they earn money on the backs of their employees. Why haven’t they colored within the lines? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/90 "2005-12-27T02:38:38Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The value is, it gives them a method of negotiation short of violence. People with no hope and nothing to lose are dangerous. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? How is the threat of worker violence a labour relations issue, rather than a criminal issue? I’m somewhat dubious of the idea that recognizing a union might keep your workers from torching your business. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/91 "2005-12-27T02:44:23Z")
**Sam** , every word you say has some validity in the cold, hard world of economics. That’s one of the main reasons why a totally unbridled free market capitalism is not practiced through most of the First World. Nobody is arguing that unions cannot abuse their power. What we’re saying is, **so can management**. And in the U.S., what **Shagnasty** has advocated is flat-out illegal. In fact, if there are any employees of his father-in-law’s company reading this thread, his wife and father-in-law had better have an ironclad case against any employee they dismiss for **any** reason from now on, because he’s admitted that they will find pretexts for firing anyone. But more importantly, there’s an issue of **ethics** here. The answer for your wife is exactly the same one that **Shag** and you have given for other employees: if she doesn’t like the terms under which she works, she has every right to quit. I haven’t noticed you opening any Pit threads complaining that you folks have too much money, because the union got her too high a salary. Collective bargaining is a tool to put individual employees on the same power base as the company they work for, so that two parties can negotiate on an even playing field. If either has an inherent advantage, then that level field disappears. And one employee among 50 or 500 or 10,000 is not equipped with the same economic power as his employer, with vanishingly rare exceptions. I seriously doubt that the Walton family would be in the dire economic plight you suggest if they paid better wages. And the next time you and your cronies decide to do a topic on “the decline in morality in modern society” in Great Debates, you know what? Expect to be the guest of honor at a Pit thread about **real** ethics. Starting with the Golden Rule. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/92 "2005-12-27T02:45:58Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > They don’t need to be in business if they earn money on the backs of their employees. Doesn’t _every_ employer metaphorically gain on the “backs” (i.e. the contributed mental and physical labour) of their employees? Who are you trying to impress with empty rhetoric? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/93 "2005-12-27T03:08:27Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? How is the threat of worker violence a labour relations issue, rather than a criminal issue? I’m somewhat dubious of the idea that recognizing a union might keep your workers from torching your business. It’s a variation on what’s been said about democracy; it’s a non-violent method of holding a revolution every few years. I’m simply pointing out that people with no non-violent methods of forcing a compromise will often turn to violence. After all, worldwide and throughout history, it’s been demonstrated that plenty of employers are willing to ruthlessly exploit their workers, often to the point of crippling and death. If the employees have no leverage, that’s what will happen, and eventually some will turn to violence, either to force a compromise, or just as revenge. After all, if you expect to die from your job, and die poor, you don’t have much to lose. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/94 "2005-12-27T03:11:19Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, what if an agreement can’t be reached on what is fair? The unionized employees can strike, but can the employer simply fire them and not have their replacements harassed? If not, you’re imposing an obligation on one side and not the other, which strikes me as inherently unfair. The employees can strike, the employer can not pay them while they do so. Each side is losing money by being on strike so there is incentive on both sides to come to agreement. In fact, the employer can usually survive this longer than the employee. Eventually they meet in the middle and something “fair” is arrived at. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/95 "2005-12-27T03:39:21Z")
> [@bdgr](#): > > The employees can strike, the employer can not pay them while they do so. Each side is losing money by being on strike so there is incentive on both sides to come to agreement. Does the employer _have_ to come to an agreement, instead of just replacing the workers? > [@](#): > > In fact, the employer can usually survive this longer than the employee. Irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Eventually they meet in the middle and something “fair” is arrived at. Sure, this is the typical pattern when a union already exists. The benefits, from the employer’s perspective, of strongly discouraging a union from forming in the first place are made even more obvious. From his perspective, he formed or inherited or was entrusted with the company. What’s his incentive to share control over it? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/96 "2005-12-27T03:47:34Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > In addition, when unions are allowed to deduct money from employees’ paychecks for use in political campaigns, the union gains an extra form of power, which is the power to influence elections and politicians and have laws passed that banefit them at the expense of others. Is this common in Canada? In the U.S., a number of states (including such “union” states as Michigan) allow union workers to have their dues opted out of political contributions. > [@](#): > > But unions are bringing down Ford and GM, will bring down Wal-Mart if they manage to unionize, and have brought down all sorts of businesses. Corporate rhetoric. GM and Ford are failing because management has screwed up continuously for over thirty years. I agree that in a number of cases the unions have been no help, but the unions are responding (perhaps stupidly, but no more stupidly than management) to actions that management has taken that has harmed the companies. The same thing is lamented about the U.S. steel industry, that the unions wouldn’t “let” the companies modernize through the 1950s and 1960s, yet a review of the actual negotiations reveal that the companies never bothered to actually insist on modernization; they simply said, we’re on top of the world and we’ll always be here, so we can afford to dicker over wages and just never bother to upgrade production. As for Wal-Mart: if the only way that they can secure their monopoly is to insist that their employees work without being paid or give up promotions for making the mistake of being women, then they can fall and good riddance. In fact, there is no likelihood that unions would kill Wal-Mart unless management decided to quit because they were unionized. There is more than enough money in big box retail to keep them going, even if they chose to treat their employees fairly–an action that would probably do more to keep off unions than their current actions. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/97 "2005-12-27T03:57:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Is this common in Canada? Unfortunately, yes, at least in Quebec. Seperatists give unions concessions, in exchange for political and financial support. > [@](#): > > There is more than enough money in big box retail to keep them going, even if they chose to treat their employees fairly–an action that would probably do more to keep off unions than their current actions. The assumption that Wal-Mart treats its employees unfairly is unproven. In any case, if fairness truly is as bdgr describes, a mutually-agreed standard instead of (I suspect he truly feels) what the workers want, then aren’t the workers at Wal-Mart free to seek employment elsewhere if they feel they’re mistreated? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/98 "2005-12-27T04:03:00Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > In any case, if fairness truly is as bdgr describes, a mutually-agreed standard instead of (I suspect he truly feels) what the workers want, then aren’t the workers at Wal-Mart free to seek employment elsewhere if they feel they’re mistreated? Because there aren’t an unlimited number of jobs, and the presence of a Walmart tends to eliminate many non-Walmart jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/99 "2005-12-27T04:13:13Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Are you aware that your language about “crushing”, about “both eyes” , etc., by sounding so extreme, gets to obscuring your arguments? And that the bit about how you’d be able to find a reason to terminate anyone is suggestive that you have very low respect for the employees to begin with? My personal philosophical outlook keeps getting mixed in with an example about a family member’s business. I have very little say in that business and even then it is only second-hand. They don’t view things nearly as strongly as I do. About a week ago, I was talking to a friend who was once the CEO of a company you have definitely heard of. I decided to ask him why he didn’t try some hard-core union busting. He kind of shook his head and said that while it may be deserved in some cases it wasn’t usually top priority and the potential backlash from all over as well as the potential for business instability simply weren’t worth it. Makes sense to me. My personal strategy is probably a lot different than your typical CEO so there is little need to worry. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061/100 "2005-12-27T04:31:59Z")
Did you miss the part where Wal-Mart was chosen as one of the 100 best companies to work for in America? It was the only big-box retailer so rated. I keep hearing these horror stories about ‘sweat shop’ conditions at Wal-Mart. Could you point to something specific? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-a-robber-baron-on-the-board/337061.md?page=6)