Walmart workers strike in 15 US cities, demand better pay

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People make what people are worth.

Or more exactly, people get paid as little as their employer can get away with. There will always be people desperate enough to work for peanuts, it doesn't make it right to take advantage of that. In some countries people are paid pennies to work long days in factories. Is that all they are 'worth'? No, it's what the employer can get away with by exploiting their desperation for work and lack of alternatives. I'm not saying that Walmart is equivalent to a sweatshop, but the principle is the same. The hate for people striking is quite depressing, but unsurprising, chest-beating capitalism which excuses exploitation. If these people get a pay rise it means that you'll have to pay a bit more for that burger or whatever. It's not the end of the world and they don't all deserve to be sacked, or whatever else some suggest to quell their greedy and undeserved rebellion.

If they have no unique and competitive skills to offer, then why should they be paid unique and competitive salaries? I'd also like to add that your point may apply to retail stores, but it certainly does not apply to employee-owned companies and private enterprises. My point remains - if they don't like the amount of money they make in a 40 hour work week, then they need to find a second job.

**Howard A Treesong**

You seem to be complaining about the unfairness of the government's approach to taxing working hours in multiple jobs, and then lashing out at people earning more doing just one job. Direct your anger at the right thing instead of being upset that people in retail want better wages.

I made a similar point on the other thread, people are too keen to attack other workers they see getting a wage rise because it's 'unfair' instead of attacking the system holding everyone back. Corporations and government screw over the masses, but somehow they've convinced the masses to hate on each other when any appear to get a sniff of an advantage, rather than showing any unity against an unfair system and supporting each other in seeking a living wage.

**cincydooley**

pretre wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Because owning a smart phone has nothing to do with a living wage. In fact, I'd argue that if you're demanding a "living wage" a smart phone SHOULD NOT be included.

What? That doesn't even make any sense. For one, how do you know she isn't there supporting a friend. For two, why does having a phone and/or internet exclude you from earning a living wage. In this day and age, cell service (and access to the internet) are pretty much required to function. Maybe she eschews cable, home phone and internet and saves money by just having a smart phone. You have no way of knowing and assuming is just asinine.

It's clear we disagree heavily on this, so I really won't go into it anymore.

If you're struggle to earn a 'livable wage' it's my opinion that your priorties are in the wrong place if you have a smart phone. It's a luxury item.

And you're right, I have no way of knowing if the chick with the smart phone actually works at Wal Mart or is just there supporting a friend.

Either way, I don't feel a shred of sympathy for them.

**pretre**

cincydooley wrote:
If you're struggle to earn a 'livable wage' it's my opinion that your priorties are in the wrong place if you have a smart phone. It's a luxury item.

Smart/cell phones used to be luxury items. That is no longer true. You can get a smart phone with data and voice for less than you could get those same things separately (internet and voice) for your home. Considering that a phone is required for more people to function and internet is almost required to get a job at this point, that is no longer a luxury.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

cincydooley wrote:
pretre wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Because owning a smart phone has nothing to do with a living wage. In fact, I'd argue that if you're demanding a "living wage" a smart phone SHOULD NOT be included.

What? That doesn't even make any sense. For one, how do you know she isn't there supporting a friend. For two, why does having a phone and/or internet exclude you from earning a living wage. In this day and age, cell service (and access to the internet) are pretty much required to function. Maybe she eschews cable, home phone and internet and saves money by just having a smart phone. You have no way of knowing and assuming is just asinine.

It's clear we disagree heavily on this, so I really won't go into it anymore.

If you're struggle to earn a 'livable wage' it's my opinion that your priorties are in the wrong place if you have a smart phone. It's a luxury item.

And you're right, I have no way of knowing if the chick with the smart phone actually works at Wal Mart or is just there supporting a friend.

Either way, I don't feel a shred of sympathy for them.

They should let us in to their house! God forbid they have furniture as well

**Ahtman**

**Ouze**

I wish these guys the best of luck with their striking, although I think unemployment is still sufficiently high that it won't go well. Walmart has shown itself to be essentially immune to bad press about how poorly it's workers are treated, after all.

cincydooley wrote:
You know what really undermines the article? The photo of the girl on the smartphone standing in the strike line.

The serfs have too much bread!

Seriously though, what an outlandish argument you have made here. You can get a free Iphone 4 os Samsung GS3 with new service from Sprint; and that's the only carrier I cared to check. Find a better way to heap opprobrium on entry level workers for the crime of getting uppity next time.

**cincydooley**

Ahtman wrote:

And this proves what? That people should try and gets jobs at Costco?

**daedalus**

Ahtman wrote:

Does it bother you that all three of their first names are also names of things you eat?

**Ahtman**

daedalus wrote:
Does it bother you that all three of their first names are also names of things you eat?

Why do you think I posted it?

**nkelsch**

pretre wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
You know what really undermines the article? The photo of the girl on the smartphone standing in the strike line.

Because you can't own a smartphone and work at walmart? Because owning a smartphone undermines your right to equal pay? Not sure what you're getting at here...

'Right to equal pay'? Equal to whom? What defines 'equal'? A government controlled wage that all jobs regardless of skill, effort or quality work output get?

If Costco pays more and has better benefits... go work at Costco. If Walmart is trying to target the bottom of the workforce, then they are getting paid what they are worth. If you feel you have better skills and work ethic to justify more, then go elsewhere with your skills and work ethic.

**daedalus**

I'm still trying to figure out how people think that owning a cell (even a smart) phone is this amazing luxury item.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Samsung-T669-Gravity-Touch-Black-T-Mobile-Functional-phone-/360731935216?pt=Cell_Phones&hash=item53fd4c81f0

$10 for an unimpressive but functional phone, no contract.

T-mobile has a plan that gives 100 minutes talk and unlimited internet for $30/month. You need more minutes, you buy them at $0.10 each. No contract. Can't afford your phone for a month? Don't pay for it until you can.

Assuming you don't have any home based internet, this is an amazing idea and probably how I would do it if I ever found myself in that situation.

**cincydooley**

No one ever said it was an "amazing" luxury.

It certainly isn't a necessity.

But more to the point. My wife is a teacher. In order for her to get paid more (since they've been on a pay freeze for 5 years) she has to get her masters. She has to further her education and skill set. For lack of a better phrase, she has to earn it by showing herself more valuable to the district.

That's not what these people are doing. They feel like they're entitled to more. Why? What happened to the whole, earn it by making yourself more valuable mentality?

**daedalus**

cincydooley wrote:
No one ever said it was an "amazing" luxury.

It certainly isn't a necessity.

But is a phone period? Can you get a cheaper land line phone than that?

But more to the point. My wife is a teacher. In order for her to get paid more (since they've been on a pay freeze for 5 years) she has to get her masters. She has to further her education and skill set. For lack of a better phrase, she has to earn it by showing herself more valuable to the district.

That's not what these people are doing. They feel like they're entitled to more. Why? What happened to the whole, earn it by making yourself more valuable mentality?

There could be the premise that they don't suddenly deserve more, but that they are finally demanding they get what they should be paid for their efforts. Without personally agreeing or disagreeing with that, I will say that they, like the fast food guys, certainly will know how much their labor is worth based upon Wal-Mart's response.

**cincydooley**

I know we can get a land Line for $10 a month. We don't have one, but that's what it would cost. I think it's like, $14 a month with digital voicemail.

They get paid for their efforts. I just happen to think their efforts are worth exactly minimum wage for the unskilled labor they provide.

**xruslanx**

As a bona fide trade unionist who works in a factory with an ongoing labour dispute...good on 'em. Minimum wage in America is fething awful, it's about half what they earn here.

I am not a raving revolutionary but I support workers when they need it, and these guys have my full sympathy.

**frgsinwntr**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
You seem to be complaining about the unfairness of the government's approach to taxing working hours in multiple jobs, and then lashing out at people earning more doing just one job. Direct your anger at the right thing instead of being upset that people in retail want better wages.

I made a similar point on the other thread, people are too keen to attack other workers they see getting a wage rise because it's 'unfair' instead of attacking the system holding everyone back. Corporations and government screw over the masses, but somehow they've convinced the masses to hate on each other when any appear to get a sniff of an advantage, rather than showing any unity against an unfair system and supporting each other in seeking a living wage.

I love this post.

Its pretty much my exact thoughts.

I feel this way every time people get upset at teachers for their salaries and wages and benefits that the UNION fights for

In addition....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage_n_2900984.html

If you adjust for productivity, inflation, and everything else... minimum wage has actually gone down since the middle of the 1900s

**Ouze**

frgsinwntr wrote:
If you adjust for productivity, inflation, and everything else... minimum wage has actually gone down since the middle of the 1900s

Shush with your facts! The proles can afford cell phones, so obviously they're overpaid if anything. Cut their rations of victory cigarettes!

**Ahtman**

Ouze wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
If you adjust for productivity, inflation, and everything else... minimum wage has actually gone down since the middle of the 1900s

Shush with your facts! The proles can afford cell phones, so obviously they're overpaid if anything. Cut their rations of victory cigarettes!

I've heard some are even able to keep their foodstuffs cold!

**loki old fart**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People make what people are worth.

Or more exactly, people get paid as little as their employer can get away with. There will always be people desperate enough to work for peanuts, it doesn't make it right to take advantage of that. In some countries people are paid pennies to work long days in factories. Is that all they are 'worth'? No, it's what the employer can get away with by exploiting their desperation for work and lack of alternatives. I'm not saying that Walmart is equivalent to a sweatshop, but the principle is the same. The hate for people striking is quite depressing, but unsurprising, chest-beating capitalism which excuses exploitation. If these people get a pay rise it means that you'll have to pay a bit more for that burger or whatever. It's not the end of the world and they don't all deserve to be sacked, or whatever else some suggest to quell their greedy and undeserved rebellion.

If they have no unique and competitive skills to offer, then why should they be paid unique and competitive salaries? I'd also like to add that your point may apply to retail stores, but it certainly does not apply to employee-owned companies and private enterprises. My point remains - if they don't like the amount of money they make in a 40 hour work week, then they need to find a second job.

You know some people work to live, not live to work. Doing too many hours? get your outgoings down.

**BobtheInquisitor**

cincydooley wrote:
I know we can get a land Line for $10 a month. We don't have one, but that's what it would cost. I think it's like, $14 a month with digital voicemail.

They get paid for their efforts. I just happen to think their efforts are worth exactly minimum wage for the unskilled labor they provide.

That depends where you live, I guess. The last time we had a land line was more than a decade ago in Oakland, a land line with no extra function whatsoever (we just wanted to be able to dial 911 and be reasonably sure to get through), and it was more than that.

**marv335**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
But the real issue, the thing that puts the squeeze on everyone, is that housing is too expensive. House prices are just out of reach of normal people and rentals are too high,

You're not kidding, the average price for a house in London is coming on for £500k
You'd have to make mortgage payments of £3.5k per month, as well as pony up about £50k as a deposit.
Who can do that?
Certainly not me, and I'm fairly well paid.

**Skinnereal**

I know I'm probably in a minority, but having a job doesn't mean being able to buy/rent a house, at least to me.
People seem to insist that they get to live where they want, on whatever wages they get. But, if I couldn't afford to live alone, I get a place with a mate. I thought that was how it has always worked.
Co-habiting sorts out the lack of affordable housing 'issue', excessive energy bills, and low-wages 'problems', all at once.
So, if they insist that wages must be at least enough to get a place of their own, they've not got my support.
Wages paid out must be based on takings coming in, and to put up wages, prices must go up, too. That makes living costs rise, and you're back wanting more wages.....

FWIW, I don't earn enough to get a place on my own, but with my wife's wages, we can afford a fairly OK place.

**Redbeard**

Housing prices being high is the opposite side of the issue that causes wages to be low.

Too many humans.

Supply & Demand. Too many people means labor supply is greater than demand, driving wages down, while too many people means demand for places to put them is greater than the supply of places.

**marv335**

Skinnereal wrote:
I know I'm probably in a minority, but having a job doesn't mean being able to buy/rent a house, at least to me.

Two adults in full time employment should be able to afford to buy somewhere live though.
The problem is that house prices are too high compared to wages.
Sadly it costs a house builder about the same to build a 100k house as a 300k house, so if you're a house builder, what do you do?
You build the 300k house.

**pities2004**

Void__Dragon wrote:
Speaking as a Walmart unloader, I certainly would not mind being paid way more money.

I'd say about 25 dollars an hour is fair.

I Joined the Navy, served my country got a degree, got hired at a major bank coproation, I am a programmer who makes 20 dollars an hour, i've personally saved the company over a million a year in automation.

So a Walmart unloader should make more than me? By the logic of the strikers I need to get paid 100 dollars an hour.

Won't you get fired for striking or is Walmart a Union?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:
Housing prices being high is the opposite side of the issue that causes wages to be low.

Too many humans.

Supply & Demand. Too many people means labor supply is greater than demand, driving wages down, while too many people means demand for places to put them is greater than the supply of places.

The real problem is people wanting to be entitled to more money without having to work for it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
pretre wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
You know what really undermines the article? The photo of the girl on the smartphone standing in the strike line.

Because you can't own a smartphone and work at walmart? Because owning a smartphone undermines your right to equal pay? Not sure what you're getting at here...

'Right to equal pay'? Equal to whom? What defines 'equal'? A government controlled wage that all jobs regardless of skill, effort or quality work output get?

If Costco pays more and has better benefits... go work at Costco. If Walmart is trying to target the bottom of the workforce, then they are getting paid what they are worth. If you feel you have better skills and work ethic to justify more, then go elsewhere with your skills and work ethic.

Winner winner chicken dinner

**Seaward**

I say send in the Pinkertons.

**daedalus**

pities2004 wrote:

I Joined the Navy, served my country got a degree, got hired at a major bank coproation, I am a programmer who makes 20 dollars an hour, i've personally saved the company over a million a year in automation.

So a Walmart unloader should make more than me? By the logic of the strikers I need to get paid 100 dollars an hour.

To be fair, you're not really making much for being a programmer. I know guys who made that at entry level doing programming in STL. Hell, I think I bumped up to 42k after my 90 day probation period as an entry level software support guy.

Are you in a low cost of living area?

**MrDwhitey**

So they can gather inaccurate data, then exaggerate it massively, causing Wal-mart execs to be paralysed into uselessness thinking that those sticks really are cannons?

Aren't they owned by the Swedish now? I doubt they'd go back to their anti-union bust some heads attitudes if so now.

**pities2004**

daedalus wrote:
pities2004 wrote:

I Joined the Navy, served my country got a degree, got hired at a major bank coproation, I am a programmer who makes 20 dollars an hour, i've personally saved the company over a million a year in automation.

So a Walmart unloader should make more than me? By the logic of the strikers I need to get paid 100 dollars an hour.

To be fair, you're not really making much for being a programmer. I know guys who made that at entry level doing programming in STL. Hell, I think I bumped up to 42k after my 90 day probation period as an entry level software support guy.

Are you in a low cost of living area?

Not really, I'm in Gilbert Arizona which is really nice, but I have a pretty easy job so I'm OK with the 20 dollars an hour.

Started my own software company last month, so I'll supplement my I WANT TO GET PAID MORE dreams that way.