Wal-Mart Employees Says No To Union

Post by **Steve** » 2004-04-04 01:21am

My aunt works for a Wal-Mart and does, apparently, get stock options.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-04-04 01:23am

Plus they make magasines like cosmo put alternate covers on so as not to dammage teh children .

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-04 01:26am

Steve wrote:My aunt works for a Wal-Mart and does, apparently, get stock options.

*raises an eyebrow*

Is she top corporate management or something like that?

ZShade · Post by **ZShade** » 2004-04-04 01:28am

Superman wrote:Excuse the grammer in the above post. I was doing two things at once.

By the way, does Wal Mart give benefits to their employees? A 401K plan? Unionized stores do.

This is information taken from a friend who works for Wally World. I was over at his house one day and got bored, so I flipped through his employee booklet thing and asked him some questions afterward.

Full time employees who have been with the company for six months get 401K, life insurance, the option for health insurance, and other misc. stuff. Any employee who's been there for any length of time can purchase company stock directly through the company. And for SuperCenter employees, if their store meets sales, they get cut a bonus profit sharing check. Apparently, at a local store, all of the full timers got a $1000 bonus check under that policy.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-04-04 01:31am

RedImperator wrote:Wal-Mart also strongarms suppliers and the Walton family uses their influence to jam their fundamentalist values down society's throat. You can't buy Maxim at Wal Mart. Nor, to my knowledge, uncensored versions of albums with explicit lyrics.

However, they still sell cigarettes, but that makes sense, because as we all know, adult magazines and CDs with explicit lyrics are highly addictive, cause cancer, and kill 400,000 people a year.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-04-04 01:47am

Waaahahaha... Never thought of that...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-04 01:53am

Full time employees who have been with the company for six months get 401K, life insurance, the option for health insurance, and other misc. stuff.

But how many people are full time? Wal-Mart is notorious for sending people home if they were approaching the legal benchmark for full time in numbers of hours worked. What's the premium and benefit levels for the insurance? Are they affordable for the average worker? What's the company match on the 401k and how long does it take to be fully vested?

If you read the new hire literature from my employer (a TJ Maxx Distribution Center), you'd think I worked for the best corporation in the US. However, the reality is quite different and I have no reason to doubt that the reality at Wal-Mart is different as well.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2004-04-04 06:03am

Glocksman wrote:
Full time employees who have been with the company for six months get 401K, life insurance, the option for health insurance, and other misc. stuff.
But how many people are full time? Wal-Mart is notorious for sending people home if they were approaching the legal benchmark for full time in numbers of hours worked. What's the premium and benefit levels for the insurance? Are they affordable for the average worker? What's the company match on the 401k and how long does it take to be fully vested?

If you read the new hire literature from my employer (a TJ Maxx Distribution Center), you'd think I worked for the best corporation in the US. However, the reality is quite different and I have no reason to doubt that the reality at Wal-Mart is different as well.

At the stores I worked at it was about 70% full-timers and the rest various part-timers. Also they were ruthless about overtime, to the point that if you were even close to going over 40hrs in a week , your ass went HOME NOW!! No over-time for anyone, ever. They do offer a 401k program and good health insurance, if your single. I paid about 30 dollars every two weeks for health/dental, (with $10 co-pay perscription drug) and 150k worth of life insurance. the family plan sucks though, it jumps from $30 a paycheck to over $150 for a family of 4!! To be fully vested you have to have been with the company for 7 years, a feat only a few associates ever pull off, as its an unwritten rule to drive off non-mgmt. associates before they become fully vested

Not to mention the fact that after 7 years, it becomes cheaper to fire you and hire some kid who hasn't recieved any raises than to keep you on forever......

Its a sleazy company run by two-faces and snakes(and this was the mgmt. at the good stores..) on a quest for the almighty dollar, I dont shop there anymore, it makes me feel like I own slaves watching the assocoiates scurry like little hebrews under pharoes whip.....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-04 06:08am

Wal-Mart is standing disproof of the libertarians' naive belief that consumers will keep immoral businesses in check by refusing to deal with them.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-04-04 06:25am

Darth Wong wrote:Wal-Mart is standing disproof of the libertarians' naive belief that consumers will keep immoral businesses in check by refusing to deal with them.

I keep trying to get my mom to stop going to Wal-mart but "she likes it".

I hate their business practices and every time I've been in any Wal-Mart I felt like I was being trampled by a white trash bargan feeding frenzy.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-04-04 07:51am

Want to see some depressing news? Try putting "Wal Mart union" into a search engine.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-04-04 02:01pm

Wal-Mart sucks, completely, for almost any reason. As has been pointed out and beaten to death on this thread, any mention of 'union' will get your ass canned, the service and selection suck, the clientelle sucks more, the psuedo-fascist policy of censoring anything they don't like sucks, yadda yadda yadda. Even then, though, there are a few extra reasons why I don't shop at that festering slimehole of a store.

First off, from what I here, their violations of labor laws go far beyond their treatment of people who work in their stores. I don't have the figures with me, but I think Wal-Fart has more associations with child-labor violating sweat-shops in third-world countries than any other retail store (how else do you think they 'cut costs' and keep prices down?).

Other than that, having witnessed what Wal-Fart can do to a community, I have forbidden myself from ever setting foot in that store again. In the past year, a Wal-Fart was built in my psuedo-small town. Pow, first off, auto-accident rate and road-rage in the area nearly triples. Pow, small business and other retail stores that have been there for years suddenly start laying people off any many close up. Pow, traffic in the city goes from being tolerable to insane within a few months. Pow, several other business spring up around Wal-Fart and start draining money from business that were not even competing with Wal-Fart.

Wal-Fart is an abomination, in my eyes. They fuck their employees like no one else. They happily take part in the worst forms of child-exploitation in third-world countries to 'cut costs'. They create hell in whatever small community they land in. The suck the life out of any community. Wal-Fart is nothing more than a rather nasty parasite.

-Damien

CDiehl · Post by **CDiehl** » 2004-04-04 02:54pm

Imperator, that is not the union's property, nor is it the employees'. It belongs to the people who own Wal-Mart. It's their place, so they make the rules, just like any of us do in our homes. Their policies may seem stupid or silly to you. They may seem stupid or silly to me. They have the right to do stupid, silly things.

Darth Wong, what immoral act have Wal-Mart's owners committed? Have they lied, or cheated, or stolen? Have they broken a promise? Have the injured or killed people without reason? If they have, I'd like to see evidence of it. If you can prove it, I'll agree with you. Also, is the assumption libertarians make (aggression is always wrong, even when you have good intentions) really more naive than the one statists make (aggression is wrong when the ruler decides it is)?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-04-04 02:56pm

Sokar wrote:Also they were ruthless about overtime, to the point that if you were even close to going over 40hrs in a week , your ass went HOME NOW!! No over-time for anyone, ever.

Woah... You mean, like, go... Home?

Like, when you're... Supposed to!?

I figured it was common practice to make everyone work a billion hours a week. Christ what I wouldn't give for a 40hr ceiling on my hours.

I have a fucking life people! This 10 P.M. to 10 A.M. bullshit is wearing very, very thin on me.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-04-04 03:12pm

Good for them, deciding to not to unionize.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-04-04 04:35pm

CDiehl wrote:Imperator, that is not the union's property, nor is it the employees'. It belongs to the people who own Wal-Mart. It's their place, so they make the rules, just like any of us do in our homes. Their policies may seem stupid or silly to you. They may seem stupid or silly to me. They have the right to do stupid, silly things.

not necessarily. rights can be taken away. that´s no big deal. the government has for example taken away your right to kill someone even though he´s in your house or even in wal mart.

just because it´s their property doesn´t give them the freedom to do what ever they want to.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-04 06:59pm

CDiehl wrote:Imperator, that is not the union's property, nor is it the employees'. It belongs to the people who own Wal-Mart. It's their place, so they make the rules, just like any of us do in our homes. Their policies may seem stupid or silly to you. They may seem stupid or silly to me. They have the right to do stupid, silly things.

Businesses are not petty fiefdoms, and business owners are not feudal lords nor their employees their tenured serfs.

Darth Wong, what immoral act have Wal-Mart's owners committed? Have they lied, or cheated, or stolen? Have they broken a promise? Have the injured or killed people without reason? If they have, I'd like to see evidence of it. If you can prove it, I'll agree with you. Also, is the assumption libertarians make (aggression is always wrong, even when you have good intentions) really more naive than the one statists make (aggression is wrong when the ruler decides it is)?

Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickeled And Dimed To Death provides a detailed rundown on WalMart's labour exploitation and unfair employment practises. This above and beyond their clear record of having wiped out independent small businesses in towns up and down the American midwest through their monopolistic practises and of course the fact that many of their products come from countries with slave labour practises —like the People's Republic of China.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-04-04 07:02pm

Ossus, their "deciding" not to unionize because they don't WANT TO GET FIRED.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-04-04 09:39pm

When given a choice, I would rather go elsewhere for my shopping than a Wal Mart. Why? Because the stores simply suck. Wal Mart is simply a lowest common denominator store. They're hard to navigate because their layout is thrown together and the aisles are narrow. I just want some shampoo; if I wanted to travel through a maze picking up items hidden all around it I'd stay at home playing games with that theme. The quality of everything (other than name brands that you find anywhere else) is terrible. There is somehow, always, a long checkout line, even if it's midnight and I'm one of the only people there. And they just look cheap and crappy.

However, when I'm at home I do shop at the local Wal Mart most of the time, but not for any kind of convenience. It's because I enjoy screwing over my hometown more than I dislike putting up with the crappy place. I could care less about the plight of the people who work there because a lot of them were the idiots who made fun of me in school. I guess that makes me a petty bastard.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-04 10:20pm

CDiehl wrote:Imperator, that is not the union's property, nor is it the employees'. It belongs to the people who own Wal-Mart. It's their place, so they make the rules, just like any of us do in our homes. Their policies may seem stupid or silly to you. They may seem stupid or silly to me. They have the right to do stupid, silly things.

BZZZT! WRONG! Employees have a right to organize, under any number of labor laws, and as far as I'm concerned, under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of association. In many towns, Wal Mart is the only place that employs people without college educations--the people who'd be working on an assembly line a generation ago--and abuses its position to strongarm its employees. It may be technically legal, but it's unethical as fuck, and if they didn't treat their employees like serfs, they might not be terrified of unionization.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-04 10:26pm

It may be technically legal, but it's unethical as fuck, and if they didn't treat their employees like serfs, they might not be terrified of unionization.

C'mon Red, unions are absolutely horrible for business. Even if Wal-Mart cleaned up its act tomorrow and started treating their employees wonderfully they'd still be scared of unionization (Publix, a supermarket chain that's big in the South, does not treat its employees poorly, but is considerably anti-union even so).

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-04-04 10:53pm

Joe wrote:
It may be technically legal, but it's unethical as fuck, and if they didn't treat their employees like serfs, they might not be terrified of unionization.
C'mon Red, unions are absolutely horrible for business. Even if Wal-Mart cleaned up its act tomorrow and started treating their employees wonderfully they'd still be scared of unionization (Publix, a supermarket chain that's big in the South, does not treat its employees poorly, but is considerably anti-union even so).

That may be so.

But that doesn't meanWal-Mart is against unionization because of unreasonable union demands or forceably mandated inefficieny. Wal-Mart is against it because unionized workers just might expect the company to treat them as something other than disposable tools. Right now company policy is to exploit the hell out of their poor sap employees and the anti-union sentiment is simply a product of their desire to continue that. So comparing them to ethical, law abiding companies is rather pointless.

The UFCW is a terrible union, trust me I know. As a former and unwilling member I can attest to the fact that about all they do is promote blind seniority with no regard to comptence or productivity. But labor has the right to organize and it shouldn't be legaly circumvented.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-04 11:04pm

Joe wrote:
It may be technically legal, but it's unethical as fuck, and if they didn't treat their employees like serfs, they might not be terrified of unionization.
C'mon Red, unions are absolutely horrible for business. Even if Wal-Mart cleaned up its act tomorrow and started treating their employees wonderfully they'd still be scared of unionization (Publix, a supermarket chain that's big in the South, does not treat its employees poorly, but is considerably anti-union even so).

Publix does have a pretty squeaky-clean operation for being anti-union, I must agree.

By the way: Joe, do you like Publix subs? I grab when at least twice a week on my way back from school. They're orgasmic.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-04 11:06pm

Joe wrote:
It may be technically legal, but it's unethical as fuck, and if they didn't treat their employees like serfs, they might not be terrified of unionization.
C'mon Red, unions are absolutely horrible for business. Even if Wal-Mart cleaned up its act tomorrow and started treating their employees wonderfully they'd still be scared of unionization (Publix, a supermarket chain that's big in the South, does not treat its employees poorly, but is considerably anti-union even so).

I know that. Believe me, I've worked in the same union that Wal Mart's employees would be in, and I've seen the shit they pull (like the eight week strike that kicked off a week after I left, where the workers on the picket line were almost all part-timers but the beneficiaries of the new contract were primarily full timers). But Wal Mart goddamn well knows they'll have to shape up their labor policies if their workers unionize.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-04 11:24pm

This belongs in N&P.