Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App
http://www.wsj.com/articles/wal-mart-tells-workers-dont-download-labor-groups-chat-app-1479214510
245 comments
Is Wal-Mart actually doing anything illegal? They are not preventing their employees from downloading anything. They are simply telling the employees that the app collects personal information and that it may be used in nefarious ways. I see no evidence at all that Walmart is stopping the employees from any kind of download of the app.
Its disingenuous and in other countries would get the labor board on their ass, they are using FUD to stop their employees from organizing.
Here in the US we have very weak labor law enforcement, thus Trump can have managers dodge a certified union [1] approved by his employees in a vote, and not even get a slap on the wrist for refusing to bargain with the union as his company is legally required to.
[1] - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/las-vegas-hotel-wor...
Here in the US we have very weak labor law enforcement, thus Trump can have managers dodge a certified union [1] approved by his employees in a vote, and not even get a slap on the wrist for refusing to bargain with the union as his company is legally required to.
[1] - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/las-vegas-hotel-wor...
Nothing in that article suggests Trump broke the law.
The Labor Board eventually issued a cease and desist, and ordered that the hotel negotiate with the union: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/labor-board-trump-hote...
Might one of the nefarious ways that their personal information be used Walmart cutting the hours of known participants?
It'd be pretty inconvenient not to get a full schedule this close to the holidays. I'm sure that's enough to chill some participation.
It'd be pretty inconvenient not to get a full schedule this close to the holidays. I'm sure that's enough to chill some participation.
Agreed. The headline is misleading & I'm sure OP read the article.
> Even under the current administration, enforcement is weak, and it will probably be weaker under the next administration.
One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level.
Whether the unions could have made a difference - and whether that difference would have been to the long-term benefit of their members - in the face of global industrialization and automation, is another issue altogether (unless it was the issue that got the ball of disillusionment rolling in the first place.)
One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level.
Whether the unions could have made a difference - and whether that difference would have been to the long-term benefit of their members - in the face of global industrialization and automation, is another issue altogether (unless it was the issue that got the ball of disillusionment rolling in the first place.)
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - Steinbeck
It suddenly occurred to me that the idea of enslaving a class of people under the promise of the "American Dream" is the modern rehash of when the British would put Indian soldiers in the vanguard and promise any who survived immediate promotion to officer rank.
The dream of life-changing remuneration motivated the soldiers to fight, meanwhile the British seldom, if ever, had to pay out.
NOTE: I cannot remember where I heard this and a quick check for a citation failed me. If anyone could verify (perhaps it wasn't the British and Indian...) please do!
The dream of life-changing remuneration motivated the soldiers to fight, meanwhile the British seldom, if ever, had to pay out.
NOTE: I cannot remember where I heard this and a quick check for a citation failed me. If anyone could verify (perhaps it wasn't the British and Indian...) please do!
This wasn't unique to India but the British army did use what they called a "forlorn hope" as the first wave in attacking a fortress. Most were expected to die, but the survivors were often promoted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope
As exploitive as it sounds, given that someone had to attack in the first wave at least this seemed to match the rewards with the risk?
I think you have to look at it in a broader context - who was going to benefit from the fighting?
[deleted]
Thanks. That's made my day.
Ronald Wright, not Steinbeck.
Do you know what the connection between the two writers is? Seems to me that the quote is neither here nor there, but I haven't found anything solid to confirm who said what.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck#Disputed
> "John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires", Wright, Ronald (2004). A Short History of Progress. Toronto: Anansi Press. pp. 124.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck#Disputed
> "John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires", Wright, Ronald (2004). A Short History of Progress. Toronto: Anansi Press. pp. 124.
"When reading a pithy observation about the state of the world, never assume the attribution is correct" -Mark Twain
"The problem with quotes found on the Internet is that they are often not true." --Abraham Lincoln
The misattribution doesn't make the observation any less pertinent.
> One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level.
They failed because the majority of people are hard workers who loathe being yoked to a lazy or incompetent person, and unions have proven to be exceptionally good at maintaining employment of people who are terrible at their jobs.
Some people are absolutely baffled by the software industry not having unions. It's because people getting hired and fired within 12 months at my job is what ensures that I only work with the best.
Unions suffer from what most of the progressive movement does: everything bad that happens to them is the fault of the big, bad republicans and capitalists. If they'd bother to introspect for even a second, maybe they could fix their shortcomings and start to do some good.
The environmentalist initiative that went on the ballot in Seattle this month was lead by a guy who is working within the Republican party for climate reform because he's said it's not possible to work with the left anymore because of their dysfunction. The left's response to this? Tried to torpedo his climate bill. The head of the left is so far up its own ass that I think it's getting close to terminal. Progressivism in America will have to die and be reborn as a functioning body for political change.
They failed because the majority of people are hard workers who loathe being yoked to a lazy or incompetent person, and unions have proven to be exceptionally good at maintaining employment of people who are terrible at their jobs.
Some people are absolutely baffled by the software industry not having unions. It's because people getting hired and fired within 12 months at my job is what ensures that I only work with the best.
Unions suffer from what most of the progressive movement does: everything bad that happens to them is the fault of the big, bad republicans and capitalists. If they'd bother to introspect for even a second, maybe they could fix their shortcomings and start to do some good.
The environmentalist initiative that went on the ballot in Seattle this month was lead by a guy who is working within the Republican party for climate reform because he's said it's not possible to work with the left anymore because of their dysfunction. The left's response to this? Tried to torpedo his climate bill. The head of the left is so far up its own ass that I think it's getting close to terminal. Progressivism in America will have to die and be reborn as a functioning body for political change.
While a bit more political and divisive than I would have gone with, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Those that would benefit most in theory from unions generally have the most experience "in the trenches" with them. This experience shows them that unions more or less became places to protect the lowest common denominator with zero regard for any value they bring to the table.
Show me a union that functions like a "guild" where it polices it's membership extremely well, and people strive to be skillful enough to join - then I will both support that union as a member, and hire those members when possible.
If all you exist to do is keep the lowest performers employed at the expense of your most productive members you can see why most hard working folks tend to have a complicated relationship at best with unions as they are implemented today.
Those that would benefit most in theory from unions generally have the most experience "in the trenches" with them. This experience shows them that unions more or less became places to protect the lowest common denominator with zero regard for any value they bring to the table.
Show me a union that functions like a "guild" where it polices it's membership extremely well, and people strive to be skillful enough to join - then I will both support that union as a member, and hire those members when possible.
If all you exist to do is keep the lowest performers employed at the expense of your most productive members you can see why most hard working folks tend to have a complicated relationship at best with unions as they are implemented today.
Isn't the tension that the power of a union is defined by how large its membership is?
Thereby creating an incentive to accept as many people as possible, thereby lowering standards, thereby hijacking the agenda towards protecting incompetent workers.
If you're unionizing a low-skill segment of the labor market, I don't see a feasible alternative. Even if you only accept the best and brightest, the best and brightest are still trivially replaceable at that level.
Thereby creating an incentive to accept as many people as possible, thereby lowering standards, thereby hijacking the agenda towards protecting incompetent workers.
If you're unionizing a low-skill segment of the labor market, I don't see a feasible alternative. Even if you only accept the best and brightest, the best and brightest are still trivially replaceable at that level.
That's the old distinction between the American Federation of Labor, for skilled trades, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for low-skilled factory workers. This was a big deal around 1950. In 1955, they merged to form the AFL-CIO.
There are still classic craft unions, with apprenticeship and training programs, but not many are left. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is still around. The Plumbers and Steamfitters have apprenticeship programs. The Animation Guild (Local 839, IATSE) represents animators at the major Hollywood studios. They give classes for members, both on using new technology and on classic techniques. Read The Animation Guild's contract, which applies to most animators in Hollywood.[1] This is for a job more creative than most programming.
[1] https://animationguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2015-2...
There are still classic craft unions, with apprenticeship and training programs, but not many are left. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is still around. The Plumbers and Steamfitters have apprenticeship programs. The Animation Guild (Local 839, IATSE) represents animators at the major Hollywood studios. They give classes for members, both on using new technology and on classic techniques. Read The Animation Guild's contract, which applies to most animators in Hollywood.[1] This is for a job more creative than most programming.
[1] https://animationguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2015-2...
> "Show me a union that functions like a "guild" where it polices it's membership extremely well, and people strive to be skillful enough to join"
Pro sports players' unions.
It makes sense -- owners must act as a collective unit in order to ensure competitive balance and some degree of economic stability. A sports league where one team can afford to buy all of the best players from other teams is going to lose fans very fast. With owners acting collectively, players act collectively as a counterbalance. They make sure that they get a reasonable share of the overall income, and that it's distributed in a way that pays top performers more but also pays well enough at the bottom to keep the league an attractive place for marginal players.
Pro sports players' unions.
It makes sense -- owners must act as a collective unit in order to ensure competitive balance and some degree of economic stability. A sports league where one team can afford to buy all of the best players from other teams is going to lose fans very fast. With owners acting collectively, players act collectively as a counterbalance. They make sure that they get a reasonable share of the overall income, and that it's distributed in a way that pays top performers more but also pays well enough at the bottom to keep the league an attractive place for marginal players.
> A sports league where one team can afford to buy all of the best players from other teams is going to lose fans very fast
On the other hand, the New York Yankees.
On the other hand, the New York Yankees.
You have obviously never had to work in a unionized environment, here in Seattle Seattle Public Utilities will show union protected employees the door in a heartbeat if they cannot perform their duties or if management doesn't like them. I've seen & heard it repeatedly, here is a recent example [1]. The only people I've heard of being protected are the barely literate middle management at SPU and Oracle despite the tens of millions of dollars they have billed the city over what they quoted for a broken billing system to replace the maxed out billing system we currently have.
Get some facts & experience before commenting on things your unfamiliar with. Unionized employees nearly always vote for their interests, the number of unionized employees has collapsed under union busting tactics over the past few decades.
[1] - http://sheridanlawfirm.com/johnson-v-city-of-seattle-plainti...
[2] - http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-light...
Get some facts & experience before commenting on things your unfamiliar with. Unionized employees nearly always vote for their interests, the number of unionized employees has collapsed under union busting tactics over the past few decades.
[1] - http://sheridanlawfirm.com/johnson-v-city-of-seattle-plainti...
[2] - http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-light...
I've worked and been a member of union and my experience was much worse.
I mean, you don't have to look any further than the big 3 automakers. I remember watching news reports of workers leaving mid-shift, going to the bar and doing cocaine. For months.
If it wasn't for the union they would have been fired years ago.
I mean, you don't have to look any further than the big 3 automakers. I remember watching news reports of workers leaving mid-shift, going to the bar and doing cocaine. For months.
If it wasn't for the union they would have been fired years ago.
That is on the employer, they need to be written up if they do not perform their duties, then fired after repeated failures, just like any well run business would do.
The employee could easily sue and retain their job if there was no union and the company doesn't bother to document an employee failing to do their job.
The employee could easily sue and retain their job if there was no union and the company doesn't bother to document an employee failing to do their job.
I would invite you to read about some of the past issues with unions.
At the big 3 the unions practically took al firing capabilites away from the company. Unless the union agreed, the employee stayed.
And no, unless an employee has a case, they can't sue an employer to keep their job. Not unless they have the cash to keep paying lawyers.
At the big 3 the unions practically took al firing capabilites away from the company. Unless the union agreed, the employee stayed.
And no, unless an employee has a case, they can't sue an employer to keep their job. Not unless they have the cash to keep paying lawyers.
> At the big 3 the unions practically took al firing capabilites away from the company. Unless the union agreed, the employee stayed.
That is 100% on the employer, if they can't be bothered to follow the firing process they have negotiated with the union, or fight for a better one, its their own damn fault. They deserve what they get and have to live with the outcomes of their actions, just like any other company or person.
> And no, unless an employee has a case, they can't sue an employer to keep their job. Not unless they have the cash to keep paying lawyers.
Sure, but you'd have a case if your employer can't be bothered to document your dereliction of your job, and employers in cases like the one I linked to often work for a cut of the judgment due to how clear cut a case like that is.
That is 100% on the employer, if they can't be bothered to follow the firing process they have negotiated with the union, or fight for a better one, its their own damn fault. They deserve what they get and have to live with the outcomes of their actions, just like any other company or person.
> And no, unless an employee has a case, they can't sue an employer to keep their job. Not unless they have the cash to keep paying lawyers.
Sure, but you'd have a case if your employer can't be bothered to document your dereliction of your job, and employers in cases like the one I linked to often work for a cut of the judgment due to how clear cut a case like that is.
I tried to find a link to this so called leftist dysfunction and foot shooting incident but the only relevant article I could find through a quick search was this:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/senator-ericksens-anti-pro...
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/senator-ericksens-anti-pro...
The initiative was I-732, CarbonWA (https://yeson732.org/). The torpedoing I was referring to: "recent comments by Bauman compelled us to publicly endorse the Alliance and voice our opposition to I-732" http://fusewashington.org/why_we_cant_support_carbon_washing...
You appear to be a model employee.
I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that people getting hired and fired within 12 months "ensures" you only work with the best. After all, if we zoom out for a bit, we'll notice that there is not a continual influx of fresh talent (across the spectrum), and likewise there really isn't a continual exodus either (of, say, the poor performers). Instead, I'd argue that in software it's more like a drip feed going into a dish. A little comes in, a little spills over the sides, but there's still a lot in the pool. Someone who is working in software is not going to exit software because they got canned in 12 months. They won't be like "oh, clearly I'm one of the poor performers, time to turn in my badge." Nope, they'll go to work at another software company. Maybe they get fired again, or maybe they're exactly what that company needs and are perceived as "the best." As the saying goes, "one man's trash is another man's treasure," so unequivocally saying you work with the best, or that only the best survive your workplace, or any workplace, is just asinine. As in most things there is a distribution of talent, and talent is a multifaceted thing. So "best" really is an imprecise way to put it. Perhaps where you work, the "best" which survive are all selected for their JavaScript coding skills. They may be douchebags to work with and for, but all that matters is the JS so that's what defines who stays and who goes.
I suppose I'm coming on strong here because I'm tired of the standard line of bull in San Francisco (especially) about how "we only hire the best and brightest, so if you're lucky enough to be invited to join the team you'll be one of the elite few." This mentality is what supports the myth of the unicorn (someone who is amazing at everything). I have worked with some amazing people, but none were "unicorns" because all had (as all humans do) their flaws. One of the brightest people I've ever worked with was also one of the biggest a--holes. It was very difficult for him to reign in his mouth. Was he the "best?" It depends on how you define it. But not to me. I don't care how brilliant you are if I can't stand to work with you.
Personally, I look for the sweet spot. My "best" is generally nice, good people who respect others, are resourceful and motivated to do good work, and who I can count on.
So anytime someone tells you they only hire the best and brightest, I recommend extreme caution. This likely means compensation will be lower (after all, you're being sold the "benefit" of only working with the best and brightest), and the environment is likely to be filled with lots of arrogant people who are oblivious to their own flaws. Ugh. No thanks.
So that turned into a tangent.
In spite of all that, I too don't support or like unions. As other commenters have stated, they end up catering to the lowest common denominator, and don't serve high performers (consciously using a very subjective descriptor here) well. They also may not even serve their members all that well as the union entity ultimately only cares about its own survival. Many years ago I interviewed for a union job as a package loader for UPS. I was surprised to find the wages offered were low, I would've been required to furnish my own equipment, etc. There was no observable benefit of union membership, yet if I had accepted the offer I'd have been required to pay dues. Furthermore, I had friends who worked for Delta as baggage handlers. Their experience was the same. Sure this is all anecdotal, but from where I'm sitting the only ones really helped by the union are the union leadership.
I suppose I'm coming on strong here because I'm tired of the standard line of bull in San Francisco (especially) about how "we only hire the best and brightest, so if you're lucky enough to be invited to join the team you'll be one of the elite few." This mentality is what supports the myth of the unicorn (someone who is amazing at everything). I have worked with some amazing people, but none were "unicorns" because all had (as all humans do) their flaws. One of the brightest people I've ever worked with was also one of the biggest a--holes. It was very difficult for him to reign in his mouth. Was he the "best?" It depends on how you define it. But not to me. I don't care how brilliant you are if I can't stand to work with you.
Personally, I look for the sweet spot. My "best" is generally nice, good people who respect others, are resourceful and motivated to do good work, and who I can count on.
So anytime someone tells you they only hire the best and brightest, I recommend extreme caution. This likely means compensation will be lower (after all, you're being sold the "benefit" of only working with the best and brightest), and the environment is likely to be filled with lots of arrogant people who are oblivious to their own flaws. Ugh. No thanks.
So that turned into a tangent.
In spite of all that, I too don't support or like unions. As other commenters have stated, they end up catering to the lowest common denominator, and don't serve high performers (consciously using a very subjective descriptor here) well. They also may not even serve their members all that well as the union entity ultimately only cares about its own survival. Many years ago I interviewed for a union job as a package loader for UPS. I was surprised to find the wages offered were low, I would've been required to furnish my own equipment, etc. There was no observable benefit of union membership, yet if I had accepted the offer I'd have been required to pay dues. Furthermore, I had friends who worked for Delta as baggage handlers. Their experience was the same. Sure this is all anecdotal, but from where I'm sitting the only ones really helped by the union are the union leadership.
>One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level.
Honestly, neither of the two major parties have looked out for their interests in decades.
Hence the revolt against both the major parties this year.
Honestly, neither of the two major parties have looked out for their interests in decades.
Hence the revolt against both the major parties this year.
The major problem seems to have been that neither party had or has an effective answer to the systemic de-employment (i.e. substituting lower paying jobs) which affects manufacturing hubs post-free trade agreements.
The economist argument has always been (a) sign free trade deal, (b) some jobs lost as labor reallocates to cheaper locations, (c) prices for goods decrease enough that everyone is better off.
Based on the result from the Rust Belt (and the split, not just the winner), I'd say they felt neither party did enough about (b).
The economist argument has always been (a) sign free trade deal, (b) some jobs lost as labor reallocates to cheaper locations, (c) prices for goods decrease enough that everyone is better off.
Based on the result from the Rust Belt (and the split, not just the winner), I'd say they felt neither party did enough about (b).
When my uncle worked in a logistics center as a person-who-lifts-and-moves-stuff, he complained about the labor union rules that imposed a bunch of inefficiencies.
Unions can be great, but firing non-performers is one of a managers most important jobs.
And its not for the company even, as much as the other employees who don't want to be burdened with someone lazy or who refuses to train. It's usually the others who have to cover for them and pick up the pieces.
When unions stop management from addressing performance it directly impacts the employees themselves, and yet unions too often try to 'stand strong together'.
If unions took a greater role here I think their membership support would increase drastically, they could play their role as employee advocate while maintaining the moral high ground.
And its not for the company even, as much as the other employees who don't want to be burdened with someone lazy or who refuses to train. It's usually the others who have to cover for them and pick up the pieces.
When unions stop management from addressing performance it directly impacts the employees themselves, and yet unions too often try to 'stand strong together'.
If unions took a greater role here I think their membership support would increase drastically, they could play their role as employee advocate while maintaining the moral high ground.
> It's an illegal labor practice in the US for an employer to do that. It's interference with the right to bargain collectively.
Sounds like this particular organization is intentionally legally organized so as not to have those protections (or restrictions).
From the OP:
"OUR Walmart, which says it has thousands of paying members, isn’t a traditional union because members don’t have collective bargaining rights. It separated last year from the United Food and Commercial Workers International, which has tried unsuccessfully for years to organize workers at Wal-Mart’s U.S. stores."
Sounds like this particular organization is intentionally legally organized so as not to have those protections (or restrictions).
From the OP:
"OUR Walmart, which says it has thousands of paying members, isn’t a traditional union because members don’t have collective bargaining rights. It separated last year from the United Food and Commercial Workers International, which has tried unsuccessfully for years to organize workers at Wal-Mart’s U.S. stores."
Thats not how it works. You don't have to be a union in order to get Labor protections. Protecting the act of organizing/unionizing is a large part of the legal labor protections which exist.
I don't know. The next administration might actually be tougher re: pro-worker laws against multi-national importers of Chinese made stuff. This might not apply to unions necessarily though.
That was rhetoric to attract a demographic that felt displaced by globalism and by an Other that wasn't white.
Never once were unions touted as a solution, despite unions pushing for contracts that would prevent outsourcing and would set compensation plans for workers whose jobs were automated away or moved overseas.
Never once were unions touted as a solution, despite unions pushing for contracts that would prevent outsourcing and would set compensation plans for workers whose jobs were automated away or moved overseas.
Unions are pro-Democrat (their members possibly not so much this election though). I really can't see Trump supporting them for multiple reasons.
Trump gets to pick 3 of the 5 National Labor Relations Board members.
That agency is currently at odds with a Trump owned Las Vegas hotel.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/news/companies/trump-hotel-l...
That agency is currently at odds with a Trump owned Las Vegas hotel.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/news/companies/trump-hotel-l...
> re: pro-worker laws against multi-national importers of Chinese made stuff.
The pro-worker stuff was just to attract that demographic, I'm pretty sure.
The pro-worker stuff was just to attract that demographic, I'm pretty sure.
I think that people should give the Trump administration a chance. The GOP knows that blue collar whites were the force behind his election. He's going to have to deliver for these laborers if he wants to have a chance in 2020.
Trump is not the GOP, he is a self serving billionaire. Two days ago his daughter, who oversees the Trump organization, is invited to a meeting with the Japanese PM. Today he is cutting deals with Indian businessmen who say they are more interested now that he is president.
Trump's chances:
- appointed as Vice President a guy who wants to electrocute gay kids to turn them straight
- appointed as his senior strategist a literal-not-figurative white supremacist and anti-Semite who thinks Darth Vader is a role model (ain't making that up, either)
- nominating as Attorney General a guy so profoundly tied to his white hoods that he couldn't get confirmed as a justice
- claiming that he'll extend libel laws because his feelings are hurt
That's four--and if you want to throw in the whole "bragging about sexual assault" thing, five through about thirty or so!--more than he'd deserved. Why should he continue to be spotted more?
- appointed as Vice President a guy who wants to electrocute gay kids to turn them straight
- appointed as his senior strategist a literal-not-figurative white supremacist and anti-Semite who thinks Darth Vader is a role model (ain't making that up, either)
- nominating as Attorney General a guy so profoundly tied to his white hoods that he couldn't get confirmed as a justice
- claiming that he'll extend libel laws because his feelings are hurt
That's four--and if you want to throw in the whole "bragging about sexual assault" thing, five through about thirty or so!--more than he'd deserved. Why should he continue to be spotted more?
> who thinks Darth Vader is a role model (ain't making that up, either)
Although you forgot to mention the other two role models of his are Satan and fucking Dick Cheney (source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tow...)
Although you forgot to mention the other two role models of his are Satan and fucking Dick Cheney (source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tow...)
I did give him a chance. He used it all up with his cabinet picks and the people on his transition team. I see nothing to suggest that his administration will be friendly towards labor, organized or not.
If Trump goes up against Walmart and actually makes life better for those blue-collar whites, I'll literally buy a hat and eat it.
I doubt Trump will want a second term - he's made it now, and thumbed his nose at everyone. He'll find out that he can't just do what he wants as president and his days are ridiculously packed, and won't go for a second term.
I doubt Trump will want a second term - he's made it now, and thumbed his nose at everyone. He'll find out that he can't just do what he wants as president and his days are ridiculously packed, and won't go for a second term.
> He'll find out that he can't just do what he wants as president and his days are ridiculously packed, and won't go for a second term.
Or he'll find out that he can leverage the position into making money and let his VP and cronies do the ruling work.
The former is how things seem to be shaping up, and the latter is how Kasich reported the VP pitch he got (also matches Trump's desire to keep doing big rallies, not move in the White House and keep going on twitter tiffs).
Or he'll find out that he can leverage the position into making money and let his VP and cronies do the ruling work.
The former is how things seem to be shaping up, and the latter is how Kasich reported the VP pitch he got (also matches Trump's desire to keep doing big rallies, not move in the White House and keep going on twitter tiffs).
This is the playbook of virtually every Eastern European nation. Achieve power through demagoguery, enrich self and loyalists once in power. Rinse and repeat.
> This is the playbook of virtually every Eastern European nation.
Or pretty much every "business strongman"[0] third-world regime really, Trevor Noah had a bit comparing Trump to South Africa's Jacob Zuma, it was less funny and more uncanny to see the parallels.
And then things get dreadful when you realise a "graft and cronyism" Trump presidency is starting to look like a best-case scenario given his campaign statements and cabinet appointments.
[0] as opposed to "military strongman"
Or pretty much every "business strongman"[0] third-world regime really, Trevor Noah had a bit comparing Trump to South Africa's Jacob Zuma, it was less funny and more uncanny to see the parallels.
And then things get dreadful when you realise a "graft and cronyism" Trump presidency is starting to look like a best-case scenario given his campaign statements and cabinet appointments.
[0] as opposed to "military strongman"
Looks like you're on the money, and it's already underway. I found an article going into a little depth as to how managing his business empire and managing the presidency is going to make him a lot of money, and confuse the issue for others
http://www.theage.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/how-p...
http://www.theage.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/how-p...
He'll just blame someone else for his failures.
Could be. But it might also be a convenient excuse to beat up the WalMarts (low wage importers) of the world.
Do you want to bet? The Trump administration will not be pro-union.
I cannot fathom where your doubts could be possibly coming from.
They're not interfering with the right to bargain collectively though. For all we know, they're genuinely warning their employees that they may be involved in a PII collection scam. They can't reprimand/dismiss you for using the app, but surely they can tell you it's unwise.
I don't see why people are so quick to tie Wal-Mart to the pyre; for what they pay, their employees are satisfied to an outsized degree. Given that they are the third largest employer, behind the DoD and the PLA, they've surely done something impressive in building one of the largest and most satisfied minimum-wage-or-thereabouts workforces in the world.
Obviously we can't take their statement at face value. We also can't take the union's statement at face value. Each party has its own interests. I'm sure anyone here who has dealt with a real union recognizes that nobody runs one because they love their industry's labourers. They are no less political than the corporations they bargain with.
I don't see why people are so quick to tie Wal-Mart to the pyre; for what they pay, their employees are satisfied to an outsized degree. Given that they are the third largest employer, behind the DoD and the PLA, they've surely done something impressive in building one of the largest and most satisfied minimum-wage-or-thereabouts workforces in the world.
Obviously we can't take their statement at face value. We also can't take the union's statement at face value. Each party has its own interests. I'm sure anyone here who has dealt with a real union recognizes that nobody runs one because they love their industry's labourers. They are no less political than the corporations they bargain with.
This is the same company that shows employees videos that are equivalent to "Unions = bad, yuck, gross, not even once" during training.
They have every incentive to prevent unionization. If workers have room to negotiate, that means they could negotiate for fair compensation. Reminder that our country's labor history is rife with straight up mass murder of workers because they demanded fair pay, safe working conditions and anything but 12hr work days all week. Even the suggestion of possible unionization would leave innocent people dead.
Walmart has done nothing to be given the benefit of the doubt and to do so is to be willfully ignorant of our past and present.
> for what they pay, their employees are satisfied to an outsized degree
Weird that Walmart relies heavily on the state to subsidize benefits and compensation through welfare, Medicaid and food stamps that they should be paying out to their employees from their massive profits.
They refuse to give people enough hours for full time employment to avoid their duty to their employees, despite people begging for more hours.
"Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance" http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...
They have every incentive to prevent unionization. If workers have room to negotiate, that means they could negotiate for fair compensation. Reminder that our country's labor history is rife with straight up mass murder of workers because they demanded fair pay, safe working conditions and anything but 12hr work days all week. Even the suggestion of possible unionization would leave innocent people dead.
Walmart has done nothing to be given the benefit of the doubt and to do so is to be willfully ignorant of our past and present.
> for what they pay, their employees are satisfied to an outsized degree
Weird that Walmart relies heavily on the state to subsidize benefits and compensation through welfare, Medicaid and food stamps that they should be paying out to their employees from their massive profits.
They refuse to give people enough hours for full time employment to avoid their duty to their employees, despite people begging for more hours.
"Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance" http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...
> they could negotiate for fair compensation.
What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all.
I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work.
> If workers have room to negotiate
A union actually takes away a worker's room to negotiate. The union becomes the only vendor and, in this case, Walmart would be legally required to hire through that vendor for the defined positions. This is less fair, as now you are managing the supply of labour and actively hindering competition. A union has no bargaining power if it has competition, of course.
While the benefits of a union are clear, the way you try to spin the situation is, to say the least, interesting. A union is beneficial because it takes away the fairness and takes away the freedom to negotiate. Fairness and freedom are what allow people to drive value towards zero, which is where the problems stem from.
I have a feeling this will be taken as an anti-union message, even though it really is a pro-union one. The loss of fairness is a good thing! We have a long history to look back on to see why.
What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all.
I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work.
> If workers have room to negotiate
A union actually takes away a worker's room to negotiate. The union becomes the only vendor and, in this case, Walmart would be legally required to hire through that vendor for the defined positions. This is less fair, as now you are managing the supply of labour and actively hindering competition. A union has no bargaining power if it has competition, of course.
While the benefits of a union are clear, the way you try to spin the situation is, to say the least, interesting. A union is beneficial because it takes away the fairness and takes away the freedom to negotiate. Fairness and freedom are what allow people to drive value towards zero, which is where the problems stem from.
I have a feeling this will be taken as an anti-union message, even though it really is a pro-union one. The loss of fairness is a good thing! We have a long history to look back on to see why.
>Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. //
Seriously, do you think that's how it happens? Is that bluster, naivety, or what?
"He sonny, do you want to eat dirt or accept our below healthy subsistence wages?" seems closer to how it goes. People don't work for low wages because they can't bargain, they work for low wages because the alternative is for them not to work and the government won't mandate a Living Wage.
It's not fair because people who have less resources, from birth usually, are in a far worse bargaining position and usually don't have the occasion to negotiate their wages. The only chance they have to create leverage is to unionise and force the company to decide whether to waste 20% of their workforce and do a massive employment and training drive (or suffer a strike, or ...) or to accede to paying a, for example, inflation matching wage increase.
Seriously, do you think that's how it happens? Is that bluster, naivety, or what?
"He sonny, do you want to eat dirt or accept our below healthy subsistence wages?" seems closer to how it goes. People don't work for low wages because they can't bargain, they work for low wages because the alternative is for them not to work and the government won't mandate a Living Wage.
It's not fair because people who have less resources, from birth usually, are in a far worse bargaining position and usually don't have the occasion to negotiate their wages. The only chance they have to create leverage is to unionise and force the company to decide whether to waste 20% of their workforce and do a massive employment and training drive (or suffer a strike, or ...) or to accede to paying a, for example, inflation matching wage increase.
Seriously, do you think that's how it happens? Is that bluster, naivety, or what?
Why not assume they're genuinely curious to learn rather than attack them? It gives better conversation.
Why not assume they're genuinely curious to learn rather than attack them? It gives better conversation.
Only if they're genuinely curious. Otherwise, it's just a pointless exercise in explaining something that a) they could have learned already, and b) they actively don't want to understand. As Heinlein said, "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Like pbhjpbhj, I doubt that randomdata was as incredibly naive as he sounded. I took it as a rhetorical device. But using that device here amounts to either denying the malfeasance that can occur when people with wildly differing power levels negotiate or saying that the exploitation of workers is fine because market outcomes are always right.
The former is not a credible position; history provides too many counterexamples. The latter is a sort of reptilian free-market fundamentalism that often hides behind rhetorical devices because "might makes right" it not a moral standard most people will openly subscribe to.
Like pbhjpbhj, I doubt that randomdata was as incredibly naive as he sounded. I took it as a rhetorical device. But using that device here amounts to either denying the malfeasance that can occur when people with wildly differing power levels negotiate or saying that the exploitation of workers is fine because market outcomes are always right.
The former is not a credible position; history provides too many counterexamples. The latter is a sort of reptilian free-market fundamentalism that often hides behind rhetorical devices because "might makes right" it not a moral standard most people will openly subscribe to.
Because people who issue pedantic demands to be taken seriously while simultaneously leading with facile arguments rarely prove to be honest disputants.
Going over the same basic points over and over again might be a better conversation, but it's always the same comversation, which gets tiresome.
The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has.
I have to wonder if anyone actually read my comment, or just saw the word union and started replying with their stock responses.
I have to wonder if anyone actually read my comment, or just saw the word union and started replying with their stock responses.
> Fairness and freedom are what allow people to drive value towards zero, which is where the problems stem from.
I absolutely agree with you on this one but it just isn't practical. As we have seen time and again, this is not what happens in real life. Everyone wants to "add value" to the economy. Whether you own real estate in San Francisco or you own the only Internet cables to the home, history shows that you WILL use your position to demand a "fair price" for your "contribution" towards the society. In other words, everyone engages in rent-seeking even as we continue to say how it is horrible. We want perfect competition in the market for our suppliers and we want to be the sole provider with 100% discretion in pricing when it comes to our consumers. That is how the world works.
Is the management of labor unions a little inefficient? Absolutely but so is management of corporations. If management was efficient, we'd see close to 100% of economic gains of a corporation go to its investors. However, we see time and again that the "entrepreneurs" and the "hard working" and "risk-taking" executives will demand a very high price for their "work". It may not formally be a union but it sure feels like it when it comes to executive pay!
I absolutely agree with you on this one but it just isn't practical. As we have seen time and again, this is not what happens in real life. Everyone wants to "add value" to the economy. Whether you own real estate in San Francisco or you own the only Internet cables to the home, history shows that you WILL use your position to demand a "fair price" for your "contribution" towards the society. In other words, everyone engages in rent-seeking even as we continue to say how it is horrible. We want perfect competition in the market for our suppliers and we want to be the sole provider with 100% discretion in pricing when it comes to our consumers. That is how the world works.
Is the management of labor unions a little inefficient? Absolutely but so is management of corporations. If management was efficient, we'd see close to 100% of economic gains of a corporation go to its investors. However, we see time and again that the "entrepreneurs" and the "hard working" and "risk-taking" executives will demand a very high price for their "work". It may not formally be a union but it sure feels like it when it comes to executive pay!
Or it could be because they weren't very good points. At best, I read it as indulging in not-very-good word games, which is a distraction from a serious topic. Or if you're making a serious point, it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them. If you're going to jump into a discussion that you know is emotional for people, then you should write with that in mind, rather than stirring people up and then blaming them for the response.
> it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them.
My comment emphasized the need for unions, so if you disagree with my points, are you saying that unions aren't necessary?
My comment emphasized the need for unions, so if you disagree with my points, are you saying that unions aren't necessary?
I am not.
I will say, though, that I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.
I will say, though, that I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.
> I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.
You don't find it necessary, but you felt compelled to anyway? Weird. The problem here is that you haven't even addressed the topic at hand. You went on some tangent that was irrelevant. All I could do was grasp at one small part of your comment that seems like it may have been somewhat relevant to try and salvage the discussion.
I do blame myself for not articulating my point to you, but since you even seem unsure of what I was trying to convey, you'd think you'd ask questions to try and understand instead of just starting to push your own off-topic agenda down my throat.
But I understand how emotionally wrapped up people get in this which prompts them to throw all rational behaviour out the window. I'll forgive you.
You don't find it necessary, but you felt compelled to anyway? Weird. The problem here is that you haven't even addressed the topic at hand. You went on some tangent that was irrelevant. All I could do was grasp at one small part of your comment that seems like it may have been somewhat relevant to try and salvage the discussion.
I do blame myself for not articulating my point to you, but since you even seem unsure of what I was trying to convey, you'd think you'd ask questions to try and understand instead of just starting to push your own off-topic agenda down my throat.
But I understand how emotionally wrapped up people get in this which prompts them to throw all rational behaviour out the window. I'll forgive you.
I did respond to you in kind, but I was disinclined to do so because insisting on defining terms is both an aggressive debating tactic and shows a lack of manners by failing to even address existing widely accepted definitions that many others may prefer to rely on, preferences which are just as valid as yours. At the very least, it suggests that you haven't done your homework and are arguing pompously from a position of ignorance.
The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has.
Perhaps most here find your points tired and emotionally fueled which is why they choose instead not to engage?
Perhaps most here find your points tired and emotionally fueled which is why they choose instead not to engage?
Maybe. In which case, can you point to other discussion about this so I can move other there? I'd like to actually have a discussion about it instead of getting a bunch of off-topic replies that can never go anywhere.
Something tells me you won't find much in the way of discussion about usage of the english language and the phrases in question there?
>>The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made
The funny part is that if you're genuinely curious about the topic, you can do some introductory research yourself. The information you seek is a single Google search away. To demonstrate:
http://i.imgur.com/E6Prs3R.png
The funny part is that if you're genuinely curious about the topic, you can do some introductory research yourself. The information you seek is a single Google search away. To demonstrate:
http://i.imgur.com/E6Prs3R.png
I tried your search. I did not find anything that relates to my comment.
Your comment was, literally, "What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation?"
And literally the first option in the search I linked ("walmart unfair wages") will lead you straight to the answer.
And literally the first option in the search I linked ("walmart unfair wages") will lead you straight to the answer.
Actually, my comment said that fair markets will see people try to undercut each other and that the best solution is to reduce or eliminate the fairness by having a union become the only negotiator. Quite the opposite of fair, as individual freedom to negotiate is lost, but it ends up most beneficial for those involved.
Did you actually read my comment? Because it seems like you didn't read my comment.
Did you actually read my comment? Because it seems like you didn't read my comment.
Your comment hinges on the idea that exploitive labor practices do not exist. Allow me to make the prediction that you also don't believe that a market for lemons exists. I also, will go so far as to say that you actually no real connection to this, but rather are spouting off about abstract ideals and philosophy from your upper middle class existence, rather than actually being informed about the actual reality of the matter.
We know that Walmart forces employees to work off the clock. They've settled multiple class-action lawsuits about this. This of course, goes by a name. It's called wage theft. Even before the theft, we know that Walmart pays their employee literally poverty wages. This is evident this time a year, when you go to a Walmart and see a barrel sitting out front marked for food donations for Walmart employees. On top of that, Walmart is essentially government subsidized, because they encourage their employees to sign up for welfare as part of their on-boarding process.[0]
So now of course, why would anyone put up with this? Quite simply, there's no other choice. Yeah, these people are unskilled and left far behind in the economy, but that doesn't mean that someone with a full time job should live in poverty. This doesn't mean that a multibillion dollar multinational megacorp, should be getting 6 billion dollars a year in taxpayer payroll subsidies.
[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...
We know that Walmart forces employees to work off the clock. They've settled multiple class-action lawsuits about this. This of course, goes by a name. It's called wage theft. Even before the theft, we know that Walmart pays their employee literally poverty wages. This is evident this time a year, when you go to a Walmart and see a barrel sitting out front marked for food donations for Walmart employees. On top of that, Walmart is essentially government subsidized, because they encourage their employees to sign up for welfare as part of their on-boarding process.[0]
So now of course, why would anyone put up with this? Quite simply, there's no other choice. Yeah, these people are unskilled and left far behind in the economy, but that doesn't mean that someone with a full time job should live in poverty. This doesn't mean that a multibillion dollar multinational megacorp, should be getting 6 billion dollars a year in taxpayer payroll subsidies.
[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...
If Walmart engages in wage theft and is then sued for it, that sounds to me like the law works. Unless the penalties aren't enough to resolve the issue or something, that doesn't sound like an ongoing injustice - and at any rate, sounds like a problem for the courts, not the public. Sorting that sort of thing out fairly is their job, and they're surely going to be more thoughtful about it than angry internet mobs.
If Walmart employees can't support themselves and wind up taking advantage of charity - either privately or through the state - isn't this also the system working as intended? Systems are in place to help low income individuals. These are low income individuals. It strikes me as strange moral reasoning to say the low market price of unskilled labor is Walmart's fault.
It strikes me as particularly strange moral reasoning to charge the use of welfare in this case to Walmart's account and call it a subsidy. That would only make sense to me if the people earning that wage would do better if Walmart wasn't there. I don't think that's the case, though. Unskilled labor doesn't pay that well whether you're flipping burgers, delivering pizzas, stocking shelves, or waiting tables. It's not the fault of the companies offering those jobs - it's just what that sort of labor is worth.
But Walmart should just pay them more, everyone deserves a living wage? I don't think I agree. I think there is room in the economy for second incomes, for student jobs, for seasonal work. Not everyone is a single head of household, and if you don't have the skills to be one, often you just - don't move out. We have no shortage of help - private charities that do vocational training, societal safety nets to keep things from getting too bad, most people get by with help from friends and family until they can make it on their own. I think there's nothing wrong with that.
One of the things I would be concerned with is insisting that Walmart pay its employees more. That will surely come in the form of raising prices, and the very low prices at Walmart are a boon to low income folks - both those who work at Walmart and those who don't. I am skeptical that making Walmart less efficient will help the communities it's in, compared with the social safety nets and private charity - generally provided by the better off. Forcing Walmart to pay higher wages strikes me as taking from the poor to give to the poor.
On the contrary - the folks I know who work at Walmart are content with the situation and doing ok. They know they could go get a vocational degree or something and make better money as a welder or something. They don't want to. It's an odd job between stages of life, not a career, and good enough for the moment. If there are enough people like this to run a whole business that hugely benefits the poor by offering goods at low prices, isn't that system on the whole a good thing?
If Walmart employees can't support themselves and wind up taking advantage of charity - either privately or through the state - isn't this also the system working as intended? Systems are in place to help low income individuals. These are low income individuals. It strikes me as strange moral reasoning to say the low market price of unskilled labor is Walmart's fault.
It strikes me as particularly strange moral reasoning to charge the use of welfare in this case to Walmart's account and call it a subsidy. That would only make sense to me if the people earning that wage would do better if Walmart wasn't there. I don't think that's the case, though. Unskilled labor doesn't pay that well whether you're flipping burgers, delivering pizzas, stocking shelves, or waiting tables. It's not the fault of the companies offering those jobs - it's just what that sort of labor is worth.
But Walmart should just pay them more, everyone deserves a living wage? I don't think I agree. I think there is room in the economy for second incomes, for student jobs, for seasonal work. Not everyone is a single head of household, and if you don't have the skills to be one, often you just - don't move out. We have no shortage of help - private charities that do vocational training, societal safety nets to keep things from getting too bad, most people get by with help from friends and family until they can make it on their own. I think there's nothing wrong with that.
One of the things I would be concerned with is insisting that Walmart pay its employees more. That will surely come in the form of raising prices, and the very low prices at Walmart are a boon to low income folks - both those who work at Walmart and those who don't. I am skeptical that making Walmart less efficient will help the communities it's in, compared with the social safety nets and private charity - generally provided by the better off. Forcing Walmart to pay higher wages strikes me as taking from the poor to give to the poor.
On the contrary - the folks I know who work at Walmart are content with the situation and doing ok. They know they could go get a vocational degree or something and make better money as a welder or something. They don't want to. It's an odd job between stages of life, not a career, and good enough for the moment. If there are enough people like this to run a whole business that hugely benefits the poor by offering goods at low prices, isn't that system on the whole a good thing?
Maybe cut profits? Give each employee an extra hundred bucks per month. It's good for the worker, good for the poor folks who still keep the low prices and the wealthy folks are still making a profit, granted a smaller one. We needn't be so concerned about a handful of rich folks. They'll continue to make more than is necessary, even for a luxurious lifestyle. Replace those ridiculous mega yachts with regular yachts.
Alternatively, we keep it as is and more and more people's labor goes to zero (eg. driverless cars). One way or another, the wealth needs to flow to the people or there will be unrest. With unrest, people may elect someone with radical changes in mind and then you really won't like your situation (eg. a fascist government like Russia where the top guy simply takes your stuff on behalf of the people - but the people never actually see a dime of it). A little course correction here to balance things out will go a long way to keeping the social fabric together.
Alternatively, we keep it as is and more and more people's labor goes to zero (eg. driverless cars). One way or another, the wealth needs to flow to the people or there will be unrest. With unrest, people may elect someone with radical changes in mind and then you really won't like your situation (eg. a fascist government like Russia where the top guy simply takes your stuff on behalf of the people - but the people never actually see a dime of it). A little course correction here to balance things out will go a long way to keeping the social fabric together.
From http://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/company-facts (straight from the mouth, as it were) and ignoring shareholders for a moment, WalMart employs 2.3 million people. They also reported $10.4 (American) billion in profits. That works out to $376.81 per worker per month.
So it seems possible to give each worker an extra $100/month. But now you have to sell this to the shareholders, which may include institutional investors managing retirement accounts. Good luck figuring out that mess.
So it seems possible to give each worker an extra $100/month. But now you have to sell this to the shareholders, which may include institutional investors managing retirement accounts. Good luck figuring out that mess.
The benefit of the subsidy is Walmart because they can pay less.
Having a job and being stuck on charity is not the system working as designed. A system working as designed wouldn't need charity at all, and certainly would be needed for those that are working and are still indigent.
I really find it odd that you think paying more would be "taking from the poor to give to the poor". Walmart and the Walton family are extremely profitable and wealthy. They can easily absorb the the cost with negligible real impact. They could even start by not paying a stock dividend.
The question isn't about some teenager. It's about the person that isn't. It's about the person working two or three jobs. You can't say that Walmart benefits the poor when they famously pay just enough to shop only there.
I suggest you get out of your bubble, because the people I know that work at Walmart, Dollar General (do you even know that store?) are heads of households. These people are screwed. Not just by Walmart but by the entire economy.
Having a job and being stuck on charity is not the system working as designed. A system working as designed wouldn't need charity at all, and certainly would be needed for those that are working and are still indigent.
I really find it odd that you think paying more would be "taking from the poor to give to the poor". Walmart and the Walton family are extremely profitable and wealthy. They can easily absorb the the cost with negligible real impact. They could even start by not paying a stock dividend.
The question isn't about some teenager. It's about the person that isn't. It's about the person working two or three jobs. You can't say that Walmart benefits the poor when they famously pay just enough to shop only there.
I suggest you get out of your bubble, because the people I know that work at Walmart, Dollar General (do you even know that store?) are heads of households. These people are screwed. Not just by Walmart but by the entire economy.
> "I suggest you get out of your bubble"
That's a rather aggressive and insulting way to attempt to make your point.
Disclosure -- I am married to Dove. We live in 80219 [0]. Median income here is a little under half of the state average. More than a third of the adult population has less than high school education; less than one third has ever been to college.
In the last four years, in addition to our nuclear family, we've had the following live in our house:
- a fresh college graduate, working as a tutor in the public schools
- teen parents and their infant; the mom worked at WalMart and the dad at another grocery store
- my divorced sister and her elementary-aged son; she worked part time as a substitute paraprofessional in special ed classrooms
- my sister who was doing just fine on her own until her building was bought out from under her, and couldn't find an affordable place where she was able to practice her religion (can't find roommates who keep kosher; here she has room to set up her own mini-kitchen.)
My parents live one zip code over, in a slightly less poor but still very poor area. My mom works at WalMart; my dad is disabled; they also have two adult children and two non-relatives living with them, including one who prefers the pronoun "they" and one who goes by the nickname "Hobo Joe".
Why am I saying all of this? Because this is the "bubble" we live in. And when well-meaning people look in from the outside and say "minimum wage should be a living wage" and "people shouldn't be able to be partially government-subsidized and partially earning a wage", I think they don't realize what that approach actually entails. It basically guarantees my mom would be unemployed and 100% on government benefits, because nobody is going to hire a 66 year old woman who spent 30 years out of the workforce raising children. It means that people like "Hobo Joe" can't get an entry-level job and are therefore going to live their entire lives on government benefits, instead of slowly becoming more independent. Yes, these people are screwed by the economy -- but trying to make entry-level employers like WalMart pay more makes them even more screwed.
You don't help people climb the ladder by kicking out the bottom rung. You help them by making the transition from unemployed to entry level as smooth as possible, by making it so that a person can make a partial transition where they have a mix of both, and by eliminating "cliffs" that they have to jump over in order to improve their situation.
[0] http://www.city-data.com/zips/80219.html
That's a rather aggressive and insulting way to attempt to make your point.
Disclosure -- I am married to Dove. We live in 80219 [0]. Median income here is a little under half of the state average. More than a third of the adult population has less than high school education; less than one third has ever been to college.
In the last four years, in addition to our nuclear family, we've had the following live in our house:
- a fresh college graduate, working as a tutor in the public schools
- teen parents and their infant; the mom worked at WalMart and the dad at another grocery store
- my divorced sister and her elementary-aged son; she worked part time as a substitute paraprofessional in special ed classrooms
- my sister who was doing just fine on her own until her building was bought out from under her, and couldn't find an affordable place where she was able to practice her religion (can't find roommates who keep kosher; here she has room to set up her own mini-kitchen.)
My parents live one zip code over, in a slightly less poor but still very poor area. My mom works at WalMart; my dad is disabled; they also have two adult children and two non-relatives living with them, including one who prefers the pronoun "they" and one who goes by the nickname "Hobo Joe".
Why am I saying all of this? Because this is the "bubble" we live in. And when well-meaning people look in from the outside and say "minimum wage should be a living wage" and "people shouldn't be able to be partially government-subsidized and partially earning a wage", I think they don't realize what that approach actually entails. It basically guarantees my mom would be unemployed and 100% on government benefits, because nobody is going to hire a 66 year old woman who spent 30 years out of the workforce raising children. It means that people like "Hobo Joe" can't get an entry-level job and are therefore going to live their entire lives on government benefits, instead of slowly becoming more independent. Yes, these people are screwed by the economy -- but trying to make entry-level employers like WalMart pay more makes them even more screwed.
You don't help people climb the ladder by kicking out the bottom rung. You help them by making the transition from unemployed to entry level as smooth as possible, by making it so that a person can make a partial transition where they have a mix of both, and by eliminating "cliffs" that they have to jump over in order to improve their situation.
[0] http://www.city-data.com/zips/80219.html
[deleted]
> "He sonny, do you want to eat dirt or accept our below healthy subsistence wages?" seems closer to how it goes.
And which of those options is better?
And which of those options is better?
Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work.
This is self-evidently untrue. You are confusing basic economic models with empirical conditions. While simple models of things like supply and demand are essential to understanding economic conditions, over-reliance on them is like thinking that being able to work simple problems of gravitation is all you need to know about aeronautics.
You are assuming a particular kind of bargaining relationship, the closed shop, that is actually illegal in many jurisdictions. You're also way overestimating the negotiating power of of the individual employee, or (put another way) ignoring the vast economic disparity between the parties and the resulting lack of leverage for the non-specialist employee.
When shareholders pool their capital and hire managers to run the business, is it a loss of freedom for them? Hardly, they can choose to sell their interest in the business if they no longer want to own it, or take a more active role if they are unhappy with the performance of their economic agents. Why are you so averse to low-level employees doing the same thing with their wages - essentially hiring the union to negotiate on their behalf?
This is self-evidently untrue. You are confusing basic economic models with empirical conditions. While simple models of things like supply and demand are essential to understanding economic conditions, over-reliance on them is like thinking that being able to work simple problems of gravitation is all you need to know about aeronautics.
You are assuming a particular kind of bargaining relationship, the closed shop, that is actually illegal in many jurisdictions. You're also way overestimating the negotiating power of of the individual employee, or (put another way) ignoring the vast economic disparity between the parties and the resulting lack of leverage for the non-specialist employee.
When shareholders pool their capital and hire managers to run the business, is it a loss of freedom for them? Hardly, they can choose to sell their interest in the business if they no longer want to own it, or take a more active role if they are unhappy with the performance of their economic agents. Why are you so averse to low-level employees doing the same thing with their wages - essentially hiring the union to negotiate on their behalf?
> What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all.
On one side of the table, there is Walmart: a large group of well-monied people that pay lawyers, lobbyists, PR teams and think-tanks to level the playing field in their favor.
On the other side, there is you: an individual person who can only bring their time and skill to the table and needs to eat.
Unorganized labor is great for Walmart. If you don't like their terms, there is a large pool of qualified applicants that will take whatever employment they can get.
If Walmart's terms aren't really that great for everybody, where huge swaths of people are not being paid fair market compensation for their productivity then, individually, workers have no option for change.
> I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work.
People are not being paid fair market compensation for their work that they would be if they were able to bargain collectively the way Walmart is able to. An individual has little recourse against the might of many people who want to pay them as little as possible.
If capital is allowed to consolidate wealth and power into a corporation, labor should be able to collectively negotiate with it. Unions can serve to to bridge the gap of uneven power at negotiations.
> A union has no bargaining power if it has competition, of course.
A union is under the same market forces as anybody else. If it has competition, it must compete.
> A union actually takes away a worker's room to negotiate
Depends on the union. Some allow for negotiation, some have a scale which you can work with.
On one side of the table, there is Walmart: a large group of well-monied people that pay lawyers, lobbyists, PR teams and think-tanks to level the playing field in their favor.
On the other side, there is you: an individual person who can only bring their time and skill to the table and needs to eat.
Unorganized labor is great for Walmart. If you don't like their terms, there is a large pool of qualified applicants that will take whatever employment they can get.
If Walmart's terms aren't really that great for everybody, where huge swaths of people are not being paid fair market compensation for their productivity then, individually, workers have no option for change.
> I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work.
People are not being paid fair market compensation for their work that they would be if they were able to bargain collectively the way Walmart is able to. An individual has little recourse against the might of many people who want to pay them as little as possible.
If capital is allowed to consolidate wealth and power into a corporation, labor should be able to collectively negotiate with it. Unions can serve to to bridge the gap of uneven power at negotiations.
> A union has no bargaining power if it has competition, of course.
A union is under the same market forces as anybody else. If it has competition, it must compete.
> A union actually takes away a worker's room to negotiate
Depends on the union. Some allow for negotiation, some have a scale which you can work with.
I'm curious about how people that see unions as something that causes a negative outcome for workers explains the massive gap in worker rights etc that clearly exists between the US and Europe.
Perhaps it is because just as we have seen here, they are told by labour advocates that fair compensation and room for negotiation are a good thing? Since a union takes both of those away, if fairness and freedom are good, one can only conclude that a union is bad.
That's why I found the use of the parent's words so interesting.
That's why I found the use of the parent's words so interesting.
In many situations, without a union, there is no room for negotiation. This is the way it is with Walmart.
You are afforded no freedom or fairness in that situation, just what Walmart wants to offer you.
Fair implies room for compromise or a lack of unequal advantage from both parties. In this case, Walmart has all the say in how your employment is handled.
A fair fight assumes that participants are on an equal footing. If Walmart shows up with a tank and you've got your bare hands, that isn't fair.
This is what I mean by fair. Fairer compensation can be ascertained by both parties through a fairer negotiation.
Unions raise the minimum standards for negotiations and conditions, whether you are a member or not.
Many unions allow for up-negotiation or work within a pay scale. Walmart has a scale too, so does your employer, except neither bottom out. Ask for compensation above the top bound of that scale and you will be laughed out of the room. A union forces an employer to raise the bottom for up-negotiation or a pay scale and negotiate for a higher top bound. Bonuses exist outside of the scale.
I cannot come to the same conclusion as you with regards to unions taking away fair compensation and room for negotiation for those reasons.
You are afforded no freedom or fairness in that situation, just what Walmart wants to offer you.
Fair implies room for compromise or a lack of unequal advantage from both parties. In this case, Walmart has all the say in how your employment is handled.
A fair fight assumes that participants are on an equal footing. If Walmart shows up with a tank and you've got your bare hands, that isn't fair.
This is what I mean by fair. Fairer compensation can be ascertained by both parties through a fairer negotiation.
Unions raise the minimum standards for negotiations and conditions, whether you are a member or not.
Many unions allow for up-negotiation or work within a pay scale. Walmart has a scale too, so does your employer, except neither bottom out. Ask for compensation above the top bound of that scale and you will be laughed out of the room. A union forces an employer to raise the bottom for up-negotiation or a pay scale and negotiate for a higher top bound. Bonuses exist outside of the scale.
I cannot come to the same conclusion as you with regards to unions taking away fair compensation and room for negotiation for those reasons.
I'm not sure what you actually mean here, could you please clarify?
Do you by fairness strictly mean the initial compensation being offered, but not what the workers believe is a fair compensation after-the-fact?
Do you by freedom strictly mean individual freedom to bargain, but not the freedom to organise and bargain collectively?
Do you by fairness strictly mean the initial compensation being offered, but not what the workers believe is a fair compensation after-the-fact?
Do you by freedom strictly mean individual freedom to bargain, but not the freedom to organise and bargain collectively?
Which part of the original comment did you not understand?
Fair means everyone is operating in their own interests, as they choose, which can include expecting more in the future. I did ask in the comment what is more fair than that, and you didn't mention anything when you initially replied, so presumably you agreed with that part.
Freedom means that everyone is able to operate in their own interests, as they choose. Collective bargaining locks some people out of operating in their own interests. This part should be obvious. A union cannot function when there is competition. The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom.
But, like I said, less freedom and fairness is a good thing here. There is no reason to shy away from it. Unions have done wonders for the public.
Fair means everyone is operating in their own interests, as they choose, which can include expecting more in the future. I did ask in the comment what is more fair than that, and you didn't mention anything when you initially replied, so presumably you agreed with that part.
Freedom means that everyone is able to operate in their own interests, as they choose. Collective bargaining locks some people out of operating in their own interests. This part should be obvious. A union cannot function when there is competition. The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom.
But, like I said, less freedom and fairness is a good thing here. There is no reason to shy away from it. Unions have done wonders for the public.
> A union cannot function when there is competition.
The competition is individuals sourced through a variety of means or other unions.
Typically unions provide a degree value over other options to both parties, hence why you join one as a worker and you sign contracts with one as an employer.
Unions exist in the same market as the rest of us and must compete as well.
> The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom.
And break a contract they freely chose to sign with a union?
The competition is individuals sourced through a variety of means or other unions.
Typically unions provide a degree value over other options to both parties, hence why you join one as a worker and you sign contracts with one as an employer.
Unions exist in the same market as the rest of us and must compete as well.
> The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom.
And break a contract they freely chose to sign with a union?
Do not assume I agree with you because I did not respond to something. Especially when I wrote that I did not understand your answer fully.
You're either too vague in your comments or I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are.
We seem to have different definitions of fair and freedom. For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. And that's excluding the factor of solidarity with your fellow workers.
Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live.
You're either too vague in your comments or I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are.
We seem to have different definitions of fair and freedom. For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. And that's excluding the factor of solidarity with your fellow workers.
Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live.
> For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one.
Exactly. You take away worker's freedom and fairness to improve the situation. Freedom is what causes the problems that unions attempt to solve.
When people are free to operate any way they want, in a fair market with no restrictions, they will undercut others to everyone's detriment, be that through accepting lower pay, willing to take greater risks in dangerous jobs, and so on. Again, a union takes away their freedom to do those things, and takes away the fairness that treats everyone in the same way, so that everyone else doesn't feel like they also have to do those things.
> Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live.
There is another freedom lost. Do you still not see how freedom is a bad thing here? Surely you agree that not being able to fire people for being in a union is a good thing, even though it comes at the cost of less freedom?
> I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are.
Possibly. Are you an American by chance? It get the impression they place such high value on freedom and fairness that anything else they like must also be free and fair, without even taking the time to think about what that actually means. I see several comments here where people are getting upset at the idea that unions aren't free or fair, even though there is no reason to be. It is perfectly okay to not always be completely free or fair.
Exactly. You take away worker's freedom and fairness to improve the situation. Freedom is what causes the problems that unions attempt to solve.
When people are free to operate any way they want, in a fair market with no restrictions, they will undercut others to everyone's detriment, be that through accepting lower pay, willing to take greater risks in dangerous jobs, and so on. Again, a union takes away their freedom to do those things, and takes away the fairness that treats everyone in the same way, so that everyone else doesn't feel like they also have to do those things.
> Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live.
There is another freedom lost. Do you still not see how freedom is a bad thing here? Surely you agree that not being able to fire people for being in a union is a good thing, even though it comes at the cost of less freedom?
> I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are.
Possibly. Are you an American by chance? It get the impression they place such high value on freedom and fairness that anything else they like must also be free and fair, without even taking the time to think about what that actually means. I see several comments here where people are getting upset at the idea that unions aren't free or fair, even though there is no reason to be. It is perfectly okay to not always be completely free or fair.
You seem to be trying to promote some kind of objective definition of fair and freedom. I don't think it's possible.
I've already explained that freedom to join a union is as much a freedom for me as to not do it. It's just a matter of tactics.
Also regarding freedom of firing an employee for joining a union. That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you.
I'm not from the states.
I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore. Or if you are just trying to get to an objective definition of freedom and fairness that you can build upon to say that unions are inherently bad in some right-libertarian philosophical way.
I've already explained that freedom to join a union is as much a freedom for me as to not do it. It's just a matter of tactics.
Also regarding freedom of firing an employee for joining a union. That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you.
I'm not from the states.
I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore. Or if you are just trying to get to an objective definition of freedom and fairness that you can build upon to say that unions are inherently bad in some right-libertarian philosophical way.
> You seem to be trying to promote some kind of objective definition of fair and freedom. I don't think it's possible.
But that only further emphasizes how flawed the use of "fair compensation" by the OP was. Glad to see you are starting to make the same points I was.
> That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you.
Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary.
> I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore.
Deep down, the topic isn't really about unions at all, so I'm not even sure what difference it makes?
Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union, as I figured some overly emotional people would take the opening the wrong way (and still did anyway). I am now left wondering if you actually read the comment at all?
> to say that unions are inherently bad
I don't quite understand where you are even going here? Suppose we did agree on what free and fair mean. Then what? All we can conclude is that unions take away freedoms and fairness. How do you take that and turn it into unions being bad? I don't see the leap you are making here.
But that only further emphasizes how flawed the use of "fair compensation" by the OP was. Glad to see you are starting to make the same points I was.
> That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you.
Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary.
> I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore.
Deep down, the topic isn't really about unions at all, so I'm not even sure what difference it makes?
Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union, as I figured some overly emotional people would take the opening the wrong way (and still did anyway). I am now left wondering if you actually read the comment at all?
> to say that unions are inherently bad
I don't quite understand where you are even going here? Suppose we did agree on what free and fair mean. Then what? All we can conclude is that unions take away freedoms and fairness. How do you take that and turn it into unions being bad? I don't see the leap you are making here.
randomdata basically pointed out that freedom isn't always in a person's best interests. The two of you are certainly using different definitions of fairness as well. randomdata's definition seems to have more to do with lack of third party involvement/regulation of the negotiation while you focus on the exchange of time & effort vs financial compensation.
[deleted]
How does a union take away fair compensation and room for negotiation?
> How does a union take away fair compensation
Fair compensation is the result of many actors all competing in a market without restriction. This is often bad, as when competition is fierce, those many actors will drive down value to almost nothing, leaving low pay, willingness to do dangerous acts, etc.
The union improves on fair compensation by setting terms that the people must follow. No longer fair, but a much better situation for employees.
> room for negotiation
You can always try it out for yourself. Find a unionized job, sell yourself to the bosses, and then clinch it with a sweetheart offer of $10/hr less than everyone else is being paid. See how far you get and report back to us. Something tells me you'll soon realize that your negotiating room is gone. And that's a good thing!
Fair compensation is the result of many actors all competing in a market without restriction. This is often bad, as when competition is fierce, those many actors will drive down value to almost nothing, leaving low pay, willingness to do dangerous acts, etc.
The union improves on fair compensation by setting terms that the people must follow. No longer fair, but a much better situation for employees.
> room for negotiation
You can always try it out for yourself. Find a unionized job, sell yourself to the bosses, and then clinch it with a sweetheart offer of $10/hr less than everyone else is being paid. See how far you get and report back to us. Something tells me you'll soon realize that your negotiating room is gone. And that's a good thing!
> Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all
This is completely untrue. There are a lot of people who need to work to eat and pay rent. Often they're backed into a corner where there's literally no other jobs available than Walmart, which means that Walmart can offer any wage they want and the potential employees have no options beyond accepting, or being on the street.
This is completely untrue. There are a lot of people who need to work to eat and pay rent. Often they're backed into a corner where there's literally no other jobs available than Walmart, which means that Walmart can offer any wage they want and the potential employees have no options beyond accepting, or being on the street.
How is it untrue? What people, who did not reach an agreement with Walmart to work together, are working at Walmart?
Why would Walmart even want to have workers who walked away from the table during negation, of whom they have no employment agreement and are technically not even employees, working for them? That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
Even ignoring the sketchy legal ground, it seems like a huge liability to have what are effectively random people walking in off the street doing work at your store. I am still dubious that Walmart, or any other business for that matter, would allow this.
Why would Walmart even want to have workers who walked away from the table during negation, of whom they have no employment agreement and are technically not even employees, working for them? That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
Even ignoring the sketchy legal ground, it seems like a huge liability to have what are effectively random people walking in off the street doing work at your store. I am still dubious that Walmart, or any other business for that matter, would allow this.
When you put it that way, it sounds like Walmart is doing them a great service. Keeping them off the street. And saving the taxpayers welfare dollars at the same time.
Walmart's MO was to setup shop in towns, undercut the competition until there was no competition left and then raise prices. A great service indeed.
Did you know that people who profit from child labor help hungry kids eat?
Did you know that people who profit from child labor help hungry kids eat?
This is a particularly malicious rationalisation historically.
> I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work.
I would argue that this is where the lack of fairness stems from. In every rural small town I've visited, Walmart is effectively a monopoly.
They're backed by a capital-intensive and incredibly efficient logistics network, and they've leveraged that to put local competition out of business. Consequently, they're the only employer in their industry in that town.
Sure, you could get a job doing something else (if the town has a 'something else'), but that still means there are going to be a large number of jobs controlled by Walmart without competition. And that distorts the local labor market via the disparity in power.
I would argue that this is where the lack of fairness stems from. In every rural small town I've visited, Walmart is effectively a monopoly.
They're backed by a capital-intensive and incredibly efficient logistics network, and they've leveraged that to put local competition out of business. Consequently, they're the only employer in their industry in that town.
Sure, you could get a job doing something else (if the town has a 'something else'), but that still means there are going to be a large number of jobs controlled by Walmart without competition. And that distorts the local labor market via the disparity in power.
In your argument, you are assuming that the individual Walmart worker has the power to negotiate.
However, they do not. There are many potential (unskilled) workers, and Walmart has all the power. They are more than happy to present an offer and say "take it or leave it" to the individual worker.
Contrast that to the highly skilled market that most HN readers inhabit, and it is scary place to be.
However, they do not. There are many potential (unskilled) workers, and Walmart has all the power. They are more than happy to present an offer and say "take it or leave it" to the individual worker.
Contrast that to the highly skilled market that most HN readers inhabit, and it is scary place to be.
Were I a slave and then given an opportunity to be a indentured servant, sure I'd agree. That doesn't mean I live in good conditions. Yea, I could terminate the agreement and move on to being a slave again, but why would I?
It's an agreement made under duress, we can do better for these people. Don't you agree?
It's an agreement made under duress, we can do better for these people. Don't you agree?
> That doesn't mean I live in good conditions
I think this is the core misunderstanding of the left in this area.
Choices are only thought to be voluntary if they are between "good" alternatives, where "good" is measured by the standards of US college educated middle class.
I think this is the core misunderstanding of the left in this area.
Choices are only thought to be voluntary if they are between "good" alternatives, where "good" is measured by the standards of US college educated middle class.
Hopefully most us agree indentured servitude is not a good condition to be in, so neither option is good here and yet you might come to some agreement.
Yes, I agree that fairness and freedom is the problem here. That's literally what the whole comment was about. A union helps take away fairness and freedom so that the employees benefit.
You are assuming your premise as your conclusion.
Well, that's the topic at hand. If the premise needs discussion, we can discuss it.
Walmart typically puts small Mom-n-Pop shops out of business when they move into a community... and they pay far lower wages than the businesses they replace.
Here is a link to the PDF of that paper. https://www.global-economic-symposium.org/knowledgebase/the-...
Thanks for sharing. This paper speaks to wages... not benefits, which Walmart avoids by classifying employees as part-time.
And mom and pops avoid because most ACA requirements don't apply to employers with fewer than 50 full time employees.
There's simply no evidence that Walmart is a drag on wages compared to retailers it replaces. Quite the opposite actually.
There's simply no evidence that Walmart is a drag on wages compared to retailers it replaces. Quite the opposite actually.
Follow the money. NBER's source of funding is dubious, at best.
Oh please... an ad hominem attack on the NBER??
>...The NBER is the largest economics research organization in the United States.[2] Many of the American winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences were NBER Research Associates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Re...
>...The NBER is the largest economics research organization in the United States.[2] Many of the American winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences were NBER Research Associates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Re...
Are you advocating for small businesses to be replaced by a handful of monopoly mega-corps?
"Research" can be used to defend any argument in this debate.
The NBER has 3-4 sources of funding and consistently reinforces conservative, monopolistic positions.
"Research" can be used to defend any argument in this debate.
The NBER has 3-4 sources of funding and consistently reinforces conservative, monopolistic positions.
It's the largest economic research organization in the US and the #1 clearinghouse for academic work in economics.
Furthermore, just because the paper is on NBER, it doesn't mean the organization did the research. It's just the organization that hosts the paper. If you click through, you can see that the work was done by faculty at Stanford and The University of Michigan.
Furthermore, just because the paper is on NBER, it doesn't mean the organization did the research. It's just the organization that hosts the paper. If you click through, you can see that the work was done by faculty at Stanford and The University of Michigan.
And their "research" is used by right-wing conservatives to justify fracking, and other environmentally damaging agendas.
http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/11/01/shale-boom-nber-conse...
http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/11/01/shale-boom-nber-conse...
The paper I linked to wasn't done by NBER. They just host a database of research done by basically all academic economists. Your ad hominem attack isn't even aimed at the right people.
Like I said... follow the money. I choose to filter this out as false authority, not ad-hominem.
Everyone chooses which science they want to deny so they don't have to confront inaccuracies in their world view. I guess this is yours.
Probably should have clarified overall comp and benefits are lower... not specifically wages.
Do you have any evidence for that point of view?
Mom and pops very rarely have good benefits because they don't have the resources that larger firms have. It's complicated and expensive to set up things like health care plans and 401Ks. This is why the ACA employer mandate doesn't apply to firms with fewer than 50 employees.
Mom and pops very rarely have good benefits because they don't have the resources that larger firms have. It's complicated and expensive to set up things like health care plans and 401Ks. This is why the ACA employer mandate doesn't apply to firms with fewer than 50 employees.
When economies of scale have allowed Walmart to drive all the other shops out of business in your town, and you need to earn money to live, you don't exactly have a fair bargaining position as an employee.
Do you seriously believe that any of the floor staff at Walmart have been able to negotiate a separate wage for themselves?
Do you seriously believe that any of the floor staff at Walmart have been able to negotiate a separate wage for themselves?
> you don't exactly have a fair bargaining position as an employee.
Sure you do. You can choose exactly what you want out of the deal. That's also the problem.
> Do you seriously believe that any of the floor staff at Walmart have been able to negotiate a separate wage for themselves?
No, which is why we advocate removing the fairness. Fair does not equal good. Fair is what leads to this situation.
Sure you do. You can choose exactly what you want out of the deal. That's also the problem.
> Do you seriously believe that any of the floor staff at Walmart have been able to negotiate a separate wage for themselves?
No, which is why we advocate removing the fairness. Fair does not equal good. Fair is what leads to this situation.
You make a good argument. But "fairness" is a loaded term. There would be no need for unions if no employer had more than a few employees. In that case, employers and employees would have similar market power. But when employers have numerous employees, there is an imbalance in market power. Through collective bargaining, unions restore employees' market power.
that's a good point: fairness is neither here nor there. the point is to get a better deal for workers.
yada yada yada rich and poor equally free to not sleep under a bridge?
The rich and the poor are equally free to make offers on places that prevent them from sleeping under the bridge, absolutely.
But since those with homes are just as free to say no to some (esp. the poor), they really might be left to live under a bridge. This is why freedom and fairness can be bad. If we take away freedom, we can allow those people under the bridge to have homes.
But since those with homes are just as free to say no to some (esp. the poor), they really might be left to live under a bridge. This is why freedom and fairness can be bad. If we take away freedom, we can allow those people under the bridge to have homes.
So industrial monopolies are illegal but apparently a labor monopoly is not. It's illogical. Labor is a product like any other.
Probably off topic, but this reminded me of the only other retailer (that I'm aware of) that could challenge Walmart for the title of "most vehemently anti-union employer in America": Menards[0][1]
[0] http://gawker.com/menards-the-gold-standard-of-union-hating-...
[1] http://gawker.com/documents-how-a-major-company-bombards-emp...
[0] http://gawker.com/menards-the-gold-standard-of-union-hating-...
[1] http://gawker.com/documents-how-a-major-company-bombards-emp...
> massive profits.
Wal-Mart's profit margin is about 5%.
Wal-Mart's profit margin is about 5%.
But isn't much of that self-inflicted?
That is to say, Walmart purposely aims to undercut the competition on price and to save people money. If they deviated a bit from that mantra they could surely increase their profit margins. Especially in areas where they are now the main purveyor of goods after they've driven out the competition.
That is to say, Walmart purposely aims to undercut the competition on price and to save people money. If they deviated a bit from that mantra they could surely increase their profit margins. Especially in areas where they are now the main purveyor of goods after they've driven out the competition.
[deleted]
That doesn't mean that $131.69 billion is not a massive amount of money. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Pro...
That's gross profit--revenue minus cost of goods sold, not including salaries and rent. Other overhead plus taxes brings that down to about $15 billion. Which is not a lot of profit for a company with almost 2.3 million employees. It's equivalent to a 20-employee mom-and-pop that pulls out $120,000 a year for its owner. A McDonalds franchise is much more profitable.
Wow! Thank you for explaining that to me. Surprising.
Their duty to employees? Those employees have the right to quit. If the supply of labor decreases, the prevailing wage will increase.
Also not mentioned are the effects of Obamacare and the unintended consequences of companies cutting hours.
Also not mentioned are the effects of Obamacare and the unintended consequences of companies cutting hours.
When the ACA was passed, Walmart hired enough people to make sure that everyone worked less than the required average of 30hrs a week per month so that they would not have to pay for health benefits or be fined. They relieved themselves of their duty to provide benefits to their full time employees by going out of their way to eliminate full time employees.
What did you expect them to do? When Wal-Mart has a choice, they almost always choose the least expensive option. If the drafters of the ACA wanted Wal-Mart to pay for health insurance, they should not have left Wal-Mart an easy way out.
Why is it that we believe employers have a duty to employees to provide benefits like health coverage?
Because Americans want all the benefits of socialism but with plausible deniability about not being "commies"
>If the supply of labor decreases, the prevailing wage will increase. //
So, all the low paid need to do is reduce the number of people available. Genocide has never been so easily argued for.
So, all the low paid need to do is reduce the number of people available. Genocide has never been so easily argued for.
Former Walmart employee here. Before there was any such thing as smart phones, they still used to instruct us not to speak to union people, and to report being approached.
Whatever you do, don't report union reps approaching Wal-Mart employees. It's the quickest way to get a store shut down and everybody blacklisted. Wal-Mart is terrified of unions and has an almost religious zeal for prosecuting them.
Edit, source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over...
http://rense.com/general65/union.htm
Edit, source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over...
http://rense.com/general65/union.htm
Parent is downvoted, but they're at least correct that it's legal to recommend employees not associate with union organizers (including related activities like downloading an app). It's only when they take retaliatory action that it starts to cross the line.
It's certainly unwise to interpret their concern that charitably--it only has access to photos and it's a chat app. It has the same concerns any other chat app would have. They don't publish PSAs about texting.
But if we recognize that it is yet another chat app, like every other chat app, why are people even downloading it in the first place to prompt Wal-mart to feel the need to issue a statement?
It only has the privacy profile of a chat app. The "OUR Walmart" app offers other functionality, like legal advice and concerns specific to employees, that I would imagine I would love were I an employee myself.
That said, I don't think it's out of order for... whatever OUR walmart is (a union?) to release a privacy statement. But painting them as identity thiefs, phishers, or ad resellers is absurd. In my view, Walmart is pandering to fears without actually identifying real concerns.
That said, I don't think it's out of order for... whatever OUR walmart is (a union?) to release a privacy statement. But painting them as identity thiefs, phishers, or ad resellers is absurd. In my view, Walmart is pandering to fears without actually identifying real concerns.
> Walmart is pandering to fears without actually identifying real concerns.
What part of their concern do you not believe is real? If I were Walmart, I would certainly be concerned about others trying to gain intelligence on me.
> like legal advice and concerns specific to employees
Well, that certainly sounds like a really good way for information, that Walmart may not want just anyone to know, to leak. Maybe the intentions of OUR Walmart is nothing but pure, and hope for nothing but the best for Walmart, but I don't see what benefit there is in being so trusting? Security is about always mitigating the attack vectors, after all.
Besides, why should we believe a service named "OUR Walmart" does not want to know anything about Walmart?
What part of their concern do you not believe is real? If I were Walmart, I would certainly be concerned about others trying to gain intelligence on me.
> like legal advice and concerns specific to employees
Well, that certainly sounds like a really good way for information, that Walmart may not want just anyone to know, to leak. Maybe the intentions of OUR Walmart is nothing but pure, and hope for nothing but the best for Walmart, but I don't see what benefit there is in being so trusting? Security is about always mitigating the attack vectors, after all.
Besides, why should we believe a service named "OUR Walmart" does not want to know anything about Walmart?
>They're not interfering with the right to bargain collectively though. For all we know, they're genuinely warning their employees that they may be involved in a PII collection scam.
I never thought the benefit of the doubt could go so far.
I never thought the benefit of the doubt could go so far.
Just to play devil's advocate here, this is from the article:
> The app, called WorkIt, invites users to register by providing a name, email, telephone number and ZIP Code. Users can also s hare (sic) their job title and Wal-Mart store number....
That is a bunch of personally identifying information. You can easily steal somebody's identity with those bits of information, or at least have a good idea of who they are. I see how Walmart's corporate line is at least somewhat believable upon further thought.
And there has been no disclosure on how they're storing this information. Are they storing it on AWS/GCE/Azure or Linode? Or do they have their own locked down racks that safeguard this information?
Look, I'm not saying that there's anything malicious about this, or the Walmart isn't trying to bust worker collaboration. But, in today's security conscious world, you really should ask these questions when you're requesting PII to sign up to your app.
And malice vs carelessness doesn't matter when your personal information is leaked all over the web.
> The app, called WorkIt, invites users to register by providing a name, email, telephone number and ZIP Code. Users can also s hare (sic) their job title and Wal-Mart store number....
That is a bunch of personally identifying information. You can easily steal somebody's identity with those bits of information, or at least have a good idea of who they are. I see how Walmart's corporate line is at least somewhat believable upon further thought.
And there has been no disclosure on how they're storing this information. Are they storing it on AWS/GCE/Azure or Linode? Or do they have their own locked down racks that safeguard this information?
Look, I'm not saying that there's anything malicious about this, or the Walmart isn't trying to bust worker collaboration. But, in today's security conscious world, you really should ask these questions when you're requesting PII to sign up to your app.
And malice vs carelessness doesn't matter when your personal information is leaked all over the web.
"Locked down racks" is complete FUD. It's not like there's HIPAA or PCI compliance issues here. Incompetently managed bare metal servers are just as hackable, perhaps more so, than incompetently used cloud IaaS. Workers should be careful, but storage has absolutely nothing to do with this.
> "Locked down racks" is complete FUD.
That was my point. I'd much rather have them Amazon boys or Google boys take care of my data than my own sysadmin team - the Amazon/Google sysadmins are sharp, they apply all patches, and they have procedures in place to make sure they don't do anything incredibly stupid.
The fact they don't mention how they store any of this information that could have potential career altering affects bothers the heck out of me. I'd much rather they just say that they stored everything in AWS, than run their own bare metal.
That was my point. I'd much rather have them Amazon boys or Google boys take care of my data than my own sysadmin team - the Amazon/Google sysadmins are sharp, they apply all patches, and they have procedures in place to make sure they don't do anything incredibly stupid.
The fact they don't mention how they store any of this information that could have potential career altering affects bothers the heck out of me. I'd much rather they just say that they stored everything in AWS, than run their own bare metal.
What you're saying is even more FUD though.
Using AWS EC2 or GCE's compute doesn't mean you aren't responsible for sysadmining. You still have to patch your boxes, you still have not do incredibly stupid things.
The actual security difference between servers on a rack and virtual machines in a cloud is roughly a dozen ip-tables rules (security groups).
Using AWS EC2 or GCE's compute doesn't mean you aren't responsible for sysadmining. You still have to patch your boxes, you still have not do incredibly stupid things.
The actual security difference between servers on a rack and virtual machines in a cloud is roughly a dozen ip-tables rules (security groups).
There are two levels, IaaS and PaaS.
For IaaS, I agree that you're responsible for some sysadmining, but you start from a known good point in that bare VM OS images (for CentOS, Ubuntu, Windows, etc) will probably have all the appropriate patches applied and up to date. Of course you're on your own when it comes to spinning up your programs to make sure SQL injection doesn't work, etc etc.
PaaS is another thing. In that case, if you're using AppEngine or ElasticBeanstalk or Heroku, you don't have to worry about the base infrastructure or the datastore at all. They should have all the relevant security patches applied at all times, which really cuts down the attack area to just your app, not the web server, datastore, or OS vulnerabilities.
For IaaS, I agree that you're responsible for some sysadmining, but you start from a known good point in that bare VM OS images (for CentOS, Ubuntu, Windows, etc) will probably have all the appropriate patches applied and up to date. Of course you're on your own when it comes to spinning up your programs to make sure SQL injection doesn't work, etc etc.
PaaS is another thing. In that case, if you're using AppEngine or ElasticBeanstalk or Heroku, you don't have to worry about the base infrastructure or the datastore at all. They should have all the relevant security patches applied at all times, which really cuts down the attack area to just your app, not the web server, datastore, or OS vulnerabilities.
> the Amazon/Google sysadmins are sharp, they apply all patches, and they have procedures in place to make sure they don't do anything incredibly stupid.
I shared that viewpoint when I was hosting my forum on InMotion Hosting. Until they first applied an update that resulted in Apache returning all PHP files as plaintext files, revealing my SQL login credentials from the phpBB config file (thankfully I had remote DB login disabled.) And then a few weeks later, badly corrupting my entire SQL database and not being able to restore it after.
I doubt Amazon/Google could be as incompetent as InMotion was, but all the same, don't trust that just because it's a company that specializes in something that you're safe from abject stupidity.
I shared that viewpoint when I was hosting my forum on InMotion Hosting. Until they first applied an update that resulted in Apache returning all PHP files as plaintext files, revealing my SQL login credentials from the phpBB config file (thankfully I had remote DB login disabled.) And then a few weeks later, badly corrupting my entire SQL database and not being able to restore it after.
I doubt Amazon/Google could be as incompetent as InMotion was, but all the same, don't trust that just because it's a company that specializes in something that you're safe from abject stupidity.
It's not PII [1]. That's an actual legal term. Workit apparently wants worker identifying information, and Walmart, like other employers are free to tell their workers not to provide it, but there's no ethical or legal reason they can give to workers not to use it.
It's not unlike GlassDoor - lots of companies would prefer you didn't use it, but at the employee level, the advantage/disadvantage ratio is pretty in your favor.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_inform...
It's not unlike GlassDoor - lots of companies would prefer you didn't use it, but at the employee level, the advantage/disadvantage ratio is pretty in your favor.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_inform...
Your own link lists some of the collected data as PII.
Employment data considered "linked" information, and not core PII.
Core PII is: "any information about an individual maintained by an agency, including (1) any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, or biometric records"
Core PII is: "any information about an individual maintained by an agency, including (1) any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, or biometric records"
You're talking about core PII here. I'm saying the signup requirements probably constitute PII when taken all together.
Full name (if uncommon) and email address (if private from an association/club membership, etc.). IP address (I'm pretty sure they can log your IP address unless they specifically say they don't.) And Zip code is mentioned as PII if linked to any of the above.
These are all things they request for signup, and then you can optionally include your job title and your store number. All that stuff put together is very clearly PII, so I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Full name (if uncommon) and email address (if private from an association/club membership, etc.). IP address (I'm pretty sure they can log your IP address unless they specifically say they don't.) And Zip code is mentioned as PII if linked to any of the above.
These are all things they request for signup, and then you can optionally include your job title and your store number. All that stuff put together is very clearly PII, so I'm not quite sure what your point is.
You need something personally identifiable, not just personal of nature to constitute as PII (I deal with actual PII on a daily basis). Adding up PII-related info together doesn't constitute PII.
Many people gladly share personal details with activism sites and social networks well in excess of what this app is requesting, the only thing surprising here is the Streissand effect that wal-mart will get by naming this app.
Many people gladly share personal details with activism sites and social networks well in excess of what this app is requesting, the only thing surprising here is the Streissand effect that wal-mart will get by naming this app.
I've noticed a trend where companies encourage employees to leave positive reviews on GlassDoor, artificially inflating the score, positive feedback and salary information on the site.
An even scarier trend (hasn't happened to me but a friend of mine) is that a lot of companies want you to give linkedin permissions to post on your behalf for the company's recruiters.
I don't know how prevalent that is, but there apparently was a lot of soft pressure applied. "We're a startup and we're having a hard time recruiting. Don't you want this company to succeed? We need to recruit more people, and these linked in campaigns will help."
I don't know how prevalent that is, but there apparently was a lot of soft pressure applied. "We're a startup and we're having a hard time recruiting. Don't you want this company to succeed? We need to recruit more people, and these linked in campaigns will help."
I have been thinking of non-anonymous reviews for a while now, but I know it can't be the default.
I'll take your concerns seriously when you post that about every single app that gets mentioned on hn. If you only care* about it for this particular app, then you might want to re-examine your biases and motivations.
* and by 'care' I mean 'go to the trouble of writing a long comment on why it's such a bad thing.
* and by 'care' I mean 'go to the trouble of writing a long comment on why it's such a bad thing.
I said I was being a devil's advocate. And the fact that an app requires such personal information to pretty much access an expert system raises my hackles.
Are you really unable to tell the difference between merely registering for a site and given them your phone number and zip code?
Are you really unable to tell the difference between merely registering for a site and given them your phone number and zip code?
Of course I'm able to tell the difference. I'm also able to tell the difference between a labor union trying to organize workers and other forms of commercial activity.
Apparently this app is just for answering frequently asked questions about HR and leave policies, with the help of IBM's watson.
Which article were you reading? They were not trying to organize workers overtly, and just to give advice on lead policies requires absolutely no personal information that needs to be stored.
What part of that can't you tell the difference of, that their demanding of personal information is overreach?
Which article were you reading? They were not trying to organize workers overtly, and just to give advice on lead policies requires absolutely no personal information that needs to be stored.
What part of that can't you tell the difference of, that their demanding of personal information is overreach?
I'm not convinced by your argument. People freely give away this information and more to facebook, etc.
But not in one giant queryable SQL table.
I'd worry about parallelized spearfishing attacks across multiple stores, "Good Morning DEF, have I reached store number 12345 cash handling office? OK good to hear, this ABC at walmart corporate IT calling back about that trouble ticket your coworker XYZ entered about your store in Springfield, is XYZ at work now? Oh OK, well, anyway the ticket says XYZ is having trouble accessing the credit card portal, the ticket says you're trying to log in using the password of "password2", and back at HQ I can't log in using that password either so I'm planning on resetting her password, which will completely lock her out of the system for at least a week, unfortunately, but that's how ... Oh wait, you say there's a post it note on the monitor that her password is actually "ilovejustinbeiber", hold on a moment let me try that. How about that, it does work. Hey thanks for helping out, gonna save a lot of trouble for everyone. I'm not going to reset XYZ's password since it does work, I'll just close out the ticket with "can't reproduce problem", whoever took the ticket here couldn't enter the data right and obviously whatever problem there was is fixed now. Have a nice day out there in Springfield, Make Walmart Great Again (or whatever it is they say) Bye!"
Or some team calls like twenty electronics departments and tells all of them to toss all their ipad stock into a large shipment box because they were shipped with faulty batteries while reading back all the info they gathered to build trust, then let them know a courier from UPS (fake brown uniform) will present a (fake) ID and pick up that box of ipads in an hour and they can expect replacements air shipped later that day. Remind the employee to make sure they sign and save the (fake) return receipt. Imagine what a large team could do with a phone that takes pictures, snapping serial numbers of boxes on the shelf and a half hour later reading the serial number list back to the clerk over the phone.
This is all old stuff, but the advantage is you can parallelize it. If "they" hit one store every night there would be emergency emails printed out and taped up and handed out by the next week, but if you run this right you could do maybe 200, 300 stores.
Even better if a competitor paid you to pull this off on Black Friday when half the IT staff took the day off anyway and all you need is to sow chaos to make money. Or do this the day before earnings are announced to really mess with them financially.
I'd worry about parallelized spearfishing attacks across multiple stores, "Good Morning DEF, have I reached store number 12345 cash handling office? OK good to hear, this ABC at walmart corporate IT calling back about that trouble ticket your coworker XYZ entered about your store in Springfield, is XYZ at work now? Oh OK, well, anyway the ticket says XYZ is having trouble accessing the credit card portal, the ticket says you're trying to log in using the password of "password2", and back at HQ I can't log in using that password either so I'm planning on resetting her password, which will completely lock her out of the system for at least a week, unfortunately, but that's how ... Oh wait, you say there's a post it note on the monitor that her password is actually "ilovejustinbeiber", hold on a moment let me try that. How about that, it does work. Hey thanks for helping out, gonna save a lot of trouble for everyone. I'm not going to reset XYZ's password since it does work, I'll just close out the ticket with "can't reproduce problem", whoever took the ticket here couldn't enter the data right and obviously whatever problem there was is fixed now. Have a nice day out there in Springfield, Make Walmart Great Again (or whatever it is they say) Bye!"
Or some team calls like twenty electronics departments and tells all of them to toss all their ipad stock into a large shipment box because they were shipped with faulty batteries while reading back all the info they gathered to build trust, then let them know a courier from UPS (fake brown uniform) will present a (fake) ID and pick up that box of ipads in an hour and they can expect replacements air shipped later that day. Remind the employee to make sure they sign and save the (fake) return receipt. Imagine what a large team could do with a phone that takes pictures, snapping serial numbers of boxes on the shelf and a half hour later reading the serial number list back to the clerk over the phone.
This is all old stuff, but the advantage is you can parallelize it. If "they" hit one store every night there would be emergency emails printed out and taped up and handed out by the next week, but if you run this right you could do maybe 200, 300 stores.
Even better if a competitor paid you to pull this off on Black Friday when half the IT staff took the day off anyway and all you need is to sow chaos to make money. Or do this the day before earnings are announced to really mess with them financially.
Uhhh... "facebook can't query user data"? Facebook even has the current occupation and location data of users, so of course they can find out at what specific store you work!
Facebook has a larger user base with richer data on them, than the app in the story. None of that data is E2E encrypted, and all of it is available to (some) FB employees.
I think your FUD is unjustified here.
Facebook has a larger user base with richer data on them, than the app in the story. None of that data is E2E encrypted, and all of it is available to (some) FB employees.
I think your FUD is unjustified here.
Nowhere did he say that "facebook couldn't query user data".
He's saying that it's probably not in a form that's easily queryable. With that information in an ill-secured data store that's highly categorized you can do all sorts of mischief.
And how is it FUD? Once you cleanse and normalize data, fraud opportunities become very apparent.
He's saying that it's probably not in a form that's easily queryable. With that information in an ill-secured data store that's highly categorized you can do all sorts of mischief.
And how is it FUD? Once you cleanse and normalize data, fraud opportunities become very apparent.
It sounds a lot like "I assume FB has good data practices based on nothing, and I assume this app has bad data practices based on nothing, thus this app is probably bad".
Yeah, the app has an option to fill in your store ID, but Facebook has at least as valuable data on you (like many private conversations), and has the tooling to extract all kinds of markers from this rich data (i.e. for advertising and running facial recognition on all your pictures). Fraud opportunities are everywhere in the centralized social media (/ web services) sphere.
Yeah, the app has an option to fill in your store ID, but Facebook has at least as valuable data on you (like many private conversations), and has the tooling to extract all kinds of markers from this rich data (i.e. for advertising and running facial recognition on all your pictures). Fraud opportunities are everywhere in the centralized social media (/ web services) sphere.
> "I assume FB has good data practices based on nothing, and I assume this app has bad data practices based on nothing, thus this app is probably bad".
That is a strawman. FB probably has decent (at least industry standard) data practices because they're a public company, spend a lot of money on hiring engineers, and have been under investigation for keeping data secure. I think that if they're doing something wrong, they're probably not doing something obviously stupid.
Now, you have another app which was written by "Now, Marler has a second job: She’s one of about two dozen current and former employees who helped construct an app called WorkIt that answers questions about Walmart’s policies and workplace rights using Watson, IBM’s artificial intelligence bot."
I'm not saying that this app is bad, I'm saying that they have a huge probability of overlooking data security vulnerabilities. Of their two dozen employees, how many of them are really well versed in inf sec or IT?
The belief that FB has good data practices and there are no assurances that another random app has unknown data practices is rooted in reality.
The fact that the random act is asking for so much possible PII is not a good sign.
That is a strawman. FB probably has decent (at least industry standard) data practices because they're a public company, spend a lot of money on hiring engineers, and have been under investigation for keeping data secure. I think that if they're doing something wrong, they're probably not doing something obviously stupid.
Now, you have another app which was written by "Now, Marler has a second job: She’s one of about two dozen current and former employees who helped construct an app called WorkIt that answers questions about Walmart’s policies and workplace rights using Watson, IBM’s artificial intelligence bot."
I'm not saying that this app is bad, I'm saying that they have a huge probability of overlooking data security vulnerabilities. Of their two dozen employees, how many of them are really well versed in inf sec or IT?
The belief that FB has good data practices and there are no assurances that another random app has unknown data practices is rooted in reality.
The fact that the random act is asking for so much possible PII is not a good sign.
I don't think labor unions are goi to run a scam like that. This is ridiculous. Walmart has all this information in dbs right now and they're way more likely to get hacked.
You make a good point, however the real threat isn't "Our Walmart" but "R Walmart" "Are Walmart" "Our Target" and so forth.
I have faith that the app market is so hypersaturated that any scheme that doesn't epic fail immediately spawns hundreds of clones.
"Our Walmart" is probably legit, although probably a smaller harder to defend target and the problem is going to be inevitable clones and scams.
There is also the meta-threat of normalizing sharing employer information. Sure maybe 99% of people who ask for my IP address or a list of ciphers my sshd permits are really not up to anything bad, but it would be bad to get in the habit of telling rando requesters anything they ask. So, among others, I allow aes256-gcm in my corporate sshd config... and what possible good could come from people answering questions like that ?
I have faith that the app market is so hypersaturated that any scheme that doesn't epic fail immediately spawns hundreds of clones.
"Our Walmart" is probably legit, although probably a smaller harder to defend target and the problem is going to be inevitable clones and scams.
There is also the meta-threat of normalizing sharing employer information. Sure maybe 99% of people who ask for my IP address or a list of ciphers my sshd permits are really not up to anything bad, but it would be bad to get in the habit of telling rando requesters anything they ask. So, among others, I allow aes256-gcm in my corporate sshd config... and what possible good could come from people answering questions like that ?
If you're that worried about it send an email to the union and claim an hour of pro-bono consultancy on your tax return. I don't know your motivations but this looks awfully like concern trolling.
Incidentally I'm not a union member, nor have I ever been. I just find it really odd to see a firm like Walmart being so 'concerned' about the security of their employees while at the same time shoving all sorts of electronic gadgets at their customers without the slightest murmur about the security issues. Does Walmart give the same kind of security advice to customers or employees who purchase smartphones? If not, then why would I take their sudden concern at face value here?
Incidentally I'm not a union member, nor have I ever been. I just find it really odd to see a firm like Walmart being so 'concerned' about the security of their employees while at the same time shoving all sorts of electronic gadgets at their customers without the slightest murmur about the security issues. Does Walmart give the same kind of security advice to customers or employees who purchase smartphones? If not, then why would I take their sudden concern at face value here?
Its interesting that my concerns were very specifically in defense of walmart owned property, but you describe them very specifically as security of their employees. And then wander off in customer land.
Perhaps giving away large amounts of PII in this app or getting into the habit of giving away PII for the asking puts the employees at risk, but my theoretical examples only put walmart owned property at risk. Well, any employee involved would probably get fired as the fall guy or there's some obscure binder miles away with a written policy forbidding my scenarios, but ...
"sudden concern" Is it a sudden concern? I work at a very large corporation and every six months or so we get a refresher course in not being social engineered etc. Its a sudden concern of us, of some news organizations. Opposition to social engineering attacks is probably not a recent sudden concern of walmart infosec department, they've been around the block a bit and a company doesn't get that big entirely staffed by noobs.
Perhaps giving away large amounts of PII in this app or getting into the habit of giving away PII for the asking puts the employees at risk, but my theoretical examples only put walmart owned property at risk. Well, any employee involved would probably get fired as the fall guy or there's some obscure binder miles away with a written policy forbidding my scenarios, but ...
"sudden concern" Is it a sudden concern? I work at a very large corporation and every six months or so we get a refresher course in not being social engineered etc. Its a sudden concern of us, of some news organizations. Opposition to social engineering attacks is probably not a recent sudden concern of walmart infosec department, they've been around the block a bit and a company doesn't get that big entirely staffed by noobs.
Name + telephone number + address is exactly the kind of information that you used to be able to get out of a phone book and can probably still buy from the DMV.
Just a niggle, but which phone number? Phone books only log land line numbers. Your mobile phone number (for large portions of the population) is one of the keys to your life.
Voter records are another good source for names + addresses (and phone/email depending on jurisdiction).
Not sure on how secure but this article says the app is "secure". This also goes into more detail on what they use the information for. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-14/group-enli...
"Invites here to register...this is a bunch of personally identifying information..."
Yes. Of course. Isn't that the definition of "register"? It means to input your identifying information.
Cf. First definition under intransitive verb (the sense used here): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/register
Yes. Of course. Isn't that the definition of "register"? It means to input your identifying information.
Cf. First definition under intransitive verb (the sense used here): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/register
No it doesn't. The bare minimum when you register on an anonymous website, you're asked to pick a username/password. Not all this other information.
There was a link to a definition of PII in a followup comment somewhere. Combined, the information they ask about you could be construed as PII. It would be like asking for you to give your credit card number to browse an online shop.
The app says that they answer questions about Wal-mart policies and redirect you to a human representative if they can't answer your question. Why do they need all this other information?
There was a link to a definition of PII in a followup comment somewhere. Combined, the information they ask about you could be construed as PII. It would be like asking for you to give your credit card number to browse an online shop.
The app says that they answer questions about Wal-mart policies and redirect you to a human representative if they can't answer your question. Why do they need all this other information?
Your definition wordplay makes no sense.
It says "to enroll one's name'. Not enroll one's real name or any ancillary information. Try again.
It says "to enroll one's name'. Not enroll one's real name or any ancillary information. Try again.
All of this information is probably readily available on these users' facebook profiles.
Really, your phone number, email address, zip code and full name are available on your facebook profile?
I don't know which profiles you're looking at, but that information is available on the profiles of none of my friends.
I don't know which profiles you're looking at, but that information is available on the profiles of none of my friends.
I'm no longer a Facebook user, but I can recall seeing several members of my family put all of that information on their profiles.
As well, zip code and phone number can be found on any people-finder wbesite: whitepages.com, etc.
I find it alarming too, but most people just aren't concerned with their personal data being out there in the world.
As well, zip code and phone number can be found on any people-finder wbesite: whitepages.com, etc.
I find it alarming too, but most people just aren't concerned with their personal data being out there in the world.
Another link: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/11/15/wal-mart-tell...
Interesting:
Interesting:
Wal-Mart has instructed store managers to tell their employees
that the app wasn't made by the company and described it as a
scheme to gather workers' personal information, according to a
document viewed by The Wall Street Journal.That's totally unsurprising to hear. Wal-Mart apparently defaults to portraying unions as pure evil. I don't know what the current procedure is like, but they used to make new hires watch laughably biased "educational" videos about unions. I don't remember the contents in detail, just that they roughly reminded me of '80s anti-drug PSAs/specials, with union organizers essentially taking the place of the "drug pusher" who wants to profit by ruining your life. Wal-Mart management, of course, takes the place of the wise parent/guardian who has your best interests at heart.
It works, too. In the popular media, unions have been so thoroughly demonized for several decades.
Lots of middle-aged folks now will have grown up with their only idea of the union as being the lazy teamster who does nothing all day except file grievances, or the fabled electrician who won't plug in your power cord at a trade show because it's someone else's job.
And the kinds of people who're going in for these jobs at Walmart probably aren't the most educated to begin with, so watching a video that confirms the biases they've picked up from popular media, well, that's probably a pretty effective tactic on Walmart's part.
This is all not to say that unions in the US are blameless. They could surely learn a lot from the way unions operate throughout Europe.
There's been corruption, greed, and mismanagement in the big unions, just like every big organization (especially big American organizations; something in our cultural DNA seems to make us prone to graft), but us workers still absolutely need them or something like them to keep up the good fight.
Lots of middle-aged folks now will have grown up with their only idea of the union as being the lazy teamster who does nothing all day except file grievances, or the fabled electrician who won't plug in your power cord at a trade show because it's someone else's job.
And the kinds of people who're going in for these jobs at Walmart probably aren't the most educated to begin with, so watching a video that confirms the biases they've picked up from popular media, well, that's probably a pretty effective tactic on Walmart's part.
This is all not to say that unions in the US are blameless. They could surely learn a lot from the way unions operate throughout Europe.
There's been corruption, greed, and mismanagement in the big unions, just like every big organization (especially big American organizations; something in our cultural DNA seems to make us prone to graft), but us workers still absolutely need them or something like them to keep up the good fight.
"Lots of middle-aged folks now will have grown up with their only idea of the union as being the lazy teamster who does nothing all day except file grievances, or the fabled electrician who won't plug in your power cord at a trade show because it's someone else's job."
Or have had the actual experience of not being allowed to plug in your own electrical cord at a trade show and blaming in on the union - which is probably right. I'm not saying unions are all bad but in the US ones don't have a good track record.
When the AFL-CIO asks for an exemption to the $15 minimum wage it doesn't help their image. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/los-angeles-...
Or have had the actual experience of not being allowed to plug in your own electrical cord at a trade show and blaming in on the union - which is probably right. I'm not saying unions are all bad but in the US ones don't have a good track record.
When the AFL-CIO asks for an exemption to the $15 minimum wage it doesn't help their image. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/los-angeles-...
> Or have had the actual experience of not being allowed to plug in your own electrical cord at a trade show and blaming in on the union - which is probably right. I'm not saying unions are all bad but in the US ones don't have a good track record.
While in grad school, the heater in our lab was out during a cold-ass New York winter. We put in work requests for weeks, and no repairs were ever made. A fellow grad student finally got fed up, looked up the plans to the heater online, and figured out how to fix it on his own. Months later (it is spring time now) someone from facilities shows up, goes into a fit that someone non-union fixed the heater, and the fellow grad student got into some shit from the department and the deans office. Yes, this is anecdotal, but negative interactions with unions are a real thing.
Edit: Also, the most vocal opponent of the smoking ban on campus was from one of the service worker unions.
While in grad school, the heater in our lab was out during a cold-ass New York winter. We put in work requests for weeks, and no repairs were ever made. A fellow grad student finally got fed up, looked up the plans to the heater online, and figured out how to fix it on his own. Months later (it is spring time now) someone from facilities shows up, goes into a fit that someone non-union fixed the heater, and the fellow grad student got into some shit from the department and the deans office. Yes, this is anecdotal, but negative interactions with unions are a real thing.
Edit: Also, the most vocal opponent of the smoking ban on campus was from one of the service worker unions.
There are very real safety/regulatory/liability issues with having random grad students performing electric repairs. My guess is that this is the actual problem from the facility manager's perspective, and you (or someone in your chain of communication) are misattributing it to a union problem.
Of course, it's inexcusable for repair work to take so long.
Of course, it's inexcusable for repair work to take so long.
Yeah, I dunno. I've done a ton of trade shows and never had that experience. There's the power strip, go nuts, that's how it's always been for me.
But I've heard about that rigid union electrician since I was a teenager (and wandered, starry-eyed, around my first trade show). 20+ years later, the story never matched up with reality for me.
But yeah, American unions often have a lousy track record. Better than nothing, though. I wish they'd make a comeback.
But I've heard about that rigid union electrician since I was a teenager (and wandered, starry-eyed, around my first trade show). 20+ years later, the story never matched up with reality for me.
But yeah, American unions often have a lousy track record. Better than nothing, though. I wish they'd make a comeback.
In fact WalMart's European arm, ASDA, is heavily unionised and management have a love / hate relationship with it but on the whole put up with it. At one point ASDA management tried to induce workers to waive their right to collective bargaining in return for a pay rise; a court found that unlawful and fined the company and made them compensate the affected workers £2,500.
So they have largely buried the hatchet but it is the only place in the world that WalMart tolerates unions.
So they have largely buried the hatchet but it is the only place in the world that WalMart tolerates unions.
I'm in my late 30s. My image of unions is an amalgam of my uncle who got paid well for his union job and the guy I knew a decade ago who bragged about intentionally disrupting a UAW production line.
(and of course other stuff, but I've seen both ends of it. I also don't give the UAW a lot of credit for tiering their recent agreements: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-moto... It's almost literally "got mine".)
(and of course other stuff, but I've seen both ends of it. I also don't give the UAW a lot of credit for tiering their recent agreements: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-moto... It's almost literally "got mine".)
The Port of Portland (Oregon) lost container service due in no small part to this exact type of fracas between unions. There was a work slowdown over who is allowed to plug and unplug refrigerated units. This slowdown eventually led to large container ships no longer calling the port. The economic impact that this has had on the local economy is huge. Now small businesses and farms need to truck or train their goods to Seattle/Tacoma, which is a large cost for low margin goods (such as hay).
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/02/what_th...
These are real people hurting due to the so-called fabled union demonizations.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/02/what_th...
These are real people hurting due to the so-called fabled union demonizations.
That article tells us that the plug/unplug stuff was a consequence of a bunch of other stuff (like mismanagement, working without a union contract, etc).
According to that article, the problems didn't begin with the who's-allowed-to-plug/unplug. They were structural and systemic, and had to do with the port being mismanaged as much as the unions agitating for their workers.
So, I'm not entirely sure why you're saying it's about plugging and unplugging refrigeration units.
But, also interestingly, they lost Hanjin, and a mere year later, Hanjin's bankrupt. There was a lot of press a few months ago about container ships being stranded, etc.
According to that article, the problems didn't begin with the who's-allowed-to-plug/unplug. They were structural and systemic, and had to do with the port being mismanaged as much as the unions agitating for their workers.
So, I'm not entirely sure why you're saying it's about plugging and unplugging refrigeration units.
But, also interestingly, they lost Hanjin, and a mere year later, Hanjin's bankrupt. There was a lot of press a few months ago about container ships being stranded, etc.
Right, Hanjin was the company whose exit prompted this article, but the Port has since also lost Hapag-Lloyd and a small company as well. Now there are zero container ships calling Portland.
Yes, it was an amalgamation of things. Management was not blameless but neither were the unions. And now, thousands of businesses are hurt. The work slowdown was a major contributing factor, and whether or not the slowdown was morally justified is outside the scope of this argument. The slowdown had a causal relationship with losing container service to Portland.
More recent article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/port-of-portland-loses-last-cont...
Yes, it was an amalgamation of things. Management was not blameless but neither were the unions. And now, thousands of businesses are hurt. The work slowdown was a major contributing factor, and whether or not the slowdown was morally justified is outside the scope of this argument. The slowdown had a causal relationship with losing container service to Portland.
More recent article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/port-of-portland-loses-last-cont...
I think the parent comment was pointing out that the foxbusiness article was pretty blatant plagiarism -- in fact, if you go through the two articles side-by-side, you can see that the foxbusiness article is pretty much taken verbatim, albeit some slight restructuring (that IMO harms the overall flow of the piece).
One point, though, although I'm not sure how to interpret this, is that the original author (Nassauer) is linked at the bottom of the foxbusiness piece.
One point, though, although I'm not sure how to interpret this, is that the original author (Nassauer) is linked at the bottom of the foxbusiness piece.
The WSJ is owned by News Corp, the same company that owns Fox News. So this is probably not plagarizing, just a company printing an article in their various holdings.
Walmart is just a front for off loaded cheap Chinese goods. Sure using labor camps, product dumping and destroying the sky doesn't happen in our backyard. But the concept of Walmart as pro American is disgusting. Anything to harm it is good. Good for this app. Bored? I'll fund a new one.
why the hate for imported stuff? Do you want everything you buy to be made in USA? I don't understand you people. Trade is good for all of us. No country can build everything.
It is a fascinating idea. Let's explore it:
The app would let users signal need from a buyer so that workers in their social network could agree on the price to give them.
If buyers managed to find the service somewhere else, users could snap a picture of the person/company who won the business and "review" them so that their network knew not to help the winner out, like if their brakes were about to fail or their house caught fire or whatever.
Signup would be free but users would pay like %5+ of their paycheck, which they will be fine with because of the increased benefits they get, and we would use the money for expansion and blocking competitors. Uber failed at getting political support because they were greedy capitalists who create injustice, so campaign contributions will be one of our big cost centers, but the returns will be well worth it.
Instead of an auction for services and market making like the apps we have today, it's a way to collude to fix prices. If they act now, YC can get %5 for a mere $50m.
Imagining the utility elevator pitch, "...no, no, like Grindr but for comrades!" An app for creating labor cartels.
What will I call it? "Koloodr."
The app would let users signal need from a buyer so that workers in their social network could agree on the price to give them.
If buyers managed to find the service somewhere else, users could snap a picture of the person/company who won the business and "review" them so that their network knew not to help the winner out, like if their brakes were about to fail or their house caught fire or whatever.
Signup would be free but users would pay like %5+ of their paycheck, which they will be fine with because of the increased benefits they get, and we would use the money for expansion and blocking competitors. Uber failed at getting political support because they were greedy capitalists who create injustice, so campaign contributions will be one of our big cost centers, but the returns will be well worth it.
Instead of an auction for services and market making like the apps we have today, it's a way to collude to fix prices. If they act now, YC can get %5 for a mere $50m.
Imagining the utility elevator pitch, "...no, no, like Grindr but for comrades!" An app for creating labor cartels.
What will I call it? "Koloodr."
The most dangerous thing about this app is the certainty that, if it takes off, it'll be filled with union-busting labor "consultants" who'll focus on identifying rebellious workers so Walmart can retaliate against them for some other pretext. Note that Walmart already spends millions of dollars on these particular types of specialized attorneys who do pretty much exactly that except over other channels, so this isn't at all far fetched, despite how evil it sounds.
> The app, released on Android phones Monday
Why Android only?
Why Android only?
It's hard to buy an iPhone on Walmart wages.
android is more prevalent in lower income workers. More of the potential users would use android thus they develop on the predominant platform first.
Not in my observation. Where I work there is a low paid call center on another floor of this giant building, and they all have iphones. Its like shoes.
At my socioeconomic level when I want to blow some cash or show off some money I go on a thousands of dollar vacation travel or maybe buy a new car, for me its enough to show I have some dough, but its cheap enough to fit my cash flow.
Likewise a step or two or three downward, their way of flashing cash is the $400 sneakers or $400 video game system or in this specific case, the $400 iphone. They may have saved from months of paychecks to afford it, but I'm not really all that different other than I went to Ireland instead. Or I bought a car mostly in cash. Its the same behavior at a different scale.
Android is definitely in the middle, from what I observe. No one over $400K or under $40K has an android phone, at least not that I've seen.
At my socioeconomic level when I want to blow some cash or show off some money I go on a thousands of dollar vacation travel or maybe buy a new car, for me its enough to show I have some dough, but its cheap enough to fit my cash flow.
Likewise a step or two or three downward, their way of flashing cash is the $400 sneakers or $400 video game system or in this specific case, the $400 iphone. They may have saved from months of paychecks to afford it, but I'm not really all that different other than I went to Ireland instead. Or I bought a car mostly in cash. Its the same behavior at a different scale.
Android is definitely in the middle, from what I observe. No one over $400K or under $40K has an android phone, at least not that I've seen.
I'm curious, was this article censored off the front page? I saw it near the top briefly, and then when I clicked back to the front page, it quickly disappeared, and it is still not in the front pages despite racking up votes.
Hmm. It seems likely this will result in the Streisand effect for Walmart.
1. Hello Streisand effect.
2. Does anyone else hope semi-anonymous apps like this will lead to a new age of unionization?
2. Does anyone else hope semi-anonymous apps like this will lead to a new age of unionization?
What a way for corporations to infiltrate budding labor organizations, though. Cynical-me expects a rash of fakes and knock-offs where any data input in the app goes straight to HR.
Sounds like a good business model. Email employers "One of your workers is attempting to unionize, pay us $300 and we will tell you who!"
Judging by the information they're collecting, there's nothing anonymous or "semi-anonymous" about this app.
2. More than you can imagine. Technology should be bringing an end to sharecropping, not further increasing economic inequality.
Unclear; Wal-mart or other hugecorps can make fake apps that suck people in just like other fake apps.
Guess the wrong app, get a "union" bit set in your employee profile.
Guess the wrong app, get a "union" bit set in your employee profile.
I should have a pony.
I ain't got time for defeatist or libertarian attitudes (see handle).
The future is what we make of it.
The future is what we make of it.
Yes, in particular I hope that apps enable more autonomous, directly democratic, distributed unions that are more resistant to capture by union bureaucrats and management.
By doing that Walmart is promoting the group ha ha. Min.wage employees are not going to listen to their boss when at home.
[deleted]
But WalMart probably doesn't have much to fear from the Labor Department. Even under the current administration, enforcement is weak, and it will probably be weaker under the next administration. It's really tough to organize a union today, even though the law as written is pro-union.