What's new

Target and Wal-Mart employee job action Black Friday

What's funny about all the hand wringing over what the Waltons get...

If they got nothing, it would amount to a $160 every two weeks for every employee worldwide. In other words, the margins really aren't all that fat.

But that still begs the question why people don't think the owners should share in the profits of a company their family built literally from nothing?

In the case of the Waltons, they're getting 2.1% of sales. I don't know too many people who'd be satisfied with a 2% rate of return on their investments.
 
737823 said:
I am familiar with the facility..
Is that a "yes?"
 
 
southwind said:
"What difference does it really make", Your Reps live just like the CEO's you abhor!
I have not been to Placid Harbor. I *have* been around plenty of General Chairs, and they live (and make) nowhere near anything at the C-Suite level. If anything, mine was underpaid.
 
Who says anyone would need to pay more for the same goods? Investing in your people is just that; an investment. The profit margins aren't exactly razor thin over there- Wal Mart can afford it.
 
...And as an added bonus, some of that money paid out in wages might actually stay in the community (you know, all those small businesses the right loves to tout?) instead of being sucked to Bentonville every night...
 there's your socialist thinking cropping up again.
They can afford it so they should just pay the higher salaries because they have run a good business.

DO you understand anything about the free market or is your entire mind wrapped around the idea that someone should take care of you - the government, a union, or a company that has so much money that they should give it to everyone except the people who built the business?

You do realize that your bud E doesn't agree with you? He has a better sense of business, apparently.
 
So whats stopping you from opening a competitor to Walmart, besides "Wealth-Envy"?
Because they couldn't trot out their victim complex since that is far easier to do than actually demonstrate their value in the marketplace.
 
 Because they couldn't trot out their victim complex since that is far easier to do than actually demonstrate their value in the marketplace.
I believe it's because starting your own company sounds like too much work and it's easier to just blame the wealthy!
 
Kev3188 said:
Is that a "yes?"  I have not been to Placid Harbor. I *have* been around plenty of General Chairs, and they live (and make) nowhere near anything at the C-Suite level. If anything, mine was underpaid.
Not talking about Placid Harbor/WWW, talking about IAM Grand Lodge Headquarters. AGCs and GCs are underpaid? Again Rich Delaney ushered in this pathetic CBA, how many times the salary of a UA ramp or PCE employee does he slurp every year? Why didn't you run for AGC/GC Kev? From what I see here you would take the job very seriously and look out for the membership. If you really care about the labor movement you should replace the complacent Roaches, Sitos and Buffenbargers.

Josh
 
700UW said:
Kev,
 
Josh outed himself on the AA thread as an AA employee.
 
And once again he thinks he knows it all, the IAM sold their building in DC, and paid for the new building and still had money leftover from the sale to put in the bank.
 
And the dont have expense accounts, they get reimbursed for hotel, trave
 
Try again joshie, or should I say Mr AA.
So what they sold the building and realized a gain, incrementally the membership would be better off with a more modest facility. Under the current dues structure the GL takes nearly 40% of dues, LLs that directly serve the membership hardly get anything.

You need to get over the comment I made, I do not work for AA. I travel extensively on AA and am friends with several AA employees. Is Buffy happy about new dues payers from the alliance? How come Sito hasn't said much lately?

Josh
 
 
there's your socialist thinking cropping up again.
They can afford it so they should just pay the higher salaries because they have run a good business.
Part of running a good business is investing in your employees.

DO you understand anything about the free market...
I do.
 
Why didn't you run for AGC/GC Kev? From what I see here you would take the job very seriously and look out for the membership.
Thanks for the kind words.

I was asked once but declined, as I didn't want to be on the road as often as the position would require.
I wasn't kidding when I said I thought ours at 143 were underpaid given their volume of work/travel.

If you really care about the labor movement you should replace the complacent Roaches, Sitos and Buffenbargers.

Josh
First things first...
 
Kev3188 said:
Thanks for the kind words.

I was asked once but declined, as I didn't want to be on the road as often as the position would require.
I wasn't kidding when I said I thought ours at 143 were underpaid given their volume of work/travel.
They would be very lucky to have you.

Josh
 
there is no doubt that running a good business involves investing in employees but who is to say how much that investment needs to be, esp. since the employee already agreed to work for a certain salary level.

I'd like to see EVERYONE make more money but the labor market in the free enterprise system is based on demonstrating one's worth in the marketplace and gaining the highest salary and benefits possible.

Wal-Mart has no doubt grown to the size it has because of its ability to push down the costs from its suppliers, including from labor. But the way you counter that is by creating viable businesses that can effectively compete and by not shopping from Wal-Mart - or Target or other mass merchandisers.

The problem is that those companies provide too many economic benefits for one's personal household than what smaller mom and pop stores can offer.

Wal-Mart succeeds because they deliver a product that people want - including employment to many who couldn't otherwise find work.

And I have also said that you, Kev, need to take a more active role in the national labor scene. But if you for whatever reasons you choose are not willing to move further up the chain, then you can't realistically be surprised if the labor movement continues to choke and the standards of families which you say you want to protect declines.

As E says, this is a marathon, not a sprint. And the wealth gap and the standard of living of many Americans is not improving.
If you don't act on what you believe to be true when you and others know you could make a difference you can't be surprised at the results
 
Sorry for being an elitist pig, but why should the standard of living improve for people who aren't willing to take on the risks and challenges of seeking promotions?

If you're content working an entry level job, frankly, it's time to suck it up and accept you're going to have an entry level standard of living.

From the time I left the safety net of the "punch a clock" agent job and went into management, I've seen nothing but improvement in my standard of living. By taking risks and seeking new opportunities, my salary more than doubled within 5 years of leaving the airport.

No risk, no reward. That's how this country has always works.
 
great story.... and I totally support it....because there are people who can make the calculations and say that it isn't necessary to be the cheapest or largest in order to be the most profitable.

Wal-Mart sells plenty of soy products, Kev. You should have no problem using that coupon to buy some in place of turkey
 

Latest posts

Back
Top