Will you boycott walmart now?

[utbagpiper]

The unions would not be so supportive of the Democrats if the Republicans would work with them instead of against them.

Or maybe if the unions were not so supportive of Democrats and so hostile to RKBA, more republicans would work with them. Or maybe it is the propensity of thug tactics that keeps many conservatives from "working with" unions and instead working to protect themselves and others from unions.

As Eye mentioned, freedom of choice is important. When you can choose your Union you hold them accountable. When your company knows you can unionize it holds them accountable. It would be nice to able to choose which union if any you belong to.

And every union I know opposes such common sense laws. Utah is a right-to-work State which gives us exactly what you describe. You CAN unionize, but you are not forced to do so. Unions and union types hate that reality.

The bottom line is, today, most unions do not offer sufficient real benefits for the costs and so they cannot attract and keep members unless they are given legal advantage in doing so.

The de-unionization of America has caused my generation to have the lowest buying power since the 50's. You used to be able to support a family on one income (and I still do) but most families need both parents working which shifts child-rearing to the nanny state which encourages more sheeple who are willing to throw their rights down the toilet.

No it is not the denunionization of America that caused that. It is increased taxes and regulation coupled with increased desires for "stuff". Most families who "have" to have mom working are spending her entire income on luxury items that they only think are necessities. Sorry, but cell phones, cable/satellite TV,large flat screen TVs, 1000 square feet of home per person, brand new cars (overly costly because of overpriced union labor and excessive regulation), eating out, ATVS/boats, and vacations to Disney Land are NOT necessities. My grandparents did not have them, my parents did not have them, and I can get by quite nicely without them.

It is about priorities. I value my wife being home to personally raise our children more than I value a bunch of stuff. So she is home and my kids get a full time mom and fewer toys or vacations than some others. I deem that a good trade. If others allow themselves to get caught up in over commercialization, that is NOT a problem of too few union members.
You're well educated Charles and I think you should look at the big picture.

And to further the off-topicness of all of this I don't know where teenagers work anymore. All the jobs I did when I was young (fast food, lawn mowing, etc) are done by illegals!

...

This right to work state has the same laws for children enrolled in school and unions are quite rare here. I don't think they influenced those laws.

Turns out we are much more aggressive at enforcing our child labor laws than we are at enforcing immigration laws.

The same guy who hired me for my first job is still working. He simply can no longer hire anyone younger than 18. Technically he can hire at 16, but the regs are so tight and penalties so high for the most minor of technical infractions that it isn't worth it. Unions pushed for ever more expansive FEDERAL child labor laws figuring that restaurants and hotels and farmers would have no choice but to hire more expensive union help. Illegal aliens threw a kink into those plans.

Did you also know that Americans have the least vacation of any industrialized nation? I had more of that at my union job too but I had to use it all for things like going to the bank or doctor's office.

And did you notice how the US economy has done the last 40 years relative to those nations where they spend half their time on vacation? Want to compare home ownership rates between the USA and socialized Europe with all their vacation time?

And yes, all of this is off topic except for the undeniable fact that unions funnel a lot of money to anti-RKBA candidates. Here in Utah, the largest union is also one of the most active anti-RKBA organizations in the State. So even ignoring all my personal but off topic experience dissing on unions is almost on topic here.

 

[since9]

It is apparent that Wal-Mart did not give due consideration to the direct threat of deadly force to one of their employees. Under the circumstances, there is no way to know if the bad guy would not have shot all 4 to eliminate future witnesses who might testify against him had the employees not acted as rapidly as they did. The Wal-Mart executives and lawyers who made the decision to discipline were not in the room with the armed bad guy. I wonder if the Wal-Mart chief counsel would think differently if it were his ribs that the pistol was thrust into and his fellow employees intervened to help.

It comes down to this. Four (4) Wal-Mart employees did not take the word of a man who they knew to be a thief and a Bad Guy With A Gun to leave them unharmed if they just let him go. I suggest that a more effective campaign might be to send a letter to Wal Mart managers detailing this situation and asking them if they would believe the bad guy and follow the policy - or - do what they could to insure that they could kiss their wife and kids later that night.

In reading through this thread, this single response tops whatever I'd have written, so I'll just...

+1.

ETA: I'll keep shopping at Wal-Mart, as their prices and selection are what I need. Sure, the lawyers are running the company based more on fear of liability than on doing what's right, and four good people lost their jobs during hard times because Wal-Mart corporate SUCKS. That's no reason to punish other good employees just because a few jerks at the top can't do the right thing.

 

[1245A Defender]

Originally Posted by jpm84092
It is apparent that Wal-Mart did not give due consideration to the direct threat of deadly force to one of their employees. Under the circumstances, there is no way to know if the bad guy would not have shot all 4 to eliminate future witnesses who might testify against him had the employees not acted as rapidly as they did. The Wal-Mart executives and lawyers who made the decision to discipline were not in the room with the armed bad guy. I wonder if the Wal-Mart chief counsel would think differently if it were his ribs that the pistol was thrust into and his fellow employees intervened to help.

It comes down to this. Four (4) Wal-Mart employees did not take the word of a man who they knew to be a thief and a Bad Guy With A Gun to leave them unharmed if they just let him go. I suggest that a more effective campaign might be to send a letter to Wal Mart managers detailing this situation and asking them if they would believe the bad guy and follow the policy - or - do what they could to insure that they could kiss their wife and kids later that night.

In reading through this thread, this single response tops whatever I'd have written, so I'll just...

+1.

ETA: I'll keep shopping at Wal-Mart, as their prices and selection are what I need. Sure, the lawyers are running the company based more on fear of liability than on doing what's right, and four good people lost their jobs during hard times because Wal-Mart corporate SUCKS. That's no reason to punish other good employees just because a few jerks at the top can't do the right thing.

thanks since9,,, well said, same things i have thought, policy is one thing, life is another!

 

[Kirbinator]

Most unions also include some verbiage or clause in either the employment contract or the contract with the company that the work will be quality -- however other language blatantly discriminates against "craftsman" work. It's not that you're better at it, or produce better, but that everyone gets the same pay for the same level of "crap". Because there is no excellence in the work -- if you want to eliminate statistical deviations, you have to switch over to machines because humans just don't produce work like that.

I'm not anti-union; I believe they have their places where the working man is being outright abused by the employer -- but I'm not saying that the costs are worth it.

The unions missed a big boat when they didn't try to catch on to the wave of computers... but their business model doesn't exactly scale to the needs of business in a fast-paced society, nor one where skills needed changes overnight.