Apple Retail Chief Dissuades Employees From Unionizing in New Video

[vipergts2207]

You’re capping profits by saying Walmart made x amount, and that’s too much... They need to give a chunk of that to their employees. You realize that’s also shareholder money? People in retirement who count on dividends, 401k investments, IRA’s, etc.? It’s as if I looked at your paycheck and said, you’re making too much. 20% should go to someone making less at your company. It’s Marxist thinking, which unfortunately, western universities have been pushing on inncocent young minds for the past few decades.

Actually I didn’t say it was too much. You asked where the money was supposed to come from for higher pay and I pointed to the $13.5 billion that’s sitting there, simple as that. And perhaps shareholders should park their money in a different company if Walmart’s financial position and ability to make profits is on such shaky ground. If people can choose to work for an employer or not, others can sure as hell choose whether or not to invest their money in that company. What you’re saying is that taxpayer funds should be used to inflate Walmart shareholders’ gains.

”I’m not telling [companies] to help the needy”… “I’m telling companies to [pay employees more]”. You don’t see the contradiction in your thinking/logic? So Walmart should pay every employee a “living wage” including jobs that can, and are done, by 16 year olds, part-time? I think you’re putting too much stock in that Walmart/McDonald’s food stamp propaganda.

Again, no one is forcing people to work at Walmart. Believe it or not, many people make poor choices in life, and that’s why they don’t earn as much as others. But if they work hard and make some sacrifices, they can make a better life for themselves. America truly is the land of opportunity which is why immigrants who come here with nothing and can barely speak the language, but work their butts off, are generally more successful than multi-generational Americans.

A company’s employees are a needy charity case now? The equivalent of a homeless beggar on the street? Interesting perspective and one that still doesn’t get around the fact that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s business model.

 

[Karma*Police]

Actually I didn’t say it was too much. You asked where the money was supposed to come from for higher pay and I pointed to the $13.5 billion that’s sitting there, simple as that. And perhaps shareholders should park their money in a different company if Walmart’s financial position and ability to make profits is on such shaky ground. If people can choose to work for an employer or not, others can sure as hell can choose whether or not to invest their money in that company. What you’re saying is that taxpayers should payout to Walmart shareholders.


A company’s employees are a needy charity case now? The equivalent of a homeless beggar on the street? Interesting perspective and one that still doesn’t get around the fact that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s business model.

Right, so let’s take already thin profits and start giving it to employees making their already thin margins thinner. Investors parked their money in Walmart because they don’t have radical ideologues like you running the company.

Employees agreed to terms when they joined the company. Nobody forced them. Which part of that argument do you not understand? Why do you insist they’re victims?

How about this. Instead of complaining about how Walmart doesn’t pay its employees enough, why don’t you start your own Walmart and pay your employees double what Walmart is paying? Or, start by giving up a chunk of your pay to the less fortunate? Why do people like you always expect others to make the sacrifices?

Taxpayers are subsidizing lots of things because Congress is inept. And if it wasn’t for Walmart employing 2 million people AND helping everyday Americans save money, we’d be subsidizing a hell of a lot more. I think you need to stop drinking the Marxist Kool Aid.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They definitely didn't do anything to protect tips. Which is functionally equivalent to cutting their pay. I would say if something contributed to their employee's income they had an obligation to consider if that contribution has/is/will change.

This, however, does not explain why Apple Retail employees do not receive compensation when selling devices.

I don’t believe there’s anything they could do to protect tips. They couldn’t have demanded that customers pay, right? Adding 5-10 bucks to every receipt? And, if “things getting more expensive” is why folks stopped tipping, then the grocery store artificially holding their prices down so that tipping could continue might have meant closing the store. And THAT would have been worse for not only the tip desiring employee, but for the community depending on that grocery store. One thing they might have been able to do was just to pay everyone minimum wage at LEAST, but, that company apparently felt very strongly that their employees weren’t worth that much.

Apple Retail employees DO receive compensation, they receive an hourly wage that’s higher than minimum wage ($22 an hour or better, which is 42K a year) which is arguably better compensation than a bagger making LESS than minimum wage in 2000. No, they’re not making 100K, but they’re also not basing their livelihood on the hope that random customers give them a few bucks every now and then. Because, one year’s 100K when, say, gas prices are low could become 20K or less in a blink of an eye.

 

[maxoakland]

To me, with the way a lot of people view tipping today, I’d lean more towards thinking that folks just stopped tipping. BUT, maybe I should pay more attention the next time I get groceries (I don’t think I’ve seen anyone in the parking lot unless they were collecting carts).

Prices have gone up and thanks to our lack of unions, wages are stagnant. Who can afford to tip now?

Look at full-service gas stations. Prices have gone up, but people are tipping less. If you spend $30 to $50 on fuel it shouldn't be an issue to give the person who filled your tank an extra $5 or $10.

But that’s what *makes* it a problem. Wages haven’t gone up along with inflation. This is affecting everyone except the top richest people, whose income has skyrocketed. If income kept up with inflation, the minimum wage would be more than $25 right now. And everyone else’s income would be proportionally higher too.

Right now, all that money is going to top level executives and CEOs

Middle class and poor people are making less money than they used to. They can’t afford to tip, really

Right, so let’s take already thin profits and start giving it to employees making their already thin margins thinner. Investors parked their money in Walmart because they don’t have radical ideologues like you running the company.

So you want the government to pay Wal-mart’s employee’s salary? Because that’s exactly what is happening right now

 

[4jasontv]

I don’t believe there’s anything they could do to protect tips.

They could do a lot.

They couldn’t have demanded that customers pay, right?

Sure they could. Businesses demand customers pay all the time. Raising prices is one way they do it.

They could pay more to cover them.​

They could have hung signs encouraging them to tip.​

Or included tipping as part of their ads.​

They could have put a suggested tip at checkout.​

They could have added a notification that all sales automatically include a tip, for convenience.​

Adding 5-10 bucks to every receipt? And, if “things getting more expensive” is why folks stopped tipping, then the grocery store artificially holding their prices down so that tipping could continue might have meant closing the store.

If they can't afford to pay their employees they are not profitable and don't deserve to be in business.

And THAT would have been worse for not only the tip desiring employee, but for the community depending on that grocery store.

Often a community can only support one store, and if one goes under, either it's not necessary or another will pop up.

One thing they might have been able to do was just to pay everyone minimum wage at LEAST, but, that company apparently felt very strongly that their employees weren’t worth that much.

Again, I argue that unless the owners/executives/managers were only making minimum wage then what they were really claiming was that they were worth more.

Apple Retail employees DO receive compensation, they receive an hourly wage that’s higher than minimum wage ($22 an hour or better, which is 42K a year) which is arguably better compensation than a bagger making LESS than minimum wage in 2000. No, they’re not making 100K, but they’re also not basing their livelihood on the hope that random customers give them a few bucks every now and then. Because, one year’s 100K when, say, gas prices are low could become 20K or less in a blink of an eye.

There is no excuse for any sales position to not include a percentage of the sale given to the person who sells the item. Apple products have huge profit margins, and I am basing this off of the small nation size cash reserves Apple
is holding.

 

[profcutter]

They could do a lot.

Sure they could. Businesses demand customers pay all the time. Raising prices is one way they do it.

They could pay more to cover them.​

They could have hung signs encouraging them to tip.​

Or included tipping as part of their ads.​

They could have put a suggested tip at checkout.​

They could have added a notification that all sales automatically include a tip, for convenience.​

If they can't afford to pay their employees they are not profitable and don't deserve to be in business.

Often a community can only support one store, and if one goes under, either it's not necessary or another will pop up.

Again, I argue that unless the owners/executives/managers were only making minimum wage then what they were really claiming was that they were worth more.

There is no excuse for any sales position to not include a percentage of the sale given to the person who sells the item. Apple products have huge profit margins, and I am basing this off of the small nation size cash reserves Apple
is holding.

The whole notion of companies suffering from thin margins in this economy is staggeringly off the mark. The largest companies in the US are having a field day, making record profits. This includes oil companies that are taking advantage of the COVID and Ukraine crises as well as grocery stores and hardware chains. If your margins are so small that you can’t pay a living wage, you are in the wrong business. Stop demanding that the folks who make you all your profits should shoulder your inability to make a reasonable margin, even though what a reasonable margin is is absolutely up for debate.

https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-...to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/

I’ve lived in Seattle, 22 dollars an hour is simply not a living wage. I defy you to find quality housing in Seattle proper for 880 dollars/month, which according to folks who love to blame the poor for being poor, is the max someone should pay for housing. That’s Apple’s NEW wage hike, never mind 15 dollars an hour. Minimum wage in this country is 7.25 an hour. I defy folks who slam unions to live on that wage for a month. Give it a try.

The fact is that government in this country sits on its hands while companies rake in record profits, and yes, Walmart is demanding government subsidies to cover what it refuses to pay its workers is the opposite of what capitalist zealots claim they want. As soon as the downturn affects the rich, then they’re all about handouts. Remember TARP? 700 Billion dollars to banks “too big to fail?” So welfare, socialism, handouts, they’re all fine as long as they’re going to folks making 9 figures.

 

[vipergts2207]

Right, so let’s take already thin profits and start giving it to employees making their already thin margins thinner. Investors parked their money in Walmart because they don’t have radical ideologues like you running the company.

The idea that a company shouldn’t pay their employees so little that they qualify for food stamps isn’t radical. The fact that you think it is shows who the real radical is.

Employees agreed to terms when they joined the company. Nobody forced them. Which part of that argument do you not understand? Why do you insist they’re victims?

Hopefully those employees start following Starbucks and Amazon employees’ lead and start unionizing for better terms.

How about this. Instead of complaining about how Walmart doesn’t pay its employees enough, why don’t you start your own Walmart and pay your employees double what Walmart is paying? Or, start by giving up a chunk of your pay to the less fortunate? Why do people like you always expect others to make the sacrifices?

Because I don’t have the funds to start a grocery store. Nor do I want to. It’s also not my job to compensate Walmart’s employees appropriately. That’s Walmart’s job.

Taxpayers are subsidizing lots of things because Congress is inept. And if it wasn’t for Walmart employing 2 million people AND helping everyday Americans save money, we’d be subsidizing a hell of a lot more. I think you need to stop drinking the Marxist Kool Aid.

Two wrongs don’t make a right and the fact that we subsidize other things that we shouldn’t doesn’t make subsidizing Walmart acceptable. People would have to shop for groceries somewhere and if Walmart didn’t exist those employees could work at other more ethical stores that pay more than Walmart where the customers would be shopping instead. I think you need to look up what Marxist means, because you’re way off the mark bud.

So you want the government to pay Wal-mart’s employee’s salary? Because that’s exactly what is happening right now.

Right? That’s closer to Marxism than Walmart simply paying their employees enough to get by on their own. They just want socialism for the wealthy. Pass as much money to shareholders as possible whilst relying on the government to make up the gap.

 

[Karma*Police]

The idea that a company shouldn’t pay their employees so little that they qualify for food stamps isn’t radical. The fact that you think it is shows who the real radical is.


Hopefully those employees start following Starbucks and Amazon employees’ lead and start unionizing for better terms.


Because I don’t have the funds to start a grocery store. Nor do I want to. It’s also not my job to compensate Walmart’s employees appropriately. That’s Walmart’s job.


Two wrongs don’t make a right and the fact that we subsidize other things that we shouldn’t doesn’t make subsidizing Walmart acceptable. People would have to shop for groceries somewhere and if Walmart didn’t exist those employees could work at other more ethical stores that pay more than Walmart where the customers would be shopping instead. I think you need to look up what Marxist means, because you’re way off the mark bud.


Right? That’s closer to Marxism than Walmart simply paying their employees enough to get by on their own. They just want socialism for the wealthy. Pass as much money to shareholders as possible whilst relying on the government to make up the gap.

There’s nothing radical about acknowledging reality… that life is not fair… not everyone deserves the same pay… not everyone made good choices in life… that there are phony politicians like Bernie Sanders using Walmart employees as political pawns. People on food stamps in America are still some of the richest people on the planet when compared to the billions who struggle just to get fresh water.

You’ve bought into the Marxist idea that somehow because Walmart is the employer, they are oppressing people. You keep forgetting this one important fact: that their employees are free to leave and find work elsewhere. You fail to acknowledge that basic fact because you think you’re above them, and you’re quite frankly, I find it offensive that you talk about them like helpless dogs.

What’s worse, instead of lifting a finger to help them, you continue to buy luxury products like iPhones and Macs and tell others what to do with their money. Until you are willing to make the sacrifices that Sam Walton made, and work 12 hours/day, 7 days/week, and create jobs for millions while saving hundreds of millions of people billions of dollars so that they can live a little more comfortably, only others who’ve been indoctrinated by Marxists will take you seriously.

 

[vipergts2207]

There’s nothing radical about acknowledging reality… that life is not fair… not everyone deserves the same pay… not everyone made good choices in life… that there are phony politicians like Bernie Sanders using Walmart employees as political pawns. People on food stamps in America are still some of the richest people on the planet when compared to the billions who struggle just to get fresh water.

Nobody said everyone should get the same pay. Nice try though. What was actually said is that everyone putting their 40 hours in every week should be able to put food on the table without government assistance. And how does it make an iota of sense to base your standard of living in one of the wealthiest nations in the world on what goes on in the third-world??

You’ve bought into the Marxist idea that somehow because Walmart is the employer, they are oppressing people. You keep forgetting this one important fact: that their employees are free to leave and find work elsewhere. You fail to acknowledge that basic fact because you think you’re above them, and you’re quite frankly, I find it offensive that you talk about them like helpless dogs.

I said they aren’t paying them enough, not that they’re oppressing them, which connotes something much more sinister. And you can drop the concern trolling. Between the two of us, myself advocating for higher wages for them, and you saying they made bad life choices and deserve the terrible pay they get, Walmart employees would pretty much universally be more offended by your take.

What’s worse, instead of lifting a finger to help them, you continue to buy luxury products like iPhones and Macs and tell others what to do with their money. Until you are willing to make the sacrifices that Sam Walton made, and work 12 hours/day, 7 days/week, and create jobs for millions while saving hundreds of millions of people billions of dollars so that they can live a little more comfortably, only others who’ve been indoctrinated by Marxists will take you seriously.

Advocating that they start a union is more than you do, which is literally nothing other than to tell them, “you made bad choices and you deserve this.” I’m not sure what else you think is in my power to realistically help them and I’m not sure how you manage to arrive at the conclusion that not buying an iPhone will magically help the 2.3 million Walmart employees. And yes, let’s bow down at the alter of Sam Walton who single handedly put thousands of family-owned stores out of business and replaced them with millions of poverty-wage jobs. Bravo Sam. You clearly don’t actually know what Marxism is and simply use it as an erroneous label for things you don’t like. You’re increasingly riddling your posts with straw men and red herring. If you want to have a discussion, perhaps try discussing what’s actually been said, not what you wish to have been said.

 

[Expos of 1969]

Nobody said everyone should get the same pay. Nice try though. What was actually said is that everyone putting their 40 hours in every week should be able to put food on the table without government assistance. And how does it make an iota of sense to base your standard of living in one of the wealthiest nations in the world on what goes on in the third-world??


I said they aren’t paying them enough, not that they’re oppressing them, which connotes something much more sinister. And you can drop the concern trolling. Between the two of us, myself advocating for higher wages for them, and you saying they made bad life choices and deserve the terrible pay they get, Walmart employees would pretty much universally be more offended by your take.


Advocating that they start a union is more than you do, which is literally nothing other than to tell them, “you made bad choices and you deserve this.” I’m not sure what else you think is in my power to realistically help them and I’m not sure how you manage to arrive at the conclusion that not buying an iPhone will magically help the 2.3 million Walmart employees. And yes, let’s bow down at the alter of Sam Walton who single handedly put thousands of family-owned stores out of business and replaced them with millions of poverty-wage jobs. Bravo Sam. You clearly don’t actually know what Marxism is and simply use it as an erroneous label for things you don’t like.

Walton and Jeff Bezos are cut from the same disgusting evil cloth. I never buy anything from their empires.

 

[profcutter]

Nobody said everyone should get the same pay. Nice try though. What was actually said is that everyone putting their 40 hours in every week should be able to put food on the table without government assistance. And how does it make an iota of sense to base your standard of living in one of the wealthiest nations in the world on what goes on in the third-world??


I said they aren’t paying them enough, not that they’re oppressing them, which connotes something much more sinister. And you can drop the concern trolling. Between the two of us, myself advocating for higher wages for them, and you saying they made bad life choices and deserve the terrible pay they get, Walmart employees would pretty much universally be more offended by your take.


Advocating that they start a union is more than you do, which is literally nothing other than to tell them, “you made bad choices and you deserve this.” I’m not sure what else you think is in my power to realistically help them and I’m not sure how you manage to arrive at the conclusion that not buying an iPhone will magically help the 2.3 million Walmart employees. And yes, let’s bow down at the alter of Sam Walton who single handedly put thousands of family-owned stores out of business and replaced them with millions of poverty-wage jobs. Bravo Sam. You clearly don’t actually know what Marxism is and simply use it as an erroneous label for things you don’t like.

Some folks of a certain generation believe that using the term “Marxism” as a pejorative is enough to shut down conversation. Some of these folks have never read Marx, don’t know basic economic principles, and are often the same folks who actually think that elementary school teachers are indoctrinating students with critical race theory.

The problem is that it doesn’t work. Many of us have read Marx, and don’t consider it to be the insult that other folks seem to think it is. To me, being called a Marxist isn’t offensive, but incessantly defending a system that punishes the poor and rewards the rich is. ?‍♀️ Different strokes I suppose.

But just as a process point, calling someone a Marxist and using straw man arguments isn’t the brilliant argument strategy some folks think it is. The major points laid out, such as the absolute necessity of unions in the current economic context, the incredible income gap we have in this country, the hostility that the rich show towards the working class, and the unsustainable nature of this kind of economic stratification, have not been addressed at all.

Keep in mind that Adam Smith warned of the dangers of unfettered capitalism, particularly the problem of exacerbating existing inequality. So call me a Marxist or what have you, but do take the time to address the arguments.

 

[profcutter]

People on food stamps in America are still some of the richest people on the planet when compared to the billions who struggle just to get fresh water.

Sadly, even this point isn’t as accurate as it used to be:

Statement on Visit to the USA, by Professor Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights*

SpanishWashington, December 15, 2017 I. Introduction

www.ohchr.org

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They could pay more to cover them.
They could have hung signs encouraging them to tip.
Or included tipping as part of their ads.
They could have put a suggested tip at checkout.
They could have added a notification that all sales automatically include a tip, for convenience.

I was wondering if this WAS something they could do, but from a quick search, if a company formally requires a fee, that’s a “service charge” not a tip, which is different from the perspective of the government and doesn’t go to the employee like a tip would. (And I found the current minimum wage for employees that get tipped is $2.13, a number that hasn’t changed since 1991 and something I hadn’t had a notion to look up until just now.) 100K a year would be 51 dollars an hour, would they have valued their baggers enough to pay them that much?

If they can't afford to pay their employees they are not profitable and don't deserve to be in business.

They CAN pay their employees, $2.13 an hour. Could they have paid them $51 an hour. Perhaps, if they thought they were worth that much. But, bagger skills aren’t something difficult to come by.

Again, I argue that unless the owners/executives/managers were only making minimum wage then what they were really claiming was that they were worth more.

I don’t understand this, but I’m trying to. From the owners perspective, the pain to replace an employee is factored into how much they’re willing to pay. The executives are hard to replace, the managers, less difficult to replace, BUT still far harder to replace than the baggers. The dollars are distributed according to the perceived value of the person to the company.

There is no excuse for any sales position to not include a percentage of the sale given to the person who sells the item. Apple products have huge profit margins, and I am basing this off of the small nation size cash reserves Apple
is holding.

The person working at McDonald’s gets a percentage of that Big Mac sale, the person that pointed the customer to where the beans are gets a percentage of that sale, the one holding the scanner when the person walks up with a HomePod mini for purchase gets a percentage of that sale?

I’d guess that the “hard sell” that rewards commissions sales positions were not part of the experience Steve Jobs and Ron Johnson wanted for the Apple Stores. A large number of people avoid places that work on commission sales to avoid the hard sell and Apple didn’t want people avoiding Apple stores. Plus, Apple can have an employee show a prospective customer a product via an in-person demo even if that person intends to buy from Amazon/BestBuy/WalMart because there’s a special sale going on. Someone working commission sales wouldn’t want to “waste” their time on that engagement as they get nothing out of it.

I’d like to add that as I’ve never worked for tips or commission, I find this discussion enlightening. I’ve had no cause to look up many of these details previously and I’m sure this will drive interesting conversations with my irl friends. ?

 

[Karma*Police]

Nobody said everyone should get the same pay. Nice try though. What was actually said is that everyone putting their 40 hours in every week should be able to put food on the table without government assistance. And how does it make an iota of sense to base your standard of living in one of the wealthiest nations in the world on what goes on in the third-world??


I said they aren’t paying them enough, not that they’re oppressing them, which connotes something much more sinister. And you can drop the concern trolling. Between the two of us, myself advocating for higher wages for them, and you saying they made bad life choices and deserve the terrible pay they get, Walmart employees would pretty much universally be more offended by your take.


Advocating that they start a union is more than you do, which is literally nothing other than to tell them, “you made bad choices and you deserve this.” I’m not sure what else you think is in my power to realistically help them and I’m not sure how you manage to arrive at the conclusion that not buying an iPhone will magically help the 2.3 million Walmart employees. And yes, let’s bow down at the alter of Sam Walton who single handedly put thousands of family-owned stores out of business and replaced them with millions of poverty-wage jobs. Bravo Sam. You clearly don’t actually know what Marxism is and simply use it as an erroneous label for things you don’t like. You’re increasingly riddling your posts with straw men and red herring. If you want to have a discussion, perhaps try discussing what’s actually been said, not what you wish to have been said.

So a 16 year old should be able to put food on the table for his family? It’s a ridiculous assertion to begin with.

Who are you to say they aren’t paid enough? The market decides that much better than you or me or the gov’t. You keep ignoring the fact that these people WILLINGLY took those jobs. Not to mention, everyone wants more money. I’ve yet to hear someone decline a raise and say that it should go to the needy instead. Have you? I didn’t think so. So what gives you the right to tell someone else to take a cut in their pay?

All you’re doing is virtue signaling to make yourself feel better. You’re not helping a single soul other than to ensure Walmart empoyees give up a chunk of their pay to union dues and that they continue working in their low paying jobs. Not to mention, unions will make Walmart less competitive and their products more expensive, hurting the very people you’re saying you’re trying to help. If unions are so great, are you advocating for unionizing where you work? Why are you so focused on what other people need to do?

Since we seem to be going in circles, I’ll end it here… the main difference between you and me is that I recognize people have agency whereas you seem to think you know what’s best for them. Therefore, I encourage people to work hard, invest in themselves, be grateful for what they have, and if they’re not happy in their jobs, find something better… to eventually achieve their life’s potential. You OTOH want every Walmart to unionize, regardless of whether they want to or not, because for some inexplicable reason, you fail to see Walmart employees as your equal, but as some downtrodden, helpless animals. Maybe that makes you feel better, but it doesn’t do anyone else any good.

 

[profcutter]

Hahahahaha that’s rich. Claiming folks don’t respect people’s agency because we want them to have a voice. Unions provide agency to workers, that’s the whole point. Otherwise the bosses hold all the cards. The strike is the only weapon workers have against wage cuts, raise freezes, workplace violations, and any other grievances they have. You should go to one of the Starbucks that have unionized recently, and tell them that they’re giving away all their agency after they fought so hard to get a union. I’m sure they’ll be really sympathetic. They ignored that same propaganda from their bosses, they’re going to ignore it from anyone else.

 

[maxoakland]

So a 16 year old should be able to put food on the table for his family? It’s a ridiculous assertion to begin with.

If only 16 year olds worked there they’d only be open from 3:30-8:30. Is that going to work for you?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You should go to one of the Starbucks that have unionized recently, and tell them that they’re giving away all their agency after they fought so hard to get a union. I’m sure they’ll be really sympathetic.

Is there any information on what their demands were and what their union dues are? I guess I should google and I will, just wondering if anyone else had relevant links handy already

Found this in another tab while I was typing this.
Union dues are variable depending on your region. As an example, in the Buffalo region the union dues for full time workers are $10.84 per week. If you work less than 25 hours, dues are $5.47 per week.

From here:

FAQ — Starbucks Workers United

sbworkersunited.org

 

[Karma*Police]

Hahahahaha that’s rich. Claiming folks don’t respect people’s agency because we want them to have a voice. Unions provide agency to workers, that’s the whole point. Otherwise the bosses hold all the cards. The strike is the only weapon workers have against wage cuts, raise freezes, workplace violations, and any other grievances they have. You should go to one of the Starbucks that have unionized recently, and tell them that they’re giving away all their agency after they fought so hard to get a union. I’m sure they’ll be really sympathetic. They ignored that same propaganda from their bosses, they’re going to ignore it from anyone else.

You don’t recognize their agency. Big difference. If you did, you’d realize they’re free to work elsewhere just like you and me. Unions are a scam… great for union leaders and politicians but not so much for the employees or employer.

Unfortunately the propaganda from politicians and unions about the benefits of unions have also led the more weak-minded/ less ambitious employees to not recognize their own agency, believing that the only way to a better life is by unionizing; not realizing that what they’re fighting for could be better spent investing in themselves. Seriously, what’s the benefit of a barista joining a union unless they had zero ambition in life? And if I’m doing that job for the summer or to get through college, which is what many of them are doing, I’d be pissed that a chunk of my money is going toward union dues to make somebody else rich.

 

[Karma*Police]

If only 16 year olds worked there they’d only be open from 3:30-8:30. Is that going to work for you?

If you missed the point that not all jobs are created equal and not everyone’s situation is the same, and therefore markets are more efficient at determining wages than you, me or the govt, then that’s on you.

 

[profcutter]

You don’t recognize their agency. Big difference. If you did, you’d realize they’re free to work elsewhere just like you and me. Unions are a scam… great for union leaders and politicians but not so much for the employees or employer.

Unfortunately the propaganda from politicians and unions about the benefits of unions have also led the more weak-minded/ less ambitious employees to not recognize their own agency, believing that the only way to a better life is by unionizing; not realizing that what they’re fighting for could be better spent investing in themselves. Seriously, what’s the benefit of a barista joining a union unless they had zero ambition in life? And if I’m doing that job for the summer or to get through college, which is what many of them are doing, I’d be pissed that a chunk of my money is going toward union dues to make somebody else rich.

Citation needed. I’ve shown data that shows that workers in union workplaces have higher wages and better benefits. You’ve just told me things over and over without any data. I understand that you’re deeply invested in the mythology that all you have to do is work hard to get ahead. Have you ever tried lifting yourself by your bootstraps? Try it. That phrase, which is used unironically by folks clinging to the myth of meritocracy, was originally coined as a joke. There’s only so much room at the top, and without the baristas that you seem intent on denigrating, who’s going to make your coffee? I think they deserve fair pay, pulling shots all day is hard work. Customer service is hard work. Not everyone can develop the next new app, and being part of a union has no deleterious impact on someone’s ability to leave and do something better.

 

[vipergts2207]

So a 16 year old should be able to put food on the table for his family? It’s a ridiculous assertion to begin with.

Try again. The comment on 16 year old employees is a rare edge case that in no way absolves the issue regarding the millions of working adults. Aside from the fact that the number of 16 year old employees working at Walmart would be a rounding error of the 2.3 million total employees, they would all be part-time, not 40 hours per week, so no they wouldn’t be expected to put food on their families’ tables. And the median age of a big box store employee is over 30.

Who are you to say they aren’t paid enough?

The fact that Walmart employees qualify for food stamps speaks for itself.

The market decides that much better than you or me or the gov’t. You keep ignoring the fact that these people WILLINGLY took those jobs. Not to mention, everyone wants more money. I’ve yet to hear someone decline a raise and say that it should go to the needy instead. Have you? I didn’t think so. So what gives you the right to tell someone else to take a cut in their pay?

They took those jobs because they likely couldn’t get a better job. As said previously, this doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to afford food.

All you’re doing is virtue signaling to make yourself feel better. You’re not helping a single soul other than to ensure Walmart empoyees give up a chunk of their pay to union dues and that they continue working in their low paying jobs.

Cite sources showing that employees make less money after unionizing than before. Even including union dues, unionized employees almost always make more money than before they unionized. Why do you think companies are so against them? Do you think Walmart actually gives a **** about the people working there and is trying to protect their employees from something lmao??

Not to mention, unions will make Walmart less competitive and their products more expensive, hurting the very people you’re saying you’re trying to help.

I think Walmart employees would gladly take the ~10% pay raise with the minimal increase in the cost of the products they’re buying. Surely you realize that a 10% increase in labor costs doesn’t translate into a 10% increase in the price of goods?

If unions are so great, are you advocating for unionizing where you work? Why are you so focused on what other people need to do?

My company ensures I’m paid well and have good benefits. ~$75k/year, 3 weeks of vacation (4 weeks next year), 8% contribution to my 401k, 6 weeks paid paternity/maternity leave. Employees being treated fairly don’t seek unions because they don’t need them.

Since we seem to be going in circles, I’ll end it here… the main difference between you and me is that I recognize people have agency whereas you seem to think you know what’s best for them.

I don’t think you’ll find many people who would say that higher pay wouldn’t be good for them. And if you want to actually respect people’s agency, perhaps you can respect their right to form a union…

Therefore, I encourage people to work hard, invest in themselves, be grateful for what they have, and if they’re not happy in their jobs, find something better… to eventually achieve their life’s potential.

Actually, they can do that and unionize. You act like those things are mutually exclusive for some reason. Maybe a Walmart employee decides to go to college while they work there. I think they’d appreciate the 4 years of higher wages while putting themselves through school. In fact, speaking of the 16 year olds you mentioned earlier, perhaps the handful of them working for Walmart could use the higher wages to help put themselves through school, rather than having to take out so many student loans. Better wages could kill two birds with one stone.

You OTOH want every Walmart to unionize, regardless of whether they want to or not

What?? Go figure, here you are with another straw man at the ready. I didn’t say they should be forced to unionize. I simply said it would be a good idea for them to do so. It’s up to the people voting on it whether to do so or not, and that’s fine. Saying someone should do something isn’t the same as saying they have to do something.

because for some inexplicable reason, you fail to see Walmart employees as your equal, but as some downtrodden, helpless animals. Maybe that makes you feel better, but it doesn’t do anyone else any good.

Yes, I’m the one that doesn’t see them as equals. This coming from the person who said they made bad life decisions and deserve what they get. So did you also make bad life decisions and have a job making poverty wages, or do you not see Walmart employees as your equals? Methinks there’s some projection going on here…

 

[maxoakland]

If you missed the point that not all jobs are created equal and not everyone’s situation is the same, and therefore markets are more efficient at determining wages than you, me or the govt, then that’s on you.

That doesn’t matter at all.

When someone says Starbucks workers should get paid a living wage and your response is “16 year olds don’t need a living wage” you completely miss the point that Starbucks couldn’t survive if the only hired 16 year olds

Therefore, their workers deserve a living wage. If markets were more efficient at determining wages, people wouldn’t have to be on food stamps. And “get a better job” isn’t a real answer to that problem because *someone* has to work at Starbucks