Live data from Hacker News

Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

wsj.com

151–160 of 257 posts

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#151
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conditio…

> massive profits. Wal-Mart's profit margin is about 5%.

[deleted]

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#153
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 job…

"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 pro…

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.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#154
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

> 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?

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conditio…

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.

>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.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#156
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

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 s…

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.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 t…

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?

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fr…

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.

False: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20313

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

http://reddit.com/r/The_Donald

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#160
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does a union take away fair compensation and room for negotiation?
Post reply on HN