Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 257 posts

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

#181

Post by nradov »

yomly wrote: post #164
bunderbunder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

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

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

#182

Post by washadjeffmad »

tomcam wrote: post #95
Animats wrote: post #11

It's an illegal labor practice in the US for an employer to do that. It's interference with the right to bargain collectively. 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.

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.

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.

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

#183

Post by randomdata »

enraged_camel wrote: post #131
randomdata wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#184

Post by randomdata »

manicdee wrote: post #159
randomdata wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

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

#185

Post by randomdata »

jahaja wrote: post #135
randomdata wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> 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.

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

#186

Post by opo »

matchagaucho wrote: post #161
harryh wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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...

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

#187

Post by kalleboo »

jnicholasp wrote: post #167
darpa_escapee wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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"

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

#188

Post by ethbro »

phil21 wrote: post #171
ethanhunt_ wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 lik…

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.

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

#189

Post by spc476 »

state_less wrote: post #179
Dove wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.…

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.

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

#190

Post by ethbro »

hkmurakami wrote: post #143
mannykannot wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 u…

>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 in…

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).

Post reply on HN